[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FOREST SERVICE LAW ENFORCEMENT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 23, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-94
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-653 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa
RICK HILL, Montana ---------- ----------
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado ---------- ----------
Bill Simmons, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Jeff Petrich, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held June 23, 1998....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 1
Statements of witnesses:
Hill, Barry, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and
Science Issues, General Accounting Office.................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Joslin, Bob, Deputy Chief, United States Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture, accompanied by William Wasley,
Director, Law Enforcement and Investigations, U.S. Forest
Service.................................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FOREST SERVICE LAW ENFORCEMENT
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest Health, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10:06 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen
Chenoweth (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
Forest Service law enforcement, and under Rule 4(g) of the
Committee rules any oral opening statements at hearings are
limited to the chairman and the Ranking Minority member. This
will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help
members keep to their schedules. Therefore, if other members
have statements, they can be included in the hearing record
under unanimous consent.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now this week, we resume our series of
oversight hearings on the various programs within the Forest
Services.
On Thursday, we will review the agency's employee training
programs.
Today, we're going to take a close look at the Law
Enforcement Investigations Division of this agency.
In the last few years, Congress has expressed significant
concern over the Forest Service law enforcement activities. And
while everyone agrees that there must be a strong law
enforcement presence in our national forests, there is
considerable debate over who is best able to perform that
function.
Many, including myself, believe that local law enforcement
organizations are generally most qualified and capable and have
the clearest legal authority, so the appropriateness of the
Forest Service even having their own law enforcement
organization is a question we will want to discuss. But we will
also want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the law
enforcement organization as it's currently structured and
attempt to determine what can be done to make it more
responsive to Congress and to the public.
In 1993, a new organizational structure for law enforcement
and investigations was established. Up until that time, law
enforcement personnel reported directly to the Forest Service
line officers at the Forest level.
Now, law enforcement and investigations is a completely
independent organization, reporting only to the chief.
In 1996, the House Appropriations Committee ordered that an
independent study be done to determine the viability and
effectiveness of the new structure. That report was completed
and delivered to Congress in January 1997. The study, called
the ``Star Mountain Report,'' expressed major concerns with the
accountability of this organization and made a number of
recommendations for addressing them. The agency has had over a
year and one half to respond to these concerns presented in
that particular study.
Unfortunately, we have found that little progress has been
made by the agency to respond to the problems brought forth in
the Star Mountain Report.
In preparing for this hearing, we requested copies or
examples of all reports generated by law enforcement and
investigations. What we found, to our astonishment, was that no
systematic reporting is done to document what the organization
is doing, and how it is spending the $68 million appropriated
for its management.
When I said that law enforcement reports only to the chief,
I used the term report loosely, because, as far as we can tell,
the only reporting done to the chief is verbal and infrequent.
The Star Mountain Report flatly states: ``There is no
measurement of system performance.'' The report goes on to say,
``both line management and law enforcement are missing the
basic quantitative and qualitative performance metrics and
measurement systems to monitor and evaluate performance or
customer service. For example, customer satisfaction is a valid
measure for any organization, but no vehicle exists to provide
this kind of data.
The new organizational structure has been in place for 5
years. The Star Mountain Report was completed over a year and
one half ago, and, yet, no basic accountability standards and
processes have been implemented. This is unacceptable and
remarkable, considering the vision statement for law
enforcement and investigations, as stated in the Forest Service
Strategic Plan, saying that ``the law enforcement organization
is a diverse work force committed to integrity, responsibility,
and accountability.''
Forest Service law enforcement has, for all intents and
purposes, become a stealth organization lying under
congressional radar. This lack of reporting and accountability
has made it very difficult, if not impossible, for us to
adequately measure the effectiveness of the organization.
During our investigations, we raised these concerns over
lack of a reporting and accountability repeatedly. Fortunately,
last week, we heard that the agency has responded to some of
our concerns and will be making some changes in its reporting
requirements. This will be a prime focus of today's hearing, to
determine why the agency, as it developed a data collection and
reporting system, and to determine what the agency plans to do
to rectify this problem.
The Star Mountain Report also made a number of suggestions
for improving the efficiency of the organization. Most
important was the strong recommendation to more rigorously use
cooperative agreements with local, State, and country law
enforcement personnel. Cooperative agreements count for 8
percent of law enforcement's budget. We hear today how the
agency plans to greatly expand the use of these cost-savings
agreements. We hope we hear that today.
The report also recommended that the agency analyze the
potential for using block grants to more efficiently fund
activities through local governments. In some many cases, local
governments can provide better expertise at lower cost. The
agency must be willing to utilize block grants where these
conditions are met or Congress will make that decision for you.
To deal with the serious problems of our national forests,
such as drug trafficking, arson, timber and property theft,
vandalism, and wild fire crimes, we all understand the need to
have the most effective law enforcement program possible. This
is why we are holding this oversight hearing, to better
understand current programs and structures and to make sure
that the necessary improvements and changes are or will be
taking place to ensure that our national forests are as crime
free and safe as possible.
I look forward to the testimony of the panel. And we'll
recognize the Ranking Minority member for any opening statement
he may have. Should he not appear today, that statement will be
made a part of the record.
And now, I'll introduce our witnesses. Barry Hill--if
you'll come to the panel table--Associate Director of Energy,
Resources, and Science Issues from the General Accounting
Office; Robert Joslin, Deputy Chief, United States Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture. Accompanying Mr. Joslin is
William Wasley, Director, Law Enforcement and Investigations,
with the U.S. Forest Service.
As explained in our first hearing, it is the intention of
the chairman to place all outside witnesses under oath. This is
a formality of the Committee that is meant assure open and
honest discussion, and should not affect the testimony given by
our witnesses. I believe all of the witnesses were informed of
this before appearing here today. And they have each been
provided a copy of the Committee rules.
Now, if the witnesses will please stand and raise your
right hand, I will administer the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee rules,
they must limit their oral testimony to 5 minutes, but that
your entire statement will appear in the record. We will also
allow the entire panel to testify before I will begin the
questioning of the witnesses. The chairman now recognizes Mr.
Barry Hill, with the GAO, to begin his testimony.
STATEMENT OF BARRY HILL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ENERGY, RESOURCES,
AND SCIENCE ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee.
Before I begin, allow me to introduce my colleague. With me
today is Ned Woodward who is responsible for compiling much of
the information that we will be presenting today.
I'm pleased to, once again, appear before this Subcommittee
and to have the opportunity today to discuss law enforcement
activities in the Forest Service. My remarks today are based
primarily on a report that we issued last July. That report was
done at the request of this Subcommittee, among others, and
asked us to provide information on the number of Forest Service
law enforcement activities. Most of the information provided
focused on two areas.
First, the number of employees involved in law enforcement
activities. And second, the costs associated with these
activities.
In addition, you asked us to provide information on other
aspects of Forest Service law enforcement, including
interaction with other Federal, State, and local enforcement
agencies, the number and types of crimes committed on national
forest lands, and the number of complaints against the agency's
law enforcement staff.
To meet the needs of the Subcommittee, our 1997 report was
prepared under very tight timeframes. To obtain the information
we needed in the timeframe requested, we obtained information
that was readily available from Forest Service headquarters.
Due to time constraints, we were unable to assess or verify the
accuracy of the data we obtained. Our report was based on
Fiscal Year 1996 data, which were the latest available at the
time. However, in preparation for this hearing we worked with
the Forest Service to update much of the information we are
providing to Fiscal Year 1997.
Before I present the data, let me provide some background
or context about law enforcement activities within the Forest
Service. The Office of Law Enforcement and Investigations
within the Forest Service is responsible for investigating
offenses against the United States that occur within or have a
nexus to the national forest system lands, which include 155
national forests and 20 national grasslands, covering about
192,000,000 acres. The types of investigations and enforcement
actions in which the Forest Service is involved include
wildlife crimes, fire and arson, theft of timber and other
property, theft and or destruction of archaeological resources
or natural resources, drug cultivation and manufacturing,
illegal occupancy of national forest system lands, and threats
and assaults against Forest Service employees.
In summary, in Fiscal Year 1997, the Forest Service's law
enforcement program included 708 agency staff, including 479
law enforcement officers; 149 special agents; 41 reserve law
enforcement officers; and 39 administrative staff. The cost of
law enforcement in the agency included about $43.8 million in
salaries, and $18.4 million in support costs for such items as
rent for office space, fleet equipment, travel, training, and
uniforms.
In addition, the Forest Service entered into 717
cooperative agreements with State and local law enforcement
agencies at a cost of $6.3 million. Of these agreements, 546
were cooperative patrol agreements, which involve conducting
routine patrols through the Forest Service's developed
recreation areas; and 171 were agreements focusing on drug
enforcement issues.
Our 1997 report also provided information on the number of
offenses that occurred on national forest system lands. For
definitional purposes, an offense means that a crime has
occurred; whereas, arrest generally means that someone has been
identified as committing an offense. In 1996, there were 3,481
offenses involving serious misdemeanors and felonies, such as
assaults, grand theft, and murder, and 118,596 petty offenses,
such as careless driving, discharging a firearm, use of
firecrackers, alcohol violations, and permit violations.
Concerning the number of complaints against Forest Service
law enforcement personnel, Forest Service information shows
there were four complaints in 1992; 13 complaints in 1993; 20,
in 1994; 25, in 1995; 11, in 1996; and 14 complaints in 1997.
In 1997, as an example, the types of complaint made against
agency law enforcement staff included falsifying time and
attendance reports, verbal threats, and inappropriate discharge
of a weapon.
The Forest Service has a system to track the investigation
and resolution of complaints against law enforcement staff.
Depending on the nature of the complaint, it will either be
investigated by agency regional human resources staff, the
Department of Agriculture's Office of the Inspector General,
Forest Service law enforcement staff, or the Department of
Justice.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hill.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Bob Joslin.
STATEMENT OF BOB JOSLIN, DEPUTY CHIEF, UNITED STATES FOREST
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM
WASLEY, DIRECTOR, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS, U.S.
FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Joslin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Today, I have with me Bill Wasley, who is our director of
Law Enforcement and Investigations for the Forest Service.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
I would just like to highlight briefly some of the parts of
my testimony and that it be it incorporated, the entire
testimony, be incorporated in the record.
The national forests and grasslands are also host to over
800,000,000 people who visit and use these lands each year. As
you know, we administer tens of thousands of permits,
contracts, and other authorizations that produce goods and
services from the national forest system lands.
Law enforcement is an integral part of part of the Forest
Service mission of ``Caring for the Land and Serving People.''
