[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 137 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    SUPPORT THE QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP

                                 ______


                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 27, 1994

  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, over the past several months, I and several 
others of the California delegation have been working with the Forest 
Service to secure financial support for an innovative effort affecting 
the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in northern California. 
In this area, a remarkable coalition of environmental, timber industry, 
labor, and community leaders that has come to be called the ``Quincy 
Library Group'' has developed a consensus proposal that provides an 
important model to resolve similar issues throughout the National 
Forest System. Their efforts have indeed been laudable, and the members 
of the California delegation have supported the concepts they are 
promoting to simultaneously achieve healthy forests and stable 
communities.
  In an exchange of letters between our delegation and the Forest 
Service, which I will include for the Record, we have asked the agency 
to evaluate whether the Quincy Library Group proposal could be funded 
through the authorities provided to the Forest Service under its 
salvage sale fund. As you can see from the last letter of the series, 
the agency has answered favorably. We are encouraged by this response 
and are encouraged that the proposal can move forward with adequate 
financial support.
  Additionally, I would note that in the conference report on the 
Interior appropriations bill, the managers emphasized the importance of 
sustaining the health of our forest ecosystems. They directed the 
Forest Service to move expeditiously to restore and rehabilitate 
burned-over areas, and reduce excessive fuel loads in areas highly 
susceptible to wildfire. The managers report contains specific 
direction to the agency to this end and commends the Department of 
Agriculture for establishing a task force to review the causes, 
effects, and severity of wildfires in the Western United States. In 
suggesting that they expect the Forest Service to move expeditiously to 
restore and rehabilitate burned-over areas and reduce excessive fuel 
loads, the managers spoke directly to our situation. The areas affected 
by the Quincy Library Group proposal are in just this sort of 
condition. In fact, one of the larger wildfires that has burned in our 
State is in the area included in the Quincy Library Group proposal.
  Consequently, I am very enthusiastic about both the proposal and the 
Agency's ability to bring the proposal to fruition by using salvage 
sale funds. We will continue to work with the agency to secure these 
important outcomes, and to try to build on the unique consensus 
achieved by our local citizens in northern California.


