[Senate Hearing 108-454]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 108-454

    PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                      ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

     TO CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET 
                         FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

                               __________

                             MARCH 2, 2004


                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources


                                 ______

93-709              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                            WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001

               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                 PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma                JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho                DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri            MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana                EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon                 DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky                CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona                     MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

                       Alex Flint, Staff Director
                   Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
               Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
                Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                 Carole McGuire, Deputy Staff Director
                    Scott Miller, Democratic Counsel


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                               STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii..................    30
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................     4
Bosworth, Dale N., Chief, Forest Service, Department of 
  Agriculture....................................................     9
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado........
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho....................     2
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico.............     3
Feinstein, Hon. Diane, U.S. Senator from California..............    23
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska...................    18
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, 
  Department of Agriculture, accompanied by Hank Kashdan, 
  Director, Program and Budget Analysis, Forest Service..........     5
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming....................     1
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................    28

                                APPENDIX

Responses to additional questions................................    37

 
    PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in 
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas 
presiding.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Thomas. Welcome to the meeting of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee on the Forest Service budget. I 
want to welcome Under Secretary Mark Rey and Chief of the 
Forest Service Dale Bosworth and look forward to hearing about 
the fiscal year 2005 Forest Service budget.
    I want to thank Senator Bingaman and our committee members 
for attending. I suspect you will see some more. Our Federal 
forests face many problems in the tight budget climate we are 
in. I am sure many of us will differ on how to best expend the 
limited amount of funding that will be available, but that is 
not an unusual thing.
    I know that each of us will want to ask questions about the 
program and the initiatives that are important to our States.
    Finally, I want to take time to thank all of those who 
worked so hard to gain the passage of the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act. All of us on this committee worked to improve 
the bill and to gain passage of the bill. Under Secretary Rey 
and Chief Bosworth, I know that you and your people worked very 
hard on this legislation as well, and we thank you and expect 
that you will expend much more energy on the implementation of 
the law.
    I would just ask for you to confine your oral comments to 5 
minutes or near that and we will submit your written and oral 
testimony in full for the hearing record. I would like to ask 
the committee members to keep it as short as possible, however 
do it however you would like, sir, and we will rotate back and 
forth as we have more members. The chairman is participating 
this morning in the budget hearing and member meeting, so they 
are trying to move forward to get that on the floor, and 
therefore he is not here this morning.
    So with that, Senator Bingaman.
    [The prepared statements of Senators Campbell, Craig, and 
Domenici follow:]

          Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 
                       U.S. Senator From Colorado

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Undersecretary Rey 
and Chief Bosworth for appearing before the committee today and I am 
looking forward to the testimony that they will be providing us 
shortly. I appreciate your attendance since many sections of the Forest 
Service's budget deal directly with my home state of Colorado.
    Nearly all lands issues are crucial to my home state since Colorado 
currently has almost 14.5 million acres of National Forest Land, out of 
which 3.1 million acres are designated as Wilderness. And, the BLM 
currently has 8.4 million acres in Colorado out of which 52,000 acres 
are designated wilderness.
    I am heartened to see that with the passage of the Healthy Forest 
Initiative, state and national foresters now have many of the tools 
they need to better manage our public lands and forests, particularly 
as it relates to forest health and protecting the crucial Wildland 
Urban Interface areas.
    However, states such as Colorado, whose timber industry has long 
since declined, face a unique challenge in that they lack the 
infrastructure to meet the management objectives put forth by the 
Administration. In fact, in a Rocky Mountain News article dating last 
May, shortly after passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, Eric 
Sorenson of Delta Timber, which has about 15 employees said, ``The 
opponents say this will help the big timber industry in Colorado,'' 
said ``There isn't one.'' Currently, we only have 12 small mills in 
Colorado.
    Conversely, there are many small companies, such as Greenleaf 
Forestry & Wood Products in Westcliffe, Colorado, which have found a 
niche and are pioneering a new, community-based forestry industry. They 
assist homeowners in forest management, materials processing, and 
create economic uses for materials salvaged from these projects such as 
roofing materials, siding, and home furnishings while providing much-
needed jobs for depressed local economies. I commend these sorts of 
innovative companies and am confidant that they are part of the 
solution and represent a significant component of both the future of 
sustainable forestry and good stewardship of our nation's forests.
    During the time for questions I will raise some concerns regarding 
timber sales and forest plan management objectives.
    These issue areas are traditionally very sensitive to my state, 
particularly among my fellow Coloradans who deal with these concerns 
daily. I have some other concerns related to issues in Colorado that I 
will further address at the appropriate time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator From Idaho

    I appreciate the work and time that has gone into creating the 
budget that will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Forest Service. 
In reviewing the Forest Service's budget for Fiscal Year 2005, it once 
again appears to continue to reflect the major goals and objectives of 
the Chief. And I look forward once again to working with the Forest 
Service on our shared goal of continuing to promote, enhance, and 
conserve our public lands.
Weeds
    In Idaho and much of the West, we have a large and increasing 
problem with noxious weeds. These weeds invade our public and private 
lands destroying both valuable habitat for many species and entire 
ecosystems. Private landowners are required in most states to do 
whatever they can to prevent and eradicate these damaging plants. 
However, public lands--especially in Idaho--adjacent to private land, 
are not subject to such a requirement.
    It's encouraging to see that reducing the impacts from invasive 
species is the Forest Service's number two goal in the FY05 budget. In 
your overview of this goal, it is stated that weeds cost the public 
more than $138 billion PER YEAR. However, a closer look at your budget 
says that the budget for invasive species will be reduced by $25.6 
million from FY04 levels, although six FTE's will be added. Could you 
provide the Committee with your thoughts on this disparate approach?

Forest Legacy
    As you know, the Forest Legacy program continues to grow in 
popularity and need. I appreciate the attention and time the Forest 
Service is putting into this program. However, I am disappointed that 
the Idaho project, the St. Joe/Mica Creek project, did not receive an 
increase in funding. In fact, it is budgeted at the same number as 
FY04, $3.5 million, the same number I worked to secure through the 
Appropriations process. While the recipient of the program in this case 
is Potlatch Corporation, the need is not any less than a smaller 
private landowner. I will again work with my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee to try to increase this amount and would like 
to see the Forest Service take a closer look at this critical project.

Timber Program
    I am very excited to see an increase in the forest products and 
timber sale program and I commend the Chief for his work in this area. 
While a modest increase of 4% is proposed for the timber sale program 
and 19% is proposed for the timber salvage program--this is a step in 
the right direction. The removal of trees from our over populated 
forests significantly reduces the potential for disease and fire. Not 
to mention, the positive impact this has on our resource dependent 
communities.

Fire Program
    After all of the hard work last year that went into the passage of 
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, I commend the Forest Service's 
efforts to increase the wildland fire suppression funding by 15%. Their 
efforts along with the Department of the Interior to fully fund this 
critical piece of legislation shows how committed the agencies are to 
tackling this issue that is plaguing our Western communities. I realize 
the work that will be completed in this fiscal year is only a drop in 
the bucket, but it is the first step in the right direction that the 
agencies have taken in a long time.

State and Private
    I am disappointed to see, what I feel is a drastic cut in State and 
Private forestry programs. The technical and financial assistance that 
is provided to our communities is a critical piece in the overall 
partnership in protecting our communities from wildfire. I look forward 
to the explanation and reasoning behind this decision.

Legislative Proposals
    Last, I am very supportive of several legislative proposals by the 
agency. I would like to reiterate that I continue to be committed to 
finding a workable legislative solution for Recreation Fees and will 
continue to work with the Forest Service. I also want to reiterate that 
I do not support fees for dispersed recreation and will not support 
legislation that charges for it. Next, I am supportive of legislation 
to allow the Forest Service to sell excess property and to retain the 
receipts to pay for improvements or other administrative purposes. As 
the Chief knows, I have to two bills that have passed the Senate and 
are working their way through the House that do just that very thing 
and I look forward to working with the Forest Service on this concept.
    The list goes on and on regarding the number of things I could 
comment on--for now I will leave it at that. I appreciate the 
Undersecretary and Chief's time today and look forward to the 
testimony.

                                 ______
                                 
       Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator 
                            From New Mexico

    I want to welcome Undersecretary Mark Rey and Chief of the Forest 
Service Dale Bosworth and I look forward to hearing about the FY 2005 
Forest Service proposed budget.
    I also want to thank Senator Bingaman and our other Committee 
members for attending this hearing. Given the problems facing our 
federal forests and the tight budget climate we are in, I am sure many 
of us will differ on how best to expend the limited amount of funding 
that will be available.
    I know that each of us will want to ask questions about the 
programs and initiatives that are important to our State.
    Finally, I want to take this time to thank all of those Senators 
who worked so hard to gain passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration 
Act. All of us on this Committee worked to improve the bill and to gain 
passage of the bill.
    Undersecretary Rey and Chief Bosworth, I know that you and your 
people worked very hard to get this legislation, and I expect that you 
will expend much more energy on implementation of this law.
    Please confine your oral comments to 5 minutes each and we will put 
both your written and oral testimony into the official record for this 
hearing.
    I would ask that committee members keep there opening comments as 
short as possible, so that we can get to the questions and answer 
portion of this hearing. Senator Bingaman, would you care to make an 
opening statement? Then I will rotate back and forth based on the order 
in which Committee members arrived.

         STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR 
                        FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me welcome our witnesses, Under Secretary Rey and Chief 
Bosworth. I did want to mention just as an opening matter a 
couple of concerns, two significant failings that I see in the 
proposed budget again this year, and just indicate my concern 
about them.
    The first is the chronic failure to adequately address what 
the Chief referred to last year as, quote, ``the chaos of 
transfers,'' end quote. Each year we hear testimony about how 
the administration's request will meet the fire suppression 
needs and help avoid this chaos of transfers each year. That 
is, transfers from one account to another. Each year we end up 
scrambling for emergency appropriations to cover growing 
firefighting costs and to repay important accounts that have 
been raided in the mean time.
    These transfers cause chaos, they cause delay, they cause 
us to dismantle projects in all of our States, projects such as 
thinning and watershed and species protection and energy 
production. We are still short nearly $150 million from what 
was borrowed last year, as I understand it. I am disappointed 
that the administration seems to again have put us on this path 
to emergency appropriations and more of this transfer chaos 
with a request that I do not think passes the straight-faced 
test, given that all indications are that we will have another 
bad fire season in the West. That was the first concern.
    The second is the administration's insistence on cutting 
funds for rehabilitating and restoring forests after fires. The 
administration is again proposing to cut the rehabilitation 
program. This year the proposed cut is 57 percent. The proposal 
last year from the administration was that we should zero out 
the funding for this program.
    As all of us know, this has been a great concern on a 
bipartisan basis here. Senator Domenici specifically raised it 
last year as a serious and glaring problem. I spoke up in 
agreement with that concern. We heard about how rehabilitation 
and restoration needs are met through the fire suppression and 
other accounts, but the simple fact is that these critical 
community and ecological needs are not being met.
    In the Southwest, of course, and in much of the West, we 
have the daunting restoration work not only that is a result of 
the recent fires, but also as a result of the kill from the 
bark beetle. I do not see any indication in the budget proposal 
that the administration is willing to deal with that problem.
    So those are concerns that I wanted to mention before we 
got into the testimony. Again, I thank the witnesses for being 
here.
    Senator Thomas. Thank you.
    Well, I guess we are talking about a budget that, taking 
inflation into account, will be approximately one-half of one 
percent below where we were in 2004. Some of the major 
objectives I think are very interesting and we would like to 
hear more about them: the catastrophic wildfire risk, of 
course, and where those funds, how they will be allocated; the 
invasive species issue is a very important one, too, to many of 
us.
    There is also the Forest Service plans and operations 
having to do with energy and energy supply and the availability 
of access. I am also interested in hearing something more about 
the recreation fee program, which is something that is current, 
of course, here.
    Mr. Secretary, if you would like to go ahead, sir.

        STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL 
     RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
   ACCOMPANIED BY HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND BUDGET 
                    ANALYSIS, FOREST SERVICE

    Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman, for 
the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2005 
budget for the Forest Service. That will be the budget for the 
centennial year of the Forest Service. Inasmuch as this is the 
agency's first hearing on the President's 2005 budget for the 
Forest Service, before discussing the specifics of the budget I 
would like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude and 
that of the President for the bipartisan support of this 
committee that led to the passage of the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act. All of the members of this committee 
understand the devastation and tragedy caused by catastrophic 
wildfire and more than half of the members have experienced it 
firsthand in their States. So again, thank you for your help in 
seeing that bipartisan piece of legislation become a reality.
    The Chief will be highlighting a number of items of 
importance to the Forest Service budget today. In my testimony 
I will address just two of these issues. I will talk about the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act and the agency's achievement of 
its second clean audit opinion in 2 years.
    Let me now specifically address the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act. Prior to fiscal year 2000, attention was 
beginning to focus on the vulnerability of natural resources to 
catastrophic wildland fire due to the buildup of hazardous 
fuels. The devastating fire season of 2000 brought the 
seriousness of the forest health problem to the homes of all 
Americans through seemingly constant reports in newspapers, on 
television, and in other media.
    I am glad that Congress has responded quickly with its 
support for treatment of hazardous fuels, invasive species 
infestations, and other threats to our Nation's forests. The 
overwhelming support for the Healthy Forests Restoration Act in 
Congress underscores the importance of this legislation across 
the Nation.
    In reflecting the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, 
the fiscal year 2005 President's budget places increased 
emphasis on protecting communities and property from the 
effects of castastrophic wildfire. The President's budget 
request provides funding for many activities that support 
forest health, including a funding request for $760 million for 
activities in the Forest Service and the Department of the 
Interior that directly and visibly will result in protecting 
communities, restoring watersheds through the reductions of 
hazardous fuels, and implementing the kinds of projects called 
for in title I of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
    Now I would like to address the second issue, which is the 
clean audit opinion that the Forest Service recently received. 
This is the second unqualified opinion in the last 2 years for 
the Forest Service, after many years of financial 
accountability problems. The Forest Service and the Department 
are working to ensure that timely, reliable financial 
information is provided in which the receipt of a clean opinion 
is the byproduct of an efficient and cost-effective financial 
management organization and system that are sustainable in the 
long run. So that second clean audit opinion is very important 
to us.
    Now, if I might, I would like to digress for just a moment 
and respond to Senator Bingaman's two concerns. I do not think 
that we have ever said that fire borrowing is not a problem. 
Indeed, I think our testimony over the last couple years has 
highlighted the problems that that creates. In previous budget 
requests the administration has suggested the creation of a 
government-wide contingency fund to provide a fund available to 
eliminate the need for fire borrowing from program accounts, 
and that is a proposal that as far as we are concerned is still 
on the table.
    I think what we have said throughout is, whether it is that 
proposal or some other, that we are eager to work with the 
appropriations, authorizing, and budget committees to see if we 
can find a better way to pay for the firefighting costs that we 
incur now on an increasingly severe basis as we experience a 
series of catastrophic wildfire seasons.
    With regard to rehabilitation work, much of the 
rehabilitation work that is increase as a result of the 2003 
fires is already funded as a result of the supplemental 
appropriations provided in the omnibus appropriations bill. So 
what you see is in addition to that and we think will stand us 
in good stead for the longer term rehabilitation work that 
needs to be done.
    Much of the immediate rehabilitation work, that which 
occurs in the immediate post-fire environment, has already been 
paid for using fire suppression dollars under the authority to 
conduct burned area emergency recovery work under our fire 
suppression program.
    So we think that the administration's budget request as 
best we know the circumstances on the ground right now will be 
adequate for those needs in addition to the money provided in 
the supplemental appropriations in the 2003 omnibus bill.
    With that, I would be happy to turn to the Chief.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]

Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 
                 Environment, Department of Agriculture

    Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the Committee, thank 
you for the opportunity to discuss the President's Fiscal Year FY 2005 
Budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased to join Dale Bosworth, 
Chief of the Forest Service, at the hearing today on the budget for the 
centennial year of the Forest Service. This is the agency's first 
hearing on the President's FY 2005 Budget for the Forest Service. 
Before discussing the specifics of that budget, I would like to take 
the opportunity express my gratitude and that of the President for the 
bipartisan support of this Committee that led to passing the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). All of the members of this Committee 
understand the devastation and tragedy caused by catastrophic wildfire 
and more than half of the members have experienced it firsthand in 
their States. The commitment to protecting communities and natural 
resources you demonstrated in passing the HFRA will be reflected in the 
priorities of the Forest Service for years to come. Again, thank you.

                                OVERVIEW

    Chief Bosworth will be highlighting a number of items of importance 
to the Forest Service today. In my testimony, I want to address two of 
these issues as well. I will talk more about the HFRA, and the agency's 
achievement of its second ``clean'' audit opinion in 2 years. In 
managing natural resources, we often use the term ``sustainability'' in 
context of maintaining long-term forest and rangeland health and 
ensuring the long-term delivery of services to the American people. The 
bipartisan support demonstrated by Congress in passing the HFRA will 
ensure significant and measurable returns on the investment of the 
American public. ``Sustainability'' can also be applied to obtaining a 
clean opinion in terms of maintaining the public's trust that their 
funds are being managed effectively. Implementing HRFA and effective 
financial management will require diligent and concerted efforts on the 
part of employees throughout the Forest Service to take the agency to 
sustainable levels of improvement. I am confident that the Forest 
Service under Chief Bosworth's leadership will meet these challenges 
and continue to provide the high quality of natural resources 
management that the American public expects.

                    HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT

    Let me specifically address the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 
Prior to fiscal year (FY) 2000, attention was beginning to focus on the 
vulnerability of natural resources to catastrophic wildland fires due 
to the buildup of hazardous fuels. In the late 1990's, the Forest 
Service developed risk maps that highlighted fuels buildups and serious 
threats to forest health throughout the Nation. I recall Senator Craig 
noting in reviewing what was referred to as ``forest risk maps,'' that 
northern Idaho was a ``big red blob'' signifying the dangerous buildup 
of hazardous fuels in that area. Because of the serious nature of the 
problem throughout the Nation, and especially in the West, Congress 
responded by authorizing focused experiments to restore health and 
productivity of our forests and rangelands by authorizing the Quincy 
Library Group activities in northern California, as well as stewardship 
end results contracting demonstration authority.
    The devastating fire season of 2000 brought the seriousness of the 
forest health problem to the homes of all Americans, through seemingly 
constant reports in newspapers, on television, and in other media. The 
catastrophic fire seasons of 2002 and 2003 further underscored the 
problem. Although the Forest Service and bureaus in the Department of 
the Interior have worked together diligently since 2000, the complexity 
and extent of the problem do not afford us quick solutions. From 2001 
to 2003, the Forest Service and Department of the Interior agencies 
have treated a total of 7 million acres to reduce the levels of 
hazardous fuels in our Nation's forests and grasslands. In FY 2004, the 
Forest Service will treat an additional 1.6 million acres and plans to 
treat 1.8 million acres in FY 2005 with hazardous fuels funds. 
Additionally, in FY 2004, the agency will accomplish more than 600,000 
acres of hazardous fuels reduction through other land management 
activities including wildlife habitat improvement, vegetation 
management, and the sale of forest products. This integration of land 
management treatments is an important aspect of the President's healthy 
forest emphasis
    Congress has responded quickly with its support for treatment of 
hazardous fuels, invasive species infestations, and other threats to 
our Nation's forests. Funding for hazardous fuels reduction and fire 
suppression activities since FY 2000 has increased dramatically. In 
response to the President's Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI), Congress, 
with strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, passed 
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act in December 2003, which contains 
key elements of the HFI. This Act gives the Forest Service and the 
Department of the Interior much-needed tools and authorities to reduce 
the threat of catastrophic wildfire to communities and to restore our 
Nation's forests and grasslands. Mr. Chairman, over the past several 
years, your support and that of Senator Bingaman and other members of 
the Committee have provided a focus on natural resource management 
today. This is especially true for the support you have shown for the 
HFI and HFRA.
    The overwhelming support for the HFRA in Congress underscores the 
importance of this legislation across the Nation. The passage of this 
legislation shows the American people that Congress and the 
Administration are working together to combat hazardous fuels buildups, 
insect and disease infestations, and other threats to the Nation's 
forests and grasslands. Through the HFRA, Congress has also provided 
Federal land management agencies with additional tools to improve the 
condition of watersheds, as well as fish and wildlife habitat; enhance 
grazing allotments; and utilize biomass from forest lands, which may in 
turn provide local communities with new, and often needed, economic 
opportunities.

                       HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE

    In reflecting the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, the FY 
2005 President's Budget places increased emphasis on protecting 
communities and property from the effects of catastrophic wildfire. The 
President's Budget provides funding for many activities that support 
forest health, including $760 million for activities in the Forest 
Service and the Department of the Interior that directly and visibly 
will result in protecting communities and restoring watersheds through 
the reduction of hazardous fuels. With this funding and by working 
together, the Forest Service and Interior bureaus will be able to treat 
more acres more quickly. Much of the coordination for these activities 
will come about through the 10-Year Cohesive Strategy and 
Implementation Plan, in which Federal, State, tribal, and local 
partnerships have formed a foundation to improve the protection of 
natural resources and communities.
    Some of the key aspects of the HFI include administrative 
initiatives that help expedite projects designed to restore forest and 
rangeland health. These efforts include new procedures, provided under 
the National Environmental Policy Act, to allow priority fuels 
reduction and forest restoration projects identified through 
collaboration with State local, and tribal governments to move forward 
more quickly. Guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality has 
helped to improve environmental assessments for priority forest health 
projects. As a result, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior 
have developed 15 pilot fuels projects using this guidance and have 
completed the assessments on 13 of the 15 projects. Another improvement 
to the administrative process has been early and more meaningful public 
participation in the planning and implementation of forest health 
projects.
    Let me provide some examples of what can be accomplished with the 
new authorities. Due to its mountainous topography, the Gila National 
Forest in southern New Mexico has the highest fire occurrences in the 
State. Dense stands of mature trees and a continuing drought have 
combined to create a very dangerous wildland fire situation that 
threatens local communities and wildlife and fisheries habitat. In the 
summer of 2003, the Gila National Forest successfully used expedited 
administrative processes to complete planning on four categorical 
exclusions under the Healthy Forests Initiative. The four projects 
total 510 acres. All of the projects will reduce hazardous fuels by 
removing trees mechanically and using prescribed fire. Small diameter 
non-commercial trees will be chipped or piled and burned. Since some of 
the projects are located in and around communities, this effort will 
afford additional protection to the communities, which may be the 
difference that avoids disaster during a wildland fire.
    In Arizona, the benefits of stewardship contracting authority, 
which was significantly enhanced under HFRA, will be realized through a 
10-year project on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. The White 
River stewardship project, which will start this spring, includes 
multiple treatments over a 150,000-acre area. The project will use the 
full stewardship contracting authority authorized in HFRA, thereby 
reducing costs of current contracting methods by one-half to two-
thirds. The project has the full support of the Governor, county 
commissioners, and local officials.
    The administrative relief provided in the Healthy Forests 
Initiative made possible the planning and implementation of these 
projects in the same year, thereby allowing projects that are essential 
to protecting communities to proceed as quickly as possible. HFI is 
helping to decrease the wildfire threat to communities in a timely 
manner and promote a healthier forest. I firmly believe that over the 
long term, the reduction of hazardous fuels in priority areas through 
efforts supported by the HFRA will be the single most important factor 
in reducing the cost of wildfire suppression.
    With Federal wildfire suppression costs exceeding $1 billion in 3 
out of the last 4 fiscal years, this factor alone makes passage of the 
HFRA an important accomplishment. The FY 2005 President's Budget also 
reflects a continued commitment to containing wildfire suppression 
costs by including cost containment performance measures and 
implementation of actions called for in the FY 2004 President's Budget, 
including a study of the use of aviation resources on large fires. An 
emphasis on the accountability of line officers and incident commanders 
also will be continued.

                          CLEAN AUDIT OPINION

    Now I would like to address the second issue, which is the 
``clean'' audit opinion the Forest Service recently received. This is 
the second unqualified opinion in the last 2 years for the Forest 
Service, after many years of financial accountability problems. The 
Forest Service and the Department are working to ensure that timely, 
reliable financial information is provided in which the receipt of a 
clean opinion is a byproduct of an efficient and cost-effective 
financial management organization and system sustainable in the long 
term. Chief Bosworth can be justifiably proud of the accomplishment of 
two clean audits, although as I noted last year, it is the minimum the 
public should expect. However, as he will tell you later, achieving 
this opinion required a Herculean effort by Forest Service employees 
that cannot be sustained with the organization that is currently in 
place. This effort was highlighted in the USDA's Office of Inspector 
General's Audit Report for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002, which stated 
that the Forest Service does not operate as an effective, sustainable, 
and accountable financial management organization. This illustrates 
additional work on business process design, operation, and control 
needs to be undertaken to address the reportable conditions and 
material weaknesses indicated in the FY 2002 and FY 2003 audits.
    With this in mind, there are two imperative objectives the Forest 
Service will be facing this year: sustaining the clean audit opinion 
for FY 2004 and, even more importantly, addressing the underlying 
financial management infrastructure challenges the Forest Service faces 
by building a highly reliable and cost-effective financial management 
organization. A massive effort to meet the FY 2004 accelerated and 
congressionally-mandated audit deadline of November 15, 2004 is already 
under way. The approach being used is different than those used in the 
past, in an effort to find and address financial accountability 
problems as early as possible. In addition, the agency is taking steps 
to consolidate and centralize operations where feasible and practicable 
in order to make a more efficient and cost-effective organization. I 
know Chief Bosworth is committed to implementing reforms that will 
ensure the continued trust of the American taxpayer and the most 
efficient administrative organization possible.

                               CONCLUSION

    Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me emphasize the importance of the FY 
2005 President's Budget for the Forest Service. We have great 
opportunities and challenges ahead. Due to the support of Congress for 
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, we can pursue a strategy for 
returning our Nation's forests and grasslands to a healthy state. As 
you know, this will take time, but with the continued support of your 
Committee and Congress, we will be able to see significant, sustained 
progress in that direction and will ultimately reach our goal.
    I look forward to working with you in implementing the agency's 
fiscal year 2005 program and would be happy to answer any questions.

    Senator Thomas. Thank you.
    Chief Bosworth.