The goal of the law enforcement program is to protect the
public, employees, and natural resource and other property
under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.
The Director of the Forest Service Law Enforcement and
Investigations organization does report directly to the chief.
The director has a deputy director and four assistant directors
in the Washington office. He also has nine regional special
agents in charge, who supervises the law enforcement of
programs in each region of the Forest Service. Regional
organizations vary, but generally consist of a small regional
staff, a zone supervisory level, and a supervisory level at the
forest. The uniformed law enforcement officers work under the
zone and forest-level supervisors. At this time, the Forest
Service has approximately 450 uniformed law enforcement
officers and approximately 130 criminal investigators.
The law enforcement officers perform a full range of
patrol-type enforcement duties, such as enforcing compliance
with regulations for wood cutting, fire use, or dealing with
unauthorized occupancy and use of the national forest system
lands. Law enforcement officers regularly encounter and handle
public safety incidents, such as a traffic accidents, search
and rescues, disputes, shooting incidents, drug and alcohol
possession and use problems, and assault. They conduct
preliminary investigations, and assist Forest Service criminal
investigators in conducting some full investigation.
Criminal investigators conduct investigations regarding
timber theft, theft of archaeological artifacts, threats
against Forest Service employees, wildland arson and human
caused fires, marijuana cultivation, and damage to public
property, among others.
Investigations have positive results. Every year, our
officers investigate thousands of wildfires to determine their
cause. In addition to any criminal prosecutions that may result
from these investigations, the Forest Service often seeks civil
remedies to cover--recover the costs of suppression and the
value of resources damaged. Arson cases investigated by Law
Enforcement and Investigation personnel in recent years have
resulted in civil recoveries of over $7 million.
The Forest Service has played a significant role in drug
enforcement for over 20 years. In 1997, 80 drug labs or drug
lab dumps were found on the national forest system lands.
Working cooperatively with our State and local law enforcement
partners, the Forest Service eradicated over 300,000 marijuana
plants valued at nearly $950,000,000 from approximately 4,400
sites. Officers made over 2,400 arrests and seized nearly $14
million of processed marijuana, $20 million of cocaine, and
over $1.1 million in assets.
The Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigation
program is funded by a separate line item in the budget. The
appropriated funding for LE&I in Fiscal Year 1997 was just over
$59 million. The appropriated funding for the program in Fiscal
Year 1998 is nearly $64 million. And the president's budget
request for Fiscal Year 1999 is just over $67 million.
Each year, increases in public and commercial use of
national forest system lands causes increases in crimes against
people and resources. Other State, Federal, and local law
enforcement agencies are similarly faced with increasing crime
trends that tax their abilities to accomplish their work with
limited resources. Although Forest Service officers have
various authorities to enforce State and local--cooperation
with State and local agencies in the enforcement of these laws
on public lands is encouraged.
Total incidents reported by the Forest Service officers in
1997 were triple those reported in 1992. The trends of
increased uses of national forest and increased urbanization
stretch our patrol and investigation staff. Large events, such
as the upcoming 2002 Olympics, increasing demonstrations, drug
smuggling, a large number of recent natural disasters, and
large group events on the national forest system, further
impact our local coverage by requiring us to move our
enforcement personnel around the country.
We have implemented a large number of program and
organizational changes since 1994 that have improved the
oversight, professionalism, and customer service focus of our
organization. Our emphasis in organizational change has been to
focus our field criminal investigators on investigative duties
and to increase the staffing of uniformed law officers,
especially in areas where there has been little or no coverage.
In summary, our law enforcement program is a valuable part
of the Forest Service mission of ``Caring for the Land and
Serving People.'' Crime problems have increased and have
migrated to the national forest system. Our officers meet
accepted standards for Federal law enforcement training, and a
strong cooperative law enforcement program allows us to
efficiently share scarce resources.
This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Joslin may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Joslin.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. William Wasley for his
testimony. Mr. Wasley?
Mr. Wasley. I have no testimony, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Thank you very much. That does
conclude the testimony. I'd like to open up my questioning with
a question to Mr. Hill or to Mr. Woodward. Mr. Hill or Mr.
Woodward, did Mr. Woodward complete the work for you at the
GAO?
Mr. Hill. Yes, he did.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. I'd like to know what role you
found in terms of cooperation there was with the Forest Service
with regards to the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI? What
kind of cooperation did we find there?
Mr. Hill. Cooperation in terms of them providing
information to us or cooperation between the Forest Service and
the FBI and DEA?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me use an example. In Idaho, we had a
huge drug bust--a huge drug bust. And in our western States, we
know that there's a lot of marijuana growing on the public
lands. What kind of cooperative relationship exists between
Drug Enforcement and the FBI with the Forest Service?
Mr. Hill. It's our understanding that generally the DEA and
the FBI do defer most of the investigative work to the Forest
Service; that the majority of violations and crimes that occur
in the national forests are being investigated by the Forest
Service. Now, obviously, when you get into the marijuana and
drug issue, then there would be some overlap. I don't know to
what extent there is cooperation or coordination between the
two agencies.
Mr. Woodward. It is our understanding that basically the
FBI and DEA defer to the Forest Service responsibilities for
crimes committed within the border of the national forest
service. When the Forest Service needs some assistance, they
will request it, and rarely, if ever, will the FBI or DEA deny
such a request. But it's not something that occurs very
frequently.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That is not good to hear. Perhaps we ought
to do away with the DEA and just have the Forest Service handle
drug interdiction in the western States. This is not good to
hear. Congress set forth laws for the DEA to implement in drug
enforcement, and you're telling me that there's very little
cooperation with DEA and the FBI in drug enforcement?
Mr. Woodward. It's our understanding that the role of the
DEA is largely based on looking at our nation's borders and
looking at drugs coming in from outside of our borders. In
talking with the Forest Service about their cooperation with
DEA, they felt that they had--when they needed--the assistance
of the DEA. But, in many cases, working with the field, the
staff on the ground, and also with local and State law
enforcement, with issues such as eradicating marijuana and that
sort, the Forest Service didn't need the assistance of the DEA
for something that was inside the borders of the national
forests.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Wasley, what is your opinion of that?
Mr . Wasley. My opinion is, Madam Chairman, is that we have
great cooperation with both the FBI and DEA. Very often, our--
the nature of the work that we do, especially on marijuana
eradication within the borders of the national forest, lends
itself more to our expertise than it does the expertise of DEA.
And it's in no fashion demeaning the capabilities of DEA. That
means simply that DEA has deferred to us something that falls
completely within our realm of expertise.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Outside the public lands, who handles
investigation of drugs on private land, State, or other Federal
land--outside of the Forest Service land? Whose? Which agency
has the primary role for investigation?
Mr. Wasley. Well, it's a multiple agency role actually.
There would be local, Federal and State for drug enforcement.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I'll get back to you on that.
Mr. Hill, who investigates the complaints against the
Forest Service law enforcement staff?
Mr. Hill. That, to a large extent, depends on the nature of
the complaint that's being investigated. If the complaint deals
with generally with misconduct, they'll generally be
investigated by the agency itself, its human resources staff.
If it's a criminal complaint it can be either handled by the
Agriculture Office of Inspector General or by the Forest
Service law enforcement staff itself. And it's our
understanding that the OIG would be investigating the more
serious criminal complaints. If the complaint relates to a
deprivation of civil rights, then those will be investigated
and referred to by the Justice Department.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is there a mechanism in order for
complaints to get to the chief or to get to the region--
regional forester--or to the supervisor?
Mr. Woodward. I think there are variety of mechanisms. The
Department of Agriculture office of Inspector General has a
hotline. Many complaints come by that venue. Other complaints
will come to the forest supervisor who will forward them up the
chain of command, at which point they may be----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Woodward, I question the number,
because I have heard hundreds of complaints myself. Now there's
a reason you're not finding them in your report. I want to know
that reason. This is ridiculous for me to hear a number of 14
from you, when I have personally heard hundreds in just one
district. Now I'm asking you, is there a mechanism for the
regional forester or for the supervisor or the ranger to hear
complaints? That's my question. Mr. Hill?
Mr. Hill. We really can't give you a firm answer on that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Why can't you?
Mr. Hill. Because we really have not looked at that issue.
The majority of what we're providing you today is based on what
we were told by the same gentleman at the table here, quite
frankly. We have not investigated the process that's in place
or just how things operate in terms of when a complaint comes
in, how it's surfaced up and handled by the Forest Service.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, I do want to say that I don't want
you to defend the numbers if they're inadequate. I want you to
find out why the numbers are inadequate. And I'm telling you,
those are inadequate numbers.
Mr. Hill. Well, Madam Chairman, we're not defending any
numbers. I think we tried to make it clear that what we're
presenting is the information that we obtained from the Forest
Service headquarters officials, and we have not had the
opportunity to verify that information; although if you'd like
us to do some of that work, we would be more than happy to do
that in the future.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would like to talk to you about that.
Mr. Hill. Certainly.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What types of complaints generally have
been filed against the Forest Service enforcement staff?
Mr. Hill. There's a variety of complaints, and here again,
this is based on the records that they have provided us.
Complaints include falsifying time and attendance reports on
the part of the Forest Service staff, racial harassment, verbal
threats, inappropriate discharge of weapons--things of that
order.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Can you tell me how these--how the Forest
Service agents are trained? What must they be qualified in? Are
they trained in law enforcement specifically?
Mr. Hill. I have to apologize, Madam Chairman. We don't
have any information on that at this time.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Let me review your testimony
here. There were--unfortunately, we only had 5 minutes, and
your written testimony is very, very interesting.
All right, I will call on the Forest Service, either Mr.
Joslin or Mr. Wasley. Mr. Wasley, let me ask you first, what is
your background? How long have you been with the Forest
Service?
Mr. Wasley. I've been with the Forest Service since October
1996. Prior to that, I was a local policeman in California. I
was 21 years with the United States Secret Service. I worked
three and a half years with the Office of Foreign Assets
Control in main Treasury. I was a customs agent, and I worked
for the Bureau of Prisons.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And you were brought to the Forest Service
for what specific purpose?
Mr. Wasley. To run the Law Enforcement and Investigations
program.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is there, Mr. Joslin or Mr. Wasley, is
there specific authority granted by the Congress for this
position?
Mr. Wasley. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you cite where it is?
Mr. Wasley. Well, my understanding is it's in 16 United
States Code 559, to start with.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Sixteen five five nine. For this particular
position, right?
Mr. Wasley. Well, not specifically for my position. But I
believe implied in that would be the regulation of criminal
behavior on the national forests.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Sixteen five five nine is the section of
the code that allows for the agency to hire up to a 1,000
people to involve themselves in law enforcement, right?