                                 Congress of the United States

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 1994.
     Dr. Jack Ward Thomas,
     Chief, U.S. Forest Service, Auditor's Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       dear Chief Thomas: In recent weeks, each of us has had 
     conversations with members of the Quiney Library Group. We 
     believe this coalition of environmental, timber industry, 
     labor, and community leaders is a truly remarkable group that 
     may provide an important model to resolve similar issues 
     throughout the national forest system. Their efforts are 
     indeed laudable, and we support the concepts they are 
     promoting to simultaneously achieve healthy forests and 
     stable communities. To that end, we wish to request your 
     assistance in expeditiously obtaining specific information on 
     the anticipated costs and associated outputs that would occur 
     through implementation of this group's proposals.
       Specifically, the Quincy Library Group has indicated to us 
     that, after consultation with the agency, their proposal 
     would involve treating approximately 50,000 acres for fuels 
     in the first year (FY 1995) in order to begin reducing the 
     current risk of catastrophic wildfire. In order to accurately 
     evaluate the financial implications of this proposal, we need 
     the answers to the following questions:
       1. What would these treatments cost in FY 1995? Please 
     break out the costs of the Quincy Library Group's proposal as 
     it was presented to the Forest Service according to the 
     budget categories displayed in the agency's FY 1995 budget 
     request. What portion of the proposal's funding needs have 
     been included in the Administration's FY 1995 budget request? 
     What portion of these treatments could be funded through the 
     Timber Salvage Sale Trust Fund? Will salvage sale funds be 
     used to treat forest stands in imminent danger from insect or 
     disease attack?
       2. What are the Forest Service's best general estimates of 
     the out-year (FY 1996-98) costs associated with the proposal?
       3. Are there additional FTE or other personnel needs 
     associated with the FY 1995 activity contemplated by the 
     proposal? Do these differ in the out-years? Will the ongoing 
     voluntary separation program affect implementation of the 
     Quincy Library Group's proposal in FY 1995 or in out-years 
     (FY 1996-98)?
       4. What would the proposal produce in FY 1995 timber sale 
     outputs in addition to the planned sales for these national 
     forests? How about additional out-year (FY 1996-98) outputs?
       5. What are the agency's best estimates of the additional 
     gross revenues that the additional timber sale outputs would 
     generate in FY 1995? Please provide estimates for the out-
     years (FY 1996-98) as well?
       6. What is the agency's estimate of the total amount of FY 
     1995 down-payments and deposits that would be collected as a 
     result of the additional FY 1995 timber sale outputs 
     generated by the proposal? Please provide the same 
     information for the out-years (FY 1996-98).
       7. The Quincy Library Group proposal calls for a sustained 
     timber sale program to meet the needs of the local mills. How 
     much funding is required for advanced timber sale preparation 
     work to ensure completed field work on 50 percent of the FY 
     1996 sale program at the opening of FY 1996?
       8. In addition to timber sales resulting from fuels 
     reduction work, the Quincy Library Group has stated that 
     these national forests have numerous watershed restoration 
     projects that are ready for implementation, but have not been 
     funded. What is the extent of this work that could be 
     successfully implemented in the upcoming fiscal year, and 
     what would it cost? What level of funding in future years (FY 
     1996-98) will be required to completely eliminate this 
     backlog?
       9. Based on the funding in the Administration budget 
     request, what programs and funding impacts would be felt on 
     the other California national forests if full implementation 
     of the first year of the Quincy Library Group program is 
     required in FY 1995?
       We would appreciate your response to these questions as 
     soon as possible so that we may assist this group in their 
     effort. Since we are not asking for an agency or 
     Administration position on the proposal, we assume the agency 
     can respond to our information request promptly. Please 
     contact Kathy Lacey in Senator Feinstein's office at 224-9341 
     or Jeff Harris in Congressman Fazio's office at 225-5716 with 
     any questions. We look forward to your detailed response to 
     these inquiries.
           Sincerely,
     Dianne Feinstein,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
     Vic Fazio,
                                               Member of Congress.
     Wally Herger,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                  ____

     Hon. Wally Herger,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Herger: This is in response to your May 
     18, 1994, letter cosigned by Congressman Vic Fazio and 
     Senator Dianne Feinstein, requesting detailed information 
     regarding costs and associated outputs regarding the Quincy 
     Library Group (QLG) proposals.
       The following is the result of the compliation of that data 
     and responds to your questions in the order asked:
       1. What would these treatments cost in FY 1995?
       Costs of the current FS program, which include a portion of 
     the QLG proposals, are displayed in budget categories 
     presented in the Agency's budget request (costs are shown in 
     thousands of dollars):

Timber funding:
  NFSP...........................................................$1,358
  NFHA............................................................1,140
  NFSE..............................................................344
  SSSS............................................................4,095
                                                             __________

    Totals........................................................6,937
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Timber support (ET113):
  NFWl.............................................................. 45
  NFTE..............................................................147
  NFAF..............................................................  9
  NFIF.............................................................. 57
  NFCR..............................................................159
  NFPM.............................................................. 22
  NFSO.............................................................. 75
  NFVM..............................................................  0
  NFMG.............................................................. 50
  FFFP..............................................................175
                                                             __________

    Total...........................................................739
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Other funding needs:
  CNTM..............................................................844
  FFFP-PF2..........................................................377
  BDBD............................................................2,171
                                                             __________

    Total.........................................................3,392
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

    Total........................................................11,068

       Within the forests included in the QLG's proposal, a level 
     of funding, as displayed above, is needed to produce the 
     ``current planned outputs'' in response number 4. To perform 
     additional treatments as proposed by QLG and shown as 
     feasible in our response to your question number 4, the 
     following additional costs for fiscal year (FY) 1995 would be 
     expected:

Timber funding:
  NFSP.............................................................$762
  NFMA..............................................................600
  NPSE..............................................................188
  SSSS............................................................4,230
                                                             __________

    Total........................................................$5,780
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Timber support (ET113):
  NFWL.............................................................. 50
  NFTE.............................................................. 85
  NFAF..............................................................  0
  NFIF.............................................................. 62
  NFCR.............................................................. 95
  NFRM.............................................................. 12
  NFSO.............................................................. 43
  NFVM..............................................................  2
  NFMG.............................................................. 27
  FFFP..............................................................175
                                                             __________

    Total...........................................................468
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Other funding needs:
  CNTM..............................................................433
  FFFP-PF2........................................................1,215
  BDBD..............................................................192
                                                             __________

    Total.........................................................1,840
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

    Total.........................................................8,088

       Portion of the funding needs in the Administration's FY 
     1995 budget request:
       Of the total need, including added needs for the QLG 
     proposals, the budget request is about 50 percent of the 
     total needed.
       2. What are the Forest Service's best general estimates of 
     the out-year costs associated with the proposal?
       The following estimated annual out-year costs are projected 
     (in thousands of dollars):

Regular program timber funding:
  NFSP...........................................................$1,290
  NFHA............................................................1,082
  NFSE..............................................................318
  SSSS............................................................6,488
                                                             __________

    Totals........................................................9,178
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Timber support (ET113):
  NFWL.............................................................. 45
  NFTE..............................................................140
  NFAF..............................................................  0
  NFIF.............................................................. 57
  NFCR..............................................................152
  NFRM.............................................................. 22
  NFSO.............................................................. 72
  NFVM..............................................................  0
  NFMG.............................................................. 50
  FFFP..............................................................172
                                                             __________

    Total...........................................................710
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Other funding needs:
  CNTM..............................................................818
  FFFP-PF2..........................................................377
  BDBD............................................................2,171
                                                             __________

    Total.........................................................3,366
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

    Total........................................................13,254

Additional QLG proposals costs:

Timber funding:
  NFSP...........................................................$1,476
  NFHA............................................................1,191
  NFSE..............................................................407
  SSSS............................................................2,961
                                                             __________

    Totals.......................................................$6,035
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Timber support (ET113):
  NFWL.............................................................. 73
  NFTE..............................................................159
  NFAF..............................................................  0
  NFIF..............................................................126
  NFCR..............................................................173
  NFRM.............................................................. 26
  NFSO.............................................................. 75
  NFVM..............................................................  1
  NFMG.............................................................. 43
  FFFP..............................................................162
                                                             __________

    Total..........................................................$838
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Other funding needs:
  CNTM..............................................................705
  FFFP-PF2........................................................1,330
  BDBD..............................................................117
                                                             __________

    Total........................................................$2,152
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

    Total........................................................$9,025

       Assuming that the funding and associated sales program for 
     these forests remains relatively constant, as expressed above 
     for current levels, the QLG proposal would increase costs in 
     the out-years. The FY 1995 additional cost displayed in 
     response number 1 is $8088M. Annual costs for the QLG 
     additional proposal is $9025M.
       3. Are there additional FTE or other personnel needs 
     associated with the FY 1995 activity contemplated by this 
     proposal? Do these differ in the out-years? Will the ongoing 
     voluntary separation program affect implementation of the 
     QLG's proposal in FY 1995 or in out-years (FY 1995-98)?
       The Forest Service can partially meet the objectives in the 
     QLG with existing staff and funds. However, to fully meet all 
     the fuel treatment and watershed restoration needs will 
     require additional personnel. Additional staffing needs 
     beginning in FY 1995 would be approximately 80 employees, and 
     this increased level would continue through FY 1998. The 
     voluntary separation incentive (buyout) has reduced staffing 
     in several key resource positions, and this impact will be 
     felt in the planning and rates of implementation of the 
     projects proposed. Training time and funding will be needed 
     to increase the skills for new employees assigned to these 
     activities.
       4. What would the proposal produce in FY 1995 timber sale 
     outputs in addition to the planned sales for these national 
     forests? How about additional out-year outputs?