             STATEMENT OF DALE N. BOSWORTH, CHIEF, 
           FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    Mr. Bosworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman. 
I do want to thank you especially for your continued support of 
the Forest Service mission and particularly for the support in 
passing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Its passage is 
going to help our organization become much more efficient in 
terms of getting some of that work done on the ground that 
needs to be done.
    I would like to note that, after looking at the membership 
of the committee, that half of the members, between half and 
two-thirds of the members of the committee, have felt the 
effects of catastrophic wildfire in the past few years. I think 
that reflects how widespread our problem is. The need to 
prevent this in the future is exactly why the HFRA is so 
important.
    I want to discuss the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and 
the wildfire issues more, but first I would like to note that, 
as Secretary Rey said, this is our--next year will be our 
centennial year and this is our 101st budget of the Forest 
Service. In 1905 the Agriculture Appropriations Act for the 
Forest Service was slightly less than a million dollars in 
total. In 1905 Secretary Wilson of USDA gave instructions to 
the Chief, Gifford Pinchot, that are the basis for the multiple 
use principles that guide us today. Those were: ``administer 
forest reserves for the greatest good for the greatest number 
in the long run.''
    That term ``long run'' I think is synonymous with the term 
``sustainability'' that we use often today. So my remarks are 
primarily about sustainability, and I will frame those by 
talking about healthy forests in the context of what I have 
been referring to as the four great threats to our Nation's 
forests and grasslands. The first of those is the unnatural 
accumulation of buildup of fuel, with the resulting fires. The 
second one is unwanted invasive species that we see all across 
the country. The third is loss of open space and the fourth is 
effects of unmanaged recreation. People love their national 
forests to death in some cases.
    Before talking about those four threats, though, I would 
like to talk a little bit about financial management. As 
Secretary Rey said, we did get our second clean audit opinion. 
We are happy with that, but we burned out a lot of our 
hardworking employees in the process. We are spending about 
over $125 million every year just in our financial management. 
That is too much. Those are dollars that should be going to the 
ground.
    This effort is not sustainable organized the way that we 
are. We are actually organized, I think, pretty well for the 
1950's. We need to reorganize for the future. I intend to do a 
significant centralization of our financial management. I still 
believe in decentralization of decisionmaking, but our 
financial management needs to be centralized.
    I know that some of the members of this committee may hear 
from some of your constituents when we start doing that and I 
hope that we will have your support and understanding and would 
be happy to brief any of you as we work our way through this. 
But we have to do this if we are going to sustain the public 
trust in Forest Service financial management.
    Now, I would like to talk about what I think I know more 
about and that is management of our natural resources. I will 
start with the first of the four threats that I mentioned 
earlier. Last week I was in southern California with our 
national leadership team and we held our national leadership 
team meeting near Lake Arrowhead so we could view some of the 
devastation of the fires and also look at the hundreds of 
thousands of acres of bark beetle damage occurring in that 
area.
    I am very concerned about what I saw--the widespread forest 
mortality. We are incinerating, burning in incinerators, 
something like 5300 tons per month of wood, just to get it out 
of the woods because there is no other place to take it. That 
would be enough to build 500 homes. We are burying in landfills 
probably three times that amount in order to remove that dead 
material from the woods. That is next door to one of the 
largest markets in the United States, one of the largest 
consumptive areas in the United States, where we are importing 
two by fours from other places to local Home Depots while right 
up on the mountaintop we are having to bury wood that could be 
used.
    I am just an old forester and I do not know a lot about 
trade issues and I am not really talking about trade issues. I 
am talking about the fact that past practices have eliminated 
any wood-based infrastructure from the market in these areas. 
So we are burning wood and burying wood that should and could 
be used as forest products, and that is painful as a 
professional forester for me to observe.
    I think that problem either exists or will exist around the 
rest of this country if we do not maintain some kind of 
infrastructure for being able to utilize some of our wood 
products.
    So how do we deal with this serious threat? Well, HFRA I 
think provides $33 million increased funding for hazardous 
fuels. Long-term stewardship contracts give us some additional 
authorities. We are getting some efficiencies through our 
categorical exclusions. Reduction of hazardous fuels can be 
accomplished with more than just hazardous fuels funding as 
well. The President's Health Forests Initiative is strongly 
supported in the 2005 budget through other kinds of treatments 
that will help restore watersheds and reduce hazardous fuels, 
things like wildlife habitat improvement, vegetation 
management, sale of forest products.
    Let me move on to invasive species. Unwanted invasives, 
unwanted weeds, unwanted pests and pathogens are a problem. 
Last year I referred to that as a sleeping giant. Our budget 
this year contains important emphasis on invasives: a $10 
million increase in research, $10 million for an emerging pest 
and pathogen fund. We just developed in the Forest Service an 
invasive species strategic plan that is just almost off the 
press right now and that will help guide us in terms of dealing 
with other organizations on invasives.
    The third threat was the loss of open space. The budget 
contains a $36 million increase in forest legacy programs. It 
will help us build partnerships and help us acquire some 
easements so that we can maintain some of those lands in good 
condition.
    The fourth, the fourth threat, was unmanaged recreation. 
The national forests are one of the largest providers of 
outdoor recreation in America, with 211 million visits in 
fiscal year 2002. Imagine the demand in another 50 years on 
these lands as the population increases. National and 
international priorities prevent greater funding emphasis on 
the recreation program and I accept that. So we need to focus 
on increased partnerships and program efficiency. The 
President's budget proposes a permanent authority for what has 
been the recreation fee demo program over the past several 
years and I am committed to making the Forest Service part of 
that recreation fee authority and I want to work closely with 
this committee to achieve that goal.
    A couple of remarks in closing. Little did I realize when I 
went to work for the Forest Service that I would be Chief and 
that I would be here for the 101st budget of the Forest 
Service. If you count the length of my service and the length 
of my father's service in the Forest Service, the Bosworths 
have been in the Forest Service for two-thirds of our agency's 
history. I cannot tell you what an honor that has been for me.
    Although I cannot tell you that I look forward to the 
hearing season that we are in right now, that we have each 
year, I will tell you that it is a privilege to be here today 
for no other reason than just to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and thank you to this committee for your support that you have 
shown for the Forest Service, for the health of America's 
forests, and for protecting the resources and the communities 
from the risk of wildfire.
    I would be happy to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bosworth follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Dale N. Bosworth, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, 
                       Department of Agriculture

    Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman and members of the Committee, thank 
you for the opportunity to discuss the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 
2005 Budget. I also want to personally thank you, Mr. Chairman and 
Senator Bingaman for the support provided to the Forest Service this 
past year in supporting the President's Healthy Forest Restoration Act 
and for the strong support in protecting America's forests and 
rangelands from the threat of catastrophic wildfire. I know this 
commitment is founded in the fact that, as Under Secretary Rey noted, 
close to half the members of this Committee have experienced such 
devastating fires in their states.

                                OVERVIEW

    This President's Budget is for the Forest Service's centennial 
year. It supports the agency's mission of sustainable natural resource 
management. On February 1, 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt signed 
into law The Transfer Act, transferring the forest reserves from the 
Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. On March 
3, 1905, the Appropriations Act for the Department of Agriculture 
referenced the ``Forest Service.'' On the day of the transfer, then-
Secretary of Agriculture, James Wilson, wrote a letter of instruction 
to the first forester of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot. He 
directed that:

          In the administration of the forest reserves it must be 
        clearly borne in mind that all land is to be devoted to its 
        most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people, 
        and not for the temporary benefit of individuals or companies. 
        Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question 
        will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good 
        of the greatest number in the long run.

    Now, 100 years later, that advice encompasses the multiple use 
management principle that guides the Forest Service's program of work. 
We are here today to ensure that our nation's forests and grasslands 
are treasured resources for the benefit and enjoyment of all people now 
and in the future. The decisions made in formulating the President's FY 
2005 budget for the Forest Service are for the long-term good of the 
public and the resources that we are entrusted to manage for the 
American people.
    I am here to talk with you today about the FY 2005 President's 
Budget request for the Forest Service as we enter a new century of 
service to America. In 1905, the Forest Service spent just shy of $1 
million total for the young agency. As we propose a budget to begin the 
second century for the agency, the President's request is $4.9 billion, 
$68.4 million greater than the FY 2004 enacted budget, excluding 
emergency funding for repayment of fire transfers and funds for 
Southern California. The FY 2005 Budget provides funding to reduce the 
risk of wildland fire to communities and the environment by 
implementing the Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act (HFRA) which President Bush signed into law this past 
December. In addition, increased funds are provided for research, fire 
suppression, Forest Legacy, Forest Products, and Minerals and Geology.
    In my testimony today, I want to reflect on the challenges faced by 
the Forest Service in 2005, many of which are similar to those faced in 
1905. I want to discuss the new opportunities offered by HFRA that will 
result in improved forest and rangeland management, healthier 
landscapes, and reduced risk of catastrophic wildfires. I want to talk 
about four major challenges facing the Forest Service, which I often 
refer to as the ``four threats.'' I also want to highlight some other 
areas of performance accountability and legislative emphasis that 
comprise the President's FY 2005 budget.
    As I talk with you today about the FY 2005 budget, I am reminded of 
the challenges that the agency, Congress, and the American public have 
worked through and worked out over the past 100 years. A brief review 
of the land management issues of 1905 shows that issues were as 
contentious back then as they are today. The challenges that we faced 
today are still contentious and complex. I believe, however, that we 
have an opportunity to change the debate. We want the American people 
to judge us not on what is taken off the land, but how we have improved 
its condition after conducting natural resource management activities.
progress towards healthy forests and grasslands--protecting communities
    Today, the cleanest water in the country comes from our national 
forests. More than 60 million Americans get their drinking water from 
watersheds that originate on national forests and grasslands. A century 
ago, competition for clean water in America was not the issue it is 
today and will be in the future. Protecting wilderness values wasn't on 
the radar screen 100 years ago. Today, we protect some 35 million acres 
of wilderness, about 18 percent of the land in our National Forest 
System. At the 1905 American Forest Congress, President Roosevelt spoke 
of vast forest destruction and an inevitable timber famine if the 
destruction continued. Large parts of the East and South were cutover, 
burned over, and farmed improperly. Today, tens of millions of acres of 
federal, state, and private forests in the East and South have been 
restored and the total number of forested acres is the same as 100 
years ago. A century ago, many animal and plant species were severely 
depleted or on the brink of extinction. Today, many of these species 
have made remarkable comebacks after finding refuge on our nation's 
forests and grasslands. A century ago, the profession of forestry was 
in its infancy in the United States. Early foresters used a much 
younger set of scientific principles in managing natural resources. 
Today, after 90 years of Forest Service research, we have a much firmer 
and broader scientific foundation for sustaining forest ecosystems into 
the future.

              REDUCING THE THREAT OF CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE

    Today, we are putting research-based knowledge to use in restoring 
the nation's watersheds to a healthy condition. The President's Budget 
provides $266 million, an increase of $33 million over the funding 
appropriated in FY 2004, to reduce hazardous fuel. This will allow 
treatment of 1.8 million acres, an increase of 200,000 acres above the 
2004 level. Over the past several decades, declining forest health 
conditions have led to an increasing incidence of uncharacteristically 
severe wildfire. Forests that are naturally adapted to frequent natural 
fires have gone many years without such fire, thus becoming overly 
dense and laden with fuels. These forests are at abnormally high risk 
to damage from wildfire as well as insects, diseases, or infestations 
of invasive plants. The President has acted to address this risk by 
establishing his Healthy Forest Initiative and providing a budget for 
hazardous fuel reduction that has more than tripled since FY 2000. In 
addition, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act passed by Congress last 
year will bring new administrative initiatives that will compliment 
expanded stewardship contracting authority that will further reduce 
hazardous fuels and restore watersheds.
    Mr. Chairman, we need only look at how expenditures for wildland 
fire suppression have doubled in the last 10 years, to understand the 
need for this bold strategy. Just this past October we saw a graphic 
illustration of the serious forest and rangeland health problems we 
face. Although tragic in terms of loss of life and property, the severe 
wildfires in Southern California this past fall burned for the most 
part in mixed ownership chaparral areas and did not appreciably affect 
the forest health situation on forested lands in Southern California, 
particularly on the San Bernardino National Forest. In the forested 
areas, much of the remaining unburned acres are still choked with 
mostly small trees, many of which are dead and dying from drought and 
bark beetle infestations. Much of these forested lands are still at 
risk. Additional work remains on the national forests in Southern 
California as well as on other areas across the country that are 
experiencing serious forest health problems. Nor are these risks 
limited only to Federal lands. Mitigating the risks of catastrophic 
wildfires and treating forest health challenges across ownerships and 
jurisdictions requires cooperative action to be taken on the parts of 
governments, communities, private landowners and individual homeowners.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other members of Congress 
for working last year to pass the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and 
expanded Stewardship Contracting authority. The President's Budget and 
new authorities provided by HFRA will aid Forest Service field managers 
work with local communities to treat more areas more quickly than in 
the past. The President's Budget also recognizes the need to integrate 
the fuels reduction program with other programs that support wildlife 
habitat improvements, watershed enhancements, vegetation management, 
and forest products. Restoring and rehabilitating our fire-adapted 
ecosystems may be the most important task that our agency undertakes. 
To provide optimal wildfire risk mitigation across the landscape, we 
are prioritizing our hazardous fuels reduction work to ensure the most 
beneficial use of funds. We are moving from treating symptoms towards 
treating the underlying problems, and treating hazardous fuel in 
locations on our nation's forests and rangelands where they will be 
most likely to influence large-scale fire behavior. We expect this 
approach to restore forest health and significantly reduce the 
potential for large, damaging fires over the long term, as well as the 
costs of fires that do occur both--in terms of the taxpayer and the 
environment.
    We must also realize that it is not only the hazardous fuel 
reduction program that will improve overall forest and rangeland 
health. The integrated approach of multiple management activities in 
the agency's wildlife, grazing, vegetative management, and timber 
programs will improve the condition of the land, or in the Forest 
Service vernacular ``improve condition class.'' This emphasis 
encompasses one of the ``four threats'' I refer to in managing this 
agency. We are committed to accomplishing the aggressive treatments 
planned in the President's Budget for FY 2005 using new authorities in 
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act that improve the condition class of 
the nation's watersheds and thus protect communities and resources for 
future generations and our Research Station directors are committed to 
providing the Forest Service with the best science available.
    I have discussed in detail wildland fire, the first of the ``four 
threats.'' I will discuss elsewhere in my testimony the other three 
threats; invasive species, loss of open space, and unmanaged outdoor 
recreation. Before doing so, let me highlight other areas that will 
require our attention in our Centennial year.

          PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

    The Forest Service efforts to improve agency efficiency continue to 
focus on the implementation of the five initiatives in the President's 
Management Agenda (PMA). One key element of the PMA is improved 
financial performance. In the past few years we made an unprecedented 
effort to get our financial house in order. For a second year in a row, 
we received a clean audit opinion. We look forward, in the not too 
distant future, to also seeing the agency removed from the General 
Accounting Office ``high risk list.'' I am proud of our financial 
management progress. To be candid, however, the effort made by Forest 
Service employees to keep the agency from falling into a type of 
financial receivership was so unprecedented that the agency cannot 
sustain this level of effort as we are currently organized. Our 
internal financial management and administrative support infrastructure 
is based on a 50-year-old model that is archaic. It does not operate 
within acceptable government-wide standards. It fails to use today's 
technology and business based models that can make our operations more 
efficient and our accountability the best it can be. With this in mind, 
the Forest Service will implement a new model for Forest Service 
financial management that involves significant centralization and 
consolidation of administrative support. We anticipate a minimum cost 
savings of $30-$40 million over time, although there may be some short-
term costs incurred associated with setting up this model.
    We are also reengineering human resource management processes. Our 
objectives are to maximize automation, streamline processes, provide 
for consistency, and reduce overhead costs. At the same time, we will 
ensure compatibility with OPM's Government-wide initiatives.
    We will implement this overhaul without affecting the ability of 
field line officers to make decisions about natural resource 
management. We will continue to put considerable effort into improving 
the effectiveness of our financial management and administrative 
support program with the objectives of improving efficiency, reducing 
indirect costs, and dedicating funds to accomplish on-the-ground 
resource management objectives.
    An important tool that will help the agency improve its operational 
and program accountability is contained in the President's Management 
Agenda. It is the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). For FY 2005, 
the Office of Management and Budget conducted reviews on the Forest 
Service's Forest Legacy Program, Land Acquisition Program, and 
reevaluated the Capital Improvement and Maintenance Program. This 
analysis recommended that the programs reviewed include the development 
of long-term measures that focus on outcomes, development of efficiency 
measures that assess the cost on a unit basis, and completion of 
program analysis to help focus program objectives and management.
    The PART process for FY 2006 will assist the agency in addressing 
one of the ``four threats'' because the agency will utilize PART to 
evaluate invasive species activities. In addition to utilizing PART, 
the agency will use funds to address emerging threats to the nation's 
natural resources from the spread of unwanted pests and pathogens. The 
President's Budget proposes $10 million for an Emerging Pest and 
Pathogen fund to be used for quick response. We will integrate our 
National Forest System, State and Private Forestry, and Forest and 
Rangeland Research programs to ensure we are focused on this invasive 
species threat. I intend to emphasize line officer performance 
accountability for halting the spread of invasives as an important 
element of the performance appraisal process. The PART program will be 
a tool to ensure the effort is integrated, outcome-based, and properly 
focused.

                                RESEARCH

    I noted earlier that I felt the agency's Forest and Rangeland 
Research program was a foundation of improved ecosystem health. I am 
pleased to support an FY 2005 President's Budget request that 
emphasizes a renewed focus on Research as a foundation for establishing 
management practices that are applied to the national forests and 
grasslands as well as state, tribal, local, and international lands. 
The total Research and Development budget for FY 2005 is up $14.3 
million.
    The President's FY 2005 Budget recognizes that the demand for 
solutions based on research is exceptionally high, and the Forest 
Service should organize to optimize the delivery of information to 
provide solutions in the timeliest, accurate manner. To enhance the 
linkage between forest researchers and on-the-ground resource managers 
in both the public and private sectors, it is critical that the most 
efficient development and delivery of mission-critical information be 
employed. Enhancing the linkage between the information user and the 
information generator helps ensure this efficiency. The President's 
Budget provides additional funding for optimizing the transfer and 
implementation of research findings.
    Within R&D, $7.2 million is focused on research that will protect 
water quality for human use and aquatic habitat, and provide improved 
tools for land managers to restore native vegetation on sites disturbed 
by fire and mechanical means. This program increase will also afford 
the agency the opportunity to continue its research focus on controls 
for newly arrived insects including the hemlock wooly adelgid, the 
Asian long-horned beetle, invasive bark beetles, and the emerald ash 
borer. In addition to this significant program increase, the State and 
Private Forestry technology applications program will be integrated 
with the Research and Development mission area. We expect an improved 
technology applications program that focuses on a thematic basis, 
including applications in hazardous fuel utilization, fire science 
applications, invasive species, watershed, and other mission critical 
areas.

                         FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

    The third of the four threats that I have emphasized involves the 
loss of open space. The President's Budget fully funds the Land and 
Water Conservation program, including a $35.8 million increase in the 
Forest Legacy Program. The program has seen great success in addressing 
the threat of reduced open space through the use of conservation 
easements in partnership with private landowners to maintain viable and 
healthy forested lands. The PART review of the program by OMB found 
that management of the Forest Legacy Program is valuable and generally 
strong. We will work to improve performance measures that track the 
percentage of priority forest lands at risk of conversion to non-forest 
uses that are currently in a contiguous forest condition.

                               RECREATION

    The last of the four threats to the nation's resources involves the 
challenges posed by unmanaged recreation. To use an old phrase, in many 
areas of the national forests we are ``loving our public lands to 
death.'' The FY 2005 budget reflects an increase of $2.3 million in the 
Recreation budget. With this in mind, I intend to have the agency focus 
on managing the program with improved efficiency and greater reliance 
on partnerships. Moreover, our work in the area of hazardous fuel 
reduction and invasive species provides a number of benefits that 
protect and enhance the quality of recreation on National Forest System 
lands.
    The Forest Service is a leading provider of outdoor recreation 
opportunities in the nation. People visited national forests and 
grasslands over 211 million times in FY 2002. These millions of 
visitors expect cleared trails, accessible facilities, and safe 
experiences. They also cause significant impacts on the land and on our 
facilities, as they hike, camp, kayak, ski, hunt, or fish on our 
federal lands. Since 1997, we have relied on fees from the Recreational 
Fee Demonstration Program to provide safe, enjoyable, and memorable 
experiences for these millions of visitors. We know that without those 
fees, we would be hard pressed to keep some campgrounds open, toilets 
cleaned, and trails safely maintained. The President's FY 2005 
legislative proposals include permanent authority for the Recreational 
Fee Demonstration Program. Visitor use continues to increase, 
especially near urban areas and many of the very special places we 
manage on our national forests and grasslands. As more and more people 
enjoy these places, their presence comes with the price of increased 
needs for maintaining facilities, equipment, and the land itself. 
Through the Fee Demo Program, the recreating public has told us how 
important increased safety and security is to them, an elevated service 
made possible through Fee Demo funds.
    This is the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Wilderness Act, 
a bold legislative action that secured the enduring benefits of 
wilderness for present and future generations. The Forest Service 
manages 32 percent of the National Wilderness Preservation System and 
was the first Federal agency to manage a designated wilderness area. 
The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment finds that 
Americans who know about wilderness tremendously value it.
    Our backlog in deferred maintenance for our facilities continues to 
be a challenge. This backlog includes facilities for providing 
recreation opportunities to the public, as well as our administrative 
sites where employees work and provide services to the public. The 
budget reflects improvements made by the Forest Service in implementing 
recommendations contained in a PART review of the Capital Improvement 
and Maintenance program, and includes $10 million to address deferred 
maintenance.
    In addition, there are important legislative proposals to be 
presented by the Administration that will help us leverage limited 
discretionary appropriations to accomplish key objectives of the 
recreation and other administrative programs. The Administration will 
submit legislation proposing a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement 
Fund. This authority will provide a useful tool for reducing our 
administrative site backlog through an authorization to dispose of 
lands and improvements in excess of our needs, and use the proceeds for 
infrastructure improvements.
    The Administration will propose expanded and consolidated 
partnership authorities to make it easier and more efficient for third 
parties to get involved in the agency's recreation program as well as 
other management programs and activities. This legislation will 
streamline the ability of the Forest Service to collaborate with non-
Federal partners in achieving natural resource management goals. Forest 
Service directives cite over 30 different laws relating to partnerships 
and 14 different types of agreement instruments document partnership 
relationships. Navigating this complex patchwork of authorities and 
agreements has hindered the agency's ability to work efficiently and 
effectively with nonprofit and community partners. We look forward to 
working with Congress in making it more efficient to work with partners 
in managing the national forests.

                       WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION

    As the Forest Service focuses on a new century of service to 
Americans, its emphasis will be centered on management activities that 
address the four threats and the goals of the Healthy Forests 
Initiative. Our success over the long term will reduce the risk to 
communities and natural resources from catastrophic wildland fire. The 
Forest Service, in partnership with the Department of the Interior and 
state and local agencies, is committed to protecting communities and 
resources with the best and most efficient fire fighting infrastructure 
possible.
    The total wildland fire budget for FY 2005 is $1.4 billion 
including an $88.3 million increase over the FY 2004 enacted level for 
fire suppression. This increase reflects the ten-year average cost for 
fire suppression. I want to address several important wildfire 
suppression issues.
    Wildfire suppression activities are dangerous. Unfortunately, last 
year we lost five lives in fires related to the Forest Service. The 
agency continually evaluates the fire suppression program for safety, 
and makes improvements to reduce the risk to firefighters. After the 
Thirtymile fire in 2001, the Forest Service implemented a number of 
significant changes to improve safety measures for firefighters and the 
public. Changes were developed in cooperation with OSHA, the Department 
of the Interior, and other interagency partners through the National 
Wildfire Coordinating Group. We have clarified and added emphasis on 
fatigue awareness and work/rest guidelines; added driving guidelines 
for transportation safety; and improved risk assessment and mitigation 
procedures. We continue to scrutinize our firefighting program to make 
additional safety improvements, including an examination of relation of 
completed fire management plans and the deployment of incident 
personnel in locations where resource values are minimal. Areas we are 
particularly concentrating on are human factors such as experience and 
leadership. While we will never remove all the risk from firefighting, 
we will constantly work to reduce the risks. We must never compromise 
our emphasis on components of the agency's budget that might affect the 
safety of our workforce.
    This past year we have aggressively focused on reducing the costs 
of firefighting efforts. The President's budget proposes new incentives 
for reducing wildfire suppression costs including the allocation of 
suppression funds to Forest Service regions, and the authority to 
retain unexpended suppression funds for use in forest restoration 
activities consistent with the goals of the Healthy Forest Initiatives 
and HFRA. It also includes the establishment of clearer rules 
concerning the use of suppression resources and incentives for rapid 
demobilization and better use of local non-federal resources. I am 
proud of the fact that in FY 2003 we kept more than 98 percent of all 
unwanted fires that started from becoming large fires in 2003. While 
large fires represent only 2 percent of the total number of fires, over 
the past few decades they have accounted for more than 87 percent of 
the total costs for fire suppression. Many large fires are complex and 
more expensive to suppress today than 20 years ago, and they can be 
more dangerous. The costs of containing fires in the wildland urban 
interface will likely continue to be high as we struggle to keep fire 
from destroying people's homes and livelihoods. At the same time, the 
President's FY 2005 Budget reflects the full implementation of fire 
management plans completed for all National Forest Systems lands that 
will allow for cost savings associated with a full range of suppression 
actions, including an increased use of wildland fire use fires, as 
appropriate. It also contains new performance measures that will 
provide baselines on which the total cost of fire suppression can be 
assessed.
    Over the past year, we have completed the Consolidated Large Fire 
Cost Report 2003, in which we have identified areas to contain costs. 
Clearly, reducing the number and improving the way we manage large 
fires will lead to lower costs. I have issued policy direction that 
states, ``Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering firefighter 
and public safety, benefits, and values to be protected, consistent 
with resource objectives.'' We will take the lessons learned from the 
past year and continue efforts to reduce the costs of large fires. We 
will also look at better ways to use fire in its natural role and will 
work together with our Federal, Tribal, State, and local partners to 
accomplish these goals.

             CONCLUSION: ENTERING A NEW CENTURY OF SERVICE

    Our agency's 100th anniversary is a time for us as an agency to 
reflect on our history, the contributions we have made as stewards of 
our nation's natural resources, and lessons we have learned to provide 
world-class public service into the future. We see FY 2005 as a time to 
broaden public understanding and appreciation of our nation's forests 
and grasslands, and a time to broaden partnerships worldwide to 
collectively sustain our natural resources. In this centennial year we 
will sponsor several events and activities that help focus this 
attention.
    Mr. Chairman, let me say again how honored I am to be here as Chief 
presenting the 101st President's Budget for the Forest Service. We have 
100 years of amazing accomplishments. We also have 100 years of 
promises to keep, 100 years of laws and regulations to uphold. For 100 
years, Americans have both applauded us and picketed our doors. The 
country has seen sweeping changes over those 100 years, and many 
innovative tools to help us keep up with those changes.
    As we enter our second century of service, the continued prosperity 
of our country is in large part dependent on sustaining the health, 
diversity, and productivity of our Nation's forests and grasslands. 
This is the Forest Service's mission today. And much as Secretary 
Wilson directed the agency in 1905, our successes are only as great as 
our ability to act under a businesslike structure, promptly, 
effectively, and with common sense. I am proud of the many 
accomplishments our talented and dedicated employees have given to this 
country and the mission they face in entering this new century of 
service.
    We still have much work to do and many challenges to undertake. 
Restoring the nation's forests and grasslands in balance with society's 
goals will take time. We have new tools to help meet those challenges 
in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and expanded Stewardship 
Contracting authority, in continued research to support these complex 
challenges, and through the work we continue to do with local 
communities and partners new ways of solving land management problems 
in more effective and inclusive ways.
    I enlist your continued support and look forward to working with 
you toward that end. I will be happy to answer any questions.

    Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. As you can see, all 
three of us here are very involved in forests in our States.
    Senator Murkowski, did you have an opening statement?

        STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 
                          FROM ALASKA

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very 
briefly, welcome to Chief Bosworth and to you, Mr. Rey. I 
appreciate all the years of service that both you and your 
family have given. We certainly look forward to working with 
the administration regarding this budget request and appreciate 
your comments this morning, although I was not able to listen 
to all of them.
    I have a couple areas of interest that I am going to focus 
on in my questions, primarily the State and private forestry 
program, which many of my constituents in Alaska rely on. I'd 
also like to focus on the wildland fire management accounts and 
how the administration plans to fund the Healthy Forests Act.
    In looking at the State and private forestry program, I am 
troubled that the budget reflects a decrease of 16 percent.In 
particular, I am troubled by the proposed zero funding for the 
economic action program. As you know, I have many, many 
communities in my State that rely on the EAP in order to 
diversify their forest-dependent economies. These are the 
communities in and around the Chugach and the Tongass. So I am 
going to have a couple questions for you there. But it concerns 
me that the administration is perhaps sending a message to 
Congress that assistance to the small forest-dependent 
communities is not a priority.
    The other program of importance that I want to go into a 
little bit more is the Federal land enhancement program. In our 
State, the Alaska Forest Service depends greatly on this cost-
share program to assist the landowners as they implement a 
variety of on-the-ground forest land enhancement practices, 
particularly the reforestation after the beetle kill and the 
forest thinning. So I want to go into a little bit more in 
terms of what is going on with this reprogramming and, if we 
are talking about other high-priority programs, knowing exactly 
what those are.
    Mr. Chairman, I do have a much longer opening statement 
which I will ask be included in the record. At this point in 
time I will reserve the balance of my questions for a later 
point.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska

    Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and other members of this Committee. 
Welcome to both of our witnesses, Mr. Mark Rey of the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture and Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Mr. Dale Bosworth.
    I look forward to working with this Administration regarding the 
upcoming 2005 Budget Request and hearing from our witnesses today on 
the various requests for the programs that manage and support our 
national forests and grasslands.
    I am particularly interested in the State & Private Forestry 
Program of which many of my constituents in Alaska rely upon. I am also 
interested in the Wildland Fire Management Accounts and how the 
Administration plans to fund the ``Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 
2003.'' It is critical for its timely implementation to get on-the-
ground dollars to those forested lands most in need of fuels reduction.
    In reviewing this budget request for the Forest Service, I am 
troubled that the budget reflects a decrease of 16% ($63.8 million) in 
the State & Private Forestry Program. This program, as you know, 
provides technical and financial assistance to landowners and resource 
managers to help sustain the Nation's urban and rural forests and to 
protect communities and the environment from wildland fires.
    In particular, for the third year in a row, the President's Budget 
proposes zero funding for the Economic Action Program (EAP) that was 
funded at approximately $25 million in FY '03 and FY '04 with $2 
million going to Alaska each year. I am very concerned about zero 
funding for Fiscal Year 2005.
    In my home state of Alaska, many communities rely upon the EAP in 
order to diversify their forest-dependent economics. In fiscal years 
2003 and 2004, the EAP provided grants to 17 communities near the 
Chugach and Tongass National Forests alone.
    The EAP also provided dry kilns, planers and lumber-storage 
facilities to eleven Alaska-owned businesses. (Nenana Lumber Company, 
Nenana; Alaska Birch Works, Fairbanks; Regal Enterprises, Copper 
Center; Alaska Fibre, Petersburg; Alaska Wood Moulding, Anchorage; J&H 
Enterprises;, North Pole; Husky Lumber, Nikisi; Nelson Enterprises, 
Chuathbaluk; Thorne Bay Wood Products, Thorne Bay; Logging & Milling 
Associates, Delta Junction; Pacific Log & Lumber, Ketchikan).
    With zero funding proposed in FY 2005 for this program, the 
Administration is sending a message to Congress that assistance to 
small forest-dependent communities is not a priority. In this day of 
declining timber sales and increased litigation regarding sustainable 
forestry industries, most especially on the Tongass National Forest, I 
question how the Forest Service is going to assist the communities that 
survived for many years utilizing the fiber that seems to be no longer 
available for their economies. We owe it to these communities to help 
them diversify their economies and support them in maintaining healthy 
forests, healthy lands along with a strong economic base.
    Another program of importance to my state is the Federal Land 
Enhancement Program (FLEP), which, although funded through the 
Commodity Credit Corporation, is managed by the Forest Service. I know 
that our Alaska State Forest Service depends greatly on this cost-share 
program to assist landowners in Alaska implement a variety of on-the-
ground forest land enhancement practices. The work on private forested 
lands from this program in my state has included reforestation after 
beetle kill and forest thinning for fuel load reduction on the Kenai. I 
am particularly concerned about the current proposed use of funds for 
this program by the Forest Service in both FY 2004 and 2005. It appears 
that there is ample funding to implement this program in both 2004 and 
2005, but the Administration is requesting to ``reprogram'' the 
available dollars to more ``high priority programs'', leaving no money 
targeted for this state program.
    Currently, a total of 478 private landowners, along with 19 Alaska 
Native Corporations are eligible for FLEP funds for wildfire fuels 
reduction and timber stand improvements. Without funding, eligible 
Alaskan landowners have no opportunity to make needed forest health 
improvements on their lands.
    Another concern that I have is that this Administration most 
recently supported the bi-partisan effort of this Congress in passage 
of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. The FY 2005 budget 
requests funding of $33 million for Title I only (Federal lands fuels 
reduction work). I will want to ask our witnesses why the 
Administration is not requesting funding for the remaining titles of 
this new law. Of particular interest in my State of Alaska is the use 
of biomass technologies and research, as found under Title II of this 
new law. There is no funding for this title in the President's FY 2005 
Request.
    In another area, the Forest Service is continually playing ``catch-
up'' with revising outdated forest plans. With a proposed $10.9 million 
reduction in Land Management Planning from the FY 2004 level of $70 
million, I question how the agency proposes to keep its 126 forest 
plans around the nation timely. Clearly, with outdated forest plans 
being utilized by this agency, the chance for additional lawsuits grows 
exponentially.
    I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address these and other 
important forestry issues with our guests today.

    Senator Thomas. Thank you. Your comments will be in the 
record.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
    Senator Thomas. Mr. Secretary, obviously we are all faced 
with a budget problem this year in terms of the deficit and so 
on. As we said, yours is down by half of one percent. But you 
have, and I appreciate this, listed six priorities and 
certainly that is where it ought to be. Four of those six have 
reductions. Now, if those are your priorities how do you 
explain having your priorities be in the category of reduced 
spending?
    Mr. Rey. Well, I think part of that goes to how we measure 
reductions. When we compare budgets between years, we have been 
backing out congressional earmarks, because we put together a 
programmatic budget and then the Congress adjusts that budget 
in the way the founders envisioned, and many of those 
adjustments involve earmarks that are not programmatic in 
nature. So if you back out the earmarks, I do not think you 
will find those programs are all reduced.
    Additionally, some of those programs involve not just the 
Forest Service's effort, but the efforts of other cooperating 
agencies like the Natural Resources Conservation Service. For 
example, invasive species is one of our priorities. One of our 
budget initiatives for the Forest Service this year is a $10 
million emerging pathogen fund.
    We are beginning to look at invasives somewhat like we look 
at forest fires, which is that if you can move quickly and 
control or eradicate a pathogen upon its introduction it is a 
lot cheaper than trying to deal with it after it has already 
spread to several thousand or tens of thousands of acres. So 
our emerging pathogen fund is analogous to trying to attack 
forest fires at initial attack and eliminate the problem before 
it spreads and becomes more expensive.
    But beyond the Forest Service's efforts, the other agency 
that I oversee in the Department of Agriculture spends a 
considerable amount of money through farm bill programs dealing 
with invasive species on an annual basis. Most of that is on 
private land. Not all of it is. It is on multi-ownerships.
    I think it is a function of how you look at those numbers. 
In our judgment, we are holding those priority programs even or 
giving them slight increases compared to the program request 
that we submitted last year backing out congressional earmarks. 
If you add congressional earmarks, you can come to a different 
conclusion.
    Senator Thomas. Well, they are interesting. As you point 
out, one is reducing catastrophic wildfire risk. That happens 
to be a very high priority for most everyone. Providing outdoor 
recreation opportunities is another that you had on your list. 
To help energy resource needs; here is one that you are 
responsible for because those permits are on forest lands and 
there has been a great delay in issuing some of those permits. 
So I hope that we can continue to have those as priorities.
    Chief, the budget includes a $2.5 million reduction in 
range management. We talked last year about the difficulty of 
getting NEPA done for grazing permits. How many grazing permits 
are there, are they behind, and what is this reduction going to 
mean to preparing for rangeland management?
    Mr. Bosworth. I cannot give you the exact number, but I can 
follow up later and give the exact number of permits. We are 
behind in terms of completing the NEPA for range permits. We 
have just completed a few months ago or just a couple weeks ago 
actually a change in our handbook for doing NEPA on range 
permits and reissuance of range permits that we believe will 
help streamline the process, make it go faster, that will work 
better for both the Forest Service as well as the grazing 
permittees. It is more focused on outcome rather than the 
specific numbers that we have been in the past. I think that 
our permittees will find that it is easier for them to work 
with. I think that our folks on the ground will find that, 
following the new process, that they will be able to get 
through the NEPA quicker.
    Of course, one of our objectives is to be able to modernize 
some of our processes so that we are not spending all of our 
time doing the paperwork. About 36 percent of the NEPA has been 
completed, 36 percent of the allotments, and we have 6,900 
allotments, is the number that we have currently.
    Senator Thomas. I see, thank you.
    Senator Feinstein, I will ask Senator Bingaman to go and 
then we will have your opening statement.
    Do you have questions, sir?
    Senator Bingaman. Yes, thank you very much.
    Let me ask a couple of parochial questions first. One of 
the problems we have here in Congress and I think in all of 
Washington is that we are so busy killing alligators we do not 
have time to drain the swamp, as the saying goes. In my home 
town the Forest Service has a fire cache which provides 
supplies for fire suppression efforts in Arizona, New Mexico, 
Texas, and Oklahoma. This is Silver City, New Mexico, I am 
speaking about.
    The facilities there are old storage sheds, trailers, sheet 
metal garages, sort of patched together, and there is a lot of 
effort expended each year in moving supplies from one shed to 
another so as to get it all done. What they have needed for a 
long period is a warehouse that is large enough to keep the 
supplies they need. I do not see anything to indicate that this 
is something that is ever going to be built by the Forest 
Service.
    Do you know anything about this or is this something you 
could look into, Chief Bosworth? I went out and visited them a 
year or so ago and was struck by the inadequacy of the 
facilities they have there.
    Mr. Bosworth. I will be happy to look into it. I am not 
aware specifically of the conditions. I do know it is not in 
the '05 budget. I am not sure where it is in terms of the 
priorities compared to those kind of fire cache facilities 
around the rest of the country. But I will certainly look into 
it and see whether there is something we can do.
    Senator Bingaman. I would appreciate it if you could get 
back to me on that. I would sure appreciate it.
    Mr. Bosworth. I will do that.
    Senator Bingaman. One other issue that Senator Domenici and 
I have both taken a lot of interest in is the Vallez Caldera 
National Preserve. I notice that the administration 
consistently requests a million dollars as the amount needed. I 
think this year the request was $992,000 to accomplish the 
purposes and goals of the Forest Service in that regard. That 
was a figure that was put in in the first year that this thing 
was enacted because we just did not know. We just had to put a 
figure in.
    Unfortunately, there has never been an effort, at least I 
am not aware of it, to go back and look at what is the actual 
cost that ought to be covered here. Do you know if there is 
anything being done on that? Does this $992,000 reflect what 
you really think is needed for that effort?
    Mr. Rey. Senator, I think the $992,000 is basically a flat 
budget response in the absence of analysis that probably needs 
to be done. Senator Domenici and the Chief and I talked about 
this yesterday and we observed that we typically budget a 
million, you and Senator Domenici typically add some numbers to 
it, and we move on.
    One of the original intents in the authorizing legislation 
was that at some point in the future the trust that administers 
the Vallez Caldera would be self-sustaining. I do not think we 
had any idea at the time how long it would take to get to that 
point or what the appropriate level of Federal support in the 
interim should be. But I think now that the Vallez Caldera has 
been authorized for I believe 5 years--I think we are 
approaching the fifth anniversary--it probably marks a pretty 
good time to take stock and evaluate for either 2005 as we move 
forward in this appropriations process or, if that is too 
early, then in our 2006 budget request, not only what the right 
Federal request should be for the next year, 2006, but what the 
out year support should be.
    What I committed to Senator Domenici is we would take a 
look at that, and I would make the same commitment to you as 
well.
    Senator Bingaman. All right, that will be a big help. I 
appreciate hearing that.
    You have a proposal, Mr. Rey, for revising the National 
Forest Management Act regulations. You got a lot of comments 
back, a lot of public comments, a lot of comments from members 
of Congress, urging you to withdraw or substantially alter 
those proposed NFMA regulations. Could you give me the status 
on that effort and whether or not there is going to be some 
decision to withdraw or modify those regulations or what is 
going to happen?
    Mr. Rey. We have completed the analysis of the comments, 
which as you noted were substantial on all sides, and are 
significantly modifying the regulations. We are reaching the 
close of that effort and it is my expectation that within the 
next month or so we should have a new set of regulations to 
send out for people to look at.
    We have not made a decision whether those will be final 
regulations or a reproposal. That will be a decision that we 
will make within the next couple of weeks. If they are a 
reproposal, then we will accept another round of comments. If 
they are final regulations, then the administrative appeals 
process will trigger and we will continue to hear public 
comments on them.
    I do not think withdrawing the regulations or simply 
continuing to operate under the 1982 regulations is a viable 
alternative, for two reasons. First, those regulations are now 
22 years old and a lot has changed in 22 years. Secondly, those 
regulations governed the appropriate processes to use to 
develop the first generation of forest plans and as such they 
were much more detailed and they required the agencies to do a 
lot of things that arguably you should not have to do, at least 
in all instances, to revise or amend an existing plan.
    So it will be a sporting discussion. I imagine we will 
satisfy some of the critics of the proposed rule, but I am 
quite confident we will not satisfy all of them. I will assure 
you that your staff will be briefed before we go public with a 
decision.
    Senator Bingaman. Thank you.
    I have a few other questions. I will wait for a second 
round.
    Senator Thomas. We will have a sporting discussion. I think 
that sounds good.
    Senator Feinstein.

       STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR 
                        FROM CALIFORNIA

    Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, gentlemen. Obviously, I am very pleased that the 
healthy forests bill is now law and being carried out. But what 
I am concerned about is the funding in the budget to carry out 
the health forests bill. As you know, we authorized $760 
million in hazardous fuels reduction. That is far more than 
what is in the budget. The budget purports to provide $760 
million for hazardous fuels reduction, but it is only by 
relabeling existing programs that it achieves that amount.
    I would like to indicate two concerns. The budget as I 
understand it significantly cuts fire-related assistance to 
States and communities, by as much as 42 percent. It goes from 
$132 million to $77 million. That is a dramatic cut. I am 
hearing from the fire safety councils all throughout the State 
with real concern.
    Let me ask this question if I might. Most of the supposed 
increase, with the exception of an additional $30 million for 
fuel reduction, appears to be made up by shifting funding from 
other existing programs, such as State and private forestry, 
fire science, and timber. How much of the $760 million do you 
consider to be new money?
    Mr. Rey. The $760 million, first of all, is a combined 
Department of Agriculture-Department of the Interior total, so 
I want to make sure we are clear on that. Of that $760 million, 
somewhere between $80 and $100 million of it is in our judgment 
new money.
    Now, we are sensitive to the suggestion that we are 
merely----
    Senator Feinstein. How much in your budget would you 
consider new money?
    Mr. Rey. About half of that, about $40 million.
    Senator Feinstein. $40 million?
    Mr. Rey. Right. And about the same or a little more for 
Interior.
    We are sensitive to the suggestion that we are merely 
relabeling things and that is not quite accurate. But let me 
express why we are constructing the budget this way. When the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act passed, we had a new piece of 
legislation with new authorities and a new authorization level. 
What we thought would be most helpful to do would be to 
organize our budget, both at the Department of Agriculture and 
the Department of the Interior, in a crosscut that shows how 
much money we are devoting to the activities that were 
described in the authorization language of title I of the bill, 
which is where the $760 million authorization is. We have money 
that we will appropriate or request to be appropriated against 
the other titles as well, but most of the attention was on 
title I and the proposition that for the activities described 
in section 108 of the bill that the authorization level that 
was desired was $760 million.
    In reconfiguring the budget that way, what we included is 
not only the hazardous fuels reduction account, which is a 
discrete account in both the Department of the Interior and the 
Forest Service's budget, but also other program areas that were 
going to fund activities that were conducted that would have 
hazardous fuels reduction objectives.
    So for instance, when we say that we are going to treat 2.2 
million acres of land in this 2005 budget request and reduce 
the fuel loads to bring the condition class down, what we mean 
is 1.6 million acres of that will be treated with the hazardous 
fuels reduction account and .6 million will be treated with 
money from some of the other accounts--vegetation management, 
watershed, timber, etcetera.
    Some of those accounts experienced slight increases as well 
to do this work that in our judgment is new money. In some of 
those accounts, we reprogram more of the work that would 
otherwise be done under the account to do this work to address 
the Congressional priority.
    It is fairly complicated. It is not merely a case of 
relabeling, but I think a fair read of this $760 million is 
that, depending on how you want to split the hairs, there is 
between $80 and $100 million of new money, and what we are 
trying to do is configure this budget so that we can see what 
we are devoting to the authorization that you said was 
important when together we worked on this legislation.
    Senator Feinstein. If I might just follow up, Congressman 
Jerry Lewis and I obtained $240 million in hazardous fuels 
reduction funding for Federal and private lands in southern 
California through the 2003 supplemental and the 2004 omnibus 
and Interior appropriations bill. I do not know whether you are 
taking some of that money or not.
    Mr. Rey. No.
    Senator Feinstein. You are not?
    Mr. Rey. That is not included in any of this.
    Senator Feinstein. My question then for you, that $240 
million is intact?
    Mr. Rey. That is correct. But let me make one 
clarification. I understood the $240 million to include both 
fuels treatment work and post-fire rehabilitation work, so 
there are two functions that that is paying for.
    Senator Feinstein. So in other words, you are going to take 
the rehabilitation money out of that?
    Mr. Rey. I think $150 million of it was scheduled for 
rehabilitation and that is what we are spending it on, and I 
think the balance was fuels reduction and we are going to spend 
it as you told us to.
    Senator Feinstein. That is good.
    In your assessment--and I notice that in the chart you have 
distributed, one of the charts has to do with the Arrowhead and 
Big Bear areas still remaining of major concern, and your other 
charts show that same area in jeopardy for another forest fire. 
Do you believe the money is adequate there and that we can get 
it used fast enough to make a difference this next season?
    Mr. Rey. I believe what you have given us for this season 
is probably as much as we can use. It is not adequate over the 
next 3 or 4 years to deal with the immensity of the problem. 
That will be an ongoing problem that we will have to work with 
you to try to continue to address.
    But I think the resources that we have as a result of the 
work that you and Congressman Lewis did in the supplemental is 
about as much as we can responsibly use during 2004 and I think 
what we will have to do, Senator, is sit down with you as the 
summer unfolds to see what 2005 looks like.
    Senator Feinstein. Quick, quick, quick, Mr. Chairman.
    Would you estimate the dead trees in that area from bark 
beetle to still be a half a million acres?
    Mr. Rey. Yes. There was very little reduction of that 
acreage as a consequence of the fires because we were able to 
stop the fire before it got too deeply into the bug-kill area. 
So what little was burned has probably been replaced by 
increasing spread of the infestation.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    Senator Thomas. Thank you.
    Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
    As I indicated in my short opening, the concerns that I 
have are in the State and private forestry area. Why has the 
Forest Service taken this area and basically said this is not 
as important to the agency any more? We are seeing a reduction 
here. What is the reasoning behind that?
    Mr. Rey. Well, I do not think we have said that it is not 
important to the agency. We have made some fairly tough 
choices, given the kind of budget environment that we are 
operating in.
    With regard to the--let me just go to some of the specific 
concerns that you raised. With regard to the economic action 
program, what we have proposed there is identical to what we 
have proposed I think the last 2 years. The economic action 
program funds have been 100 percent earmarked over the last 
couple of cycles. It is my expectation that you will continue 
to put money in there and it will continue to be 100 percent 
earmarked.
    But from a programmatic standpoint, what we have been 
trying to establish is that those kinds of support dollars are 
now being provided in a more organized way and at a greater 
level of funding through the Department of Agriculture's rural 
development program with mandatory funds that are provided 
through the farm bill.
    For instance, a couple of your constituents, Senator 
Murkowski, and I have talked about the need to get some 
assistance to do a feasibility or due diligence study for new 
manufacturing facilities in Haines and Seward. Of course, one 
option would be to provide money for that under the economic 
action program account.
    But another option that currently exists is that our rural 
development program just went out with a request for proposals 
for a value-added economic assistance grants program. So what I 
have tried to do is to get your folks in touch with our State 
rural development director because he is basically sitting on a 
pot of money that is designed for that purpose in a competitive 
grant program. I think that, given their description of what 
they want to do, there is every reason to believe that they 
will be successful in acquiring a value-added economic 
development grant which will provide them the money they need 
for the feasibility studies for those two mills.
    The economic assistance program is one that we have zeroed 
before. It is an area that is important, but we think is being 
dealt with better by an existing, another existing program 
within USDA that, frankly, has more money to spend on it in any 
event.
    With regard to the forest landowner incentive program, here 
again we have had to make some tough choices about where to 
focus the assistance that we provide to the State forestry 
agencies and to private forestry in each of the States. What 
the Chief has indicated and what the State foresters have 
agreed is that one of the principal threats to private forest 
landownership is fragmentation and development. We have 
increased the forest legacy program, which is the Federal 
program that provides the States assistance to buy development 
easements, significantly. That was one of the largest budget 
increases in this budget proposal.
    In a sense, I guess I would maintain that we are trying to 
address what the States have told us is the number one 
priority. Now, perhaps one option is if a State says, well, 
maybe that is the number one priority throughout the country--
Alaska may be a pretty good example of this--but it is not a 
number one priority in Alaska, there is other things we could 
do, then maybe there is a way to adjust between those accounts.
    But the State and private forestry program, taking aside 
the reorganization of some of the program accounts, has not 
been diminished that dramatically in this budget request.
    Senator Murkowski. The State fire assistance program, 
apparently there is a decrease there, a difference between 2004 
and 2005, it looks like a difference of 16,818. We are 
certainly looking at this particular budget component very 
critically as we assess the work being done down on the Kenai 
Peninsula. Obviously, we would like to know that we are going 
to have sufficient funding to deal with the issue down there. 
Do you believe that this is sufficient to help us on the Kenai?
    Mr. Rey. Well, I think the State fire assistance program is 
one where a little closer discussion may be helpful among the 
members of the committee. In 2000 and in 2001, as a consequence 
of the development of the national fire plan and Senator 
Domenici's Happy Forests Initiative, fire suppression 
activities for both Federal and State agencies were increased 
dramatically, and in those increases we expended a lot of money 
in refurbishing the capital infrastructure for our firefighting 
effort, buying new engines, taking on new crews, providing 
money to the States to do those same capital acquisitions.
    You do not need to buy a new fire engine every year. It is 
a periodic thing. So as we have sort of reduced our capital 
expenditures at the Federal level, so have we reduced the State 
firefighting assistance account, reflecting the same 
proposition, that arguably the States should not be buying new 
fire engines every year.
    I appreciate the fact that not every State is in exactly 
the same situation. So there is an area where maybe more 
specific information as this budget goes forward could help us 
adjust among these accounts to a little more accurately reflect 
an individual State or State's needs.
    Senator Murkowski. We would like to work with you on that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Thomas. Thank you.
    A couple quick ones. Chief, you mentioned the fee demo 
project. We of course are moving forward on that with regard to 
parks, intend to have a hearing. We have received a good deal 
of comment from people, adverse comment generally, from having 
to pay to go on forests. I do not know what your plan is, but 
at least there ought to be some identification of the kinds of 
facilities if you are talking about fee. What is your view on 
that?
    Mr. Bosworth. Well, first, the polling that we have done, I 
guess would be the right word, the questionnaires that we have 
sent out, generally for us have shown that about 85 percent of 
the people that we have asked support the user fee. Now, there 
is also, I will agree that there are some places where we have 
done it through the fee demo program where there has been a lot 
of pushback, and we believe we have made corrections and 
adjustments in our program based upon some of the adverse 
comments that we have gotten from people as we have learned 
during the life of the fee demo how to apply it better and have 
public support for it.
    The kinds of places that we generally use--there are lots 
of ways that we use the money that we get. We try to put the 
money back to where it was collected, the bulk of the money 
back to where it was collected. Some of it goes to improving 
national facilities, some of it goes to increased law 
enforcement presence when that is what people have told us they 
would like to have.
    Some of it has gone toward fixing up trailhead facilities, 
putting in places for people with pack stock to be able to 
unload their pack stock more effectively and easier. Those 
kinds of facilities have been improved. Then there is places 
where we have water-based recreation where we have been able to 
do a better job of providing ramps for people to unload boats.
    Senator Thomas. My question is are you going to be able to 
identify those places where there is some sort of facility that 
people can feel comfortable about paying for----
    Mr. Bosworth. We can do that.
    Senator Thomas [continuing]. As opposed to just going. But 
you have not. I have asked for that and I have not gotten any 
response.
    Mr. Bosworth. We will--I will respond to that. I will get 
that information for you.
    Mr. Rey. What we have given you, Senator, is criteria that 
would be conducive to evaluating what should be----
    Senator Thomas. I have not seen that.
    Mr. Rey. That we transmitted to your staff a while back, 
but we will get you another copy.
    Senator Thomas. There are some more here, so I will stop 
with that.
    Senator Bingaman.
    Senator Wyden.

           STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR 
                          FROM OREGON

    Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 
Bingaman.
    Gentlemen, I have looked at the budget and as one who spent 
an enormous amount of time, like many on this committee, trying 
to get this bill passed, I am just profoundly disappointed by 
the budget request. It seems to me that you are taking the 
health out of the healthy forest program. I mean, at a minimum, 
at a minimum you are hundreds of millions of dollars short of 
what the Congress authorized in the bipartisan compromise.
    We asked for $760 million of new money for these various 
kinds of initiatives and as far as I can tell there is at most 
$100 million of new money. Now, this is a breach of what the 
Congress intended on a bipartisan basis in terms of getting 
this work done. As all of you know, the House authorized no new 
money. I would not have been on the floor for the entire time 
this debate came up unless there was a chance to get a 
bipartisan agreement that ensured that there would be the new 
dollars for these hazardous fuels reduction programs.
    So my question--I guess I will start with you, Chief--is 
how in the world are you going to get these projects, the 
hazardous fuels reduction projects, done with well over $600 
million less than the Congress authorized?
    Mr. Rey. Inasmuch as I was the one who worked with you on 
the bill, perhaps I should take that and save a little time.
    Senator Wyden. I am interested in that, Mr. Rey, and I 
always respect your views. But I want to start from a policy 
standpoint with the Chief describing how these projects are 
going to get done, because I think that there is going to be 
enormous frustration out in rural America, which is expecting 
these new funds to get the important work done, and you all are 
basically doing a bait and switch. We authorized this new money 
and it has not been there.
    Mr. Bosworth. I would be happy to answer that and tell you 
how we are going to get the job done.
    Senator Wyden. Fine.
    Mr. Bosworth. First, through the healthy forest initiative, 
by coming up with new processes, new tools, that allow us to be 
able to spend more dollars on the ground, less dollars going 
through process and paperwork, categorical exclusions. We have 
come up with some counterpart regulations so we can work more 
effectively with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
    There are a number of things we are doing with stewardship 
contracting authority that you gave us, in implementing 
stewardship contracting authority, that will allow us to get 
more work done on the ground. Plus we are doing a number of 
projects where we are focusing some of our other kinds of work 
that in the past may have not been done in, say, condition 
class 3, which is the high, the bad areas in terms of fuels. We 
are going to focus some of the jobs, like habitat improvement 
for certain wildlife species, we would like to focus more of 
that in the condition class 3 area, thereby converting that to 
condition class 1.
    In fact, I have--I can show you an example of one in Oregon 
that is the Dry Creek pre-commercial thin, that work was done--
it was on Umpqua National Forest. Work was done with some RAC 
dollars and some vegetative improvement dollars, not hazardous 
fuels dollars or fuel reduction dollars, and yet, as you can 
see in the picture there, there was some piling was done. The 
area looks different. It may not look significantly different 
in the picture, but you can see where the fuels has been 
reduced using dollars other than fuels management dollars in 
order to accomplish that.
    So we have that opportunity to do increased work with a 
number of other kinds of projects, accomplishing more than just 
one thing at a time, but multiple benefits, one of those 
benefits being fuels reduction.
    Mr. Rey. I think that what we have committed to doing in 
the 2004 budget with the Department of the Interior is treating 
a grand total of four million acres. Now, let us review the 
bidding. In fiscal year 2000 the two agencies, the two 
Departments, together treated two million acres. So we will be 
doubling that. We will be continuing that rate of progress and 
perhaps exceeding it on to 2005, and our goal is over the next 
couple of years to double that again to where we are treating 
eight to nine million acres a year.
    If we can get to that next phase jump, then we will be on a 
path to address this problem in 8 to 10 years, which is what we 
have always said will be the time frame that is needed to 
address it. This is not a problem that we got into overnight; 
it is not a problem that we are going to get out of overnight.
    But insofar as the funding is concerned, it pains me to 
disagree with you, Senator Wyden, but our occasional 
disagreements make our general agreement that much more dear. 
There was never anything in this authorization that talked 
about $760 million of new money. It says: ``There is authorized 
to be appropriated $760 million for each fiscal year to carry 
out: one, activities authorized by this title; and two, other 
hazardous fuel reduction activities of the Secretary, including 
making grants to States, local governments, Indian tribes, and 
other eligible recipients for activities authorized by law.''
    What we have tried to do, as I was explaining earlier to 
Senator Feinstein, is reorganize our budget with the Department 
of the Interior to show you a crosscut of the funds that are 
devoted to the activities described in this authorization. Not 
all $760 million of it is new money, that we would acknowledge. 
Roughly $80 to $100 million of it is new money. We think that 
is, A, good progress towards the goal in acres treated that I 
have described; and B, squares favorably in total with the 
authorization language as it is written.
    Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up and I 
just want to make one last point.
    Virtually all the things that the Chief discussed are 
projects that I support. I would just say, gentlemen, I think 
it is a fantasy to say that we are going to get anything close 
to the amount of work Congress foresaw in this bipartisan 
legislation accomplished under your budget. I do take exception 
with Mr. Rey's views. Everybody in the U.S. Senate thought this 
was new money that was going to go to these efforts, and I 
think it is particularly exasperating to see that coupled with 
the cuts in the money that would go to the States and 
localities for doing the cooperative programs.
    We are continuing the kind of budgetary shell game in my 
view that has made business as usual in the forestry area so 
frustrating to communities across this country. I just want it 
understood, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, that I am going to do 
everything I can to try to get back to the kind of bipartisan 
focus that we had when we passed this historic legislation and 
that unfortunately this budget moves away from.
    I thank you for the extra time.
    Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
    Senator Akaka.

        STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR 
                          FROM HAWAII

    Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to add my welcome to the witnesses. Mr. Secretary, 
good to have you back in this room.
    Mr. Rey. Thank you.
    Senator Akaka. Chief, good to have you here.
    Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I would like to 
submit for the record.
    Senator Thomas. We will include it in the record.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, U.S. Senator From Hawaii
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this hearing today. I would 
like to add my welcome to the witnesses. It is a pleasure to see you 
both again.
    In addition to managing approximately 192 million acres of national 
forests and grasslands across the country, the Forest Service provides 
research, technical assistance, and cooperative programs with 
landowners to restore and maintain private forests. The Forest 
Service's contributions are very important for us in Hawaii. The State 
of Hawaii has forests that range from tropical rainforests to arid 
scrub, covering 41 percent of the State's total land area.
    We greatly appreciate the Forest Service's work on invasive 
species, tropical forestry, and the Forest Legacy Program, which have 
been beneficial in maintaining and restoring Hawaii's native forest 
lands. `The State has an outstanding state forestry program and 
recently completed the Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Action Plan and 
designated last year, 2003, as the ``Year of the Hawaiian Forest.''
    I realize that hard choices have to be made about programs and 
priorities. The Administration's budget request reflects priorities of 
tax cuts and the war against terrorism, which force difficult choices 
by discretionary spending agencies such as the Forest Service. I note 
that after inflation is taken into account, your budget request is down 
slightly from the FY 2004 enacted level.
    There are some bright spots in the budget request that I would like 
to mention. In State and Private Forestry, I am pleased to see the 
increase in the Forest Legacy program this year, but disheartened to 
see offsetting decreases in programs like Urban and Community Forestry 
and State Fire Assistance. I am pleased to see a funding increase for 
the Institute of Pacific Island Forestry for research on invasive weeds 
and ecosystem restoration.
    Overall, it is good to see that you are increasing your spending to 
understand and control invasive species. There is a S10 million 
increase in the Forest and Rangeland Research line item for rapid 
response to new introductions of invasive pests or pathogens. I have 
some specific questions about this when we get to the questions.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I will ask my questions when we get 
to the appropriate point in the hearing.

    Senator Akaka. I have some questions on invasive species 
and healthy forests.
    Senator Thomas. Very well. Go right ahead, sir.
    Senator Akaka. May I proceed with my questions?
    Senator Thomas. Certainly.
    Senator Akaka. My questions are for either you, Mr. 
Secretary, or the Chief. I am glad to see a commendable 
increase of $7.3 million in funding for invasive species 
control methods in Forest and Rangeland Research. This is an 
ongoing battle for many States, especially mine, and an 
important issue for the overall health of our forests and 
communities.
    The appropriation for Forest and Rangeland Research 
indicates that the invasive species programs will expand 
research on controls for newly arrived insects and pathogens. 
The budget document also indicates that new biological controls 
for established invasive weeds will increase, along with 
methods to restore the sites once the invasive species is 
controlled.
    As you know, the State of Hawaii is plagued by invasive 
weeds such as miconia and fountain grass. These and other 
invasives have been changing the hydrology of tropical forests 
by depleting the groundwater supply, preventing native plant 
growth, and leading to erosion. The erosion increases 
sedimentation in surface waters and smothers coral reefs.
    My question is, with regard to Hawaii it is unclear as to 
what level of funding my State can look forward to for control 
of invasive weeds and insects. The Institute of Pacific Islands 
Forestry will have an increase, but is this the only invasives 
effort by the Forest Service that will affect Hawaii's forests? 
To what specific pests, species, or pathogens will the funding 
be dedicated and how will the research help with Hawaii's 
invasive problems? Mr. Secretary?
    Mr. Rey. Senator, the support provided to the Institute of 
Pacific Island Forestry is probably the largest source of 
support, primarily on research related to invasives, that will 
come out of the Forest Service budget. But as you know, there 
are no national forest lands in Hawaii. Most of the land is 
non-federal ownership. The program that does the most in 
dealing with invasives in Hawaii is the environmental quality 
incentive program administered by the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, which is the other agency I oversee.
    In fiscal year 2003, for instance, we sent a little over 
$2.1 million of environmental quality incentive program money 
to Hawaii for work on private lands. I am told that much of 
that was used to deal with invasives, the spread of invasives 
on private land, since that is a significant problem in Hawaii.
    Overall in that program account, I think the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service spent somewhere in the 
neighborhood of $20 million in fiscal year 2003. I can give you 
overall budget numbers for that account for 2004 and 2005. I 
cannot today tell you how it is broken among States and within 
Hawaii how much of what Hawaii's allocation is is going to 
invasives as opposed to some other private land problem. But I 
can get with you as those numbers are developed and get them to 
you.
    Senator Akaka. Would you want to make any comment, Chief? 
Otherwise, fine.
    Mr. Bosworth. Just to add to that one thing. The 
President's proposal, budget proposal, has $2 million for the 
emergency pest and pathogen program and of course that covers 
the whole country. But the critical thing there is that as we 
have new species pop up we need to be able to respond to those 
quickly, both with research as well as with control measures.
    The number one thing we can do with invasives, the most 
important thing, is prevention of new outbreaks, stopping them 
quickly. The emerging pest and pathogen program would help a 
lot with that.
    Senator Akaka. Well, I want to commend the Forest Service 
for its participation in the interagency budget crosscut on 
invasive species and its work with the National Invasive 
Species Council. However, I am disheartened to note that the 
overall funding for invasive species-related projects has 
decreased since fiscal year 2003 from $88.3 million to the 
present budget request of $67.9 million.
    I am interested in one change in particular. I see that a 
$10 million request has been added to the Emerging Pest and 
Pathogens Fund in State and Private Forestry. The budget 
request mentions several non-native species or pathogens that 
would be addressed by this funding, such as emerald ash borer 
and sudden oak death; but none of these are of immediate 
concern in Hawaii.
    I understand that you have touched on this earlier, but I 
would like to know the rationale behind these choices. Were 
there specific States in mind when this request was being 
calculated? Does this mean less funding to combat other 
varieties of invasive species?
    Mr. Bosworth. That list that is in there, we are not 
limited to that list. That is just a list of some of those that 
we are having particular difficulty with right now that we are 
getting new outbreaks that we are aware of. The situation is 
that we could easily get a new outbreak of some pest or 
pathogen that we never heard of or have never seen before, and 
that is part of the purpose of the emerging pest and pathogen 
program, would be to then all of a sudden switch some dollars 
to that and get after it very quickly.
    The list that was shown was the list of some that we do not 
about, that we are having problems with right now. But we are 
not limited to that.
    Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Thomas. Thank you.
    Senator Bingaman.
    Senator Bingaman. Thank you.
    Let me just ask about a couple of other issues. Mr. Rey, 
you were referring on this issue of how do we get away from 
these transfers of funds from one account to another to fight 
fires, and you had one idea that I think you put forward that 
you might be supportive of would be establishing a government-
wide contingency fund.
    As you undoubtedly know, I offered an amendment last year 
to the healthy forests bill where I was suggesting that we 
provide authority to the Forest Service to go to Treasury and 
borrow money as it is needed. The administration opposed that. 
Most members of the Senate opposed that. It was something which 
was not in the budget. Nobody thought that it was a good idea.
    How would your government-wide contingency fund work and is 
this something you would actually put money into when the 
budget comes up to us next year?
    Mr. Rey. Probably the best thing for me to do, since my 
memory is less acute than it was years ago, is to get you the 
administration's proposal from fiscal year 2004's budget 
request. But as I recall how the account would work--and I will 
ask our Budget Director to spell me here if I get it wrong--is 
that what we requested in our budget request was the 
establishment of a government-wide contingency account that 
would be available not only to the Forest Service but FEMA and 
other agencies who typically utilize emergency authorities and 
spend money to deal with emergency situations, and that some 
amount of money for that purpose would be added into the budget 
resolution as a contingency and then carried forward in the 
budget resolution so that it would available for the 
appropriations committees to thereafter draw from in addressing 
these emergencies.
    Is that about how it works?
    Mr. Kashdan. That is essentially correct, Senator.
    Senator Bingaman. That was in the 2004 budget that you sent 
up and not in this year's budget?
    Mr. Kashdan. It was in the 2003 and the 2004 budget. It is 
not contained in this budget.
    Senator Bingaman. How much money were you asking to go into 
that account?
    Mr. Kashdan. My recollection is at least $4 billion in 
2003. I do not recall what the amount was for 2004. But again, 
that was a government-wide amount.
    Senator Bingaman. But you would still support that kind of 
a proposal? If we were to put it together and offer it, we 
could get administration support for it?
    Mr. Rey. I have not had any indication that there has been 
any change in that view. I think we figured that there was no 
point in taking the third strike inasmuch as it had been 
offered twice and not generally well received.
    Senator Bingaman. Well, I may follow up with you on that, 
because I do think the fact that this is not on the front page 
of the morning newspaper does not mean it is not going to come 
back to bite us as we get into the fire season, and I would 
like to see us try to get ahead of it.
    The one other issue I wanted to ask about is this bark 
beetle kill that we have seen all through the west; at least in 
my part of the country, in the Southwest, particularly in 
northern New Mexico. In my lifetime and I think since we have 
been keeping records, the number of trees, the percentage of 
the pinon trees, that have died, and many of the pines as well, 
is unprecedented.
    Is there any plan by the Forest Service to deal with that 
problem at this stage? Is it too soon to know the extent of the 
problem, or is it just subsumed under a more general category 
of these are areas we need to rehabilitate? What is the 
situation there?
    Mr. Rey. Given the magnitude of these epidemics at this 
point, we obviously do not look at this as an emerging pest 
problem. We are well beyond looking at this as something we can 
eradicate. So we are looking at these pandemics as part and 
parcel of the areas that we have to treat to reduce fire risk, 
and we will likely not treat all 100 percent of the areas that 
are infested in any location where we are currently suffering 
infestations. Rather, we will look at strategic treatments to 
create defensible barriers to the spread of fire and the 
further spread of the insects where that is possible.
    So we look at it as a component of the healthy forest 
challenge that we face, but at least in areas where we have 
already reached pandemic or epidemic proportions not something 
that we are going to be able to eradicate, given the size of 
the epidemic.
    Now, there still are parts of the country where we are 
dealing with initial infestations and there our strategy is 
different, to get in, get it cut down quickly, and catch it 
before it spreads, both for pine beetle as well as for other 
pathogens.
    Senator Bingaman. My time has expired there, but I may 
follow up with you and urge that we try to do some strategic 
planning with regard to this, because to my mind this is not 
just sort of an add-on to another plan that we already have in 
place. This is a 900-pound gorilla if there ever was one, as 
far as the ability to manage the forests in the part of the 
country that I am from.
    Mr. Rey. I do not mean to suggest it is an add-on. It is an 
element of a larger problem, and there is a unique aspect to 
this in that we are not just trying to create defensible spaces 
to stop the spread of the catastrophic fire; we are also 
looking at what our opportunities are to slow or stop the 
spread of the epidemic.
    Senator Bingaman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Thomas. A couple of just quick ones. In the spring 
of 1993, Chief, I think you predicted there would be seven 
forest plans by the end of 2003, 17 by the end of 2004. It 
seems like there has only been 17 completed since 1993. How 
many plans do you plan to get continued? That seems to be one 
of the things that goes on forever in the States, are these 
forest plans.
    Mr. Bosworth. I can get you the number, the listing of 
completed plans as well as what our schedule for out years is. 
One of the reasons that we are proposing to revise the forest 
planning rule, the NFMA rule, is so that we can get forest 
plans done in a reasonable period of time. Under our existing 
processes, it has been taking 8, 9, 10 years to complete a 15-
year forest plan, which just does not make any sense.
    So my belief is that we have to have processes where we can 
get a forest plan done in a couple of years, get it revised. If 
we are going to engage the community and the public in 
developing these plans, you have to have a process that will do 
it in a reasonable period of time or we will lose people.
    I would be happy to submit a full schedule of what has been 
completed and what we plan on doing in each fiscal year from 
now on out.
    Senator Thomas. Have you made progress in doing it more 
quickly or not?
    Mr. Bosworth. Yes. Actually, we have not completed our new 
planning rule yet, but even under our old planning rule we are 
getting the focus on reducing the length of time and I think we 
are picking it up a little bit. But we need to make significant 
improvements over what we are right now.
    Senator Thomas. Mr. Secretary, you recommended $35 million 
in the forest legacy program. Which is more important to you, 
dealing with the health disaster or acquiring additional lands 
and conservation easements? Could 35 bucks maybe, $35 million, 
be better used?
    Mr. Rey. I am not sure it is an either/or proposition in 
the case of acquiring easements at least. One of the things 
that is complicating a lot of our land management and 
firefighting efforts is the fragmentation of landscapes and the 
subdivision of privately owned forest and ranch lands and the 
growth of the wildland-urban interface. To the extent that our 
forest legacy program is slowing the growth of the wildland-
urban interface by providing an incentive for people not to 
subdivide their land, whether it is forest land as far as the 
forest legacy program is concerned or ranch land as far as the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service grassland reserve or 
farm and forest land protection program is concerned, whichever 
program is involved, if it is slowing the growth of the 
wildland-urban interface it is assisting our firefighting 
effort and assisting our ability to restore forest health.
    So I am not sure it is an either/or proposition, at least 
insofar as easement acquisition is concerned. Now, some will 
make the case that as far as actual fee title acquisition is 
concerned, which is more expensive, that that really should be 
a lower priority than devoting the effort to deal with the 
health of existing Federally owned lands. I think our budget 
reflects that. Our land acquisition account is significantly 
lower than it has been in past years and most of the 
acquisitions that are called for in the priority list are 
acquisitions that involve places where the Federal Government 
or the Congress committed to buy out people as new areas were 
designated, like the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. When 
that legislation passed, the Congress made a commitment to 
retire from willing sellers their land within the Columbia 
Gorge Scenic Area because many of those owners wanted the 
opportunity to take that money and go buy land someplace else 
that they could manage more intensively.
    So that is what our land acquisition is prioritized to do 
right now.
    Senator Thomas. Well, that is good. I hope as you look at 
that that you use trades and these kinds of things rather 
than--so that you do not have a net gain of land ownership. It 
seems like there is plenty of----
    Mr. Rey. We are not interested in a net gain, and there is 
a proposal in our legislative proposals to allow us to begin to 
convey through sales excess assets, not so much land as 
administrative sites. And we would be very eager to talk with 
you about seeing that come to fruition.
    Senator Thomas. Some of these isolated tracts and so on 
could be traded.
    Senator Akaka, we are about to wind up here, I think.
    Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to return to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
2003. Title V of that act authorizes up to $25 million for the 
Healthy Forests Reserves Program. This program would help 
landowners restore forested habitats for rare and endangered 
species through cost-sharing agreements and conservation 
easements.
    The State of Hawaii has completed the Hawaii Tropical 
Forest Recovery Action Plan, and we have just completed an 
extensive series of critical habitat designations. Hawaii can 
easily benefit from this program. I do not find a request for 
title V in the budget document. Can you provide any details on 
the status of title V and your plans for a request next year?
    Mr. Rey. Title V is a title that requires at a minimum 
guidance to our field and we are thinking now perhaps 
regulations before we can implement it. So in the interest of 
not creating expectations that we could not fulfill, we did not 
line item anything for title V.
    Now, that having been said, some of the projects that we 
would normally fund either under our forest legacy program--or 
I should say, some of the projects that we could fund under our 
forest legacy program and under our forest stewardship 
accounts, as well as the farm and ranch land protection 
program, the grassland reserve program, the wetlands reserve 
program, under the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
accounts, could be used to serve two purposes and fund projects 
that qualify under the Healthy Forests Reserve.
    But at least right now, we would like to get, if not 
regulations, at least guidance out to our field so people know 
how they should approach this in an organized fashion before we 
create an expectation by putting however an amount of money, a 
line item in the 2005 account. So you will see more of this 
from us in 2006.
    Senator Akaka. Well, I would like to continue to work with 
you on this program because it could help, and we look forward 
to the future of the program.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a question that I 
will put in for the record.
    Senator Thomas. All right, that will be fine.
    Thank you, gentlemen. We will leave the record open for 24 
hours. If people have further questions, we will get them to 
you. We appreciate your work. All of us are very interested in 
the resource of the national forests and we want to continue to 
work with you to make those things work as best we can. So 
thank you.
    The committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX

                   Responses to Additional Questions

                              ----------                              

   Responses of the Forest Service to Questions From Senator Domenici
                             valles caldera

    Question 1. I note in your proposed budget that you have 
recommended a $2.1 million dollar reduction for the Valles Caldera 
National Preserve. I know you understand the need to provide sufficient 
funding for this important project. I think you understand that the 
failure to provide sufficient start up and transitional funding now, 
will doom any effort to have the Preserve ready to take over its full 
financial responsibility when scheduled. Can you tell me why you've 
made the recommendation that you've made?
    Answer. The decrease for the Valles Caldera is a result of the 
agency's challenge, and specifically in the Southwestern Region, to 
balance all the competing priorities and needs the agency faces. To 
increase the FY 2005 President's Budget request for the Valles Caldera 
would result in impacts to the other national forests. Below is a table 
showing the funding history for the Valles Caldera.

                     VALLES CALDERA FUNDING HISTORY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                President's
                 Fiscal year                       budget       Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.........................................           $0      $988,000
2002.........................................   $1,011,000    $2,800,000
2003.........................................   $1,035,000    $3,130,000
2004.........................................     $984,000    $3,111,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                grazing
    Question 2. Over the last several years you have been forced to 
limit the number of cattle that you let ranches put out on their 
allotments in New Mexico due to continued drought. Two years ago the 
process used by most of the Forests in New Mexico to inform the 
ranchers was unacceptable. Last year did improve some.
    What have you done this year to work with the ranchers to relate 
your expectations for this upcoming grazing season?
    Answer. Region 3 forest managers have been working with permittees 
throughout the winter to describe conditions of forage on Forest 
Service allotments. This is part of the Regional Forester's ``no 
surprises'' policy for National Forests' managers to communicate as 
early and as openly as possible with permittees regarding 2004 use. 
Also, forest managers have been instructed to consider creative and 
flexible ways to address use and reduced numbers due to permittee 
requests such as requests for changed seasons, changed use patterns, 
flexible utilization limits, and charging non-use to resource 
protection. By far the vast majority of permittees in the Region have 
been very cooperative and understanding of the situation with drought 
and forage use.
    Question 3. What steps have you taken to improve your folks 
communications with the ranchers?
    Answer. In addition to our answer to question 2, the Regional 
Forester has emphasized range management as a top priority for the 
Southwestern Region. The Regional Forester and Forest Supervisors are 
working closely with county commissioners, Congressional delegations 
and permittees to resolve issues without resorting to confrontation. In 
addition, the Region and Forests are focusing on coming together with 
permittees and other affected interests at the local and State levels, 
listening respectfully to their needs, and assisting with development 
of solutions at the local level. Open houses have been held throughout 
the winter with permittees, individuals and groups and will continue 
into the spring as the 2004 grazing season begins.
    Question 4. I know that there has been controversy about range 
monitoring related to allowing the Universities in New Mexico to help 
provide data. I don't understand why the Forest Service is willing to 
accept monitoring from non-governmental organizations (for instance on 
stewardship projects) but somehow your folks in Region Three can't find 
a way to work this out with the Universities in New Mexico.
    I am growing seriously concerned with the Forest Service's grazing 
operations in my State. You need to quickly make an assessment and 
develop a plan that will resolve these issues.
    I would like an action plan to be developed and delivered to me 
within three weeks on specific steps you are taking, or will be taking 
to improve communications with the grazing community in Arizona and New 
Mexico.
    Answer. The Forest Service is striving to improve communication 
with the grazing communities in Arizona and New Mexico. We are 
certainly willing to provide your staff with a briefing on the actions 
being taken to improve communication about management of the rangeland 
resources in the region.
    Question 5. The FY 2005 budget includes a $2.5 million reduction 
for range management (that's a 5% reduction). This past year we spent a 
considerable amount of time discussing the trouble the Forest Service 
was having getting NEPA done for renewal of grazing permits. At the 
time, the Forest Service was having great difficulty telling us how 
many permits they still had to complete.
    Can you tell me today how many grazing permit renewals still need 
to be done?
    Answer. None, all grazing permit renewals are current for this 
fiscal year. Section 325 of the FY 2004 Interior Appropriations Act 
provides relief until the end of 2008 for renewal of permits without 
completion of NEPA analysis.
    There is a problem with completing NEPA on allotments. At the end 
of FY 2003, 5,002 allotments were scheduled to be completed out of the 
original 6,886 allotments on the 1996 Rescissions Act schedule. Only 
2,296 allotments have been completed. A total of 4,590 allotments still 
need NEPA on the 1996 Rescissions Act Schedule.
    Grazing permits are ``reworked'' (see question 8) when new terms 
and conditions are incorporated into a grazing permit in order to bring 
it into conformance with changes in law, regulation, or policy. Some of 
these changes require decisions that are supported by a NEPA analysis 
and some do not. When NEPA analysis is required, it is conducted on the 
allotment and not the permit since the allotment defines the area on 
the ground where environmental effects from grazing actually occur. The 
schedule developed to implement the 1995 Rescissions Act tracks 
allotments, not permits. Changes to the permit cannot be identified 
until the NEPA analysis is completed on the allotment.
    The FY 2005 Budget calls for the Forest Service to adopt methods 
for prioritization through the development and use of qualitative tools 
that assess rangeland health and sustainability through the use of 
indicators that are linked to existing monitoring data. The Forest 
Service will consult with the Department of the Interior to develop and 
utilize an integrated and consistent framework and process for using 
monitoring and assessment information that leads to reduced allotment 
monitoring backlogs.
    Question 6. How many you expect to complete this year?
    Answer. Under the authority of Section 325 we intend to issue new 
permits for all permits that expire or are waived this year. The FY 
2004 target to complete NEPA analysis on allotments is 368.
    Question 7. When do you expect to clear the backlog?
    There is no backlog of permits. There is a problem with completing 
NEPA on allotments. At the end of FY 2003, 5,002 allotments were 
scheduled to be completed out of the original 6,886 allotments on the 
1996 Rescissions Act schedule. Only 2,296 allotments have been 
completed. A total of 4,590 allotments still need NEPA on the 1996 
Rescissions Act Schedule.
    The agency recognizes the need to emphasize long-term condition and 
trend effectiveness monitoring and the need to de-emphasize annual 
implementation monitoring. Both kinds of monitoring require 
quantitative measurements to standup to appeals and litigation. 
Qualitative monitoring has a place but is limited in scope. The agency 
already uses Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), developed by the 
Bureau of Land Management, to assess the functionality of riparian 
systems. PFC is both a qualitative assessment and qualitative 
monitoring tool. Science based methods that go beyond the use of PFC 
require quantitative monitoring. Rapid assessment qualitative measures 
of upland rangelands have not been repeatable, have too much variation, 
and therefore are not defensible in appeals and litigation. 
Quantitative allotment level monitoring is developed on an individual 
project basis as part of the allotment planning process. Adaptive 
management should be built into the proposed action to allow for 
maximum flexibility in management. Chapter 90 of the Range Permit 
Administration Handbook (FSH 2209.13) includes efficiencies on how to 
limit inventory needs, combine multiple allotments for inventory and 
analysis, develop a focused purpose and need statement, develop a 
focused proposed action, limit the number of alternatives analyzed in 
detail, and include adaptive management and monitoring into the 
proposed action.
    Question 8. Would you provide us a table for each forest and 
grassland that shows the number of grazing permits that currently need 
to be reworked and how many existing permits will come up for renew[al] 
for each of the next 10 years?
    Answer. Until the end of FY 2008, new grazing permits will be 
issued when the previous permits expire in accordance with Section 325. 
The attached table shows the current status of completion of allotment 
NEPA and the grazing permits associated with those allotments:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Rescission allotments
                                                    ------------------------------------- Rescission    Permits
                                                                                 Total    allotments    tied to
                       Region                        Allotments   Allotments    percent      still    allotments
                                                       on 1996       NEPA          of       needing      still
                                                      schedule   accomplished   schedule     NEPA       needing
                                                                   27 Feb 04   completed                 NEPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern--Region 1.................................     1295          289          22%       1006         857
Beaverhead-Deerlodge...............................  ..........  ............  .........      125          97
Bitterroot.........................................  ..........  ............  .........       53          27
Idaho Panhandle....................................  ..........  ............  .........       30          18
Clearwater.........................................  ..........  ............  .........       32          30
Custer.............................................  ..........  ............  .........      162         150
Flathead...........................................  ..........  ............  .........       77          70
Gallatin...........................................  ..........  ............  .........      106          98
Helena.............................................  ..........  ............  .........      227         157
Kootenai...........................................  ..........  ............  .........       27          10
Lewis and Clark....................................  ..........  ............  .........      227         150
Lolo...............................................  ..........  ............  .........       29          15
Nez Perce..........................................  ..........  ............  .........       35          35