Mr. Wasley. I'm not sure if that's 559.
Mrs. Chenoweth. With regards to the reporting mechanism,
how are crimes or misdemeanors or any kind of offenses reported
in this system and who to? Do you receive the reports? Or does
the chief?
Mr. Wasley. I receive the reports. And then, as
appropriate, I pass them on to the chief, normally in a
condensed version. I might say for the record that we are in
the process now of totally reevaluating our data collection
systems within law enforcement.
When I became Director in October 1996, I saw the immediate
need for a total reworking of the way we collect our data. It
was my impression at that time it was inadequate. The systems
were not as efficient as they could be, and consequently we
have a study in progress which is due for a publication of
their final result in December of this year, which hopefully
will make some appropriate recommendations on the direction
that we should go in our data collection efforts.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Joslin or Mr. Wasley, I'm interested in
more than data collection systems. I'm interested in knowing
how Forest Service law enforcement personnel are relating to
citizens in the forests. And it's not good. It reaches far
beyond 14 incidences. If there were just 14 incidences of
offenses or complaints, I, believe me, we would not be having
these hearings. But everywhere I turn, there are complaints.
And my greatest concern is that what happened upon your hiring
and with this administration is that we're seeing a
centralization of everything regarding law enforcement here in
Washington, DC, under your command. And this is chilling. And
it is not in keeping with the general attitude that had
prevailed about the Forest Service being a land management
agency. And so, I really do want more. I do need the
information from a sufficient data collection system, and the
agency has had 2 years to do that. And the report that we got
from GAO is totally inadequate, not because Mr. Hill and GAO
don't do good work--normally, they do. No one, no one can get
the information. It's all contained within you. And that cannot
continue to exist.
I am launching this in a hearing today. But tomorrow, it
will become a major national issue, no matter what the
consequences may be unless we can work together to see a better
reporting system to the Congress, and unless we can see more
responsibility and more jurisdiction and accountability in the
local level. This centralization for law enforcement in the
Forest Service is not good.
Mr. Wasley, if we were to set up a system in the northwest
where we could have people illegally growing drugs, you have
managed to set it up, along with the Forest Service in their
land management policies, to a degree that it would be a drug
growers dream, because you simply don't have enough agents to
get into the millions and millions and millions and millions of
square acres to see what's going on in terms of growing
cannabis or whatever else may be going on in the public land.
In addition to that, we're shutting off roads and trails
and access by humans. In addition to that, we are charging fees
to humans to access the back country. Now what better system do
we have in America than to set up a system like that? I am
truly alarmed. And that's why we are launching into a series of
hearings on law enforcement in the forests. As far as I'm
concerned, you get a D minus minus for this. It's not working.
It's not only broken, it's working with an adverse effect.
So, let me continue with some questioning, and then I will
defer to Mr. Peterson. In your testimony, Mr. Joslin, you
stated that the Forest Service grants full range law
enforcement authority, the authority to carry and use defensive
equipment only to law enforcement officers and criminal
investigators. Is limited range law enforcement authority
granted to any non-law enforcement officers and criminal
investigators?
Mr. Joslin. No, I'll let Mr. Wasley answer that. But we
only want those people that are specifically trained in order
to handle that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Wasley?
Mr. Wasley. We have Forest Protection Officer program,
where there is very limited authority given to those folks. But
the primary responsibility for law enforcement clearly falls on
the folks who work for me.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Pardon me?
Mr. Wasley. The law enforcement responsibilities within the
Forest Service fall on those folks who work for me. In other
words, the uniform branch and the agent branch.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What type of law enforcement authority is
granted to these individuals?
Mr. Wasley. The full range of law enforcement abilities,
such as the authority to carry firearms, to effect arrests, to
serve search warrants to the affiants, and search warrants, to
testify in court--the entire range.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Where is that authority found?
Mr. Wasley. There again, to my knowledge, it's codified in
the United States Code.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And which cite?
Mr. Wasley. I would have to look that up. But I don't
recall the specific cite.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you have legal counsel sitting right
behind you? Would you mind consulting with him?
Mr. Wasley. I was just informed by counsel that it is at 16
United States Code 559, and further by the Drug Control Act of
1986.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
Mr. Wasley. It's at 16 United States Code 559, and also in
the Drug Control Act of 1986.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Drug Control Act of 1996.
Mr. Wasley. 1986.
Mrs. Chenoweth. 1986. And specifically where is it granted
to the Forest Service in the Drug Control Act of 1986?
Mr. Wasley. I'm told that it's at 559C.
Mrs. Chenoweth. 559C. 16559C.
Mr. Wasley. Correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What type of Forest Service employees would
be granted this kind of authority?
Mr. Wasley. Those personnel who have undergone certain
training that we require.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What kind of training do you require?
Mr. Wasley. We have a basic law enforcement training that
last 11 to 13 weeks in Glencoe, Georgia. And then there are
specific training courses or modules offered after that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And what do they learn? What courses do
they take in the training?
Mr. Wasley. In the basic course, having participated in the
basic course myself, you learn Federal law, you learn certain
search and seizure requirements, you would learn defense
tactics--firearms training, any special skills, that might
belong to the Forest Service--perhaps backpacking, if you will.
The entire range of basic law enforcement skills.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How does that compare to the training of a
DEA officer?
Mr. Wasley. The basic training would be approximately the
same, be it the Secret Service, Customs, DEA, FBI. They're all
approximately the same--the core training that is.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What is the typical background of one of
your officers? What is their major usually?
Mr. Wasley. Up until the present, we have taken the vast
majority of the law enforcement folks from existing Forest
Service ranks, so there's generally a pretty heavy background
in forestry and the outdoors and all things germane to the
Forest Service.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So we take a biologist and give him a 3-
month law enforcement and law course, and expect him to perform
all the duties that one would if they were in the FBI or the
DEA or the local sheriff or a State patrolman, right?
Mr. Wasley. That could be the case. We also, of course,
take local deputies very often and make them Forest Service
officers.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Why, in your opinion, are the Forest
Service employees better suited to enforce the law than the
local law enforcement agencies?
Mr. Wasley. Generally speaking, the Forest Service has a
certain amount of skills that may not be possessed at the local
level. There, again, it could have to do with backpacking,
trailing, packing--all the forest skills that may not be
readily possessed by--Of course, there are exceptions, but
generally speaking it's the skill level that is--falls in our
domain.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Wasley, during a briefing with the
Committee staff, you mentioned that you are currently working
on standards for investigative staff, and that is it hard to
set these standards because of the Office of Personnel
Management. Would you please expand on why it is hard to set
these standards?
Mr. Wasley. There, again, I'm speaking from 30 years
experience in this field. It's extraordinarily difficult to get
a plan that satisfies all the requirements that are existence
today. For example, what is fit for duty in the Forest Service
may well not be what is fit for duty in the DEA, and may not be
what is fit for duty in the Secret Service. The educational
requirements are very, very different. And to get a consensus,
to get a package through that we could apply unilaterally for
hirees in the Forest Service is extraordinarily difficult.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You also mentioned in that same briefing
that training was an important issue; that people don't qualify
because of lack of funding. Could you please expand on that?
Mr. Wasley. People don't qualify, excuse me?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Because of lack of funding.
Mr. Wasley. I think that's a bit out of context. What I
said was, if memory serves correctly, that our training
packages have suffered due to lack of funding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What's the difference between the 8- and
11-week training programs for law enforcement officers and
investigators?
Mr. Wasley. Certain specialized portions of it. For
example, an investigator may well have more of a timber theft
module, more of Archeological Resource Protection Act module.
There may be more defensive tactics involved in one than the
other.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How does the 8-week training course differ
from the 11-week training course specifically? Other than
training? Tactics? I mean, what is it specifically?
Mr. Wasley. Excuse me. I was informed that the extra 3
weeks has to do with the, again, as I said, the skills levels
involved. It may well focus more on the legal processes--what
it takes to present a case, for example, in the United States
court system or the local system, to understand the judicial
process and also more of skill level development of anything
that we do--the entire range.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Wasley, I want to know particularly
what the skill level is and what the difference is. This isn't
exactly fair to you, either, because you've never been before
my Committee. But I want to know specifics. What is the
difference? And if your counsel can't advise you now, so you
can get it on the record, that's a shame. Because I don't want
to hear round, pear-shaped concepts. I want to know
specifically what's the difference between the 8-week training
system and the 11-week. Why the 3 week difference? Who
qualifies for what at 8 weeks and who qualifies for what at 11
weeks?
Mr. Wasley. As a general response to this, I can tell you
from personal experience.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right.
Mr. Wasley. That GS-1811 series investigators, the
investigative branch, will devote more of their time to the
investigational attributes of the job--interrogation
procedures, search and seizure procedures, surveillance
procedures. Whereas, the uniformed branch of the Forest Service
will be more inclined to have a basic approach to that, and
also to develop more skills along the things that are inherent
in the uniformed branch. It could be anything from weaponry
practice to certain identification guides of things in the
forest. The patrol function, if you will, which is very much
akin to a county sheriffs' departments would be emphasized more
with the uniform branch than would be the investigators.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I wonder, Mr. Wasley, if you could do this
for me? I wonder if you could submit to the Committee the
training manuals and then maybe we can be more precise. We are
going to have other hearings on this. And so in preparation for
the other hearings, would you mind doing that?
Mr. Wasley. Not at all.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. And the Chair recognizes Mr.
Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I guess my question to the Forest Service would be what
percentage of your crime control or enforcement is done by your
officers and what percent is done by contracting with local
agencies to enforce the law?
Mr. Wasley. I don't think we have an exact percentage on
that. Clearly, the vast majority, I will tell you from personal
experience, is done by us. We have over 700 cooperative law
agreements that greatly assist us in our function, but the vast
majority of work done on national forest is done by us.
Mr. Peterson. OK, tell me what are the most predominant
issues in your law enforcement effort.
Mr. Wasley. Anything from keeping the peace on a
campground, drunk and disorderly, traffic accidents, search and
rescue--that's on the uniform level. On the investigational
branch, we have certain priorities--timber theft, archeological
theft, wildland fire, cannabis eradication. Those are the
primary investigational things we do.
Mr. Peterson Is the majority of the enforcement on public
land that you control done by your people?
Mr. Wasley. Yes, that's correct. Now you--what kind of
contracts do you enter into? With local?
Mr. Wasley. With patrol agreements primarily, where they
will be paid to patrol a certain area a certain number of times
over a given period of time.
