[Senate Report 105-138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 257
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                    105-138
_______________________________________________________________________


 
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY ACT OF 1997

                                _______
                                

                November 4, 1997.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 858]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the Act (H.R. 858) to direct the Secretary of 
Agriculture to conduct a pilot project on designated lands 
within Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in the State 
of California to demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource 
management activities proposed by the Quincy Library Group and 
to amend current land and resource management plans for these 
national forests to consider the incorporation of these 
resource management activities, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that 
the bill, as amended, do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This act may be cited as the ``Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery 
and Economic Stability Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. PILOT PROJECT FOR PLUMAS, LASSEN, AND TAHOE NATIONAL FORESTS TO 
                    IMPLEMENT QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP PROPOSAL.

    (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Quincy 
Library Group-Community Stability Proposal'' means the agreement by a 
coalition of representatives of fisheries, timber, environmental, 
county government, citizen groups, and local communities that formed in 
northern California to develop a resource management program that 
promotes ecologic an economic health for certain Federal lands and 
communities in the Sierra Nevada area. Such proposal includes the map 
entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability Proposal'', dated 
October 12, 1993, and prepared by VESTRA Resources of Redding, 
California.
    (b) Pilot Project Required.--
          (1) Pilot project and purpose.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
        (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary''), acting 
        through the Forest Service and after completion of an 
        environmental impact statement (a record of decision for which 
        shall be adopted within 300 days), shall conduct a pilot 
        project on the Federal lands described in paragraph (2) to 
        implement and demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource 
        management activities described in subsection (d) and the other 
        requirements of this section, as recommended in the Quincy 
        Library Group-Community Stability Proposal.
          (2) Pilot project area.--The Secretary shall conduct the 
        pilot project on the Federal lands within Plumas National 
        Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger 
        District of Tahoe National Forest in the State of California 
        designated as ``Available for Group Selection'' on the map 
        entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability Proposal'', 
        dated October 12, 1993 (in this section referred to as the 
        ``pilot project area''). Such map shall be on file and 
        available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
        Forest Service.
    (c) Exclusion of Certain Lands, Riparian Protection and 
Compliance.--
          (1) Exclusion.--All spotted owl habitat areas and protected 
        activity centers located within the pilot project area 
        designated under subsection (b)(2) will be deferred from 
        resource management activities required under subsection (d) 
        and timber harvesting during the term of the pilot project.
          (2) Riparian protection.--
                  (A) In general.--The Scientific Analysis Team 
                guidelines for riparian system protection described in 
                subparagraph (B) shall apply to all resource management 
                activities conducted under subsection (d) and all 
                timber harvesting activities that occur in the pilot 
                project area during the term of the pilot project.
                  (B) Guidelines described.--The guidelines referred to 
                in subparagraph (A) are those in the document entitled 
                ``Viability Assessments and Management Considerations 
                for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-
                Growth Forests of the Pacific Northwest'', a Forest 
                Service research document dated March 1993 and co-
                authored by the Scientific Analysis Team, including Dr. 
                Jack Ward Thomas.
                  (C) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be 
                construed to require the application of the Scientific 
                Analysis Team guidelines to any livestock grazing in 
                the pilot project area during the term of the pilot 
                project, unless the livestock grazing is being 
                conducted in the specific location at which the 
                Scientific Analysis Team guidelines are being applied 
                to an activity under subsection (d).
          (3) Compliance.--All resource management activities required 
        by subsection (d) shall be implemented to the extent consistent 
        with applicable Federal law and the standards and guidelines 
        for the conservation of the California spotted owl as set forth 
        in the California Spotted Owl Sierran Provence Interim 
        Guidelines or the subsequently issued guidelines, whichever are 
        in effect.
          (4) Roadless area protection.--The Regional Forester for 
        Region 5 shall direct that any resource management activity 
        required by subsection (d) (1) and (2), all road building, all 
        timber harvesting activities, and any riparian management under 
        subsection (d)(4) that utilizes road construction or timber 
        harvesting shall not be conducted on Federal lands within the 
        Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the 
        Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest that 
        are designated as either ``Off Base'' or ``Deferred'' on the 
        map referred to in subsection (a). Such direction shall be 