Rocky Mountain--Region 2...........................     1664          714          43%        950         668
Bighorn............................................  ..........  ............  .........       27          18
Black Hills........................................  ..........  ............  .........      155         100
GMUG...............................................  ..........  ............  .........       47          40
Medicine Bow-Routt.................................  ..........  ............  .........      127         100
Rio Grande.........................................  ..........  ............  .........       97          60
Arapaho and Roosevelt..............................  ..........  ............  .........       69          57
Pike and San Isabel................................  ..........  ............  .........      125         112
San Juan...........................................  ..........  ............  .........      225         115
Shoshone...........................................  ..........  ............  .........       70          62
White River........................................  ..........  ............  .........        8           4

Southwestern--Region 3.............................     1093          652          60%        441         393
Apache-Sitgreaves..................................  ..........  ............  .........       97          87
Carson.............................................  ..........  ............  .........       64          55
Cibola.............................................  ..........  ............  .........       72          70
Coconino...........................................  ..........  ............  .........       12           9
Coronado...........................................  ..........  ............  .........        7           7
Gila...............................................  ..........  ............  .........       14          12
Kaibab.............................................  ..........  ............  .........        8           7
Lincoln............................................  ..........  ............  .........       12          10
Prescott...........................................  ..........  ............  .........        5           4
Santa Fe...........................................  ..........  ............  .........      127         111
Tonto..............................................  ..........  ............  .........       23          21

Intermountain--Region 4............................     1209          302          25%        907         791
Ashley.............................................  ..........  ............  .........       69          67
Boise..............................................  ..........  ............  .........       28          23
Bridger-Teton......................................  ..........  ............  .........       37          34
Dixie..............................................  ..........  ............  .........       11           9
Fishlake...........................................  ..........  ............  .........       39          38
Manti-LaSal........................................  ..........  ............  .........       57          47
Payette............................................  ..........  ............  .........       97          85
Salmon-Challis.....................................  ..........  ............  .........      117         100
Sawtooth...........................................  ..........  ............  .........      110          97
Caribou-Targhee....................................  ..........  ............  .........      187         167
Humboldt-Toiyabe...................................  ..........  ............  .........      112          97
Uinta..............................................  ..........  ............  .........       17          12
Wasatch-Cache......................................  ..........  ............  .........       26          15

Pacific Southwest--Region 5........................      722          134          19%        588         386
Eldorado...........................................  ..........  ............  .........       37          22
Inyo...............................................  ..........  ............  .........       20           5
Klamath............................................  ..........  ............  .........        0           0
Lassen.............................................      112           90
Los Padres.........................................  ..........  ............  .........        0           0
Mendocino..........................................  ..........  ............  .........       52          27
Modoc..............................................  ..........  ............  .........       54          41
Six Rivers.........................................  ..........  ............  .........        0           0
Plumas.............................................  ..........  ............  .........        7           5
Sequoia............................................  ..........  ............  .........        6           2
Shasta-Trinity.....................................  ..........  ............  .........        0           0
Sierra.............................................  ..........  ............  .........       77          62
Stanislaus.........................................  ..........  ............  .........      165          92
Tahoe..............................................  ..........  ............  .........       58          40

Pacific Northwest--Region 6........................      661           94          14%        567         358
Deschutes..........................................  ..........  ............  .........       24          15
Fremont............................................  ..........  ............  .........      112          97
Gifford Pinchot....................................  ..........  ............  .........        0           0
Malheur............................................  ..........  ............  .........        0           0
Mt. Hood...........................................  ..........  ............  .........        0           0
Ochoco.............................................  ..........  ............  .........       25          17
Rogue River........................................  ..........  ............  .........       27          11
Umatilla...........................................  ..........  ............  .........        7           5
Umpqua.............................................  ..........  ............  .........        2           1
Wallowa-Whitman....................................  ..........  ............  .........      245         100
Colville...........................................  ..........  ............  .........      125         112

Southern--Region 8.................................      144           97          67%         47          16
Kisatchie..........................................  ..........  ............  .........       11           5
National Forests in Mississippi....................  ..........  ............  .........        5           2
George Washington and Jefferson....................  ..........  ............  .........       25           6
Ouachita...........................................  ..........  ............  .........        2           1
Ozark-St. Francis..................................  ..........  ............  .........        4           2

Eastern--Region 9..................................       98           14          14%         84          46
Mark Twain.........................................  ..........  ............  .........       57          27
Green Mountain.....................................  ..........  ............  .........       27          19
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
  Totals...........................................     6886         2296          33%       4590        3515
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The attached table shows when current term grazing permits expire 
over the ten-year period 2004 to 2013.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern--Region 1
Beaverhead-Deerlodge......................      9      1      0      0      0      0      3     14     38      0
Bitterroot................................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
Idaho Panhandle...........................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
Clearwater................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      2      0
Custer....................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0     11     31      0
Flathead..................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
Gallatin..................................     18      0      0      0      0      0      0      7     14      0
Helena....................................      3      0      0      0      1      0      0      2     13      0
Kootenai..................................      3      0      0      1      0      0      0      0      2      2
Lewis and Clark...........................      2      0      0      0      0      0      0     10     15      0
Lolo......................................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      0
Nez Perce.................................      2      0      0      2      0      0      0      0     10      0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...................................     40      1      0      3      1      0      3     45    126      2

Rocky Mountain--Region 2
Bighorn...................................      2      0      0      0      1      0      0      9     10      0
Black Hills...............................      3      0      2      0      0      0      0     19     39      0
GMUG......................................     16      0      3      0      1      0      0     16     18      0
Medicine Bow-Routt........................      3      0      0      0      0      0      1      1     18     12
Rio Grande................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      1     18     12
Arapaho and Roosevelt.....................      4      0      0      1      0      0      0      0      2      0
Pike and San Isabel.......................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      2     32
San Juan..................................      3      0      0      0      0      0      1      2     13      0
Shoshone..................................      8      0      0      0      0      0      0      4      4      1
White River...............................     12      0      0      0      0      0      0      1     12      1
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...................................    178      0      5      1      2      0      3     53    136     58

Southwestern--Region 3
Apache-Sitgreaves.........................      2     98      2      6      8     25      9     16     97      4
Carson....................................     19     36     22     19     26     24     28     19     29     12
Cibola....................................     15     33     28      5     29     25     22      3      1      0
Coconino..................................      1     14     11      4      2      3      5      5      1      1
Coronado..................................     18     46     28     14     27     13     30     20     34     19
Gila......................................     23     21      6      6     10      7     31     13     21     14
Kaibab....................................      4     11      3      1      6      1      1      1     17      3
Lincoln...................................     27      8     16      9     11      6     21     19     14     18
Prescott..................................      4     14      8      6      3      5      8     10      0      4
Santa Fe..................................      8     22     16     17     18     16     61     51     62     15
Tonto.....................................      7     18      7     27      7     13      9      7      7      0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...................................    128    321    147    114    147    138    225    164    283     90

Intermountain--Region 4
Ashley....................................      0      6      1      2      4      0      2      6     17      1
Boise.....................................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      0      0
Bridger-Teton.............................      9      0      0      0      0      0      2      3     24      0
Dixie.....................................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      5     14      0
Fishlake..................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1     33      0
Manti-LaSal...............................      3      1      1      0      0      0      0     41     53      0
Payette...................................      2      0      0      3      0      0      0     16      6      0
Salmon-Challis............................      0      0      0      0      1      1      0      3     42      0
Sawtooth..................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0     17      0
Caribou-Targhee...........................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0     25      0
Humboldt-Toiyabe..........................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0     17      0
Uinta.....................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      7     39      0
Wasatch-Cache.............................      1      0      0      0      0      0     13      0      5      0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...................................     17      7      2      5      5      1     17     83    292      1

Pacific Southwest--Region 5
Eldorado..................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      2      0
Inyo......................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      5      0
Klamath...................................      6      0      0      0      0      0      0      2      4      1
Lassen....................................      2      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      3      6
Los Padres................................      1      0      0      3      0      0      0      0      6      4
Mendocino.................................      0      0      0      0      0      2      0      0      1      0
Modoc.....................................      2      2      0      0      6      0      6      3     66      2
Six Rivers................................      2      0      1      0      0      0      0      2      3      0
Plumas....................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      6      0
Sequoia...................................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0     10      9      0
Shasta-Trinity............................      0      0      0      0      0      1      0      0      0      0
Sierra....................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      3      4
Stanislaus................................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      4      0
Tahoe.....................................      2      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      4      4
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...................................     17      2      1      3      6      3      6     21    116     21

Pacific Northwest--Region 6
Deschutes.................................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      0
Fremont...................................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      2     10      0
Gifford Pinchot...........................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      0
Malheur...................................      6      0      0      0      0      0      0      3     15      0
Mt. Hood..................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      2      0
Ochoco....................................      0      0      0      0      0      0      2      6      4      0
Rogue River...............................      4      0      0      0      0      0      0      0     11      0
Umatilla..................................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      2      4      0
Umpqua....................................      0      0      0      0      0      2      3      3     14      0
Wallowa-Whitman...........................      2      0      1      0      0      0      0      2     12      0
Colville..................................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      3     48      0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...................................     16      0      1      0      0      2      5     21    122      0

Southern--Region 8
Ouachita..................................      2      0      0      0      0      0      0      4      6      0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...................................      2      0      0      0      0      0      0      4      6      0

Eastern--Region 9
Huron Manistee............................      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      2      1      0
Mark Twain................................      2      0      0      0      0      0      1      4      0      0
Monongahela...............................      2      0      0      0      0      0      1      1      0      1
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...................................      5      0      0      0      0      0      2      7      1      1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 9. Please also display the projected work assignments by 
forest related to the number of permits that will need to be renewed 
each year to complete the backlog in 8 years?
    Answer. Please refer to attached table, which represents an 8-year 
projection of the workload remaining by Forest to complete NEPA on 
those allotments remaining on the schedule.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 NEPA to be accomplished              Rescission
                                         Allotments ------------------------------------------------- allotments
             Region/forest               NEPA to be                                                      still
                                           accomp.    2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011    needing
                                            2004                                                         NEPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern--Region 1.....................  ..........  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....     1006
Beaverhead-Deerlodge...................      100         5     10      0     10      0      0      0      125
Bitterroot.............................        3        10     20      5      5      5      5      0       53
Idaho Panhandle........................        0        10     10     10      0      0      0      0       30
Clearwater.............................        2         5      5      5      5      5      5      0       32
Custer.................................       50        10      2     50     25     25      0      0      162
Flathead...............................       25        10     17      5     10     10      0      0       77
Gallatin...............................       50        25     25      5      1      0      0      0      106
Helena.................................       77        50    100     25     25      0      0      0      227
Kootenai...............................        7         5      5      5      5      0      0      0       27
Lewis & Clark..........................       79        28     59     50     12      0      0      0      227
Lolo...................................        0         9     10     10      0      0      0      0       29
Nez Perce..............................       15        10      5      5      0      0      0      0       35

Rocky Mountain--Region 2...............  ..........  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....      950
Bighorn................................        7         5      5      5      5      0      0      0       27
Black Hills............................       55        50     25     25      0      0      0      0      155
GMUG...................................       17        10     10      5      5      0      0      0       47
Medicine Bow-Routt.....................       57        50     20      5      0      0      0      0      127
Rio Grande.............................        7        10     25     25     10     10     10      0       97
Arapaho-Roosevelt......................       29        25     10      4      1      0      0      0       69
Pike-San Isabel........................       25        25     25     25     25      0      0      0      125
San Juan...............................       50        50     50     50     25      0      0      0      225
Shoshone...............................       25        25     10     10      0      0      0      0       70
White River............................        4         4      0      0      0      0      0      0        8

Southwestern--Region 3.................  ..........  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....      441
Apache-Sitgreaves......................       50        25     10     10      2      0      0      0       97
Carson.................................       25        25     10      4      0      0      0      0       64
Cibola.................................       25        25     10     10      2      0      0      0       72
Coconino...............................        5         5      2      0      0      0      0      0       12
Coronado...............................        5         0      2      0      0      0      0      0        7
Gila...................................        7         0      7      0      0      0      0      0       14
Kaibab.................................        4         0      2      2      0      0      0      0        8
Lincoln................................        7         3      2      0      0      0      0      0       12
Prescott...............................        3         0      2      0      0      0      0      0        5
Santa Fe...............................      117         0      5      5      0      0      0      0      127
Tonto..................................       13         0      5      5      0      0      0      0       23

Intermountain--Region 4................  ..........  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....      907
Ashley.................................       16         3     10     15     15      5      5      0       69
Boise..................................       12         5      3      0      0      0      0      0       28
Bridger-Teton..........................       17         5      5      5      0      0      0      0       37
Dixie..................................        6         3      2      0      0      0      0      0       11
Fishlake...............................       15        15      9      0      0      0      0      0       39
Manti-LaSal............................       25        17      5      5      5      0      0      0       57
Payette................................       25        25     17     10      5      5     10      0       97
Salmon-Challis.........................       27        25     37     10     11      7      0      0      117
Sawtooth...............................       72        31      2      5      0      0      0      0      110
Caribou-Targhee........................       57        30     25     25     25     25      0      0      187
Humboldt-Toiyabe.......................       12        25     25     25     25      0      0      0      112
Uinta..................................        7         5      5      0      0      0      0      0       17
Wasatch-Cache..........................        6         5      5      5      5      0      0      0       26

Pacific Southwest--Region 5............  ..........  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....      588
Eldorado...............................        7        15      5      5      5      0      0      0       37
Inyo...................................       10         5      0      5      0      0      0      0       20
Klamath................................        0         0      0      0      0      0      0      0        0
Lassen.................................       22        10     55      5      5      5     10      0      112
Los Padres.............................        0         0      0      0      0      0      0      0        0
Mendocino..............................       12        10     10     10     10      0      0      0       52
Modoc..................................       10         7      7     10     10     10      0      0       54
Six Rivers.............................        0         0      0      0      0      0      0      0        0
Plumas.................................        2         0      5      0      0      0      0      0        7
Sequoia................................        4         0      0      2      0      0      0      0        6
Shasta-Trinity.........................        0         0      0      0      0      0      0      0        0
Sierra.................................       27        25     10     10      5      0      0      0       77
Stanislaus.............................       55        25     25     25     25     10      0      0      165
Tahoe..................................       28        15     15      0      0      0      0      0       58

Pacific Northwest--Region 6............  ..........  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....      567
Deschutes..............................       14         0     10      0      0      0      0      0       24
Fremont................................       25        25     25     25     10      2      0      0      112
Gifford Pinchot........................        0         0      0      0      0      0      0      0        0
Malheur................................        0         0      0      0      0      0      0      0        0
Mt. Hood...............................        0         0      0      0      0      0      0      0        0
Ochoco.................................        5        10      0     10      0      0      0      0       25
Rogue River............................        7         0      5      5      5      0      5      0       27
Umatilla...............................        2         0      1      0      2      0      0      0        7
Umpqua.................................        1         0      0      0      1      0      0      0        2
Wallowa-Whitman........................      124        27     81      0     10      3      0      0      245
Colville...............................       25        25     25     25      0     25      0      0      125

Southern--Region 8.....................  ..........  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....       47
Kisatchie..............................        1         0      5      0      5      0      0      0       11
NF Mississippi.........................        2         0      1      0      1      1      0      0        5
GW-Jefferson...........................        5         5      5      5      0      5      0      0       25
Ouachita...............................        1         0      0      1      0      0      0      0        2
Ozark St.-Francis......................        3         0      0      0      1      0      0      0        4

Eastern--Region 9......................  ..........  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....       84
Mark Twain.............................        7        25      0     25      0      0      0      0       57
Green Mountain.........................        7         5      5      5      0      5      0      0       27
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total All Regions....................  ..........  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....    4,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 10. On a separate table please display by forest and 
grassland the amount of funding for each of the last five years 
expended on grazing permit renewal and the number of permits that were 
successfully completed on each forest and grassland.
    Answer. The Forest Service does not track expenditures to the level 
of detail requested. However, we have provided a table that shows the 
number of permits issued by Forest, by Region, for each of the last 5 
years, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and the number of allotments for 
which NEPA was completed on for each of the last 5 years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permits issued within the last 5
              years                1999    2000    2001    2002    2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern--Region 1
Beaverhead-Deerlodge............    25      10       2       5       2
Bitterroot......................    10       1       0       0       0
Idaho Panhandle.................     5       0       2       0       0
Clearwater......................     1       0       0       1       0
Custer..........................     5       0       5       0       0
Flathead........................     2       5       0       2       0
Gallatin........................    15       2       5       0       0
Helena..........................     2       3       2       0       0
Kootenai........................     2       1       0       2       0
Lewis and Clark.................    10       5       0       0       0
Lolo............................     5       0       5       0       0
Nez Perce.......................    10       5       5       0       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    91      32      31      11       2

Rocky Mountain--Region 2........
Bighorn.........................    15       5       5      10       0
Black Hills.....................     5      10       0       0       0
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and        12       0       5       2      14
 Gunnison.......................
Medicine Bow-Routt..............    10      15      10       8       1
Rio Grande......................     5       5       0       0       0
Arapaho and Roosevelt...........     5       0       0      10       0
Pike and San Isabel.............    12       6       0      30       0
San Juan........................     5       0       5       0       0
Shoshone........................    15       0      10       0       0
White River.....................     2       0       0       0      27
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    86      41      35      60      42

Southwestern--Region 3
Apache-Sitgreaves...............    30       5      18       3       2
Carson..........................     5       0       2       5       0
Cibola..........................    26       5      17      25       5
Coconino........................    10      12       5      10      12
Coronado........................    15       2       5       5      25
Gila............................    30       0       0      10      15
Kaibab..........................    10       0       5       2       0
Lincoln.........................    13       3       0      10      12
Prescott........................     2      10       5       0       0
Santa Fe........................     5      13       1       7      12
Tonto...........................     5       2       5       0       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................   151      52      63      77      83

Intermountain--Region 4
Ashley..........................     2       6       2       0       5
Boise...........................     2       0       8       5       0
Bridger-Teton...................     0       6       2       0       0
Dixie...........................    10       0       5       0       0
Fishlake........................     2      21       0       5       0
Manti-LaSal.....................     5       0       2       0       0
Payette.........................     0       5       0       2       4
Salmon-Challis..................     2       0       5       1       2
Sawtooth........................     2       0       5       1       0
Caribou-Targhee.................    16       5       2      10      12
Humboldt-Toiyabe................     0       5       2       0       0
Uinta...........................     5       0       2       0       0
Wasatch-Cache...................     5       2       0       5       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    51      50      35      29      23

Pacific Southwest--Region 5
Eldorado........................     1       0       0       0       0
Inyo............................     0       6       0       0       0
Klamath.........................     0       0      11       0       0
Lassen..........................     0       2       0       0       0
Los Padres......................     2       2       0       0       0
Mendocino.......................     0       1       0       0       0
Modoc...........................    25      10       0       0       0
Six Rivers......................     0       2       0       0       0
Plumas..........................     0       2       1       0       0
Sequoia.........................     0       1       0       6       0
Shasta-Trinity..................     0       2       0       1       0
Sierra..........................     0       1       0       0       0
Stanislaus......................     1       0       0       0       0
Tahoe...........................     1       5       0       0       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    30      34      12       7       0

Pacific Northwest--Region 6
Deschutes.......................     2       0       1       0       0
Fremont.........................    10       0       5       2       0
Gifford Pinchot.................     0       2       0       0       0
Malheur.........................     1       0       0       0       0
Mt. Hood........................     0       1       0       0       0
Ochoco..........................     0       4       1       0       0
Rogue River.....................     1       0       0       0       0
Umatilla........................     0       1       0       0       0
Umpqua..........................     0       0       1       0       0
Wallowa-Whitman.................    10       5       1       2       0
Wenatchee.......................     4       0       2       5       0
Colville........................     5       2       2       1       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    33      15      13      10       0

Southern--Region 8
Kisatchie.......................     5       5       2       0       0
National Forests in Mississippi.     2       0       2       0       0
George Washington and Jefferson.     1       2       0       0       0
Ouachita........................     1       3       0       6       0
Ozark-St. Francis...............     1       0       1       0       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    10      10       5       6       0

Eastern--Region 9
Mark Twain......................    10       2       5       0       0
Green Mountain..................     2       2       0       0       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    12       4       5       0       0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Allotments with NEPA completed
      for the past 5 years         1999    2000    2001    2002    2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern--Region 1
Beaverhead-Deerlodge............    16       4       1       0       2
Bitterroot......................     0       1       0       0       0
Idaho Panhandle.................     0       0       0       0       0
Clearwater......................     0       0       0       1       0
Custer..........................     0       0       0       0       0
Flathead........................     1       0       0       0       0
Gallatin........................     0       0       0       0       0
Helena..........................     0       4       2       0       0
Kootenai........................     2       0       0       2       0
Lewis and Clark.................     0       0       0       0       0
Lolo............................     0       0       0       0       0
Nez Perce.......................     0       0       0       0       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    19       9       2       3       2

Rocky Mountain--Region 2
Bighorn.........................     5       0       0       0       0
Black Hills.....................     0       0       0       0       0
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and         2       0       0       2      14
 Gunnison.......................
Medicine Bow-Routt..............     9      25      10       8       1
Rio Grande......................     1       1       0       0       0
Arapaho and Roosevelt...........     1       0       0       0       0
Pike and San Isabel.............     0       6       0      31       0
San Juan........................     1       0       0       0       0
Shoshone........................     4       0       0       0       4
White River.....................     1       0       0       0      27
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    24      32      10      41      46

Southwestern--Region 3
Apache-Sitgreaves...............    26       5       8       3       1
Carson..........................     2       2       1       0       4
Cibola..........................   204       5       7      30       2
Coconino........................     0       2       2       0       2
Coronado........................     3       2       1       1      13
Gila............................    21       0       0       6       5
Kaibab..........................     0       0       5       0       0
Lincoln.........................     3       3       0       0       4
Prescott........................     0       0       1       0       0
Santa Fe........................     1       3       1       3       7
Tonto...........................     1       1       0       0       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................   261      23      26      43      38

Intermountain--Region 4
Ashley..........................     0       6       1       0       4
Boise...........................     1       1       6       2       3
Bridger-Teton...................     0       6       1       0       0
Dixie...........................     0       0       0       0       0
Fishlake........................     0      27       0       0       0
Manti-LaSal.....................     4       0       0       0       0
Payette.........................     0       0       0       0       4
Salmon-Challis..................     1       0       0       1       0
Sawtooth........................     0       0       0       1       2
Caribou-Targhee.................     6       6       1      18      19
Humboldt-Toiyabe................     0       0       0       0       0
Uinta...........................     8       0       0       0       1
Wasatch-Cache...................     0       1       0       0       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    20      47       9      22      33

Pacific Southwest--Region 5
Eldorado........................     1       0       0       0       0
Inyo............................     0       4       2       0       0
Klamath.........................     0       0       8       3       0
Lassen..........................     0       0       0       0       0
Los Padres......................     1       1       2       1       0
Mendocino.......................     0       0       0       0       0
Modoc...........................     2      34       0       2       0
Six Rivers......................     0       0       0       0       0
Plumas..........................     0       1       0       0       2
Sequoia.........................     0       0       0       8       0
Shasta-Trinity..................     0       0       0       0       0
Sierra..........................     0       0       0       0       0
Stanislaus......................     1       0       0       0       0
Tahoe...........................     0       1       0       5       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................     5      41      12      19       2

Pacific Northwest--Region 6
Deschutes.......................     2       0       0       0       0
Fremont.........................    15       0       6       1       0
Gifford Pinchot.................     0       0       0       0       0
Malheur.........................     0       0       0       0       0
Mt. Hood........................     0       0       0       0       0
Ochoco..........................     0       5       0       0       0
Rogue River.....................     0       0       0       0       0
Umatilla........................     0       0       0       1       0
Umpqua..........................     0       0       0       0       0
Wallowa-Whitman.................     0       0      10       6       2
Wenatchee.......................     0       4       0       0       0
Colville........................     0       2       1       0       3
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    17      11      16       8       5

Southern--Region 8
Kisatchie.......................    12       0       0       0       0
National Forests in Mississippi.     4       0       0       0       0
George Washington and Jefferson.     0       3       0       0       0
Ouachita........................     4       0       0       0       7
Ozark-St. Francis...............     0       0       1       0       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    20       3       1       0       7

Eastern--Region 9
Mark Twain......................    12       0       0       0       0
Green Mountain..................     1       0       0       0       0
                                 ---------------------------------------
  Total.........................    13       0       0       0       0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 11. You mentioned that you have made changes to your 
grazing regulations, specifically how will those changes allow the 
field to increase the number of permits they work on and the speed with 
which that work is completed? Please provide specific examples and 
specific estimates of the time saved, as well as specific estimates of 
the money to be saved by this new process.
    Answer. Forest Service has not made any changes to grazing 
regulations. Policy was issued in the Forest Service Handbook at 
2209.13, Chapter 90, Rangeland Management Decision Making in mid-
February. It clarifies existing policies and raises the awareness level 
of successful practices currently in use by emphasizing the following:

   Environmental analysis focuses on the condition of the land 
        that is to be maintained or achieved.
   ``Project initiation'' precedes NEPA analysis and results in 
        a well defined purpose and need statement and a proposed action 
        to start the actual NEPA process. NEPA does not begin until the 
        proposed action is well defined. Permittees are encouraged to 
        participate in development of the proposed action.
   Inventory and analysis needs are better defined and 
        minimized. Inventory and analyses are encouraged on 
        combinations of multiple allotments.
   Principles of adaptive management and accompanying 
        monitoring are included in the proposed action, which extends 
        the life of the decision and allows for implementation of 
        future management options with minimal additional work.
   Alternatives analyzed in detail are kept to an absolute 
        minimum, usually two or three.

    The FY 2005 Budget calls for the Forest Service to adopt methods 
for prioritization through the development and use of qualitative tools 
that assess rangeland health and sustainability through the use of 
indicators that are linked to existing monitoring data. The Forest 
Service will consult with the Department of the Interior to develop and 
utilize an integrated and consistent framework and process for using 
monitoring and assessment information that leads to reduced allotment 
monitoring backlogs. Cumulatively applying these practices should 
reduce the time it takes to complete NEPA analyses and should extend 
the life of decisions. While specific estimates of savings are not 
known, we believe that applying the efficiencies in Chapter 90 which 
includes inventory and analysis on multiple allotments will reduce 
costs.