Mr. Peterson. Well, I guess there's a real resistance, in
this country of Federal police officers. In rural America,
where you are--the DEA's not very popular there because of
their tactics. And they don't like Federal police officers. The
look at police as a local jurisdiction, at the State at the
best, helping. I guess my theory would be that it would make
more sense, because you're in rural areas where police
protection is difficult to have, period. You don't have a lot
of policemen running around the forest, on the outside of the
forest as well as in the forest.
But it seems to me, it would make more sense that you would
have people with the expertise that's needed for the forest in
the things you talked about. You would expand the ability to
contract with local law enforcement because then you would be
strengthening them that helps in the forest and those who know
the people and know the area. It just seems to me that you
would be doing a double service, because you would be
strengthening law enforcement in the rural part of America,
which is pretty thin, instead of having your own forces. And
also at the State I come from, we had the game commission,
which also assists in law enforcement. And I'm sure they patrol
your lands, and it would seem to me that maybe they could be a
part of that contract.
Instead of having three and four and five different groups
doing something, there would be an overall plan. And the locals
would play a major role. You'd be the supervisors, using game
commissions or whoever else is out there, because, you know,
they have the right to make arrests on almost any crime, at
least they do in Pennsylvania if they see it.
So it just seems to me that we spread out a very thin
resource historically in this country. And I'm not picking on
the Forest Service. It's done routinely by States, too. Because
we have all these different people working the same area, and
we don't have enough people to begin with. But if it was a
coordinated effort, it would seem to me it would make more
sense. Would you like to respond to that at all?
Mr. Wasley. I would say that cooperation is the rule rather
than the exception. In my 20 months or so on the job, I've been
all over the United States now. And I have talked to local
sheriffs, police chiefs, deputies--as a matter of fact, I
attended the Western States Sheriffs' Association. I'm a member
of the National Sheriffs' Association, International
Association of Chiefs of Police. The amount of actual
complaints that I've heard from people at the working level are
very minimum--are very minimal. They like our cooperation. And,
in fact, what really happens is the cooperation is very good at
the local levels.
One of the problems that I have seen is, again, the local
folks are spread even more thinly than we are very often. They
have certain responsibility--the local folks--to respond to
their population centers, which are probably not on the
national forests. And one of the inherent problems of the
scenario you just laid out, to think that we could get a county
police or county sheriff's office to devote a disproportionate
amount of their time to the national forest system, I'm
skeptical of that.
Mr. Peterson. Well, I guess my theory would be that if you
furnished them with some of the resources you're spending, you
could give them added capacity. And I don't think you'll find--
now there's exceptions--that most of your forest land is not
real close to urban areas. It's not real close to a large
population. It's kind of in the most remote parts of the
country--at least the ones I'm thinking of at the moment are--
which has very limited law enforcement to begin with because of
the sparsity of population. But I think we waste resources when
we have State, Federal, and local agencies doing separate
things in a rural area where you don't have enough people to
begin with.
And you're never going to have people out there that are
going to observe most of the crimes. It's going to be. You're
not going to catch people in the act real often. And let me
conclude. I see my time's up. But the one issue I noticed in
the Allegheny National Forest, which is in my district, is that
one of the major problems we have there is that it's very
fertile ground for growing marijuana. And I know the DEA has
flights in there all the time. And they're surveilling now.
They're getting ready to go out and harvest the crop ahead of
the growers this fall.
I'm critical of how they do that, because they basically go
in and cut and burn and arrest very few people. I never see
where they arrest anybody, but they do stop it from hitting the
marketplace. And that's part of State police in Pennsylvania
and the other groups that are part of that--it's kind of a cut
and burn theory. And they do a lot of surveillance work all
summer long, with low flights looking for the patches of
marijuana growing in the Allegheny National Forest and trying
to stop it from getting to the market.
But there, again, it seems to me that we don't have a
coordinated effort. I don't know what role your agency plays in
that. But again, it would seem to me that would be more
effective if there was a local, State, and national consensus
of how we're going to do that. I guess I struggle with all
these agencies trying to be there.
I mean, you're out there to manage land. Law enforcement
should not be one of your major roles. You should have people
who know what's needed there, but it would seem to me using
State and local resources it would be more cost effective and
more productive. That's just my own personal theory.
Mr. Wasley. There again, I would say we are probably more
coordinated than you might notice at first glance. There again,
I've had hands on experience, especially with marijuana
eradication. And it is really a team effort. If you look at the
agencies involved on a sheet of paper, it may look disjointed.
But in fact when things happen, it's my experience that things
happen properly and they come together. Of course, errors are
made, and, of course, there's some inefficiency, and, of
course, we can improve. But generally speaking, the law
enforcement that I found in the Forest Service is at least well
coordinated.
Mr. Peterson. We thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a number of
questions. I didn't notice in your--I was not here for your
testimony. I had a chance to just briefly go through it. But
the Star Mountain Report suggests that targeted block grants
could be a means to supplement these cooperative agreements,
and I didn't notice that you addressed that in here. What kind
of thought or consideration has been given by your or your
department to that particular recommendation?
Mr. Wasley. There again, my remarks are based on not my 20
months in the Forest Service, but 30 years in law enforcement.
I'm suspect of block grants for a couple of reasons.
First of all, I'm suspect of their ability to be properly
accountable. If blocks of money were given to, say, a county
sheriff, I'm not sure that we would have the wherewithal to
ensure that those moneys would directly benefit the national
forest system. County sheriff, city police, other agencies have
other conflicting priorities, which may take some of that block
grant money, and thereby not give us enough bang for the buck,
if you will. That's a personal opinion.
Are we exploring it? Of course, we're exploring it. We're
looking at it as a possibility. As a matter of fact, as we
speak, I have a study underway right now to examine all of our
700 plus cooperative law enforcement agreements, some of which
have not been audited since 1971. So I'm having this study done
now. And, as a matter of fact, on the 14th of July, I'm meeting
with the folks involved in that study in Denver, hopefully to
give me some insight on what they've found.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, let me go at this cooperative issue
from another direction then and that is why do we enter into
these cooperative agreements with local law enforcement
agencies in the first place?
Mr. Wasley. We need their assistance. That's the short
answer. We cannot do our job alone. The State, city, county
officers have primary jurisdiction for State laws on the
national forest system. They, in fact, do that sort of
enforcement all the time. We have a certain responsibility, a
resource protection responsibility which I think fits nicely
with their state enforcement responsibilities. Hence, some sort
of cooperative agreement has to be codified, has to be put to
paper. You will do this, and for your services we will
reimburse you this amount. And frankly speaking, in some places
we get a good bang for the buck and other places apparently we
don't. Consequently, I've ordered an audit of all of our
systems--all of our agreements.
Mr. Schaffer. This focuses primarily, you know, the report,
the whole hearing and so on today is primarily focused on
management, which is important. But an important part of
managing this budget, staff, and allocating them, and so on
also entails a certain amount of preventative activities that
try to drive down the occurrence of crime and the need to
police national forests to the extent that we do so far. Can
you give me an idea? Why are we seeing an increase in the need
for law enforcement for our agents to be placed in more
dangerous situations, more now than 10, 15 years ago? What is
the cause for the trend and the need to police national parks,
public lands, and public places more vigorously?
Mr. Wasley. I think the short answer is simply
demographics. If you have 800,000,000 visitors now and a
billion visitors within a couple years time, there's going to
be criminality that's going to follow that upward trend of
visitors. And the forests will unfortunately suffer that. To my
knowledge, there are very few non-urbanized forests in the
United States now. Even the ``rural forests'' are suffering the
effects of urbanization and more visitor days. You cannot avoid
criminality. There is going to be certain ilks of persons that
patronize the forests that are going to bring their criminality
with them. Consequently, the responsibility for this within the
forest falls on us.
Mr. Schaffer. Has there been any thought given--you know,
the Forest Service, without question, is moving away from the
concept of multiple use and having a number of folks involved
in national forests for economic activity of various sorts, and
we've kind of moved away from that. Has there been any thought
given or analysis done as to whether moving toward forests that
are less functional from an economic perspective had any impact
on criminal activity?
Mr. Joslin. When you ask that--could you repeat that? I'm
not sure I understand.
Mr. Schaffer. Yes, I don't think there's any question--
well, there may be in some people's minds--but there's not much
question that we're moving forests away from the whole concept
of the land of many uses. You took that off the signs, for
example, when you enter the forests. Economic activity of
various sorts, whether it's timbering or grazing or mining and
so on, seem to be restricted rather than encouraged. And
there's a different type of activity and focus of the national
forest system now than it was 50 years ago. I'm just curious as
to whether anybody that there's some correlation between the
shifting or drifting vision of the Forest Service and criminal
activity that takes place on Forest Service land.
Mr. Joslin. I don't think we've looked at that. But I think
that, you know, we're still managing those lands out there for
multiple uses. Granted, the amount of that is certainly varied,
but I don't think there's been any kind of studies like that.
And I'm not sure that there would be a correlation. There's
just so many more people that are coming out there, using those
national forests, those public lands nowadays that it's mind
boggling. As I know you're well aware in your particular part
of the country too, more and more people out there everyday.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, I don't mean to mischaracterize my part
of the country. You know, a lot of kids from the city who are
out having a--out carousing in the national forests, sometimes
they have more respect--well, sometimes they seem to be more
afraid what may happen to them if they start messing around
with somebody's cattle out there in the middle of woods than
they are if the start harassing, you know, a nice innocent
family having a--you know, trying to catch a night's sleep in
the camper next door. And it seems to me that when there are a
number of--when there are more vested interests in managing and
being a part of our national forest system that you just kind
of engender a little more respect for your friends and
neighbors and for the outdoor and for the law than when you're
simply dealing with a government agency. You know, again, if
you haven't looked into that, or if nobody has, that doesn't
surprise me.
But it seems to me, though, just from the way people behave
out west anyway that, you know, it would just seem to be more a
polite society when you had a bunch of ranchers, farmers,
loggers, mining companies, and so on all maintaining their
varied and assorted public interest in maintaining a strong
national forest system.
Mr. Joslin. I think the other thing that would go along
with that, too, is the understanding and appreciation for
natural resources out there has really gone down. The more
people come out there, we haven't been able to get that message
across to them, which I think really relates to what you're
talking about.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Wasley, I want to ask you when there's a complaint with
regards to the Forest Service law enforcement activities, how
are they documented? What is the process for documentation?