        effective during the term of the pilot project.
    (d) Resource Management Activities.--During the term of the pilot 
project, the Secretary shall implement and carry out the following 
resource management activities on an acreage basis on the Federal lands 
included within the pilot project area designated under subsection 
(b)(2):
          (1) Fuelbreak construction.--Construction of a strategic 
        system of defensible fuel profile zones, including shaded 
        fuelbreaks, utilizing thinning, individual tree selection, and 
        other methods of vegetation management consistent with the 
        Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal, on not less 
        than 40,000, but not more than 60,000, acres per year.
          (2) Group selection and individual tree selection.--
        Utilization of group selection and individual tree selection 
        uneven-aged forest management prescriptions described in the 
        Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal to achieve a 
        desired future condition of all-age, multistory, fire resilient 
        forests as follows:
                  (A) Group selection.--Group selection on an average 
                acreage of .57 percent of the pilot project area land 
                each year of the pilot project.
                  (B) Individual tree selection.--Individual tree 
                selection may also be utilized within the pilot project 
                area.
          (3) Total acreage.--The total acreage on which resource 
        management activities are implemented under this subsection 
        shall not exceed 70,000 acres each year.
          (4) Riparian management.--(A) program of riparian management, 
        including wide protection zones and riparian restoration 
        projects, consistent with riparian protection guidelines in 
        subsection (c)(2)(B).
    (e) Cost-Effectiveness.--In conducting the pilot project, Secretary 
shall use the most cost-effective means available as determined by the 
Secretary, to implement resource management activities described in 
subsection (d).
    (f) Funding.--
          (1) Source of funds.--In conducting the pilot project, the 
        Secretary shall use, subject to the relevant reprogramming 
        guidelines of the House and Senate Committees on 
        Appropriations--
                  (A) those funds specifically provided to the Forest 
                Service by the Secretary to implement resource 
                management activities according to the Quincy Library 
                Group-Community Stability Proposal; and
                  (B) year-end excess funds that are allocated for the 
                administration and management of Plumas National 
                Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville 
                Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest.
          (2) Prohibition on use of certain funds.--The Secretary may 
        not conduct the pilot project using funds appropriated for any 
        other unit of the National Forest System.
          (3) Flexibility.--Subject to normal reprogramming guidelines, 
        during the term of the pilot project, the forest supervisors of 
        Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe 
        National Forest may allocate and use all accounts that contain 
        year-end excess funds and all available excess funds for the 
        administration and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen 
        National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe 
        National Forest to perform the resource management activities 
        described in subsection (d).
          (4) Restriction.--The Secretary or the forest supervisors, as 
        the case may be, shall not utilize authority provided under 
        paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) if, in their judgment, doing so will 
        limit other nontimber related multiple use activities for which 
        such funds were available.
          (5) Overhead.--The Secretary shall seek to ensure that of 
        amounts available to carry out this section--
                  (A) not more than 12 percent is used or allocated for 
                general administration or other overhead; and
                  (B) at least 88 percent is used to implement and 
                carry out activities required by this section.
          (6) Authorized supplemental funds.--There are authorized to 
        be appropriated to implement and carry out the pilot project 
        such sums as are necessary.
          (7) Baseline funds.--Amounts available for resource 
        management activities authorized under subsection (d) shall at 
        a minimum include existing baseline funding levels.
    (g) Term of the Pilot Project.--The Secretary shall conduct the 
pilot project until the earlier of: (1) the date on which the Secretary 
completes amendment or revision of the land and resource management 
plans for the Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe 
National Forest; or (2) five years after the date of the commencement 
of the pilot project.
    (h) Consultation.--(1) The statement required by subsection (b)(1) 
shall be prepared in consultation with interested members of the 
public, including the Quincy Library Group.
    (2) Contracting.--The Forest Service, subject to the availability 
of appropriations, may carry out any (or all) of the requirements of 
this section using private contracts.
    (i) Corresponding Forest Plan Amendments.--Within 2 years after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Regional Forester for Region 5 
shall initiate the process to amend or revise the land and resource 
management plans for plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, 
and Tahoe National Forest. The process shall include preparation of at 
least one alternative that--
          (1) incorporates the pilot project and area designations made 
        by subsection (b), the resource management activities described 
        in subsection (d), and other aspects of the Quincy Library 
        Group-Community Stability Proposal; and
          (2) makes other changes warranted by the analyses conducted 
        in compliance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental 
        Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)), section 6 of the Forest 
        and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 