   GALLINAS MUNICIPAL WATERSHED W-U INTERFACE FUELS TREATMENT PROJECT

    Question 12. Chief, could you update me on the progress being made 
on the Gallinas Municipal Watershed W-U Interface Fuels Treatment 
Project?
    Answer. The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was made available 
for public notice and comment on February 20, 2004. The first public 
open house to discuss the draft EA took place on March 10, 2004. A 
documented decision was made on April 2, 2004. Comments are currently 
being reviewed, and a Decision Notice should be issued by May 10, 2004. 
Anyone who submitted substantive comments to the EA then has 45 days in 
which to appeal. We expect the project to be implemented this year.
    Question 13. What is the time-line for completion and when will 
NEPA be done?
    Answer. Initial treatments are anticipated to begin in October 
2004. According to the proposed action of this project to treat 
approximately 8,400 acres, multiple treatments are envisioned for up to 
10 years. We anticipate the NEPA process will be completed by May 10, 
2004.

               SANTA FE WATERSHED FUELS TREATMENT PROJECT

    Question 14. How is the Santa Fe Watershed Fuels Treatment project 
coming along?
    Answer. We are currently on target and on schedule. Approximately 
1,000 acres will be treated in FY 2004.
    Question 15. What are your current costs per acre for the work that 
you are currently doing?
    Answer. The current cost per acre is $963.
    Question 16. When do you expect to complete that project?
    Answer. The project total is 7,300 acres. To date 2,100 acres have 
been treated. If funding remains consistent, we anticipate completing 
the project in September of 2006.

                       REGION THREE FOREST PLANS

    Question 17. My staff tells me the most recent schedule for 
completion of the forest plan revisions indicates that the Region Three 
forest in my State will not get new plans until 2011. As you know, all 
of the plans in my State had reached their National Forest Management 
Act Required Revision date by 2002.
    Why is it that forest plans that will not reach their 15 year 
National Forest Management Act Required Revision date until 2004, 2005 
and even 2008 are scheduled to be completed before any of the plans in 
my State?
    Answer. In an effort to improve management of the plan revision 
process, the Forest Service developed a Forest Plan Revision Schedule. 
The revision schedule sets priorities for plan revisions based on 
several considerations. Those National Forest System units facing a 
multitude of ecological and social concerns such as impaired waters, 
imperiled species, fire risk, forest health, undue human pressure, or 
persistent poverty were considered as high priorities for revision. 
National Forest System units with recent significant amendments or 
without the issues identified were considered lower priorities for 
revision. There was also an attempt to group National Forest System 
units with similar ecological, social and economic settings to improve 
planning efficiency and reduce planning costs. Therefore, some forest 
plans were scheduled later than if their original completion dates was 
the only criteria.
    The Southwestern Region amended the entire Region's Forest Plans in 
1996 to address Mexican Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk. This reduced 
the need to revise the forest plans. Also, the Region has been 
completing core assessment and inventory collection which must be done 
prior to revisions being initiated.

             HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT IMPLEMENTATION

    Question 18. I understand that the Washington Office has informed 
the field that you expect 4 million acres of Healthy Forest Restoration 
Act treatments to be completed this next fiscal year. This estimate is 
down from the 5 million acre amount that Undersecretary Rey indicated 
to my staff that the target would be prior to the All Forest 
Supervisors meeting in Nebraska.
    Why the reduction in target level from the end of January to now?
    Answer. Undersecretary Rey was referring a combination of Forest 
Service and Department of Interior's acres in his estimates. The Forest 
Service projections reflect the most recent Agency estimates. FY 2004 
projections are 1.6 million acres, funded from hazardous fuels, with 
other programs improving Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) of an 
estimated 600,000 acres. FY 2005 projections are 1.8 million acres, 
funded from hazardous fuels, with other programs improving FRCC of a 
currently estimated 673,000 acres.
    Question 19. How many acres of condition class two and three lands 
fall within the National Forest System?
    Answer. According to ``Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for 
Wildland Fire and Fuel Management'', the General Technical Report 
published by the Rocky Mountain Research Station in 2002, there are 
80.4 million acres of condition class 2 and 51.1 million acres of 
condition class 3 in Forest Service lands for a total of 131.5 million 
acres in condition classes 2 and 3.
    Question 20. Of the 4 million acres you suggested will be treated 
in FY 2004, how many of those will be within the National Forest 
System?
    Answer. The Forest Service will make treatments that contribute to 
improving Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) on 2.2 million acres in FY 
2004. Hazardous fuel reduction activities will account for 1.6 million 
acres, and other programs will account for 600,000 acres. Virtually all 
of the 2.2 million acres projected for treatment in FY 2004 will be on 
National Forest System lands.
    Question 21. How many of those acres will be within the forested 
areas that are overstocked and infested with insects?
    Answer. Almost all of the acres to be treated with hazardous fuels 
reduction activities, as well as acres treated through other programs, 
will be within forested areas that are overstocked, and many of these 
acres are infested with insects. In addition to those acres, Forest 
Health Management funds will be used to treat 77,000 acres that are 
overstocked and are at imminent risk of insect infestation.
    Question 22. How many of those acres will be targeted at New 
Mexico?
    Answer. 70,243 acres will be treated in New Mexico in FY 2004 using 
hazardous fuel reduction funding. In addition, other funds will be used 
to treat approximately 62,700 acres to improve condition class, through 
programs such as wildland fire use, watershed improvement, wildlife 
improvement, and rangeland improvement.
    Question 23. How many acres will be within the overstocked and 
infested forest areas within New Mexico?
    Answer. All of the acres listed in the answer above are projected 
in areas of declining forest and rangeland health where restoration of 
fire adapted systems is urgent. In addition to those acres, 300 
overstocked and infested forest acres will be treated with Forest 
Health Management funds in New Mexico.
    Question 24. Can you get my staff a detailed list of the projects 
that will be undertaken in New Mexico this year, along with NEPA 
completion dates and the projected offer dates?
    Answer. We were unable to compile the specific projects being 
planned in New Mexico down to the level of detail requested. New 
Mexico's FY 2004 target for acres treated for hazardous fuels is 
74,055. The target for acres treated by other programs that improve 
condition class in FY 2004 is 36,730.
    Question 25. How much of the treatment nationally will be 
accomplished with prescribed burning?
    Answer. We estimate about 1.36 million acres, funded by the 
hazardous fuels line item, will be treated with prescribed burning. 
Other programs may use prescribed burning to treat a small portion of 
the 600,000 acres that will be treated to improve fire regime condition 
class; but there are no current estimates of the amount.
     Question 26. How much of the treatment nationally will be 
accomplished with the mechanical removal of the fuel from the forests?
    Answer. We estimate about 240,000 acres, funded by the hazardous 
fuels line item, will be treated mechanically. Other programs will use 
mechanical treatment to treat most of the 600,000 acres that will be 
treated to improve fire regime condition class.
    Question 27. How much of that mechanical treatment will involve 
commercial timber sales?
    Answer. About 260,000 acres will be treated using forest products 
and timber salvage sales activities.

                        HAZARDOUS FUELS SPENDING

    Question 28. I also understand that you put out a press release 
right before this budget was released that trumpeted the fact that the 
Administration's proposed budget had $760 million in it to implement 
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.
    Can you tell me how much of that $760 million is for the 
implementation of Titles Two through Five of the Healthy Forest 
Restoration Law?
    Answer. The $760 million is for implementation of Title I.

                         WILDLAND FIRE PROGRAMS

    Question 29. I see that you recommended moving hazardous fuels 
reduction from the Wildland Fire Management section of the budget to 
the National Forest Systems section of the budget. I think I agree with 
that, but could you explain why and what the advantages of this are?
    If we make that move, will the hazardous fuel line item be more 
vulnerable or less vulnerable to future fire borrowing?
    Answer. The funds would be less vulnerable in the NATIONAL FOREST 
SYSTEM appropriation to future fire transfer if Congress continues to 
enact language similar to language that was included in the 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE section in Public Law 108-7, 
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003.
    That language provides that ``Any appropriations or funds available 
to the Forest Service may be transferred to the Wildland Fire 
Management appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency 
rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters under its 
jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe burning conditions if 
and only if all previously appropriated emergency contingent funds 
under the heading `Wildland Fire Management' have been released by the 
President and apportioned and all funds under the heading `Wildland 
Fire Management' are obligated.''
    This proposal will improve management in two ways. First, it will 
give hazardous fuels projects a greater chance to continue, and not be 
cancelled or delayed, during times of severe wildfire activity when the 
agency needs to transfer funds. Second, it will enhance integration of 
hazardous fuel treatments with other vegetative treatment programs in 
NFS.
    Question 30. On the subject of fire suppression costs. Over the 
last five years it appears that the agencies have figured out how to 
spend a billion to a billion and a half dollars per year for fire 
suppression, no matter whether we burn 3 million acres or we burn 7.5 
million acres. Can you tell me what steps you have taken between the 
year 2000 and today to get control of this situation?
    Answer. In response to the 2000 fire season, the Forest Service and 
Department of Interior jointly developed the National Fire Plan. This 
plan laid out four goals for the federal wildland firefighting agencies 
to work towards over the next 10 years. To these ends, the agencies are 
working to improve fire prevention and suppression cost containment, 
reducing hazardous fuels, restoring fire adapted ecosystems, and 
promoting community assistance.
    In 2003, President Bush announced the Healthy Forest Initiative. 
This led to the passing of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The 
provisions of this Act will enable us to protect the safety of 
firefighters and the public, care for America's forests and rangelands, 
reduce the risk of fire to communities, and protect threatened and 
endangered species.
    The Forest Service is using these tools to revise policy, improve 
Decision Support Systems, streamline procedures, and strengthen our 
relationships with other federal, state, and local agencies. These 
changes will lead to improvements in cost containment and environmental 
conditions.
    Specific to your question, the Forest Service has issued two 
reports that outline expectations of line officers, incident 
commanders, and employees in the area of suppression cost containment. 
We have standing cost containment oversight teams that visit large 
incidents and recommend actions that will reduce expenditures. We are 
developing a new fire planning system that will lead to better 
strategic analysis of large fires and the decisions that cause them to 
become expensive. We are developing a new situation analysis that will 
display a better range of suppression alternatives to line officers 
during their decision process. This will be accomplished by clarifying 
the definition of the least cost suppression alternatives within 
decision support models and establish this alternative as the default 
option for suppression activities for a given incident and by 
completing updated geospatially-based fire management plans linked to 
databases that will lead to increases in the annual number and acres 
designated as wildland fire use fires. We are embarking on an 
aggressive fuel management program to rid forests of accumulated fuel. 
In addition, we will:

   Implement priority cost containment activities called for in 
        the FY 2004 President's Budget and the recommendations 
        contained within the Wildland Fire Management PART, as well as 
        select recommendations from the National Academy of Public 
        Administration (NAPA) report entitled, Wildfire Suppression: 
        Strategies for Containing Costs.
   Reduce wildland fire suppression costs through a continued 
        emphasis on the accountability of line officers and incident 
        commanders.
   Review the cost-effectiveness of large fire aviation 
        resources and assess state cost-share agreements to ensure that 
        the federal government is not paying a disproportionately high 
        share of suppression costs.
   Continue to conduct national cost containment reviews on 
        selected incidents and implement recommendations contained in 
        the Consolidated Large Fire Cost Report of 2003 to address 
        suppression cost containment issues raised during cost reviews 
        in FY 2003. Provide oversight to ensure that cost containment 
        measures are implemented.
   Working through the National Wildfire Coordinating Group's 
        Incident Based Automation Task Group, continue to enhance the 
        ``real-time'' incident obligation reporting system.

    In addition, in FY 2005 the Forest Service will initiate incentives 
to reduce suppression expenditures. The President's Budget proposes to 
allocate fifty percent of suppression funds to the field and allow 
unobligated year-end balances to be retained by the regions to be used 
for vegetative treatments to improve condition class. The objective is 
to create an incentive in the field (additional funds for on-the-ground 
work) to reduce expenditures, with the goal of eliminating the need to 
transfer funds. An added benefit will be an increase in funds available 
to improve condition class, which will further reduce suppression costs 
and the need to transfer funds. The President's Budget also includes 
cost containment actions and performance measures, expands the use of 
risk mitigation, updates fire management plans to increase wildland 
fire use, and implements suppression cost savings incentives. The 
Forest Service and Department of the Interior will develop a process 
through which rural fire department training, experience, and 
qualifications can be recognized as equivalent to National Wildfire 
Coordinating Group (NWCG) qualifications. Together with agency actions 
already under way, these efforts should effectively reduce the need for 
further borrowing, supplemental appropriations, or both.
    USDA and the Department of the Interior will continue to enhance 
agency policy and procedures to reduce suppression costs.
    Question 31. Would you provide me a table that shows what the 
Federal fire suppressions costs were by agency and by year from 1985 
through 2003?
    Answer. Obligations are available for the Department of the 
Interior (DOI) as a whole, but not by the individual agencies within 
DOI. Obligations are shown in thousands of dollars on the following 
page, and have been adjusted for inflation (2003 dollars).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         FS        DOI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985...............................................    245,513   119,240
1986...............................................    165,832   135,418
1987...............................................    367,251   117,928
1988...............................................    603,026   209,590
1989...............................................    448,144   227,151
1990...............................................    330,513   187,927
1991...............................................    166,120    92,691
1992...............................................    355,569   106,764
1993...............................................    220,371    67,595
1994...............................................    887,789   188,925
1995...............................................    421,425   126,457
1996...............................................    616,848   173,149
1997...............................................    198,323   116,323
1998...............................................    335,657   120,241
1999...............................................    389,945   166,751
2000...............................................  1,138,946   354,388
2001...............................................    706,551   254,435
2002...............................................  1,299,877   401,488
2003...............................................  1,023,500   303,638
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 32. Please also provide the average cost per fire and the 
average cost per acre burned on the lands controlled by each agency, 
for each year between 1985 and 2003. We need the BIA, BLM, US Park 
Service, US Fish & Wildlife Service and the Forest Service.
    Answer. We have provided this information for the Forest Service 
(FS) on the following page, and respectfully defer to the Department of 
the Interior (DOI) for their portion of the response. Costs are 
adjusted for inflation (2003 dollars):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        FS $/     FS $/
                                                        fire      acre
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985................................................       N/A       N/A
1986................................................       N/A       N/A
1987................................................    31,147       329
1988................................................    44,555       404
1989................................................    38,205       962
1990................................................    27,805     1,092
1991................................................    15,746     1,330
1992................................................    29,180       562
1993................................................    28,527     1,000
1994................................................    59,809       600
1995................................................    49,451     1,749
1996................................................    55,606       660
1997................................................    20,395       821
1998................................................    38,648     1,570
1999................................................    40,708       540
2000................................................    95,863       545
2001................................................    69,611     1,250
2002................................................   141,877       753
2003................................................   103,499       858
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 33. I would also like you to provide us with comparable 
data for Canada and Australia for that same time period. Please amass 
this data and present it in 2003 dollars, rather than nominal dollars. 
And adjust the data from Canada and Australia into US dollars.
    Answer. We are unable to obtain the information from Australia and 
Canada in time to meet the Committee publication deadline. However, we 
will provide the requested information.
    Question 34. I know that you continue to tell us that cost by acre 
or by fire are not ``good'' measures to examine when we examine the 
costs of fire fighting. Please provide us with four or five criteria 
for measuring the costs of fire fighting that you believe would be 
better criteria for Congress to measure agency performance against?
    Answer. The 10-Year Implementation Plan identified several 
performance measures for fire fighting. This includes the average gross 
costs per acre for suppression and emergency stabilization and 
rehabilitation by size class and fire regime for fires (i) contained 
within initial attack; (ii) escaping initial attack; (iii) within 
wildland-urban interface areas; (iv) outside wildland-interface areas; 
(v) in areas with compliant fire management plans; and (vi) in areas 
without compliant fire management plans. The agency will use this and 
other measures as we continue to explore other appropriate measures. We 
have three small research groups working on various ways to isolate and 
explain these variables so that meaningful performance measures can be 
adopted.
    The Forest Service is also looking at ways to determine break-even 
points (value of resources protected versus predicted suppression cost) 
that will indicate whether or not a suppression action is economically 
advisable. There is some progress in this study, but not enough to say 
whether it could be used as a performance measure or as only a part of 
the decision process.
    Other short term research and development that may assist with 
development of performance measures deals with the development of a 
prediction system for large fire suppression costs and a fireline 
production model for suppression success, cost and other related 
outputs.

                     MESCALERO APACHE MILL CLOSURE

    Chief, I know you are aware that the last two major sawmills in my 
state, the mills run by the Mescalero Apache, are on the verge of 
shutting down. I know you and Mr. Rey understand that operations cannot 
be maintained without a vast improvement in the Lincoln National 
Forest's timber sale program.
    Question 35. How much timber is growing annually on the Lincoln?
    Answer. The latest inventory was in 1999, and at that time the 
growth on the Lincoln National Forest (NF) was 49.5 million board feet 
(MMBF) gross volume per year, and 39.0 MMBF net volume per year after 
mortality is deducted. This volume is calculated on non-reserved 
timberland.
    Question 36. How much timber is dying annually on the Lincoln?
    Answer. The latest inventory was in 1999, and at that time the 
mortality on the Lincoln NF was approximately 10.5 million board feet 
(MMBF) per year. This volume is calculated on non-reserved timberland.
    Question 37. How much has been removed through sale each of the 
last ten years?
    Answer. See the table below. This data includes both timber sale 
contracts and personal use volume removed.

                               LINCOLN NF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Volume
                         Fiscal year                            removed
                                                                 (MMBF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.........................................................      3.3
1995.........................................................      3.6
1996.........................................................      1.3
1997.........................................................      2.8
1998.........................................................      1.5
1999.........................................................      2.4
2000.........................................................      1.6
2001.........................................................      2.7
2002.........................................................      8.2
2003.........................................................      4.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 38. Do you agree with me that you will never be able to 
accomplish complete forest health restoration unless you have the 
industrial infrastructure (sawmills, pulp mills, and biomass 
facilities) to utilize the materials?
    Answer. Yes, a viable industrial infrastructure is needed to 
accomplish our management objectives at a lower cost than other 
alternatives. Additional industrial infrastructure would help provide 
more efficient opportunities to address this challenge. However, there 
are other ways to accomplish forest health restoration, and we are also 
pursuing those methods in combination with timber harvest.
    Question 39. What are you going to do on the Lincoln over the next 
five years to ensure it will not be the Forest Service's fault that the 
last sawmill in New Mexico gets shut down?
    Answer. On March 1, 2004, the Regional Forester and his staff, the 
Lincoln NF Forest Supervisor, District Ranger, the New Mexico State 
Forester, mill managers, and the Vice-President of the Mescalero Apache 
Tribe, met to understand the situation and determine what the Forest 
Service can do as part of a solution. A capability assessment will be 
conducted on the Forest to determine what can be produced and what the 
mill needs.
    Question 40. Would you also provide me with those same growth, 
mortality and removal figures for the other forests in Region Three?
    Answer. Figures in the following table are for timber softwood 
species on non reserved timberland on National Forest System land. They 
are based on inventories completed in 1999 (AZ) and 2000 (NM).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Gross                  Net
                                                                        Gross      annual     Annual     annual
                                                                        cubic-     cubic-     cubic-     cubic-
                National forest/Unit/State                   Acres       foot       foot       foot       foot
                                                                        volume     growth   mortality    growth
                                                                        (MCF)      (MCF)      (MCF)       MCF)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache-Sitgreaves--01--AZ................................    903,548  1,437,436     38,983      3,664     35,319
Carson--02--NM...........................................    637,522  1,136,669     22,987      4,523     18,464
Cibola--03--NM...........................................    448,612    480,625     12,947      1,370     11,577
Coconino--04--AZ.........................................    811,875  1,171,492     28,929      4,393     24,536
Coronado--05--AZ.........................................     65,731    168,711      2,294         na      2,294
Gila--06--NM.............................................  1,081,141    953,131     22,017      1,313     20,704
Kaibab--07--AZ...........................................    500,585    924,373     16,521      4,137     12,384
Lincoln--08--NM..........................................    220,895    445,346      9,847      2,089      7,758
Prescott--09--AZ.........................................     62,730    127,485      2,447        231      2,216
Santa Fe--10--NM.........................................    859,452  1,473,313     29,960      4,040     25,920
Tonto--12--AZ............................................    190,157    291,513      5,782        812      4,970
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
  Arizona Total..........................................  2,534,626  4,121,010     94,956     13,237     81,719
  New Mexico Total.......................................  3,247,622  4,489,084     97,758     13,335     84,423
  Region-3 Total.........................................  5,782,248  8,610,094    192,714     26,572    166,142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 REGION 3--TIMBER HARVEST/REMOVAL VOLUMES (MMBF)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             FY      FY     FY     FY     FY     FY     FY     FY     FY     FY
                  Forest                    1994    1995   1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache-Sitgreaves........................    35.9   27.0   12.5   20.9   11.7   22.0   14.9    8.5    8.4   14.8
Carson...................................     5.0    5.4    2.7    3.7    6.3   11.9    8.4   12.7   10.5   11.4
Cibola...................................     3.4    4.7    2.1    7.2    1.8    2.7    3.3    3.9    5.4    4.4
Coconino.................................    30.9   19.9   10.0   15.0    5.3    6.3   10.4    9.7   16.8    9.5
Coronado.................................     0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.0    0.1    0.1    0.1    0.1    0.2
Gila.....................................    14.3    6.7    2.3    2.1    1.0    2.7    2.0    3.0    2.6    3.9
Kaibab...................................     7.7   13.5    5.0   18.0    1.8   17.5   12.3   16.6    6.3    3.7
Lincoln..................................     3.3    3.6    1.3    2.8    1.5    2.4    1.6    2.7    8.1    4.1
Prescott.................................     4.1    3.3    2.2    4.9    0.3    2.6    2.9    3.3    1.9    3.7
Santa Fe.................................     2.9   10.0    6.3    6.7    4.1   13.0    6.4    7.1    5.8   15.2
Tonto....................................     7.8    5.3    1.7    1.7    1.1    2.5    3.1    2.9    4.9    2.3
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Regional Total.........................   115.5   99.6   46.3   83.2   34.9   83.7   65.4   70.5   70.8   73.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             GREEN TIMBER SALE PROGRAM VS. BIOMASS PROGRAM

    Question 41. Chief, when I look at the table on page 22 of the 
Highlights Section of your budget justification document, it shows that 
the expected National Forest Fund Receipts through 2007 will be flat. 
My staff tells me that is an indication of a timber sale program that 
is shifting from larger material to much smaller stem material that is 
of low value. Is that basically correct?
    Answer. Yes, however the shift has already occurred, and explains 
the decline in revenues from before FY 1998 to the lower levels shown 
for FY 2001 and later years. The flat revenue projection from the 
present to 2007 is considered to be in part due to lower market values 
for the products we anticipate selling.
    Question 42. What have you done to send that message to the Forest 
Service employees that work at the Forest and District levels?
    Chief we need your leadership and we need you to make it clear to 
your agency and the American Public that our national forests are not 
sustainable unless we manage them and a forest products industry is 
critical to your being able to accomplish that.
    As far as I am concerned, the two mills down on the Lincoln are the 
``canary in the mine''. I hope that you will do everything in your 
power to ensure that the air that our canary needs does not go bad on 
your watch.
    Answer. Accomplishment of hazardous fuels treatments will be best 
accomplished through the coordinated application of hazardous fuels 
reduction projects, stewardship contracting, and other vegetative 
management projects, including timber harvests.
    Active forest management is an essential component of sustaining 
the health of our National Forests. We are also very concerned that we 
have the full range of tools available to address healthy forest 
restoration issues. However, market forces in the private sector play 
an even greater role than government actions. Mindful of market 
realities, we are working strategically to do what we can to assure 
that the timber sale program remains a viable tool to achieve our goals 
and objectives.
    Question 43. What steps are you prepared to direct the Lincoln 
National Forest and other Forests in Region Three to contribute to a 
wood supply that will help both maintain a viable forest products 
industry in New Mexico?
    New Mexico and Arizona are in the dire situation they are because 
past administrations didn't think maintaining a forest products 
industry was critical to their ability to manage the forests. Now we 
know better, but don't seem to be able to reverse course. Answer. We 
are managing our program to utilize the existing industry and help 
create new industry through becoming a significant provider of wood. We 
already have a new post and pole operation starting in Raton, NM next 
month. We are developing a 10-year vegetation treatment schedule that 
will show how much and where we have wood products of differing sizes 
to be made available. This should enable industries to start up, 
although these industries will need to be based on smaller average tree 
sizes than our industries of the past. We have several businesses and 
communities looking at New Mexico for biomass plants, small-log 
sawmills, and even one pulp mill. We are also using the new tools 
provided by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, categorical 
exclusions, and the stewardship contracting authority to help move 
these projects along.
    Question 44. New Mexico and Arizona are in the dire situation they 
are because past administrations didn't think maintaining a forest 
products industry was critical to their ability to manage the forests. 
Now we know better, but don't seem to be able to reverse course.
    How much timber do you intend to offer next year?
    Answer. Nationally, the Forest Service plans to offer 4,585,279 CCF 
(about 2.3 billion board feet) of timber volume for sale in FY 2005.
    Question 45. How much of that timber will be salvage and how much 
will be green timber?
    Answer. Of the total volume to be offered in FY 2005, 3,385,279 CCF 
(about 1.7 billion board feet) is planned to be from the regular 
program and 1,200,000 CCF (about 0.600 billion board feet) from the 
salvage program.

                 NUMBER OF TIMBER SALE CLAIMS AND COSTS

    Over the last decade there have been a tremendous number of timber 
sales that have been cancelled and delayed. Many of these cancellations 
and terminations have resulted in claims against the government. Some 
of these claims have taken years to settle or resolve.
    Question 46. I would like a list of each timber sale cancellation, 
by year, beginning in 1985 and data on whether the cancellation or 
delay resulted in a claim by the timber sale purchaser. Please group 
these sales and claims by National Forest.
    Answer. The Forest Service has been compiling data on timber sale 
claims in four categories that address the origin or basis for the 
claim as follows: T&E Species; Resources; Contract Disputes; and Other. 
The data do not identify whether the claim was the result of a delay or 
cancellation. The data also do not include sales that were delayed or 
cancelled if no claim was subsequently filed. There is no reliable data 
prior to 1992, and records were last updated in 2001. None of the 
standard timber sale databases specifically track claims, so this 
information cannot be quickly accessed. By the end of May we can 
provide a list of sales from FY 1992-2003 that had claims filed based 
on a delay or cancellation, grouped by region and forest.
    Question 47. We would also like information about the dollar amount 
of the initial claim, if the claim resulted in a settlement through 
negotiation or if the settlement was directed by a court or the court 
of claims. If the claim was dropped please also include that in the 
data base.
    Answer. By the end of May the Forest Service can provide a list of 
timber sale claims from FY 1992-2003 with the following information: 
the dollar amount of the initial claim; the amount paid to date; when 
the claim was paid; and amounts that are still in dispute. Forest 
Service data generally do not identify whether the amount paid was the 
result of a negotiated settlement or a court order, so that information 
cannot be provided.
    Question 48. Additionally, for each claim, please display when the 
claim was settled and paid out and how much of the payment to the 
purchaser was paid on the principal of the claim and how much was paid 
in interest charges on each claim.
    Answer. This cannot be provided, as the Forest Service has not 
routinely tracked interest charges separately from the principal amount 
paid.