Mr. Wasley. It's put to paper. It really depends on the
method by which we receive it. If it's a verbal complaint, say,
to a Forest Supervisor from a citizen on the national forest,
we would ask that it somehow be reduced to writing, so we have
some document. We have a computer system in which these
complaints are placed. All the complaints that we received--
formal complaints--are going to be investigated, either by us,
by the Department of Justice, by the Inspector General, or by
the Forest Service non-law enforcement.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, what happens when a citizen doesn't
know how to make a formal complaint because the regional
forester or Forest Supervisor will say, I don't have any
jurisdiction over that. And they don't record the complaints
because they say all the jurisdiction has been centralized in
Washington, DC, so don't talk to me about it. So how do we
get--how do you find out through documentation? Or what system
is in place for you to know? I mean, it's not fair to you, Mr.
Wasley, for me to hear all the complaints, and, as you can
tell, I'm pretty concerned about it. And you not know why I'm
concerned: because you're not getting the information. How
would a normal citizen who is, say, stopped on a snowmobile
asked to stop his snowmobile, is searched, and then issued a
ticket for operating a snowmobile on a road that he's operated
it on for 30 years. How would we make a complaint that could be
documented and get to you and the chief?
Mr. Wasley. If the person--we're speaking hypothetically
now--on this snowmobile went to the, say, district ranger and
received no satisfaction certainly that person would have the
wherewithal to go to the next level, which might be the
district ranger's supervisor. I would. If I got no satisfaction
there, I would probably call my Congressman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you realize that that's going on in the
field, that the rangers and supervisors are saying we have no
jurisdiction over this activity, we have no jurisdiction over
those Forest Service employees who are issuing tickets?
Mr. Wasley. That statement may be made, but I will tell you
this that, again based on my history and the fact that in the
Secret Service, I served 2 years in the internal affairs
division of the Secret Service, all complaints will be
investigated. And if I find someone that is not bringing
complaints forward in my branch, then appropriate action will
be taken.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What juncture in time and in documentation
occurred so that all jurisdiction rested with you? When did
that happen? And it was taken away from the local rangers and
local forest supervisors?
Mr. Wasley. It was in Fiscal Year 1994--October 1993.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Pardon me?
Mr. Wasley. October 1993, which would be Fiscal Year 1994.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And what documentation was issued that made
that change? Was it statutory authority?
Mr. Wasley. If memory serves, there was congressional
intent to go that way, and the chief of the Forest Service at
that time made the decision. It was an internal decision where
it was actually implemented. But I believe congressional intent
was that we go to the current straight line reporting
organization.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Wasley, I wonder if you would submit to
the Committee all the complaints that have been made to you,
that have gotten to you in the last 3 years?
Mr. Wasley. OK. Fine.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK, it won't be hard, there's only about 21
documented.
Mr. Hill, can you advise the Committee what documentation
or what executive order or what was issued to allow for the
centralization of law enforcement jurisdiction?
Mr. Hill. My recollection--our understanding of some of the
concerns that caused that to happen dealt with providing
independence to the law enforcement staff. I think there were
some concerns and issues back in 1993 about complaints that
were being made concerning Forest Service employees that were
not being investigated at the time because basically they were
investigating themselves. I think the general feeling there was
there was a need for some independence in the law enforcement
staff that could, therefore, go ahead and investigate these
things.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Isn't it in your testimony that in 1993
there was a document issued that made this change?
Mr. Hill. I'm not certain what you're referring to in terms
of documentation?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Was there an order issued by the chief or a
report issued by the chief?
Mr. Hill. I'm not certain of that, Madam Chairman. We could
look at that and get back to you on that one.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK, I have seen it. I had studied a lot of
things last night. And I did see it. I thought it was in your
testimony.
Mr. Hill. I apologize. We could research that and provide
it for the record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All I want to know is where they get their
authority to make a centralized system--set up the centralized
system that they're operating under now?
So, whoever can provide that for me, I'd appreciate it.
Tell me, Mr. Wasley, what written report--what kind of
written report do you give to the chief, and can we have copies
of that for the Committee?
Mr. Wasley. The reports that I give to the chief are
primarily verbal. If there's a particular situation or an
issue, then I generally put it in memorandum format.
Mrs. Chenoweth. They are verbal. They are not written?
Mr. Wasley. It really depends on the nature of the issue.
For example, I would be not doing my job if I was to put to
paper the elements of an ongoing criminal investigation that
the chief should be aware of, lest that become discoverable in
a criminal case. I would be more inclined to tell the chief
verbally the nature of the criminal case, so he's aware of
what's happening. This is very, very common practice--not to
put such thing to paper.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Wasley, this is not common practice in
the Forest Service. It may be common practice in the Secret
Service, but that's why I mentioned in my opening statement
this has become a stealth organization, operating under the
radar of the Congress. We must have documentation. This is not
the Secret Service. This is the United States Forest Service,
and we expect documentation. And I hope that we, as required
and as mentioned in the Star Mountain Report, I hope that we
will see systems implemented so that there will be
documentation and soon. This is an embarrassment, sir. And I
don't know who's idea this was, the chief is not here today.
But it is absolutely wrongheaded.
Recent articles revealed that the training exercises by
anti-timber tourist groups have continued to expand. They train
extremists in how to block roads, damage roads, and otherwise
block and disrupt Forest Service and timber management
activities. The result is damage to Federal property to private
property and disruption of lawful government and commercial
activity. What has the Forest Service done to interdict such
activities under conspiracy or Rico statutes?
Mr. Wasley. We have an open line of communications with the
Federal Bureau of Investigations who is the primary agency in
this sort of domestic terrorism. We have agents that work
cooperatively with the FBI almost on a daily basis on these
issues.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK, that's a question that we need more
detail on, sir. This activity is widespread in the northwest.
It's fiercesome. And I'd like a written report as to what the
Forest Service has done to interdict such anti-timber terrorist
group activities under conspiracy or Rico standards. Would you
mind submitting a report to the Committee?
Mr. Wasley. I will.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, sir.
What are the criteria in deciding whether to seek civil
recovery of damages in these cases?
Mr. Wasley. The first--the first consideration, of course,
lies with the United States Attorney. It's the United States
Attorney that makes the prosecutorial decision whether or not
to proceed or not to proceed. And once we do the investigation,
the choices, the decisions are in the Department of Justice.
It's not in the Forest Service.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But leading up to that decision, what are
the criteria in deciding whether to call in the U.S. Attorney's
office?
Mr. Wasley. In every criminal matter, the United States
Attorney office will be contacted.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you mind making a report to the
Committee with regards to the criteria that you have lined out
in deciding whether these anti-timber terrorists groups, their
activities when they have to do what they must rise before you
decide whether to call in the U.S. Marshall or the U.S.
Attorney office?
Mr. Wasley. We call them in any case.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In any case?
Mr. Wasley. I would be happy to submit a report, but we
call the United States Attorney on any matter like that. Any
criminal matter, especially involving eco-terrorism or
terroristic things involving timber or any other matter on the
national forest system, the United States Attorney's office
will be contacted.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you ever recommend that we seek recovery
of damages for the Forest Service, Mr. Joslin?
Mr. Joslin. Yes, we do that. We make recommendations,
whether it be timber theft or damages to road or whatever it
is. Our resource specialists in the field compile the
information that constitutes the amount of damage, so that's
what we use in working with the law enforcement and
investigation folks to help provide the recommendations in
those situations.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, as a matter of policy if significant
damage, say, tens of thousands of dollars is done to Federal
land or property, shouldn't they claim for recovery always--
always be sought?
Mr. Joslin. We may recommend but the United States Attorney
may not follow through.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now, my line of questioning is because it's
law enforcement who has the responsibility to investigate
crimes, not the U.S. Attorney. And so, as you make your report,
please understand that is the direction that I'm taking this
questioning.
One more time, we do need a copy at every briefing--of
every briefing memo given to the chief on law enforcement
activities for the last 3 years, or since the time you were
hired. OK?
All right, I defer to Mr. Schaffer from Colorado.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have more
questions on the issue of cooperation with local agencies, just
so I can try to get an idea for myself when we're--when these
cooperative agreements make sense and when they don't, along
those lines. Can you tell me when--what kinds of things can
only be done by Federal law enforcement agents on Federal
lands, as opposed to contracting completely perhaps with the
country sheriff or the State division of wildlife. Tell me when
you're the only guys who can do it.
Mr. Wasley. From my personal experience, I saw on the Tonto
National Forest, for example, that the county sheriff, working
in concert with our folks out there, would not cite for
particular Federal violations, i.e., bringing bottles on a
beach. It was against Federal regulations to bring breakable
things on the beach, lest they be broken and people cut their
feet. The country sheriffs who were there in force, who was the
Maricopa County sheriffs, deferred totally to the Forest
Service to write this kind of ticket.
Mr. Schaffer. Was there an agreement in this case with
them? Were they being compensated?
Mr. Wasley. There was no need. It was just law. There was
no need for such an agreement. I mean, because as police you
know what you're going to do. On the other hand, if there was a
fight, certainly the Forest Service folks in uniform would
assist the county sheriffs, but the county sheriffs or deputies
would make the arrests.
Mr. Schaffer. Are there any specific crimes that occur on
national forest lands that are unique to Federal law
enforcement that States or counties just are incapable of
dealing with?
Mr. Wasley. Much like certain Federal agencies--other
Federal agencies have expertise--ATF and firearms, Secret
Service and counterfeiting, FBI and perhaps in kidnaping--the
Forest Service does a really good job in timber theft,
archeological resource protection, and wildland fire arson. A
county sheriff's department would certainly defer investigation
to us on those issues. And also cannabis eradication, quite
honestly.
Mr. Schaffer. Now, again, that is with an agreement or just
as a general course of being, you know, a national forest
that's in a certain county?
Mr. Wasley. It would be by general knowledge. There may
well be an agreement that would spell that out. I don't know
the particulars of all 700 agreements, but I would say the
vast, vast, vast majority of county sheriffs and city police
would understand that.
Mr. Schaffer. In the--hang on a minute. Sorry about that,
Madam Chair. The--you mentioned earlier about those occasions
when you end up calling the FBI or DEA and others, how often
does that occur?
Mr. Wasley. In my tenure, very, very rarely. We had a
particularly vicious arson in the northwest, which we're
working still very closely with the FBI on. We had a kidnap
case of one of our employees in Oregon and we worked hand in
hand with the FBI. Most recently, the unfortunate shootout and
killing in Cortez, Colorado. We were involved--the FBI was
there.
There's not really much friction at all between the Forest
Service and DEA or FBI. As a matter of fact, I lunch monthly
with the heads of those agencies, and we have an open dialogue.
Mr. Schaffer. But do you end up consulting them for their
help and assistance when these investigations become broader
than Forest Service boundaries?
Mr. Wasley. Oh, of course.