        U.S.C. 1604), and other applicable laws.
    (j) Status Reports.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than February 28 of each year 
        during the term of the pilot project, the Secretary shall 
        submit to Congress a report on the status of the pilot project. 
        The report shall include at least the following.
                  (A) A complete accounting of the use of funds made 
                available under subsection (f)(1)(A) until such funds 
                are fully expended.
                  (B) A complete accounting of the use of funds and 
                accounts made available under subsection (f)(1) for the 
                previous fiscal year, including a schedule of the 
                amounts drawn from each account used to perform 
                resource management activities described in subsection 
                (d).
                  (C) A description of total acres treated for each of 
                the resource management activities required under 
                subsection (d), forest health improvements, fire risk 
                reductions, water yield increases, and other natural 
                resources-related benefits achieved by the 
                implementation of the resource management activities 
                described in subsection (d).
                  (D) A description of the economic benefits to local 
                communities achieved by the implementation of the pilot 
                project.
                  (E) A comparison of the revenues generated by, and 
                costs incurred in, the implementation of the resource 
                management activities described in subsection (d) on 
                the Federal lands included in the pilot project area 
                with the revenues and costs during each of the fiscal 
                years 1992 through 1997 for timber management of such 
                lands before their inclusion in the pilot project.
                  (F) A proposed schedule for the resource management 
                activities to be undertaken in the pilot project area 
                during the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
                submittal of the report.
                  (G) A description of any adverse environmental 
                impacts from the pilot project.
          (2) Limitation on expenditures.--The amount of Federal funds 
        expended on each annual report under this subsection shall not 
        exceed $125,000.
    (k) Final Report.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an independent 
        scientific panel to review and report on whether, and to what 
        extent, implementation of the pilot project under this section 
        achieved the goals stated in the Quincy Library Group-Community 
        Stability Proposal, including improved ecological health and 
        community stability. The membership of the panel shall reflect 
        expertise in diverse disciplines in order to adequately address 
        all of those goals.
          (2) Preparation.--The panel shall initiate such review no 
        sooner than 18 months after the first day of the term of the 
        pilot project under subsection (g). The panel shall prepare the 
        report in consultation with interested members of the public, 
        including the Quincy Library Group. The report shall include, 
        but not be limited to, the following:
                  (A) A description of any adverse environmental 
                impacts resulting from implementation of the pilot 
                project.
                  (B) An assessment of watershed monitoring data on 
                lands treated pursuant to this section. Such assessment 
                shall address the following issues on a priority basis: 
                timing of water releases; water quality changes; and 
                water yield changes over the short- and long-term in 
                the pilot project area.
          (3) Submission to the congress.--The panel shall submit the 
        final report to the Congress as soon as practicable, but in no 
        case later than 18 months after completion of the pilot 
        project.
          (4) Limitation on expenditures.--The amount of Federal funds 
        expended for the report under this subsection, other than for 
        watershed monitoring, shall not exceed $350,000. The amount of 
        Federal funds expended for watershed monitoring under this 
        subsection shall not exceed $175,000 for each fiscal year in 
        which the report is prepared.
    (l) Relationship to Other Laws.--Nothing in this section exempts 
the pilot project from any Federal environmental law.
    (m) Loans for Demonstration Projects for Wood Waste or Low-Quality 
Wood Byproducts.--
          (1) Evaluation of loan advisability.--The Alternative 
        Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation 
        established under section 1658 of the Food, Agriculture, 
        Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5902) (in this 
        section referred to as the ``Corporation'') shall evaluate the 
        advisability of making commercialization assistance loans under 
        section 1661 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 5905) to support a minimum 
        of 2 demonstration projects for the development and 
        demonstration of commercial application of technology to 
        convert wood waste or low-quality wood byproducts into usable, 
        higher value products.
          (2) Location of demonstration projects.--If the Corporation 
        determines to make loans under this subsection to support the 
        development and demonstration of commercial application of 
        technology to convert wood waste or low-quality wood byproducts 
        into usable, higher value products, the Corporation shall 
        consider making one loan with regard to a demonstration project 
        to be conducted in the pilot project area and one loan with 
        regard to a demonstration project to be conducted in southeast 
        Alaska.
          (3) Eligibility requirements.--To be eligible for a loan 
        under this subsection, a demonstration project shall be 
        required to satisfy the eligibility requirements imposed by the 
        Corporation under section 1661 of the Food, Agriculture, 
        Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5905).