                             OTHER PROGRAMS

    Question 49. I see that you are once again recommending cutting 
deferred maintenance from the FY 2004 level of $31 million down to $10 
million. Yet you are recommending a $40 million increase for the Forest 
Legacy program. Why?
    Answer. Deferred maintenance is an important concern to the agency 
and will continue to be accomplished using our regular Capital 
Improvement and Maintenance appropriations for Facilities, Roads, and 
Trails; the 10-percent Roads & Trails fund (Expenditure from Receipts 
Act of 1913); and from a portion of Recreation Fee Demo site receipts.
    We will continue to focus on our most critical backlog maintenance 
needs, including public and employee health and safety and critical 
resource problems, such as restoring fish passage. In addition, we are 
continuing to implement strategies to help reduce the rate of backlog 
maintenance growth.
    Question 50. Why do you recommend that we continue to spend $5 
million on international forestry and $52 million for land acquisition 
when you won't fund the maintenance of the land and buildings you are 
entrusted to manage?
    Answer. The FY 2005 President's Budget proposes $10 million for 
deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements. This funding 
level will allow the agency to focus on high-priority maintenance, 
particularly those addressing critical health and safety mission-
critical needs. The FY 2005 President's Budget includes a legislative 
proposal that would authorize the Secretary to sell or transfer, at 
fair market value, administrative sites and facilities, and appurtenant 
administrative land, in accordance with Federal appraisal standards. 
The proceeds from these sales would be made available for acquiring or 
developing land and improvements for administrative purposes, thereby 
reducing backlogs while improving efficiencies and reducing indirect 
costs. International forestry successfully coordinates habitat 
management for migratory species, collaborates on prevention of 
invasive species introductions and promotes forest sustainability in 
other countries. The land acquisition program identifies and acquires 
lands, waters, and interests in lands to the National Forest System. 
These lands or interests are identified vital for resource protection 
or enhancement, recreational development, or are directed by the agency 
to acquire by legislation.

   Responses of the Forest Service to Questions From Senator Campbell

    Question 1. Is the increase in the ``green'' timber sale program 
adequate to implement management programs in the forest plans, 
including newly revised forest plans such as White River, Routt, Rio 
Grande and Arapaho Roosevelt National Forests?
    Answer. Yes. The additional funding will help us achieve the 
expectations for the forest products programs on the national forests, 
including those with newly revised Forest Plans.
    Question 2. Timber program unit costs (costs/CCF) have risen 
dramatically over the past 5 years (see chart). What steps are you 
taking and what direction are you giving to reduce costs?
    a. How much do you expect the new Categorical Exclusions to reduce 
costs?
    Answer. A key step being taken to reduce timber program unit costs 
is to encourage the field units to take full advantage of tools 
provided under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the new stewardship 
contracting authorities, and administrative actions under the Healthy 
Forests Initiative. It will also include the use of categorical 
exclusions (CEs), revised administrative appeal procedures, and more 
timely salvage sales. We will have a better idea after this field 
season as to how much categorical exclusions are used and what cost 
savings might come from them. We are encouraging all field units to use 
CEs where possible and have developed web sites to help them understand 
where and how to use them.
    Question 3. I've heard that some Forests have virtually no funds in 
their Salvage Sale Fund. Are you aware of that problem? Has lack of 
Salvage Sale Funds limited implementation of salvage programs on some 
Forests?
    Answer. Yes, we are aware of this. A number of national forests 
have not adequately managed Salvage Sale funds to plan and implement 
needed salvage sales. These forests are located in the Rocky Mountains, 
Southwest, Pacific Northwest, and California Regions.
    To date, Salvage Sale funding levels have not prevented any forest 
from preparing eligible salvage sale projects. The forests and regions 
are encouraged to shift timber sale offer volume from salvage to the 
regular timber sale program and use appropriated funds to prepare 
qualified salvage sales.
    a. Are you taking steps to restore Salvage Sale Fund balances on 
those Forests? Are you also taking steps to ensure that the Salvage 
Sale Funds are managed like a business so that the funds are not 
depleted and limit implementation salvage programs? Do you need help 
from Congress?
    Answer. The Forest Service strives to maintain a sustained Salvage 
Sale Fund balance equal to one hundred fifty percent of the annual 
program need. We feel that this amount provides the agency with 
sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to catastrophic salvage 
events, such as wildfires, hurricanes, drought, insect outbreaks and 
disease outbreaks.
    The Washington Office continues to encourage field units to manage 
opportunities for Salvage Sale collections to ensure future needs are 
covered. We continue to monitor the salvage sale program so that we may 
respond appropriately as the situation changes.
    Question 4. Would you explain the relative forest growth on the 
national forests compared to the amount of harvest? (see chart) If 
growth exceeds harvest by a wide margin, doesn't that suggest that the 
forests that are already over-stocked and over-crowded will become more 
over-stocked and over-crowded and that there is no end in sight to the 
fire and insect epidemic problems?
    Answer. The fact that growth exceeds removals and mortality does 
not indicate that all areas of the forests are overstocked. However, it 
does mean that there is an increase in biomass, which may or may not 
indicate problems in the future. It remains for our current and future 
treatments to bring forests into ecologically sustainable conditions 
and keep them there, which will require varying treatments depending 
upon forest type, the amount of growth that is occurring, and the 
forest conditions that are desired.
    Question 5. There is only one large sawmill in Colorado, and I 
understand other States have similarly limited forest industry 
infrastructure. I've heard various Forest Service staff discuss the 
need for forest industry infrastructure, and would like to know if you 
mean that, and what you are doing in this budget proposal to ensure 
that States like Colorado don't lose any more of our forest products 
companies.
    Answer. Forest industry infrastructure is needed for processing 
timber and other non-merchantable material that need to be removed from 
forests to maintain the forests in a healthy condition, and also 
supports biomass processing plants that produce electricity or other 
products. In addition to significant market forces in the private 
sector, the reduction in the amount of timber supply from national 
forests over the past decade has been a factor in private industry's 
decision to close or move infrastructure capacity to other locations. 
Accordingly, the Forest Service cannot provide assurances on efforts 
that largely rely upon the business judgment decisions that private 
sector firms deem to meet their best interest. This budget proposal has 
funds that will treat a sufficient quantity of hazardous fuels to 
potentially attract industry into areas that are deficient in 
infrastructure.
    Increasing the capacity of rural communities to use forest products 
is important. The Forest Service recognizes that by eliminating the 
Economic Action Programs there will be an impact on how agency services 
are provided to rural communities. The 2005 President's Budget does 
provide indirect benefits to communities in many other ways. For 
example:

   The President's Management Initiatives call for significant 
        increases in contracting that will benefit local businesses.
   USDA's Rural Development programs can address priority needs 
        in rural areas via several programs. The programs can assist 
        forest-based industries. Here are some options:

     Business and Industry guaranteed loans--Provides up to 90 
            percent guarantee of a loan made by a commercial lender for 
            agricultural enterprises. The business applying for the 
            loan must already have strong equity and collateral.
     Rural Business Enterprise Grants--Provides grants to 
            public institutions to assist agricultural business. Grants 
            do not go directly to businesses.
     Intermediary Relending Program--Provides grants for 
            intermediaries to relend through an adequately secured loan 
            for new agricultural businesses, and expansion of those 
            existing businesses unable to obtain a conventional loan.
     Rural Business Opportunity Grants--Promotes sustainable 
            economic development in rural communities with exceptional 
            needs such as natural disasters, structural changes, and 
            persistent poverty or population decline. Provides grants 
            for economic planning, business assistance, and training to 
            obtain specific USDA-RD program funding.
     Cooperative Development Grants--Grants are available for 
            cooperative development to establish and operate centers 
            for cooperative development.

    One of the tools with the greatest promise is the stewardship 
contracting authority, which allows for longer term contracts and can 
attract investors who need a greater commitment of supply than they 
have had in the past. The National Forests on the front range of 
Colorado are planning stewardship contracting sales that may have the 
potential to attract industry and the infrastructure necessary to 
handle the material that will be offered under these contracts.
    Two new categorical exclusions (CE's) have been developed jointly 
with the Department of the Interior under the auspices of the Healthy 
Forests Initiative (HFI). One of these applies to hazardous fuels 
reduction; the other applies to post-fire rehabilitation and 
restoration activities. Three additional CEs were developed by the 
Forest Service, apart from the HFI, and are applicable to small timber 
harvest projects: live tree removal, salvage harvest, & harvest to 
prevent the spread of insects & disease. The new CEs will allow for 
relatively limited, non-controversial projects to proceed without 
extensive documentation, although CEs (of any type) can be applied only 
where there are no extraordinary circumstances; i.e. projected adverse 
effects on sensitive resources. A level of inventory and (in some 
cases) consultation regarding sensitive resources is needed to 
determine whether or not extraordinary circumstances apply.
    The National Forests in Colorado plan to offer 104,699 CCF (about 
52.4 million board feet--MMBF) of timber volume in FY 2004. Forest 
industries purchased an average of 57,926 CCF (about 29 MMBF) of forest 
products annually during the 1999-2001 period.
    The proposal to move funding for the Hazardous Fuels program into 
the National Forest System (NFS) is consistent with the President's 
Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. It 
enhances consideration of the effects of all vegetative management 
treatments upon the condition class of NFS resources. The proposal will 
allow managers to consider in a quantifiable, systematic manner the 
relative costs and benefits of proposed projects upon wildfire risk 
reduction and other land resources management objectives.
    Question 6. There are two small forest products companies west of 
Durango that use aspen to make tongue and groove paneling and 
excelsior. The San Juan NF forest plan allows 6 million board feet per 
year of aspen sales, but the San Juan NF didn't sell any aspen sales in 
FY 02 or FY 03 because they were fighting fires and working on salvage 
sales. Now the salvage sale has been held up by a court injunction. 
These are small companies that hire a lot of minority employees and are 
very important in those communities. Can you tell me if this budget 
proposal has enough funds for aspen sales from the San Juan NF?
    Answer. The San Juan NF plans offer 20,561 CCF (about 10.3 million 
board feet--MMBF) of forest products this year. Aspen is included in a 
portion of those sales. In FY 2005, about 14.8 MMBF is on the 5-year 
action plan, with 4.4 MMBF being aspen.
    Question 7. I understand you want to remove smaller, less valuable 
trees in some cases to meet your management objectives. Will those 
trees be in addition to some of the larger trees that need to be 
managed to achieve your forest plan management objectives? Are you 
coordinating your plans with forest products companies to make sure 
that your plans are feasible and there is at least a partial match with 
their business plans?
    Answer. The smaller, less valuable trees that will need to be 
removed to achieve forest restoration and hazardous fuels reduction 
objectives are in addition to the larger, saw-timber trees that are 
part of our normal timber sale program. Both individual Forests and the 
Regional Office staff communicate regularly with forest products 
industry representatives, along with non-traditional organizations that 
may have an interest in the smaller diameter material, to keep them 
informed of planned projects and forest management.
  Responses of the Forest Service to Questions From Senator Murkowksi
    Question 1. What is the effect of the exemption of the Tongass 
National Forest from the restrictions in the Road less Rule in terms of 
the Forest's ability to produce enough timber to support the remaining 
family-owned mills in Alaska?
    Answer. The exemption will allow the Forest to implement the 1997 
Tongass Land Resource Management Plan, which supports the existing 
forest products infrastructure.
    Question 2. How much economically viable timber is currently under 
contract in the Alaska Region, for which there is a contractual 
requirement for domestic processing within the State and what is your 
funding request in the '05 budget to continue such projects?
    Answer. If the purchasers elect to cancel all 20 of the qualifying 
timber sales under Section 339 of PL 108-108, the remaining volume 
under contract on the Tongass National Forest will be 47 million board 
feet (MMBF) of economical timber for domestic processing. All timber 
sale contracts in the Alaska Region require domestic processing unless 
the Regional Forester determines that the timber is surplus to the 
needs of Alaska processors. The FY 2005 estimated allocation for the 
Alaska Region is $25,515,000.
    Question 3. Why is this number so low?
    Answer. Due to litigation, 270 million board feet (MMBF) of 
economically viable timber is currently not available for offer.
    Question 4. Last year's harvest level was 51 MMBF. (Under TLMP, the 
annual harvest permissible is 267 MMBF (per year), on average over 10 
years). Clearly 50 MMBF under contract is insufficient to meet industry 
demand. What is the Forest Service's position on what this amount 
should be and why?
    Answer. The Alaska Region is striving to have a 3-year supply of 
economically viable timber under contract.
    Question 5. Is this 3 year supply of 450 MMBF enough to support 
what is left of the limited timber industry in Southeast?
    Answer. The 3-year supply level represents the Forest Service 
estimate of current demand. Private sector actions and market forces 
will determine how industry will respond to changing market conditions.
    Question 6. Please explain this discrepancy between your demand 
calculation and calculations supported by the timber industry of 
Alaska.
    Answer. The timber industry's demand calculation is based on a 
fully integrated industry that is capable of efficiently utilizing all 
grades and species of timber.
    Question 7. Why is the Forest Service request declining in this 
important area of the agency?
    Answer. The FY 2005 President's Budget request for the Forest 
Products budget line item has increased $9,284,000 over the FY 2004 
enacted level. In addition the regular volume planned for offer is 
estimated to be 3,385,279 hundred cubic feet (1,693 MMBF) which is an 
increase of 374,594 CCF (188 MMBF) from FY 2004 planned levels.
    Question 8. What are these ``duplicative'' programs in USDA that 
you state address the goals of the State and Private Forestry Program 
and what do they do to help private landowners, such as those in 
Alaska?
    Answer. USDA's Rural Development programs, though focusing 
primarily on agriculture, could also help forest-based industries and 
address the needs in rural areas, including those in Alaska. For those 
places that already have adequate community capacity to compete for 
loans and grants, USDA's Rural Development programs can address the 
needs via the following programs:

   Business and Industry guaranteed loans - Provides up to 90 
        percent guarantee of a loan made by a commercial lender for 
        agricultural enterprises. The business applying for the loan 
        must already have strong equity and collateral.
   Rural Business Enterprise Grants - Provides grants to public 
        institutions to assist agricultural business. Grants do not go 
        directly to businesses.
   Intermediary Relending Program - Provides grants for 
        intermediaries to re-lend through an adequately secured loan 
        for new agricultural businesses, and expansion of those 
        existing businesses unable to obtain a conventional loan.
   Rural Business Opportunity Grants - Promotes sustainable 
        economic development in rural communities with exceptional 
        needs such as natural disasters, structural changes, and 
        persistent poverty or population decline. Provides grants for 
        economic planning, business assistance, and training to obtain 
        specific USDA-RD program funding.
   Cooperative Development Grants - Grants are available for 
        cooperative development to establish and operate centers for 
        cooperative development.

    FLEP activities qualify for other Forest Service, Federal or state 
conservation program support. As of 2004, USDA alone administered 23 
programs that give agricultural land users financial incentives to 
apply conservation measures to their farms, ranches, and forests. These 
programs are included in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Resource
           USDA Bureau                  Program          conservation
                                                            issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Emergency           Land damaged by
                                   Conservation        wind erosion and
                                   Program.            other disasters,
                                                       including
                                                       drought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Soil and Water      Conserve, improve,
                                   Conservation Loan   and sustain
                                   Program.            natural resources
                                                       and environment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Conservation        Wildlife habitat.
                                   Reserve Program.   Tree planting.
                                                      Enhance forest and
                                                       wetland
                                                       resources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Conservation        Improves water
                                   Reserve             quality by
                                   Enhancement         establishing
                                   Program.            vegetative
                                                       buffers,
                                                       including trees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Farm Debt           Environmentally
                                   Cancellation--Con   sensitive lands
                                   servation           for conservation,
                                   Easements Program.  recreation, and
                                                       wildlife
                                                       purposes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Integrated Farm     Conserving soil,
                                   Management Option.  water, and
                                                       related
                                                       resources,
                                                       including
                                                       forests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FS..............................  Forest Legacy       Conservation
                                   Program.            easements for
                                                       forests
                                                       threatened with
                                                       conversion to non-
                                                       forest uses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Colorado River      Conservation
                                   Basin Salinity      practices that
                                   Control Program.    reduce salt
                                                       levels in the
                                                       Colorado River.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Rural Clean Water   Rural non-point
                                   Program.            source pollution
                                                       control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Small Watershed     Improve water
                                   Program.            quality in small
                                                       watersheds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Emergency Wetland   Restore wetlands
                                   Reserve Program.    function.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Water Bank Program  Conserve water and
                                                       wildlife habitat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Wetlands Reserve    Range land,
                                   Program.            pasture, or
                                                       production forest
                                                       land where the
                                                       hydrology has
                                                       been
                                                       significantly
                                                       degraded and can
                                                       be restored.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Agricultural        Plant trees for
                                   Management          windbreaks.
                                   Assistance.        Integrated pest
                                                       management.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Conservation        Water.
                                   Innovation Grants. Soil.
                                                      Air.
                                                      Grazing Land and
                                                       forest health.
                                                      Wildlife habitat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Conservation        Maintain and
                                   Security Program.   enhance the
                                                       condition of
                                                       natural
                                                       resources,
                                                       including
                                                       forests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Emergency           Watershed
                                   Watershed           protection.
                                   Protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Environmental       Prescribed
                                   Quality Incentive   burning.Planting.
                                   Program.           Fencing.
                                                      Riparian forest
                                                       buffers.
                                                      Firebreaks.
                                                      Forest site
                                                       preparation.
                                                      Tree/shrub
                                                       enhancement.
                                                      Forest trail and
                                                       landings.
                                                      Forest stand
                                                       improvement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Watershed           Water needs for
                                   Protection and      fish, wildlife,
                                   Flood Prevention..  and forest-based
                                                       industries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Farm and Ranch      Conservation
                                   Lands Protection    easements.
                                   Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Grasslands Reserve  Conservation
                                   Program.            easements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Soil and Water      Soil, water, and
                                   Conservation        related natural
                                   Assistance.         resources,
                                                       including forest
                                                       lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Wildlife Habitat    Conservation
                                   Incentives          practices that
                                   Program.            benefit habitat
                                                       of threatened and
                                                       endangered
                                                       species,
                                                       including
                                                       forested lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The General Accounting Office, in its report entitled Federal 
Budget: Opportunities for Oversight and Improved Use of Taxpayer Funds 
(GAO-03-922T June 18, 2003), stated:

          Policymakers and managers need to look at ways to improve the 
        economy, efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs and 
        specific tax expenditures. Even where we agree on the goals of 
        programs, numerous opportunities exist to streamline, target 
        and consolidate to improve their delivery. This means looking 
        at program consolidation, at overlap and at fragmentation.

    In addition to the 23 other conservation incentive programs within 
USDA alone, the FY 2005 President's Budget includes $129.5 million for 
the Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation Initiative. 
That amount is a 25 percent increase over FY 2004. Because FLEP is 
duplicative of services provided by other programs of USDA and DOI and 
countless other programs of other Federal agencies, States or non-
government organizations, the proposal is fully consistent with GAO's 
suggestion.
    Question 9. The Economic Action Program of your agency's State & 
Private Forestry Program helps rural communities, such as those found 
in my home state of Alaska to build skills, networks, and strategies to 
address social, environmental, and economic changes. This program also 
helps businesses develop and market new products for forest-based goods 
& services, such as biomass energy. I am particularly concerned as to 
why this program is zeroed out in the FY '05 budget?
    Answer. For the third year, the President has proposed eliminating 
Economic Action Programs. The President's Budget focuses on USDA's 
rural development programs and in other Forest Service programs that 
both directly and indirectly assist communities. USDA's rural 
development programs are mentioned in the previous question. Forest 
Service programs that benefit communities include forest health 
management, state and volunteer fire assistance, forest stewardship, 
urban and community forestry, and the hazardous fuels reduction 
program.
    Questions 10 and 11. The Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), 
which was part of the 2002 Farm Bill is an important program to the 
states. As you know, this program provides for technical, educational 
and cost-share assistance to promote the sustainability of non-
industrial private forests. For example, in Alaska, in FY 2003, Alaska 
received $830,640 for implementation of this program, which helped 
native corporations and individual landowners to do reforestation after 
beetle kill, fuel reduction work and wildlife habitat improvements on 
their lands.
    It appears that the funding history of the FLEP has been erratic. 
The Farm Bill authorized $100 million from the Commodity Credit 
Corporation over a 5-year period ending with FY 2007. A total of $20 
million was used for landowner cost-share and technical assistance in 
FY 2003, its first year of implementation. In FY 2003, $50 million of 
the remaining FLEP funds were transferred from FLEP to cover Forest 
Service wildfire suppression costs. Congress repaid $10 million to the 
FLEP account in the FY 2004 Interior Appropriations Bill, leaving $40 
million remaining in the account. The FY 2005 Budget now proposes to 
use the remaining $40 million as off-sets for other higher priority 
programs.
    Can you explain to me what these ``higher priority programs are'' 
and why the Administration is choosing to not use the remaining $40 
million from the previous fiscal year for the FLEP Program?
    Answer. The President's budget balances competing needs and 
priorities, and reflects in its totality the priorities of the 
President. There is no specific linkage between the cancellation of 
FLEP funds and the funding of other priorities.
    FLEP activities qualify for other Forest Service, Federal or state 
conservation program support. As of 2004, USDA alone administered 23 
programs that give agricultural land users financial incentives to 
apply conservation measures to their farms, ranches, and forests. These 
programs are included in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Resource
           USDA Bureau                  Program          conservation
                                                            issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Emergency           Land damaged by
                                   Conservation        wind erosion and
                                   Program.            other disasters,
                                                       including
                                                       drought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Soil and Water      Conserve, improve,
                                   Conservation Loan   and sustain
                                   Program.            natural resources
                                                       and environment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Conservation        Wildlife habitat.
                                   Reserve Program.   Tree planting.
                                                      Enhance forest and
                                                       wetland
                                                       resources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Conservation        Improves water
                                   Reserve             quality by
                                   Enhancement         establishing
                                   Program.            vegetative
                                                       buffers,
                                                       including trees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Farm Debt           Environmentally
                                   Cancellation--Con   sensitive lands
                                   servation           for conservation,
                                   Easements Program.  recreation, and
                                                       wildlife
                                                       purposes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................  Integrated Farm     Conserving soil,
                                   Management Option.  water, and
                                                       related
                                                       resources,
                                                       including
                                                       forests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FS..............................  Forest Legacy       Conservation
                                   Program.            easements for
                                                       forests
                                                       threatened with
                                                       conversion to non-
                                                       forest uses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Colorado River      Conservation
                                   Basin Salinity      practices that
                                   Control Program.    reduce salt
                                                       levels in the
                                                       Colorado River.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Rural Clean Water   Rural non-point
                                   Program.            source pollution
                                                       control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Small Watershed     Improve water
                                   Program.            quality in small
                                                       watersheds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Emergency Wetland   Restore wetlands
                                   Reserve Program.    function.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Water Bank Program  Conserve water and
                                                       wildlife habitat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Wetlands Reserve    Range land,
                                   Program.            pasture, or
                                                       production forest
                                                       land where the
                                                       hydrology has
                                                       been
                                                       significantly
                                                       degraded and can
                                                       be restored.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Agricultural        Plant trees for
                                   Management          windbreaks.
                                   Assistance.        Integrated pest
                                                       management.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Conservation        Water.
                                   Innovation Grants. Soil.
                                                      Air.
                                                      Grazing Land and
                                                       forest health.
                                                      Wildlife habitat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Conservation        Maintain and
                                   Security Program.   enhance the
                                                       condition of
                                                       natural
                                                       resources,
                                                       including
                                                       forests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Emergency           Watershed
                                   Watershed           protection.
                                   Protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Environmental       Prescribed
                                   Quality Incentive   burning.Planting.
                                   Program.           Fencing.
                                                      Riparian forest
                                                       buffers.
                                                      Firebreaks.
                                                      Forest site
                                                       preparation.
                                                      Tree/shrub
                                                       enhancement.
                                                      Forest trail and
                                                       landings.
                                                      Forest stand
                                                       improvement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Watershed           Water needs for
                                   Protection and      fish, wildlife,
                                   Flood Prevention..  and forest-based
                                                       industries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Farm and Ranch      Conservation
                                   Lands Protection    easements.
                                   Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Grasslands Reserve  Conservation
                                   Program.            easements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Soil and Water      Soil, water, and
                                   Conservation        related natural
                                   Assistance.         resources,
                                                       including forest
                                                       lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS............................  Wildlife Habitat    Conservation
                                   Incentives          practices that
                                   Program.            benefit habitat
                                                       of threatened and
                                                       endangered
                                                       species,
                                                       including
                                                       forested lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The General Accounting Office, in its report entitled Federal 
Budget: Opportunities for Oversight and Improved Use of Taxpayer Funds 
(GAO-03-922T June 18, 2003), stated:

          Policymakers and managers need to look at ways to improve the 
        economy, efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs and 
        specific tax expenditures. Even where we agree on the goals of 
        programs, numerous opportunities exist to streamline, target 
        and consolidate to improve their delivery. This means looking 
        at program consolidation, at overlap and at fragmentation.

    In addition to the 23 other conservation incentive programs within 
USDA alone, the FY 2005 President's Budget includes $129.5 million for 
the Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation Initiative. 
That amount is a 25 percent increase over FY 2004. Because FLEP is 
duplicative of services provided by other programs of USDA and DOI and 
countless other programs of other Federal agencies, States or non-
government organizations, the proposal is fully consistent with GAO's 
suggestion.
    Question 12. It was mentioned at this hearing that funding is going 
to the development of new manufacturing facilities in Seward and 
Haines. Through which program is this funding being generated and how 
much funding has been sent to Alaska?
    Answer. In 2002, Husky Lumber of Nikiski (on the Kenai Peninsula 
formerly located in Seward) received a grant of $186,000 through Forest 
Service Economic Recovery Program (Forest Products Conservation & 
Recycling dry kiln earmark) to finance building two lumber mills and a 
steam-powered kiln dryer.
    In 2001, the community of Haines received a $10,500 grant through 
the Forest Service Economic Recovery Program to develop its industrial 
park marketing program.
    In 2001, SuperNatural Teas of Haines received a USDA Cooperative 
Research Education and Extension Service grant of $25,000 through the 
University of Alaska Southeast for equipment to process and dry tea 
from wild plants gathered locally.
    In 2001, Icy Straits Lumber of Hoonah received $400,000 in 
financing through USDA Rural Development (Intermediary Relending 
Program) that leveraged a Forest Service Economic Action Program (FPC&R 
dry kiln earmark) dry kiln grant ($549,000), commercial bank financing, 
and state funds to purchase a dry kiln and related resaw equipment.
    Discussions in Seward have focused on potential USDA Rural 
Development value added grants to aid in the establishment of a wood 
processing facility (oriented strand board, veneer, press board) if an 
eligible entity would apply.
    Question 13. What are these particular facilities in Haines and 
Seward and what is it that they are intending to do in terms of 
manufacturing?
    Answer. Husky Lumber has two sawmills and a kiln dryer with a 
capacity of processing about 8 million board feet of lumber per year. 
According to the general manager, Husky can supply Alaska and the Lower 
48 with dimensional lumber for buildings, logs for homes, tongue-and-
groove paneling and decking, log siding and cants, and large dimension 
materials for oil fields. At capacity, the mill will employ about 30 
people.
    Question 14. What additional accomplishments are required on the 
Kenai Peninsula in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) via mechanical 
treatment, prior to the commencement of the cheaper per acre treatments 
via prescribed fire?
    Answer. In order for the Chugach National Forest to begin using 
prescribed fire on 7,100 acres to restore spruce bark beetle impacted 
land, approximately 1,300 acres and 33 miles of power-line or highway 
right-of-way first need mechanical treatment. These areas are a mix of 
state, private, borough, and National Forest System lands.
    In order for all landowners on the Kenai Peninsula to accomplish 
about 26,000 acres of prescribed fire, approximately 65,000 acres of 
mechanical treatment would be needed on all state, private, borough, 
and federal lands.
    Question 15. Does the President's budget fulfill this need for 
Alaska (fuels treatment on the Kenai)?
    Answer. Yes, the President's budget fulfills this need.
    Question 16. In the FY 2005 Budget Request, there is a decrease in 
the State Fire Assistance Program (a difference of $16,818 million from 
'04 - '05). This Program is critical to the work being done on the 
Kenai Peninsula in my state. Why this decrease?
    Answer. The President's Budget continues to support the work of 
communities and States in reducing the threat of wildland fire, but at 
a reduced level over previous years. While direct funding in State Fire 
Assistance under Wildland Fire, Operations, has decreased, funding is 
available in other appropriated areas and indirect support functions 
can be found in other areas of the Presidents Budget. This assistance 
includes:

   $25 million in appropriated State Fire Assistance funds in 
        the State and Private Forestry appropriation.
   An increase of more than $63 million for National Fire Plan 
        programs. This includes a $32.8 million increase in Hazardous 
        Fuel Reduction to continue to work with communities and 
        organizations in planning treatments to reduce the risk of 
        wildland fire in high priority areas and the wildland-urban 
        interface
   Working cooperatively with States and communities by making 
        leading-edge wildland fire management technology available.
   Coordinating the use of the Federal Excess Personal Property 
        program to assist state and local communities.