Mr. Schaffer. Or multi-state? I guess that's what I'm
asking. How often does that occur? Is that rarely? Is it----
Mr. Wasley. Yes, I'd say rarely.
Mr. Schaffer. Is it couple, three times a year? Is it 50
times a year? What?
Mr. Wasley. I can't give you a number, but I would say
rarely. It has nothing to do with turf protection or anything
like that. It has to do only with--they offer--we would seek
their expertise when we deemed it necessary. And if they--
certainly, we have, again, open lines of communication with
those agencies, so there's nothing being done in a vacuum.
Mr. Schaffer. With respect to these organizations that
exist to essentially train members and perpetuate this eco-
terrorism, are those the kind of issues where outside agencies
are consulted and where their advice is sought?
Mr. Wasley. Yes. We simply don't have the expertise--well,
I can't say the expertise--we don't have the resources
available to conduct our own investigations of that type of
group in general. There may be certain exceptions from time to
time. But in general, the FBI is far, far, far better equipped
to handle investigations of those groups.
Mr. Schaffer. Are they handling any of those investigations
right now?
Mr. Wasley. The short answer is yes.
Mr. Schaffer. How often, just generally, on those types of
issues are they consulted during the course of a year?
Mr. Wasley. Do we consult the FBI on that?
Mr. Schaffer. Yes, on those--of those kinds of cases.
Mr. Wasley. Again, I would say specifically in certain
portions of the United States, we have a daily dialogue.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, am I the chairman now? Oh, there she
is. I thought maybe she ran to the floor.
I don't have any more questions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. We do have a vote,
and so I will recess the Committee for 20 minutes. We will make
the vote and come right back. And so this Committee stands
recessed.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee will come to order. Mr.
Wasley, I wanted to continue with my line of questioning.
During a briefing to Committee staff, you mentioned that you
report directly to Chief Dombeck, but you also mentioned that
you report to Francis Pandolfi and that he and the chief are
one in the same. What was your rationale for reporting to Mr.
Pandolfi in lieu of the chief regarding law enforcement
activities?
Mr. Wasley. It think it fair we have to clarify the
statement there--they are one and the same. I probably meant in
terms of a reporting. That said, Francis is a day-to-day
operational reporting that I have. Events that would occur on a
day-to-day basis I would probably pass those more to Francis
than I would to the chief. I would probably give the chief a
summation rather than an ongoing report. So.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, how do you provide this information
to Mr. Pandolfi, in a memo, or e-mail, or verbally?
Mr. Wasley. All of the above. All of the above. I use e-
mail. We have the IBM e-mail system which I use. Yesterday, for
example, I sent Francis several status reports of an ongoing
situation we have in New Mexico now. And I saw no purpose in
sending the chief status reports. What I'll probably do with
the chief is, as I get a trend or a situation develop that I
think is worthy of his note, then I'll send him a condensed
version. I will keep Francis apprised of the day-to-day stuff.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What type of law enforcement issues have
you reported to Mr. Pandolfi specifically? Could you give us an
example other?
Mr. Wasley. The most recent, again, happened yesterday.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, I am aware of that. But other than
that what type of issues have you reported to Mr. Pandolfi?
Mr. Wasley. The Cortez City Police Department killing,
where we are directly involved. A series of other
investigations that were ongoing I've reported to Francis. We
had another shooting in Georgia I believe it was, and I don't
recall the forest there, wherein a camper shot three burglars.
This type of day-to-day events that may well be newsworthy when
I get them, I would prefer that the chief and Francis get them
before they read about them in the newspaper.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What does Mr. Pandolfi do with the
information that you provide to him regarding law enforcement
issues?
Mr. Wasley. I would assume that he passes it on to the
chief.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You would assume. Does Mr. Pandolfi--you
don't know if he does pass information on to the chief?
Mr. Wasley. Certainly, in some cases he does because the
conversations I've had with the chief reflects a certain level
of understanding of issues that he would have had to have
gotten somewhere, and I assume it was Francis.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is there anyone else with whom Mr. Pandolfi
shares the law enforcement information that you provide to him?
Mr. Wasley. It probably depends on the nature of the
information. If some of the information is sensitive, I would
ask that he hold to himself and share only with the chief.
Other information may have impact on other deputy chief areas
within the Forest Service, at which time I would assume that he
would pass it on as he sees fit.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I had earlier asked you to provide for the
Committee all copies of reports that you have made to the
chief. Let me be very specific. I wonder if you would provide
for the Committee copies of all e-mails or memos or memos to
the files with regards to verbal reports that you have provided
to Mr. Pandolfi or anyone else.
Mr. Wasley. OK.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Pardon me?
Mr. Wasley. Yes, ma'am we'll try.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Pardon me?
Mr. Wasley. We will try.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Will you do that?
Mr. Wasley. Yes, I will do that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Would you also submit to the
Committee a list of all computer systems and brief description
of their purpose and sample of the data fields used to collect
the data, who has access to these systems, and what reports are
created from each system?
Mr. Wasley. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Wasley, in a recent news article I read that as a
result of a loophole that exempts some ex-Secret Service
workers that you are able to receive your entire pension of
$44,600 a year on top of your salary of $110,000 for a total of
$154,600 a year, more than a Cabinet member's salary. Is this
fair? And?
Mr. Wasley. The figures are not correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you clarify that for us?
Mr. Wasley. Only the figures are not correct. I will
clarify anything that's a matter of the public record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What is correct with regards to your salary
and your pension?
Mr. Wasley. The simple fact is I collect a salary of
$110,700 a year as a GS-15 Step 10 with the Forest Service. As
a retiree and an annuitant under the DC Police and Fire system
I was entitled to a certain percentage of my service time with
the United States Secret Service. I collect that also.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And that pension is $44,600 a year.
Mr. Wasley. No, it is not.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What is it?
Mr. Wasley. I'm not sure that's germane to this hearing.
And I'm not attempting to be flippant or anything else. I
believe this is a private matter, and I don't believe my
retirement annuity is subject to the public record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You've been with the agency for almost 2
years, yet the reporting requirements and accountability
measures of your department are almost non-existent, sir. And I
would imagine that even the Secret Service has better
accountability than the Forest Service law enforcement does.
How do you account for this lack of accountability?
Mr. Wasley. Speaking for the law enforcement investigations
division, we are a new--relatively new organization, born only
in 1994. There are certain adjuncts to our organization that
take time to develop. The necessity for true data to be
collected and utilized in staffing and in all decisionmaking
process was not inherent in former Forest Service law
enforcement structure. I'm trying to make it that way now.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What is the rate of turnover in your work
force?
Mr. Wasley. Very low.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You mentioned large events as a special
challenge. What can you tell us about the Rainbow Family event
that is planned for early July that is already getting underway
in eastern Arizona?
Mr. Wasley. As of yesterday, we have 3,000 or so Rainbow
Family folks there on the Apache Sitgraves National Forest. We
have made, to my knowledge, three arrests so far. There have
probably been somewhat less than 100 incident reports--anything
from complaints to injuries, to the traffic accidents--all of
the things you might imagine with that sort of gathering.
That's as of this morning.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How will this event impact your ability to
meet other law enforcement needs?
Mr. Wasley. Certainly, we have limited resources. We have
to devote a certain amount of resources to this gathering.
There will be some impact. At this time of the year, I don't
think it's going to be measurable.
Mr. Joslin. Madam Chairman, if I could?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, Mr. Joslin.
Mr. Joslin. Not just the impact of large group gatherings
such as the Rainbows on the Apache-Sitgraves in eastern Arizona
is not only on law enforcement, but also on our regular work
force to deal with those situations. And every year, as you
know, they're somewhere, always on a national forest. And what
we have set up there is an incident command team, the type of
command team that we use for fires and other large events, and
the law enforcement folks are a part of that. But it's all done
in cooperation with the local and State law enforcement
agencies. So it's an impact not only on our law enforcement
people, but all the rest of our people in those areas, plus the
other law enforcement agencies involved. It's a tremendous
impact.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. How do you feel that this
Rainbow Family event will impact your overall costs to the
program?
Mr. Wasley. We have budgeted a certain amount for this type
of large group gathering. I don't know the figures off the top
of my head. But we have planned for this.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me say that I'm about to draw this
particular hearing to a close. We will have other hearings on
this issue. We will be asking you for more information. But, in
closing, we are going to follow through with more oversight
into this exceedingly important issue. And we'll be working
with the GAO to do a much more detailed investigation into the
data collection and reporting mechanisms within this agency. We
will also be doing a complete analysis of the legal authorities
for law enforcement activities for the agency. We need to
understand exactly who has what authority by law so that we can
better determine how best to coordinate law enforcement
activities. And we would appreciate your submitting all of the
data which we requested today in a timely manner. I would like
to ask before I make my closing statement if there is anything
else anyone would like to add for the record.
Mr. Woodward?
Mr. Woodward. No, thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Mr. Hill?
Mr. Hill. No, thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Joslin.
Mr. Joslin. One thing that I would add is in connection
with law enforcement national forest system, the area that I
work in, we hold meetings daily--on a daily basis. Mr. Wasley
has at least one member of his staff there are those meetings
to keep us fully informed, and we, in turn, keep his folks
fully informed of activities going in the national forest
system so that we are coordinated in that fashion. And thank
you for the opportunity to be here today.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You're welcome.
Mr. Wasley?
Mr. Wasley. I would just like to comment on our, the
officers' routes to the local community. I just had the good
fortune to travel to Kentucky, where I worked with two law
enforcement officers in the Forest Service who had spent in
excess of 25 years in the very communities where they were born
working for the law enforcement agency of the Forest Service. I
gave an award earlier this year to a person, a law enforcement
officer from California who had spent 31 years in the same
community. All I'm doing is emphasizing the fact that we do
have very close ties--local ties to local communities in the
Forest Service.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You're welcome. I'd like to also offer my
condolences to the family of national park service ranger Joe
Kolodski for this very tragic death in the Great Smokey
National Park on Sunday. He was killed by a man who was
threatening visitors with a rifle. And I understand and
appreciate that law enforcement is a very dangerous profession.
What measures is the Forest Service taking to protect their
employees is a question that I think we all have to ask. And,
again, I did want to mention him by name for the record.
There have been criminal activities in the forest. I think
a lot of what precipitated this was outlaw theft of timber and
logs, and then, of course, so many more people are entering
into our national forests as their vacation choice. So this
hearing and the other hearings are being held to determine how
best to make sure that we have the most efficient law
enforcement system, while still remaining very responsive to
the local citizens. The last thing I think any of us want to do
is create a Federal law enforcement system that is not
accountable and that is not responsive and that is angering
people out in the west or on public lands.