                       POTENTIAL OUTPUTS--FY 1995                       
                     [Millions of Board Feet--MMBF]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Current             
                                                    planned   Additional
                                                    outputs   QLG volume
                                                   (FY 1995)   (FY 1995)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green sawlogs....................................         34          20
Salvage sawlogs..................................         29          39
                                                  ----------------------
      Subtotal sawlogs...........................         63          59
                                                  ======================
Biomass..........................................         56          22
                                                  ----------------------
      Total, current plan........................        119          81
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The current sale plan for forests included in the QLG 
     proposal is the offer of 63 MMBF of sawlogs (34 M green and 
     29 Million salvage) and 56 MMBF of biomass for a total of 119 
     MMBF. Sales included in the QLG proposal would provide an 
     increase of 59 MMBF of sawlogs (20 M green and 39 M salvage) 
     and 22 MMBF of biomass. The total program would be increased 
     from sales of 119 MMBF to 200 MMBF.

                       POTENTIAL OUT-YEAR OUTPUTS                       
               [Fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1998]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Current             
                                                    planned   Additional
                                                    outputs   QLG volume
                                                    (annual)   (annual) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green sawlogs....................................         33          23
Salvage sawlogs..................................         44          32
                                                  ----------------------
      Subtotal sawlogs...........................         77          55
                                                  ======================
Biomass..........................................         53          35
                                                  ----------------------
      Total, current plan........................        130          90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       For the out-year plan, the planned sales included in the 
     QLG proposal is an annual program of 77 MMBF of sawlogs (33 M 
     green and 44 M salvage) and 53 MMBF of biomass for a total of 
     130 MMBF. Sales included in the QLG proposal would provide an 
     annual increase of 55 MMBF of sawlogs (23 M green and 32 M 
     salvage) and 35 MMBF of biomass. The total annual program 
     would be increased from 130 MMBF to 220 MMBF.
       The volumes projected above assume that volume outputs 
     under the California spotted owl environmental impact 
     statement (EIS) will be about the same as outputs that may be 
     expected under the interim direction for the California 
     spotted owl. The Record of Decision and final EIS are 
     expected in less than a year. The volume outputs may 
     increases or decrease, depending on the EIS alternative 
     adopted.
       The QLG has asked the forests to begin to amend their 
     Forest and Land Management Plans (FLMP) to reflect their 
     proposal. We do not agree that such an amendment is desirable 
     at this time. Instead, we prefer to complete the NEPA process 
     associated with the California spotted owl EIS. This process 
     will fully analyze the impacts and outputs associated with 
     several scientifically sound, ecologically based 
     alternatives, including the QLG proposal. The Record of 
     Decision will automatically revise the FLNPs for the three 
     forests. This process will be completed long before the 
     forests could amend their existing plans. Further, much of 
     the information needed to determine impacts of the QLG 
     proposal is being developed by the EIS Team.
       5. What are the agency's best estimates of the additional 
     gross revenues that the additional timber sale outputs would 
     generate in FY 1995? Out-years?
       With current funding levels, gross revenues from timber 
     sales are estimated to be approximately $30 million from the 
     FY 1995 program. With additional funding, gross revenues are 
     estimated to increase to approximately $40 million for the FY 
     1995 program.
       For the FY 1996-98 program, gross revenues are estimated at 
     approximately $28 million annually at currently expected 
     funding levels. With additional funding for the FY 1996-98 
     program, gross revenues could increase to approximately $45 
     million.
       Gross revenue estimates in response to this question 
     include all collections used to calculate 25 percent payment 
     distributions back to counties.
       Revenue estimates are based on the assumption that all 
     sales will be purchased at prices comparable to those at 
     recent sales and will be promptly harvested. There is a 
     developing oversupply of small fir salvage and biomass 
     material in some parts of the region. In some instances, 
     offerings have received no bids or sales have not been 
     promptly harvested. Should market conditions weaken in the 
     future, revenue estimates would be lower than those shown 
     above.
       6. What is the agency's estimate of the total amount of FY 
     1995 downpayments and deposits that would be collected as a 
     result of the additional FY 1995 timber sale outputs 
     generated by the proposal? Out-years?
       Downpayments and deposits are estimated at approximately $4 
     million for the currently funded FY 1995 program. With 
     additional funding downpayments and deposits could increase 
     to over $5 million.
       For the FY 1996-98 program, downpayments and deposits are 
     estimated at approximately $4 million annually for currently 
     expected funding levels. With additional funding, 
     downpayments and deposits could increase to approximately $6 
     million annually.
       Note that downpayments and deposits do not increase the 
     revenue base used to calculate 25 percent payment 
     distributions to the counties described in question 5 above. 
     Downpayments and deposits are to assure purchaser performance 
     under the terms of the timber sale contract.
       7. How much funding is required for advanced timber sale 
     preparation work to ensure completed field work on 50 percent 
     of the FY 1996 sale program at the opening of FY 1996?
       The additional FY 1995 cost to prepare 50 percent of the FY 
     1996 program in FY 1995 is displayed below (thousands of 
     dollars):