    Question 17. The Rehabilitation and Restoration Program under the 
Wildland Fire Management Account is decreased by $3.9 million from the 
FY 04 level of $6.9 million [a 57% decrease]. Can you explain this 
decrease?
    Answer. The President's Budget proposes $3.0 million dollars in FY 
05 for Rehabilitation and Restoration. Critical rehabilitation work not 
covered by the Fire Rehabilitation budget line item in the Wildland 
Fire Management appropriation will be addressed by utilizing regularly 
appropriated funds and carryover funds from prior years including any 
funds that were appropriated for repayment of funds transferred for 
fire suppression. The critical rehabilitation and restoration work will 
be funded from several of the various National Forest System budget 
line items, Capital Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, as 
well as, from the Permanent Appropriations and Trust Funds. The $3.9 
million decrease from the FY 2004 enacted level is modest when compared 
to the $445 million in rehabilitation work that the Forest Service has 
estimated will be funded through regularly appropriated funds.
    Question 18. Why is only Title I of the Healthy Forest Restoration 
Act the only title being funded in the FY 2005 President's Request and 
how much of this funding is ``new money''?
    Answer. The agency's primary focus with regard to the Healthy 
Forest Initiative has been on reducing hazardous fuels to reduce the 
impacts of catastrophic wildfires on the environment and to reduce 
risks to communities. Therefore, the agency's primary focus on 
implementing HFRA has been on Title I, including determining funding 
for FY 2005. Of the total Forest Service amount for Title I, 
approximately $38 million ($33 million in hazardous fuels, $2 million 
in Forest Products, and $3 million research) is ``new money''.
    Question 19. Why isn't the Biomass Title of HFRA being funded and 
seen as a priority in the President's Budget?
    Answer. Title II of the HFRA has three components: (1) biomass use 
research, (2) rural revitalization technologies, and (3) utilization 
grants. The Agency deems the development of information and assistance 
to communities in the production and use of biomass to be a priority 
for sustainable management and economic sustainability. Examples of 
implementation include:

   The FY2004 Joint USDA/USDOE Solicitation for Proposals under 
        the Biomass Research and Development Initiative was modified to 
        include grant funding in the areas identified in Title II of 
        HFRA.
   FS R&D has a comprehensive program in forest biomass 
        assessment, management, harvesting and recovery, utilization, 
        processing, and marketing for HFRA Title II.
   S&PF is emphasizing partnering with universities and USDA 
        Extension Service and formalizing procedures for demonstrations 
        within current programs to assist community-based enterprises.
   The Forest Service has the grant authorities and programs in 
        place to provide direct technical assistance and grants to 
        individuals and entities to demonstrate commercial biomass 
        utilization should such funds become available through Title II 
        of the HFRA.

    Question 20. The President's FY 05 Request includes proposed budget 
reductions in virtually every area of the Wildland Fire Management Area 
except Fire Operations which is up $88.3 million over the FY 04 level 
of $597.1 million. Please explain these reductions and why.
    Answer. The President's budget proposes an $88.2 million increase 
over the 2004 request for Fire Operations Suppression. This request 
provides the 10-year average suppression cost, adjusted for inflation.
    In Other Operations, the Presidents Budget is an approximately $22 
million increase over the 2004 request, and is approximately equal to 
the 2004 enacted level when adjusted for Emergency Appropriations, 
Hazardous Fuels and Joint Fire Sciences which were moved to other 
appropriations.
    Question 21. How much would it take to fully meet the road 
maintenance needs in the Alaska Region?
    Answer. The Alaska Region reports annual maintenance needs of $18.9 
million. $1.6 million of these needs are reported to be ``Critical''. 
(Critical needs are those, which if not met, will constitute an 
immediate threat to health and safety, forest resources, or 
accomplishment of the agency mission.)
    Question 22. What is the funding request in the FY 2005 budget for 
road maintenance and what portion would be allocated to Alaska?
    Answer. The President's budget proposes $227,906,000.00 for the 
road construction and maintenance budget line item. The Alaska Region's 
estimated allocation would be $15,902,000. The line item is used for 
road maintenance, road decommissioning, and reconstruction and 
construction activities. Of this amount approximately $5 million is for 
road maintenance, and the remaining funds would be used for road 
decommissioning, and road reconstruction and construction.
    Question 23. It is my understanding that the funding to be 
allocated to Alaska is far below the needed amount to address road 
maintenance needs. Please explain this discrepancy.
    Answer. Agency-wide and regional budget requests are developed by 
forests through the Budget Formulation and Execution System (BFES) 
process. Working within regional constraints, each forest requests the 
level of funds within each program based on local priorities and needs. 
The Alaska Region's level of requested road maintenance funding and the 
Forest Service agency-wide level of requested funding developed from 
BFES are below the amounts needed to address all of the road 
maintenance needs. The relative ratio of requested funding to needs in 
Alaska is similar to that of the other eight regions.
    Question 24. With a proposed $10.9 million reduction in Land 
Management Planning from the FY 2004 level of $70 million, I would like 
to know how the agency proposes to keep its 126 forest plans around the 
nation timely. With outdated forest plans being utilized by the agency, 
the chance for additional lawsuits grows exponentially.
    Answer. The current Forest Plan revision schedule reflects an FY 
2004 workload that can be accomplished within funding levels received 
from Congress. It also contains a planned level of work and 
accomplishment whereby subsequent years will require substantially more 
funds. This schedule was developed based on the desire to facilitate 
effective management of the program by having only about one-third of 
the agency's Forest Plans under revision at any one point in time 
(i.e., an even-flow of Plan revision initiations and completions).
    The revision schedule provided in the FY 2005 Budget Justification 
assumes efficiencies associated with the revised national forest 
planning rule and reflects program funding contained in the President's 
Budget.
    The new planning rule being developed by the agency should also 
allow Forests to complete revisions more efficiently in future years.
   Responses of the Forest Service to Questions From Senator Bunning
    Question 1. The Forest Service has asked that it be given permanent 
authority for its recreation forest fee program. Many Americans, 
however, are opposed to paying access fees that force them to pay for 
simply setting foot in certain forests. How will you balance service 
fees--such as parking fees or docking fees--with general access fees? 
How will you make certain that the visitors to our forests will see the 
local investment from their fees?
    Answer. Providing a fair and equitable program is a high priority 
for the Forest Service and the other agencies (Bureau of Land 
Management, National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service) 
participating in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Through 
the Blueprint for Forest Service Recreation Fees (Blueprint), the 
Agency provides a consistent, national framework for identifying the 
types of recreation facilities and services for which fees will be 
charged. The Forest Service is not charging for general Forest access, 
viewing sunsets, or undeveloped areas with low use. Fees are charged in 
areas where higher levels of recreation development or services are 
provided. To ensure that we have a fair and equitable fee structure, 
each recreation fee demonstration project requires a business plan that 
includes an economic analysis which demonstrates that the proposed fees 
are comparable to those charged in the local/regional area.
    Accountability to the public is very important. In fact, one of the 
key lessons learned in the Fee Demo program is that fees are acceptable 
to people if they have a direct connection to a benefit. The Forest 
Service ensures that the public sees the result (benefit) of their fees 
through several methods. The results of recreation fees are visible at 
the site through new or rehabilitated facilities, the results of 
improved services (i.e., cleaner toilets, better trash removal), and 
better maintained trails. Some forests hold public meetings to describe 
how fees were spent in the past year and present projects for the 
coming year. We post annual accomplishments at several places including 
at the recreation fee site itself, visitor centers, and district or 
information offices to ensure that users are aware of where their fees 
are going. Forests also post accomplishment summaries on their websites 
so people can access the reports electronically as well as mail those 
accomplishment reports to those interested in recreation fees. Finally, 
the Forest Service prepares a joint Annual Report to Congress with 
Bureau of Land Management, Fish &Wildlife Service, and the National 
Park Service that accounts for recreation fees revenue and 
expenditures. The Annual Report to Congress is posted on the Forest 
Service website for electronic access (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/
programs/feedemo/index.shtml).
    Question 2. National Forests, National Parks, waterways and other 
recreational areas are often intertwined into a complex web of 
jurisdictions. With the Forest Service wanting to make its recreation 
fee program permanent, what will you do to work with other agencies to 
ensure that Americans are treated fairly and are not deterred from 
using our forests because of redundant fees from other agencies?
    Answer. The Forest Service is actively working with the Bureau of 
Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service 
to ensure that the recreation fee program is fair and easy to use and 
understand. The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture have 
created the Interagency Fee Leadership Council (the Council) to oversee 
and coordinate the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The Council is 
co-chaired by Mark Rey, Under Secretary of Agriculture and Lynn 
Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for the Department of Interior and 
members include leaders of the agencies involved in the Fee Demo 
program. The Council develops joint goals and work plans to ensure that 
all agencies are working toward the common goal of providing a seamless 
recreation experience to the American public. Interagency objectives 
include 1) interagency pass policies; 2) reporting mechanisms; 3) 
program evaluation; 4) feedback loops for adjusting policies and 
addressing problems; and 5) joint research on various aspects of the 
program.
    The participating agencies' coordination is best visible in the 
development of interagency regional passes. Many regions are responding 
to the public's need for simplified recreation passes by providing 
regional passes that cover participating Federal and State lands. An 
example is the Oregon/Washington Forest Pass that covers basic fees 
sites at Bureau of Land Management, National Forest Service, Fish & 
Wildlife Service, and National Park Service lands as well as 6 Army 
Corps of Engineers sites, 26 Oregon State Parks, and 20 Washington 
State Parks. Another interagency regional pass is the Visit Idaho 
Playgrounds (VIP) pass. The VIP pass covers fees on State and Federal 
lands in Idaho. Regional passes are moving the Fee Demo program toward 
the Council's stated goal of having one national interagency pass that 
covers all federal recreation land.
    The Forest Service developed and implemented a Blueprint for Forest 
Recreation Fees (Blueprint) in 2003. The Blueprint provides 
standardized criteria that each recreation fee site must meet before 
being included in the fee program. The Blueprint criteria are 
consistent with the other agencies' recreation fee site criteria. To 
provide greater benefits and create an easier fee program for the 
public that reduces fee layering, the Blueprint allows greater 
acceptance of the Golden Eagle Passport, an interagency pass, at basic 
fee sites within the Forest Service. Not only is accepting the Golden 
Eagle Passport at more fee sites moving the program toward the goal of 
seamless service across Federal land, it also is easier for the public 
to understand and use.

    Responses of the Forest Service to Questions From Senator Akaka
                            invasive species

    Question 1. I am glad to see a commendable increase of $7.3 million 
in funding for invasive species control methods in Forest and Rangeland 
Research. This is an ongoing battle for many States, and an important 
issue for the overall health of our forests and communities.
    The appropriation for Forest and Rangeland Research indicates that 
the invasive species program will expand research on controls for newly 
arrived insects and pathogens. The budget document also indicates that 
new biological controls for established invasive weeds will increase, 
along with methods to restore the sites once the invasive is 
controlled.
    As you know, the State of Hawaii is plagued by invasive weeds such 
as miconia and fountain grass. These and other invasives have been 
changing the hydrology of tropical forests by depleting the groundwater 
supply, preventing native plant growth, and leading to erosion. The 
erosion increases sedimentation in surface waters and smothers coral 
reefs.
    With regards to Hawaii, it is unclear as to what level of funding 
my State can look forward to for control of invasive weeds and insects. 
The Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry will have an increase, but is 
this the only invasives effort by the Forest Service that will affect 
Hawaii's forests? To what specific pests, species, or pathogens will 
the funding be dedicated and how will the research help with Hawaii's 
invasives problems?
    Answer. It is recognized that Hawaii is suffering from among the 
worst, if not the worst, invasive species problems of any state in the 
USA. The Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, the Hawaiian Unit of 
the Forest Service's Pacific Southwest Research Station, is committed 
to researching ways to understand, prevent, and control invasive 
species in Hawaii and the Pacific. Hawaii will benefit from increased 
research support for invasive species research on several fronts. We 
will expand research to address the following important invasive 
species problems:

   Biological Control of such aggressive weeds as miconia, 
        tibouchina, and strawberry guava.
   Breaking the exotic grass/wildfire cycle particularly 
        control of fountain grass. This cycle negatively affects human 
        safety, property, rare and endangered species, and military 
        training.
   Watershed restoration as a means of controlling exotic 
        species and protecting entire watersheds from the ridge to the 
        reef. Here we will focus on restoring native forests in areas 
        occupied by exotics or bare ground thereby decreasing 
        sedimentation and damage to coral reef ecosystems.

    Funding for the Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund would enable the 
Forest Service to deal more effectively with unexpected introductions 
of invasive species to protect habitats and mitigate short-term 
effects. This fund is for rapid response to new invasive species or 
pest population increases of more than 150 percent from one year to the 
next. Funds may be used solely for: (1) rapid response to new 
introductions of non-native or invasive pests or pathogens which no 
previous Federal funding has been identified to address, or (2) for a 
limited number of instances in which any pest populations increase at 
over 150 percent of levels monitored for that species in the 
immediately preceding fiscal year and failure to suppress those 
populations would lead to a 10-percent increase of annual forest or 
stand mortality over ambient mortality levels in the affected area. 
This program supports the President's Healthy Forests Initiative and 
serves as an agency initiative/focus item for addressing invasive 
species.
    Forest Service fire scientists, of the Riverside, California 
Research Station, are working in Hawaii to develop and refine fire 
behavior models to address Hawaii climates and fuels. They are 
developing local and regional short- and long-term fire-weather 
forecasts to support models and long-range planning activities. Much of 
this work is done with the military in response to their issues with 
invasive grasses, fuel accumulations, and fire problems resulting from 
ignitions associated with training activities.
    The support given to the Institute of Pacific Island Forestry is 
important because it can be used to leverage additional funds for 
research on the control of exotic species and restoration of native 
ecosystems. We have successfully obtained additional funding for 
research from the National Science Foundation, the Joint Fire Sciences 
Program, the Nature Conservancy, and the International Programs of the 
Forest Service. This research has increased our research efforts on the 
ecological impacts, economic impacts, and approaches to control of 
exotic species. The leveraged funding has also facilitated the 
involvement of researchers and collaborators from other Federal 
Agencies, Universities, NGOs, and other Forest Service Research 
Stations.
    Question 2. I commend the Forest Service for its participation in 
the interagency budget crosscut on invasive species and its work with 
the National Invasive Species Council. However, I am disheartened to 
note that overall funding for invasive species-related projects has 
decreased since FY2003 from $88.3 million, to the present budget 
request of $67.9 million.
    I am interested in one change in particular. I see that a $10 
million request has been added to the Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund, 
both in State and Private Forestry. The budget request mentions several 
non-native species or pathogens that would be addressed by this 
funding, such as emerald ash borer and sudden oak death; but none of 
these are of immediate concern in Hawaii.
    What is the rationale behind these choices? Were there specific 
states in mind when this request was being calculated?
    a. Does this mean less funding to combat other varieties of 
invasive species?
    Answer. The Emerging Pest and Pathogen Fund targets new, 
unanticipated, invasive pest and pathogens that may be introduced into 
the United States and is not intended for any particular species. The 
species mentioned are examples of the kind of pests and pathogens that 
would be appropriate.

                    HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVES PROGRAM

    Question 3. Title V of the Heathy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 
authorizes up to $25 million dollars for the Healthy Forests Reserves 
Program. This program would help landowners restore forested habitats 
for rare and endangered species, through cost-sharing agreements and 
conservation easements. The State of Hawaii has completed the Hawaii 
Tropical Forest Recovery Action Plan, and we have just completed an 
extensive series of critical habitat designations. Hawaii can easily 
benefit from this program.
    I do not find a request for Title V in the budget document. Can you 
provide any details on the status of Title V and your plans for a 
request next year?
    Answer. No funds are currently requested for Title V of the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act, and it is too early to predict what will be 
requested in FY 2006.
    The Cooperative Lands line item, however, shows plans for FY 2005 
to ``provide technical assistance to Hawaii for management of non-
native weed species as provided for by the Hawaii Tropical Forestry 
Recovery Act.'' (Pages 7-8 and 7-9 of the Budget Justification)
    Question 4. The Cooperative Lands line item shows plans for FY2005 
to ``provide technical assistance to Hawaii for management of non-
native weed species as provided for by the Hawaii Tropical Forestry 
Recovery Act.'' (Pages 7-8 and 7-9)
    This is the same action described in FY2004, yet there are no 
specifics as to the level of funding or type of activity, and whether 
this would be an increase or a decrease from FY2004.
    Can you please provide information on the level of funding and type 
of activities planned for Cooperative Lands, in relation to the Hawaii 
Tropical Forest Recovery Act, and how it differs from the FY2004 
activities and levels of funding?
    Answer. In 2004, $547,000 was sent to Hawaii and was distributed to 
Hawaii, Maui, Kauai, Oahu, and the Department of Forestry and Wildlife. 
A large portion of these funds went toward control of Miconia. Maui is 
also spending funds on pampass grass, ivy gourd, and giant reed. The 
remainder of the funds is being distributed to the Island Invasive 
Species Committee's to treat outlying populations of species of limited 
distribution on the islands. Additionally, $155,000 was sent to the 
other Pacific Islands for managing invasive species.
    We expect approximately the same level of funding for the 
activities under the Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act in FY 2005.

  Responses of the Forest Service to Questions From Senator Feinstein

                  HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION NATIONWIDE

    Question 1. California's Fire Safe Councils, which receive funding 
from the national Fire Plan, help communities protect themselves from 
catastrophic fire. I understand that the fuel reduction efforts of the 
Lytle Creek Fire Safe Council were responsible in significant part for 
the Forest Service's successful stand in the San Bernadino Mountains 
during the tragic California wildfires last fall. Is this correct?
    Answer. The efforts of the Lytle Creek Fire Safe Council were 
significant in saving much of the community of Lytle Creek during the 
Grand Prix Fire--in fact, parts of this area had been identified before 
the fire as areas that could not be defended due to the dense fuel 
loads. Because of the efforts of the Fire Safe Council in the months 
and years before the fire, the incident team re-evaluated the situation 
and determined that they could defend these homes, saving nearly all of 
them. These efforts highlight how local governments and private 
residents can take action ``close to home'' to mitigate the risk of 
uncontrolled wildfire.
    Question 2. Despite the useful work of Fire Safe Councils, as I 
read the President's proposed 2005 budget, funding for state, local, 
and volunteer fire assistance is cute by 42% ($147 million down to $85 
million), while funding for Economic Action Grants to communities is 
zeroed out. How can this be justified given the importance of both Fire 
Safe Councils' community planning efforts, and the need for state and 
local firefighters in initial attack and firefighting in the Wildland 
Urban Interface?
    Answer. The FY 2004 funding referenced in the question includes 
$24.8 million specifically for Southern California appropriated in the 
FY 2004 Consolidated Appropriation Act and all of the Economic Action 
Program funds, over half of which supports non-wildland fire 
activities. The President's Budget continues to strongly support the 
work of communities and States in reducing the threat of wildland fire. 
The budget request for the National Fire Plan includes an overall 
increase of $63 million for National Fire Plan programs (excluding the 
supplemental funds for Southern California). The increase in Hazardous 
Fuel Reduction (+$32.8 million) provides additional funds over the FY 
2004 enacted level to continue to work with communities, other federal 
agencies, and organizations in planning treatments to reduce the risk 
of wildland fire in high priority areas including the wildland-urban 
interface. The increase in Fire Suppression Operations (+88.3 million) 
gives the Forest Service additional resources to suppress wildland 
fires that might threaten communities and other non-federal lands. The 
President's Budget includes strong incentives for the use of local 
resources in hazardous fuels removal projects, and assumes expanded use 
of stewardship contracting to meet on-the-ground resource management 
objectives, including hazardous fuels reduction. The President's Budget 
also provides for the expanded use of state and local firefighters and 
resources. In addition to the overall funding increase for the National 
Fire Plan, the Forest Service continues to work cooperatively with 
States and communities in numerous ways to protect communities, the 
public, and firefighters from wildland fires, including making 
available the latest leading-edge wildland fire management technology 
and coordinating the use of the Federal Excess Personal Property 
program.
    Question 3. The Administration has claimed the 2005 budget fully 
funds the Healthy Forests Restoration Act by increasing funding to $760 
million. However, most of the supposed increase, with the exception of 
an addition $30 million for fuel reduction, appears to be made up by 
shifting funding from other existing programs, such as state and 
private forestry, fire science, and timber. How much of the $760 
million do you consider to be new money?
    Answer. The President's Budget proposes $760 million for work to 
reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest and rangeland health, as 
prescribed in the Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act. Other Forest Service programs besides the hazardous 
fuels reduction program contribute toward these goals. The Forest 
Service has not shifted funds from other programs. The amounts shown in 
programs other than hazardous fuels that support HFI and HFRA are those 
funds that contribute toward removing hazardous fuels and reducing risk 
of catastrophic wildfire. Of the total Forest Service amount for Title 
I, approximately $38 million ($33 million in hazardous fuels, $2 
million in Forest Products, and $3 million research) is ``new money''.

                          SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

    Question 4. Congressman Jerry Lewis and I obtained $240 million for 
hazardous fuel reduction and restoration of burned areas on federal and 
private lands in Southern California through the FY03 supplemental and 
the FY04 Omnibus and Interior Appropriations bill. It is critical that 
we reduce the terrible risk of catastrophic fire in the San Bernardino 
Mountains and surrounding areas. My question for you is whether this is 
enough funding for FY04 and FY05, or whether we need more.
    Answer. The current funding is adequate.
    Question 5. As I understand the proposed budget, funding for 
rehabilitation and restoration of burned over areas decreases to $3 
million from $6.9 million in FY 2004, a 57% decrease. Restoration is 
needed after any major fires. How do you propose to fund this needed 
restoration under your budget?
    Answer. The critical rehabilitation and restoration work will be 
funded from several of the National Forest System budget line items, 
Capital Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, as well as funds 
from the Permanent Appropriations & Trust Funds. Prior to the 
establishment of the Rehabilitation and Restoration budget line item 
following the extraordinary 2000 fire season, these accounts were the 
primary source of non-emergency rehabilitation and restoration funds.
    Some of the primary National Forest System budget line items 
include:

          1. Vegetation & Watershed Management for seeding, plantings, 
        reforestation, noxious weed prevention and treatments, soil 
        stabilization, and other watershed rehabilitation and 
        restoration treatments
          2. Landownership Management for reestablishing property 
        boundaries

    From the Capital Improvement and Maintenance appropriation:

          1. Roads funds for repairing bridges, culverts, and erosion
          2. Trails funds to repair trails and reduce erosion
          3. Facilities budget line items will be used for 
        reconstruction of minor recreation facilities, and other 
        administrative facilities

    And from the Permanent Appropriations and Trust Funds, such as,

          1. Ten-percent Roads and Trails Fund
          2. Reforestation Trust Funds.

    The decrease from the FY 2004 enacted level is modest when compared 
to the $445 million in rehabilitation work that the Forest Service has 
estimated will be funded through regularly appropriated funds.

                               LAKE TAHOE

    Question 6. For the first time in years, we have the possibility of 
fully funding the $30 million federal share of the Lake Tahoe 
Restoration Act, thanks to last year's amendments to the Southern 
Nevada Public Land Management Act. My only concern is that I have heard 
rumors that the $30 million might be used to cover other Forest Service 
operations, effectively denying California the benefit of this 
additional funding. Can you assure me that the Forest Service's base 
funding for Lake Tahoe and Region 5 will be maintained?
    Answer. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), as 
amended by P.L. 108-108 (FY 2004 Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act), will provide the $300 million authorized in the 
Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (LTRA) to federal agencies over the next 8 
years ($37.5 million per year). The funds from SNPLMA will be used to 
fully implement the LTRA, but they will not be used to cover other 
Forest Service base operations. Instead, the FY 2005 President's Budget 
increases the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit's (LTBMU) base budget by 
$2,715,000 through additional appropriated funds. This increase 
provides for approximately $7 million in base funding for the LTBMU. 
Base funding supports personnel and infrastructure and provides basic 
program support not included in LTRA funding, but which is needed to 
implement the LTRA.
    The Forest Service is committed to providing an adequate and stable 
base budget for the LTBMU for the long term beyond the LTRA. Through 
the combined funding from the SNPLMA and Forest Service appropriated 
funds, it will be possible to support both a stable base budget for the 
LTBMU and fully fund the LTRA.

                  PRIORITIZING FUEL REDUCTION PROJECTS

    Question 7. Having accurate data about areas at risk is critical 
for effective fire management. The Condition Class Rating System, while 
useful at a broad scale, is not currently designed to be used at the 
local or regional level. In response, the Forest Service has launched 
the LANDFIRE program to improve and refine the condition class system. 
Recently, the National Association of Public Administration released a 
report entitled ``Enhancing Hazard Mitigation Capacity,'' as part of 
its ongoing review of wildland fire management. NAPA has recommended 
that the LANDFIRE program be accelerated. Does the 2005 budget allow 
you to accelerate the program?
    Answer. Yes, the Forest Service has the discretion to direct 
funding within budget line items as priorities dictate, consequently 
the FY 2005 budget allows us to accelerate the development and 
implementation of LANDFIRE as needed.
    The LANDFIRE team is providing input to the Wildland Fire 
Leadership Council (WFLC) on the merits of accelerating the LANDFIRE 
program. The proposed accelerated schedule ($39.9 million) would 
deliver most products 12 15 months faster than originally planned, at 
an increased cost of 8 percent, $3 million, over the life of the 
project. In FY 2005 the cost would increase about $3.2 million for the 
Forest Service, and $3 million for the Department of the Interior. The 
most significant issue being explored is the cost of acceleration with 
respect to product quality, and subsequent user confidence in the data 
resulting from LANDFIRE. These application costs must be fully 
evaluated before the final decision is made on whether or not to 
accelerate LANDFIRE development.