                         purpose of the measure

    The purposes of H.R. 858, as ordered reported, are to 
direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project 
on designated lands within the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe 
National Forests in California; to determine whether the 
resource management activities proposed by the Quincy Library 
Group are effective; and to consider the incorporation of those 
management activities, as appropriate, in the amendments of, or 
revisions to, the current land and resource management plans 
for these national forests.

                background and need for the legislation

    The ``Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic 
Stability Act of 1997'' directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 
implement a pilot project on federal lands within the Plumas 
National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville 
Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest in California. 
These forests total about 2.5 million acres. The project is 
designed to maintain ecological integrity, community stability, 
and forest health; and to initiate forest plan amendments or 
revisions to evaluate the incorporation of the Quincy Library 
Group (QLG) resource management activities into the forest 
plans.
    H.R. 858 is based on the QLG Community Stability Proposal 
of 1993, which was developed by a coalition of representatives 
from environmental organizations, the wood products industry, 
citizens, elected officials, and local communities in northern 
California. The proposal is intended to represent a locally-
developed, consensus-based resource management program for the 
applicable federal lands in a portion of the Sierra Nevada 
ecosystem.
    H.R. 858 directs the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
through the Forest Service, to construct fuelbreaks, utilize 
individual tree selection and group selection, establish a 
riparian management program, and conduct monitoring in an 
effort to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and improve 
watersheds, consistent with the 1993 proposal within the pilot 
project area. That area totals approximately 1.6 million acres. 
The bill excludes all roadless lands from the activities 
authorized for the duration of the pilot project. The timber 
removed for construction of the fuelbreaks and by group and 
individual tree selection can be utilized in mills that process 
the material into lumber and other wood products. Biomass that 
is removed can be utilized to produce energy and other, higher 
value products.
    The bill preserves for the duration of the pilot project 
all remaining roadless areas on the two National Forests and 
one ranger district on a third National Forest. This is a 
central component of the QLG plan, and is accomplished by 
directing that fuelbreak activities be carried out only in 
areas that are ``available for group selection'' on the map 
that outlines the QLG land base areas. Fuelbreak strategies 
involving ``defensible fuel profile zones'' (DFPZs) are 
recognized by current scientific literature, such as the Sierra 
Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP), completed in June 1997.
    The QLG plan was drawn from relevant parts of the available 
scientific literature concerning the Sierra Nevada area and 
contains an extensive compilation of scientific information and 
theories on the ecosystem of the Sierra Nevada area. SNEP 
recognizes the validity of using DFPZs, the key component of 
the QLG plan, as a way to restoring a natural balance in 
forests:

          [DFPZs] should be viewed as an initial step in 
        bringing large portions of landscapes into more 
        defensible and fire resilient conditions. As the hazard 
        level of various landscapes is brought down, the DFPZs 
        will tend to blend into the surrounding landscapes. It 
        must be recognized that desirable fuels conditions, 
        once achieved, will require periodic maintenance or 
        conditions will revert to hazardous states. (Sierra 
        Nevada Ecosystem Project, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Page 
        70.)