Increase to QLG program costs (within regular program)...........$4,927
Increase to QLG additional........................................2,777
                                                             __________

      Total increased costs.......................................7,704

       The breakdown by fund code would be generally proportional 
     to the 1995 estimates shown in response to question number 1, 
     excluding NFHA, FFFP-PF2, and SDBD.
       The program for QLG proposals could be sustained for about 
     5 years, considering currently available timber and current 
     constraints of law, regulation, and policy. Consideration for 
     the interim California spotted owls direction has been 
     included in the coats and outputs. The California spotted owl 
     EIS may change expectations, depending on the adopted 
     alternative.
       8. In addition to timber sales * * * * these national 
     forests have numerous watershed restoration projects that are 
     ready for implementation, but have not been funded. What is 
     the extent of this work that could be successfully 
     implemented in the upcoming fiscal year, and what would it 
     cost? What level of funding in future years (FY 1996-98) will 
     be required to completely eliminate this backlog?
       The watershed restoration project backlog includes a 
     variety of projects including: In-channel improvements such 
     as stream structures and check dams; Riparian improvements 
     such as willow plantings, protective fencing, meadow 
     restoration, and trail obliteration; Upslope improvement such 
     as erosion control structures, revegetation, and slope 
     stabilization; Road-related improvements such as tillage of 
     abandoned roads and landings, road decommissioning, improved 
     drainage, and road realignment.
       Backlog is estimated primarily from needs identified in 
     forest land management plans. Actual needs may change with 
     more detailed inventory and analysis, and implementation of a 
     more extensive restoration program, including significant 
     road-related restoration, applying concepts from the 
     President's Forest Plan.
       A significant portion of the backlog lies in the inventory, 
     analysis, and planning work (including NEPA) that is required 
     prior to implementation of these projects. For these reasons, 
     only 25 percent of these projects would be ready for 
     implementation in FY 1995. With adequate planning dollars in 
     FY 1995, an additional 25 percent would be ready for 
     implementation in FY 1996.
       To completely eliminate the restoration backlog, adequate 
     funding in both planning and implementation would be required 
     for several years. To put these numbers in a regionwide 
     perspective, regular program dollars available to forests 
     within the watershed budget average $2 million regionwide for 
     operations and $2.5 million regionwide for improvements. 
     These funds are distributed to 18 national forests.
       Watershed Restoration Needs and Funds Identified by Plumas, 
     Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests (composite):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Additional                  
              Current funds                    needs           Total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY95: $1,600............................          $4,500          $6,100
FY96-FY98: 1,600........................          11,700          13,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Additional                  
           Current acres/miles              acres/miles        Total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY95 acres: 1,830.......................           1,465           3,295
FY95 miles road: 30.....................             211             241
FY95 miles channel: 1.2.................            11.6            12.8
FY96-98 acres: 1,830....................           2,910           4,740
FY96-98 miles road: 30..................             229             259
FY96-98 miles channel: 1.2..............             7.6             8.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       9. Based on the funding in the Administration budget 
     request, what programs and funding impacts would be felt on 