I don't think that those results are anything that we
share, and I think that we need to work together to try to
reach a better result than what seems to be emanating out the
starts of this new system. I do seriously question the legal
authority for such a broad law enforcement agency that is
operating in other offenses outside of drugs. And, as I said
earlier on, one of the things that we're very concerned about
in the west is we have a situation where economic activity has
been pushed out of the forest. Even our roads and trails are
being closed to human recreational activity. And so it is a
perfect setting for those who want to brave the elements in
order to raise a lot of illegal drugs.
And I speak from a certain amount of experience, having
just gone through it about a year ago, a huge drug bust that
was, in part, on private land, and, in part, on public land in
Idaho--it was huge--and have received many reports about drug
growing activity in the back country. So we need to take a
broad look at what we're doing with regards to either
discouraging or actually encouraging illegal activity.
So with that, I want to thank you all for your time and
your effort. I will be back to you with other hearings. And I
do want to say that the record will remain open for 10 days for
any corrections or additions you may wish to make to the
record. And I will be back in touch with personally,
individually with regards to future hearings. Thank you very
much. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and
Science Issues, Development Division, GAO
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to discuss law enforcement
activities in the Forest Service. My remarks today are based on
a report that we issued in July 1997.\1\ That report was done
at the request of this Subcommittee, among others, and asked us
to provide information on a number of questions about key
aspects of the Forest Service law enforcement activities. Most
of the information we provided focused on two areas: (1) the
numbers of employees involved in law enforcement activities,
and (2) the costs associated with these activities. In
addition, you asked us to provide some information on other
aspects of Forest Service law enforcement including interaction
with other Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies;
the number and types of crimes committed on national forest
lands; and the number of complaints against the agency's law
enforcement staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Lands: Information About Law Enforcement Activities
(GAO/RCED-97-189R, July 3, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To meet the needs of the Subcommittee, our 1997 report was
prepared under very tight time frames. To obtain the
information we needed in the time frame requested, we obtained
information that was readily available from Forest Service
headquarters, and we did not have the time necessary to assess
or verify the accuracy of the data we obtained. Our report was
based on fiscal year 1996 data which was the latest available
at that time. In preparation for this hearing, we worked with
the Forest Service to update much of the information we are
providing to fiscal year 1997.
In summary, in fiscal year 1997, the Forest Service's law
enforcement program included 708 agency staff including law
enforcement officers, special agents, reserve law enforcement
officers, and administrative staff. The cost of law enforcement
in the agency was about $68.5 million. This included about
$43.8 million in salaries, $18.4 million in support costs, and
$6.3 million in reimbursements to state and local law
enforcement agencies for assisting with law enforcement
activities on national forest lands. (A summary table of the
number of staff and costs associated with the Forest Service's
law enforcement program is included in app. I.)
BACKGROUND
Most of the law enforcement activities of the Forest
Service are authorized under titles 16, 18, and 21 of the U.S.
Code. The Office of Law Enforcement and Investigations within
the Forest Service is responsible for investigating offenses
against the United States that occur within or have a nexus to
the national forest system lands--which include 155 national
forests and 20 national grasslands covering about 192 million
acres. The types of investigations and enforcement actions in
which the Forest Service is involved include wildlife crimes,
fire/arson, timber and other property theft, theft and/or
destruction of archeological resources or natural resources,
illegal occupancy of national forest system lands, and threats
and assaults against Forest Service employees. In addition,
drug enforcement actions, authorized by the National Forest
System Drug Control Act of 1986, as amended, are designed to
detect and prevent the cultivation and manufacturing of
marijuana on national forest system lands.
NUMBER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES
In fiscal year 1997, the Forest Service employed 479 law
enforcement officers, 149 special agents, 41 reserve law
enforcement officers, and 39 administrative support personnel.
With the exception of 16 staff that work in the Washington D.C.
office, these staff are primarily assigned to field locations.
Law enforcement officers perform and supervise a variety of
duties that include the protection of Federal property and
resources from natural or user-related degradation, the
provision of safety and interpretive information to visitors,
assisting search and rescue operations, assisting wildland fire
suppression, and other duties. Special agents are involved in
planning and conducting investigations relating to alleged or
suspected violations of criminal laws. Special agents require a
knowledge of such items as laws of evidence, criminal
investigative techniques, court decisions concerning the
admissibility of evidence, constitutional rights, search and
seizure and related issues, and other criminal investigative
skills.
The 41 reserve law enforcement officers' principal duties
are outside of law enforcement--such as timber or recreation.
These staff may be called upon to perform law enforcement
duties on an emergency or as-needed basis. Forest Service
headquarters officials estimated that reserve law enforcement
officers spend between 10 percent and 35 percent of their time
performing law enforcement duties. Administrative support
personnel perform a variety of functions, including data entry
for case management, computer support, budget preparation and
analysis, procurement, and time and attendance.
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
The cost of law enforcement in the agency in fiscal year
1997 included about $43.8 million in payroll, and $18.4 million
in support costs. The total annual payroll for fiscal year 1997
for the law enforcement officers was about $29.5 million, while
the payroll for the special agents was about $12.6 million. In
fiscal year 1997, the payroll for the administrative staff was
about $1.7 million. According to Forest Service officials, no
payroll information was available for the 41 reserve law
enforcement officers because their principal duties were
outside of law enforcement.
In addition to payroll, in fiscal year 1997, the Forest
Service spent about $18.4 million in support costs for its law
enforcement personnel. This included about $5.2 million for
support costs to regions and field units for rent, telephone,
computer use, and radio dispatching services; about $4.8
million for fleet equipment; about $2.6 million for equipment
and supplies; about $2.2 million for travel; $1.3 million for
transfer of station costs, and about $2.3 million for other
costs, such as headquarters support, training, uniform and
special equipment.
For the 1997 report, you asked us to provide information on
the pay scales of Federal and nonFederal law enforcement
personnel. To address this request, we obtained information
from the Department of Justice, which collected 1993 data on
starting salaries for entry-level law enforcement officers from
661 state and local law enforcement agencies across the nation.
The data showed a wide range of starting salaries from a low of
about $10,000 in Louisiana to a high of about $50,000 in
California. (A listing of the range in salaries for each state
can be found in app. II.) As a comparison, the Forest Service's
entry-level salary in 1993 was $23,678.
OTHER ASPECTS OF FOREST SERVICE LAW ENFORCEMENT
To assist with providing law enforcement, the Forest
Service frequently enters into cooperative agreements with
state and local law enforcement agencies. These cooperative
agreements provide for the enforcement of state and local laws
on national forest system lands. In 1997, there were 717
cooperative agreements with state and local law enforcement
agencies. Of these agreements, 546 were cooperative patrol
agreements, which involved conducting routine patrols through
the Forest Service's developed recreation areas, and 171 were
agreements focusing on drug enforcement issues. As part of the
agreement, the Forest Service reimburses the state and local
agency for the cost of its activities. In fiscal year 1997, the
Forest Service paid about $6.3 million to reimburse state and
local law enforcement agencies for the costs of the services
provided under both patrol and drug enforcement cooperative
agreements.
For the 1997 report, you asked us to provide some
information on how frequently Federal agencies such as the FBI
and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) investigate crimes
occurring on national forest lands. The FBI and DEA, as a
general rule, have deferred to the Forest Service the
investigative responsibility for violations occurring within
national forest system lands. The Forest Service does not
routinely collect information on referrals to FBI and DEA.
However, according to the Forest Service, the FBI and DEA are
rarely involved in Forest Service criminal investigations. The
FBI has primary jurisdiction for a number of crimes, including
organized crime, financial crime, foreign counterintelligence,
civil rights, and others. By practice, the FBI does not involve
itself with the types of crimes handled by the Forest Service.
The Forest Service keeps DEA informed of investigations that
require investigative or enforcement powers outside the
boundaries of the national forest system.
The 1997 report also provided information on the number of
offenses that occurred on national forest system lands. (An
offense means that a crime has occurred. An arrest generally
means that someone has been identified as committing an
offense.) In 1996, there were 3,481 offenses involving serious
misdemeanors and felonies such as assaults, grand theft, and
murder, and 118,596 petty offenses such as careless driving,
discharging a firearm, use of firecrackers, alcohol violations,
and permit violations.
Finally, the report provided information on the number of
complaints against Forest Service law enforcement personnel. In
preparing for this testimony, we obtain updated information
which showed that there were 4 complaints in 1992; 13
complaints in 1993; 20 complaints in 1994; 25 complaints in
1995; 11 complaints in 1996; and 14 complaints in 1997. In
1997, as an example, the types of complaints made against
agency law enforcement staff included falsifying time and
attendance reports, verbal threats, obstruction of justice, and
inappropriate discharge of a weapon. The Forest Service has a
system to track the investigation and resolution of complaints
against law enforcement staff. Depending on the nature of the
complaint, it will either be investigated by agency regional
human resources staff, the Department of Agriculture Office of
the Inspector General, Forest Service law enforcement staff, or
the Department of Justice.
This concludes my statement. We would be happy to respond
to any questions that you or any other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9653.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9653.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9653.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9653.004
Statement of Robert C. Joslin, Deputy Chief for the National Forest
System, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am appearing before you today to discuss law enforcement
on National Forest System lands. I am accompanied by Bill
Wasley, Director of Law Enforcement and Investigations (LE&I)
for the Forest Service. I will cover the law enforcement
program and structure, authorities, cooperation with others,
and the special problems and challenges facing the Forest
Service law enforcement program.
The Forest Service manages approximately 192 million acres
of land in the United States. We are responsible for the
administration, use, and protection of the water, vegetation,
wildlife and fish, cultural, mineral, and other resources on
these lands. The National Forests and grasslands are also host
to over 800 million people who visit and use these lands each
year. We administer tens of thousands of permits, contracts,
and other authorizations that produce goods and services from
the National Forest System lands.
Law enforcement is an integral part of the Forest Service's
mission of ``Caring for the Land and Serving People.'' The goal
of the law enforcement program is to protect the public,
employees, and natural resources and other property under the
jurisdiction of the Forest Service.
Population increases around the country are driving urban
problems onto National Forest System lands. Drug use and sales,
alcohol incidents, assaults, thefts, murders, suicides, rape,
assault and gang activities are increasingly common on these
lands, as are threats and assaults directed against our
employees. The monetary value of forest products, and the
increased value of commercial recreation and special uses has
increased theft and other illegal activities. In short, the
need for law enforcement has increased.