    The SNEP report also recognizes the value of late-
successional old-growth forest conditions, which are fostered 
in the QLG plan (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Volume 1, 
Chapter 6). For the term of the pilot project, H.R. 858 does 
not authorize any timber management activities within the 
roadless areas--areas that contain late successional old-growth 
trees.
    H.R. 858 directs that resource management activities be 
implemented consistent with applicable environmental and 
resource standards and guidelines which are drawn from law and 
regulation. In addition, the bill directs that resource 
management activities be implemented consistent with the 
California spotted owl report (CASPO) interim guidelines.
    The Secretary has funded specific projects designed to 
approximate the QLG plan during the past three years: $1 
million in fiscal year 1995; $4.7 million in fiscal year 1996; 
and $4.7 million in fiscal year in 1997. In addition, QLG-like 
activities have relied on funding allocated to the ordinary 
accounts of these national forests through the normal budgeting 
process. Funding provided to date has resulted in little on-
the-ground work approximately the series of ``strategic fuel 
breaks'' designed to reduce the risk of fire. Work done by the 
Forest Service over the past two and one-half years is not 
equal in scope to that envisioned by the QLG plan due to the 
funding levels necessary to implement such a large-scale 
project. Since additional funds will be needed to implement the 
provisions of H.R. 858, the bill provides flexibility in 
subsection 2(f) for the Secretary to provide funds through 
reprogramming and administrative flexibility.
    The development of the Quincy Library Group pilot project 
represents a unique situation involving a locally-developed 
consensus approach to public land management. As such, this 
approach has been studied by public land managers, policy 
makers, and scholars of public land management. Implementation 
of the pilot project will also be the subject of congressional 
oversight and review to assess the success of the project, as 
well as any broader implications for improved federal land 
management. The Committee is aware that future locally-
developed, consensus-based alternatives for federal land 
management may be evaluated during the land and resource 
management planning processes of the relevant federal land 
managing agencies. However, legislation should not be necessary 
to accommodate thoughtful consensus-based approaches to Federal 
land management that comply with applicable environmental and 
other laws. Therefore, the committee does not anticipate 
reporting any additional legislative initiatives comparable to 
the Quincy Library Bill.
    Since H.R. 858 directs implementation of a pilot project, 
the ultimate results of this legislation are very uncertain. 
The Committee notes that this bill directs implementation of an 
experimental pilot in two respects: it legislates a management 
plan for a few identified forests; and it directs the Secretary 
to conduct experimental management activities. Therefore, the 
Committee plans to carefully review and monitor its 
implementation and results before supporting the initiation of 
any similar projects. The Committee generally believes that 
individual national forests should not be managed by 
specialized statute.

                          legislative history

    H.R. 858 was introduced on February 27, 1997, by 
Congressman Wally Herger and passed the House on July 15, 1997.
    On July 17, 1997, Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator 
Barbara Boxer introduced S. 1028, a companion measure to the 
bill passed by the House. S. 1028 and H.R. 858 were referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. On July 24, 
1997, the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management 
held a hearing on S. 1028 and H.R. 858.
    At the business meeting on October 22, 1997, the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources ordered H.R. 858, as amended, 
favorably reported.

           committee recommendations and tabulation of votes

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 
open business session on October 22, 1997, by unanimous voice 
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 
858, if amended as described herein.