     the other California national forests if implementation of 
     the first year of the QLG program is required in FY 1995?
       The Pacific Southwest Region would be severely impacted if 
     required to fully fund the QLG program in FY 1995. With the 
     assumption that the funding would come from the regional 
     allocation, specific programs that would be affected are:
       Timber program: After funding the QLG program and the 
     President's Forest Plan for an ecologically sustainable 
     timber program, Region 5 would reduce the remaining funds 
     available to other Forests in California by 60 percent from 
     preliminary funding levels. This would require significant 
     staffing reductions, would reduce the timber outputs on other 
     forests by nearly 90 percent, and delay other forest's 
     efforts in proceeding with the integration of GIS technology 
     in the region.
       Soil and water operations and improvements: Region 5 would 
     be unable to fund (a) the President's Forest Plan to meet the 
     required watershed analyses, ecosystem restoration projects 
     and Jobs-in-the-Woods, required planning and monitoring, and 
     efforts in the adaptive management areas; (b) any other 
     watershed or ecosystem improvement activity in the region; 
     and (c) delay other forest's efforts in proceeding with the 
     integration of GIS technology in the region. This would 
     result in staffing reductions that would eliminate the 
     hydrological expertise and capability that currently exists 
     on the national forests in California with the exception of 
     those working on the QLG program.
       Fuels reduction: Region 5 would be allocating nearly 80 
     percent of the regional fuels reduction funds to the program 
     called for by the QLG. This would continue the fuels buildup 
     in the Sierras and in northern California in national forests 
     supporting the President's Forest Plan. Fuels reduction 
     activities in all other parts of California which can reduce 
     or eliminate potential catastrophic fires will not be 
     receiving funds. National forests in the northern part of the 
     State, southern and central Sierras and in southern 
     California would be highly vulnerable to catastrophic fires. 
     Mapping of fuel loading with the GIS technology could be 
     delayed.
       Forest road prgm: Region 5 would be unable to fund (a) the 
     President's Forest Plan to meet the required ecosystem 
     restoration projects and Jobs-in-the-Woods, and required 
     planning and monitoring; (b) any other heavy maintenance, 
     road reconstruction, bridge repair/retrofit or watershed or 
     ecosystem improvement activity in the Region; and (c) delay 
     other forest's efforts in proceeding with the integration of 
     GIS technology in the region. This would result in staffing 
     reductions that would eliminate the engineering expertise and 
     capability that currently exists on the national forests in 
     California with the exception of those working on the QLG 
     program and those contributing to watershed analyses in 
     forests implementing the President's Forest Plan.
       The Agency's current plans with respect to the QLG proposal 
     are: (1) Continue to support the basic principles outlined in 
     the proposal, but wait until we complete the NEPA process for 
     the California spotted owl RIS before adopting any particular 
     recommendation. (2) Continue to work with QLG, consistent 
     with the Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements. (3) 
     Consciously shift emphasis within FY 1995 and FY 1996 funding 
     levels (assume that bottomline for each forest is at FY 1994 
     allocation level) to focus on forest health, fuels 
     management, and watershed restoration. (4) Complete and 
     display a complete analysis for the QLG proposal in the 
     California Spotted Owl EIS for the affected forests only.
       We appreciate your interest in the management of these 
     important national forests and the QLG proposal as we work 
     toward implementable solutions that have a broad bass of 
     solid community support.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jack Ward Thomas,
     Chief.

                          ____________________