Structure And Program
The Director of the Forest Service Law Enforcement and
Investigations (LE&I) organization reports directly to the
Chief. The Director has a Deputy Director and 4 Assistant
Directors in the Washington Office. The Director also has 9
Regional Special Agents-In-Charge who supervise the law
enforcement program in each region of the Forest Service.
Regional organizations vary, but generally consist of a small
regional staff, a zone supervisory level, and a supervisory
level at the forest. The uniformed law enforcement officers
work under the zone and forest-level supervisors. At this time
the Forest Service has approximately 450 uniformed law
enforcement officers and 130 criminal investigators.
Law enforcement of officers perform a full range of patrol-
type enforcement duties, such as enforcing compliance with
regulations for woodcutting, fire use, or dealing with
unauthorized occupancy and use of National Forest System lands.
Law enforcement officers regularly encounter and handle public
safety incidents such as traffic accidents, search and rescues,
disputes, shooting incidents, drug and alcohol possession and
use problems, and assaults. They conduct preliminary
investigations and assist Forest Service criminal investigators
in conducting some full investigations. Criminal investigators
conduct investigations regarding timber theft, theft of
archeological artifacts, threats against Forest Service
employees, wildland arson and human-caused fires, marijuana
cultivation, and damage to public property, among others.
In addition to patrol and investigation, our officers
advise and assist other field employees of the Forest Service
as they perform their public contact and administration work.
The natural resource backgrounds of many of the law enforcement
officers and criminal investigators greatly facilitates this
assistance.
The Forest Service grants full-range law enforcement
authority (the authority to carry and use defensive equipment)
only to law enforcement officers and criminal investigators.
Law enforcement officers complete an 11-week training course,
while criminal investigators complete an 8-week training
course. Both of these courses are taught at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). These basic training
courses teach basic law enforcement and investigation skills,
and train officers in Federal law enforcement legal
requirements, ethics, court systems and procedures. Both types
of officers also attend a 2 week course in land management
enforcement which focuses on timber theft, fire, illegal drug
enforcement and other programs or techniques unique to the
Forest Service. Officers must annually complete a minimum of 40
hours of in-service law enforcement training regarding policy,
enforcement issues and legal updates. They meet regular
training and qualification standards with their defensive
equipment, including quarterly firearms training. This training
is provided by Forest Service instructors trained and certified
at FLETC. Officers may also receive specialized advanced
training in timber theft, archeological resource theft,
marijuana cultivation enforcement, computer crime, white collar
fraud, and fire cause determination. Because of the extensive
work we do in these fields, some of our officers are nationally
and internationally recognized experts.
Investigations have positive results. Every year our
officers investigate thousands of wildfires to determine their
cause. In addition to any criminal prosecutions that may result
from these investigations, the Forest Service often seeks civil
remedies to recover the cost of suppression, and the value of
resources damaged. Arson cases investigated by LE&I personnel
in recent years have resulted in civil recoveries of over $7
million. Cases investigated by criminal investigators resulted
in the conviction of a man who burglarized Forest Service
facilities (over $31,000 in loss and damage), as well as the
conviction of an equipment company owner who had filed $66,000
in fraudulent claims. Hundreds of convictions have been
obtained from the enforcement of archeological resources
protection laws and regulations, including one case in Utah
where 9 individuals were convicted of multiple felonies
involving the theft of hundreds of artifacts from, and nearly
$500,000 in damage to, a prehistoric cave site. Civil
recoveries have also resulted from these cases. Convictions for
timber theft or damage have been obtained. Last April, a man in
Washington state was convicted of causing $850,000 in damage
while cutting and removing 50 old-growth cedar trees in the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.
The Forest Service has played a significant role in drug
enforcement for over twenty years. In 1997, eighty drug labs or
drug lab dumps were found on National Forest System lands.
Working cooperatively with our state and local law enforcement
partners, the Forest Service eradicated over 300,000 marijuana
plants valued at nearly $950 million from approximately 4,400
sites. Officers made over 2,400 arrests, and seized nearly $14
million worth of processed marijuana, $20 million of cocaine,
and over $1.1 million in assets. Marijuana cultivation and
other drug activity continue to present a risk to the public
using the National Forest System lands as well as our
employees. In 1997, 26 people were assaulted by growers on
National Forest System lands, 211 weapons were found in the
possession of growers, and 48 booby traps were found at growing
sites.
The Forest Service LE&I program is funded by a separate
line item in the budget. The appropriated funding for LE&I in
fiscal year 1997 was $59,637,000; the appropriated funding for
the program in fiscal year 1998 is $63,967,000. The President's
budget request for Fiscal Year 1999 is $67,373,000.
Authorities
Law enforcement has been an integral part of resource
protection since the formation of the forest reserve system in
1897. Section 1 of the Organic Administration Act of 1897,
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations
for the protection and use of national forests and prescribes
criminal sanctions for violations of the regulations.
Enforcement of the Forest Service's criminal regulations and
other authorities protect natural resources and ensure the
safety of the public on National Forest System lands. Upon
creation of the agency in 1905, Congress authorized agency
employees to make arrests for violations of laws and
regulations relating to national forests.
While the Federal mandate to control and regulate the
national forests is clear, States retain civil and criminal
jurisdiction to enforce state laws on National Forest System
lands. When authorized, Forest Service law enforcement officers
may enforce laws other than those pertaining to the national
forests. In the Act of May 23, 1908, Congress authorized Forest
Service officials to enforce within national forests certain
state laws as well as Federal laws unrelated to the national
forests. The Cooperative Law Enforcement Act, authorizes the
Forest Service to reimburse local law enforcement agencies for
enforcement of state and local laws on National Forest System
lands.
In 1986, Congress passed the National Forest System Drug
Control Act, which was amended in 1988, authorizing the Forest
Service to investigate drug offenses where they occur on, or
affecting the administration of, National Forest System lands.
The Forest Service drug control program is an important element
in meeting strategic goals and objectives articulated in the
1998 National Drug Control Strategy. We work closely with the
Office of National Drug Control Policy on drug control.
Cooperation With Others
Each year increases in public and commercial use of
National Forest System lands causes increases in crimes against
people and resources. Other Federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies are similarly faced with increasing crime
trends that tax their abilities to accomplish their work with
limited resources. Although Forest Service officers have
various authorities to enforce state and local laws,
cooperation with state and local agencies in the enforcement of
these laws on public lands is encouraged. Due to the remoteness
of most National Forest System lands, and the limited staffing
of other agencies, our officers are often the first or only
officer able to respond.
The Cooperative Law Enforcement Act authorizes the Forest
Service to reimburse local law enforcement agencies for
expenses associated with law enforcement services on National
Forest System lands. In 1997, the Forest Service had 546
cooperative agreements with state and local agencies to perform
routine law enforcement patrol activities, and 171 drug
enforcement cooperative agreements. These agreements provided
funds totaling over $5 million dollars to local law enforcement
agencies in 1997. Each agreement is negotiated at the local
level between the Forest Service and the local agency, and
funds are paid on a reimbursable basis. The agreements often
address other cooperative efforts such as mutual back-up,
equipment and information sharing, and enhanced coverage in
remote or heavily used areas.
The Forest Service has Memorandums of Understanding (MOU)
with a variety of Federal agencies such as the U.S. Marshals
Service, the Department of the Interior, and the Drug
Enforcement Administration. These MOU's provide for
coordination of enforcement or investigative activities that
are mutually beneficial to the cooperating agencies.
Special Problems And Challenges
Total incidents reported by Forest Service officers in 1997
were triple those reported in 1992. The trends of increased use
of the National Forests and increasing urbanization stretch our
patrol and investigation staff. Large events such as the
upcoming 2002 Olympics, increasing demonstrations, drug
smuggling, a large number of recent natural disasters, and
large group events on National Forest System land further
impact our local coverage by requiring us to move our
enforcement personnel around the country.
Our budget has been impacted by the various law enforcement
officer pay requirements of Congress, such outlaw Enforcement
Availability Pay and law enforcement officer pay comparability.
The tracking of crime trends and our workload and
accomplishments are becoming increasingly important. Two
computerized data base programs are currently in use. The
Forest Service is in the process of developing a new database
system that will replace the two existing systems, utilizing
the Forest Service's new computer system. The new database
system will meet the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting System
requirements, and provide modern computer technology to all
levels of our law enforcement program. We also recently
implemented a new field activity reporting system used by
individual officers and organizational levels. These changes
will provide us with more accurate and consistent data on our
accomplishments.
We have implemented a large number of program and
organizational changes since 1994 that have improved the
oversight, professionalism, and customer service focus of our
organization. Our emphasis in organizational change has been to
focus our field criminal investigators on investigation duties,
and to increase the staffing of uniformed law enforcement
officers, especially in areas where there has been little or no
coverage.
Congress directed that the Forest Service complete an
independent study of the current LE&I organization and submit a
report by March 1, 1997. The report was completed by Star
Mountain, Inc., the Star Mountain Report, and made five
recommendations:
1. LE&I should aggressively apply the decisions from the LE&I
Strategic Plan Report for the Year 2000 throughout the
organization and evaluate the effect of improved organizational
management procedures and processes.
2. LE&I should identify the resources necessary to maintain
effectiveness in the future and communicate those requirements
to the Chief, Forest Service.
3. The Forest Service should provide a mechanism whereby line
management can reprogram funds for additional cooperative
effort in support of enforcement activity where appropriate.
4. LE&I should examine the potential for use of existing
block grants and examine the potential for establishing a block
grant to fund training and equipment for cooperative law
enforcement personnel.
5. LE&I should review the alternative approaches for
providing full law enforcement coverage while reducing costs.
In looking at alternatives for cooperative efforts with state and
local agencies, the report also concluded that block grants were not
viewed as a viable alternative to the current cooperative agreement
reimbursement program for having other law enforcement agencies assume
LE&I law enforcement responsibilities. However, targeted block grants
could supplement the existing cooperative agreement program to help
fund specialized equipment and training required for Forest Service-
type work. We are currently analyzing our cooperative law enforcement
program for ways to maximize its effectiveness and best meet the needs
of impacted state and local agencies.
Conclusion
In summary, our law enforcement program is a valuable part of the
Forest Service's mission of ``Caring for the Land and Serving People.''
Crime problems have increased and have migrated to the National Forest
System lands. Our officers meet accepted standards for Federal law
enforcement training. A strong cooperative law enforcement program
allows us to efficiently share scarce resources. We are currently
facing a myriad of challenges in public safety, public service, and
resource protection, and are working on improving our program and
organization through training, updating equipment, and improving our
reporting systems to respond to these challenges. This concludes my
prepared remarks and we would be happy to answer questions.