                          committee amendments

    During consideration of H.R. 858, the Committee initially 
agreed to an amendment in the nature of a substitute (offered 
by Senator Craig) as original text for the purpose of further 
amendment. The Committee then adopted an amendment offered by 
Senator Bumpers. The Bumpers amendment struck subsection 2(g) 
in its entirety and substituted alternative language. The 
alternative language specified that the term of the pilot 
project shall be until the earlier of: (1) the date on which 
the Forest Service completes amendments of, or revision to, the 
land and resource management plans for the Plumas, Lassen, and 
Tahoe National Forests pursuant to subsection (i); or (2) five 
years after the date of the commencement of the pilot project. 
Land andresource management plan amendments unrelated to the 
direction provided in subsection (i) will not affect the term of the 
pilot project.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1 entitles the bill the ``Quincy Library Group 
Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997.''
    Section 2(a) defines the term ``Quincy Library Group--
Community Stability Proposal,'' and provides a map reference.
    Subsection (b) sets forth the purpose of the Act and 
describes the pilot project area. This subsection directs the 
Forest Service to complete an environmental impact statement 
and a record of decision within 300 days of enactment to 
commence the pilot project.
    Subsection (c) specifies certain lands which will be 
excluded from resource management activities implemented 
pursuant to the Act. These areas include all spotted owl 
habitat areas and protected activity centers, as well as all 
areas designated as either ``off-base'' or ``deferred'' on the 
map of the project area referenced in subsection (a).
    Subsection (c) of the bill describes areas for which 
resource management activities under the Act, timber 
harvesting, and road construction will be excluded. These areas 
include all spotted owl habitat areas and protected activity 
centers, as well as all areas designated as either ``off-base'' 
or ``deferred'' on the map of the project area referenced in 
subsection (a). The off-base and deferred areas may not include 
all of the late successional old growth areas in the project 
area. The Committee expects that the Forest Service will avoid 
scheduling timber harvesting and road construction activities 
in these late successional old growth stands that are neither 
off-base, nor deferred. At the same time, the Committee expects 
the Forest Service to address individual, human safety-related, 
hazard trees in these stands and in off-base and deferred 
areas.
    This subsection also specifies that the Scientific Analysis 
Team (SAT) guidelines for riparian system protection shall 
apply to all resource management activities conducted pursuant 
to subsection (d). Application of the SAT guidelines is not 
directed in the three national forests generally. The 
guidelines shall not apply to any livestock grazing in the 
pilot project area, unless the livestock grazing is being 
conducted in the specific location at which the guidelines are 
otherwise being applied to a resource management activity 
conducted pursuant to subsection (d). The Scientific Analysis 
Team guidelines shall, to the extent practicable, be applied in 
a manner such that no individual grazing allotment will be 
unduly burdened by application of the guidelines.
    The Scientific Advisory Team guidelines specified in 
subsection (c) provide for mitigation and adaptive management. 
If subsequent analysis reexamines the applicability of the SAT 
mitigation measures, such measures may be modified and remain 
consistent with the intent of the SAT guidelines for the QLG 
forests.
    Paragraph (3) specifies that resource management activities 
conducted pursuant to subsection (d) shall be implemented 
consistent with applicable Federal law and the California 
Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines or any 
subsequently issued guidelines which take effect.
    Subsection (d) describes the type and amount of resource 
management activities that will be carried out during the term 
of the pilot project. While the Plumas, Lassen, and affected 
portions of the Tahoe National Forest total about 2.5 million 
acres, the pilot project area is approximately 1.6 million 
acres. Paragraph (1) directs fuelbreak construction on not less 
than 40,000, but not more than 60,000, acres per year. 
Paragraph (2) directs group selection each year on an acreage 
totaling 0.57 percent of the pilot project land area, and 
individual tree selection throughout the pilot project area. 
Paragraph (3) limits the total acreage on which resource 
management activities are implemented to no more than 70,000 
acres for each year of the pilot project. Paragraph (4) directs 
a program of riparian management, including wide protection 
zones and riparian restoration projects. The Committee 
understands that paragraph (4) specifies a riparian management 
program which could also include activities such as road 
maintenance and a road obliteration program that enhances the 
ecological health of the riparian area.
    It is the Committee's intent that any timber sales 
authorized under this subsection will be offered in lieu of, 
and not in addition to, the regularly scheduled timber sale 
program during the term of the pilot project. It is further 
anticipated that most timber sale projects already underway may 
be completed consistent with existing law and policy before the 
record of decision for the pilot project is signed and the term 
of the pilot project begins, or will be completed under the 
contract terms.
    The Committee believes, based upon representations by the 
Administration, that the goals of the pilot project are 
achievable. Nevertheless, the Committee understands that the 
requirements of the bill may have, among others, the following 
effects. First, the application of subsection (c), in addition 
to the environmental analysis conducted in preparing the 
Environmental Impact Statement required by subsection (b), may 
cause the Forest Service to fall short of the acreage levels 
specified in subsection (d). Second, the application of 
subsection (c), in addition to the site-specific environmental 
analysis and administrative appeals of projects under the pilot 
project, may cause the acreage treated to fall short of the 
levels proposed in earlier scoping documents. If this occurs, 
the Committee understands that the annual amount of acreage 
treated may be less than the acreage figures anticipated in the 
record of decision adopted under subsection (b). Finally, the 
EIS required in subsection (b) and project decision documents 
must result in a program of work that is consistent with all 
applicable environmental, and other Federal laws.
    Subsection (e) directs that the Secretary use the most 
cost-effective means available in conducting the pilot project.
    Subsection (f) provides the Forest Service with the 
flexibility to use a variety of funding sources to implement 
the pilot project. In addition to funds specifically provided 
to the Forest Service through the normal appropriations process 
to implement resource management activities in accordance with 
the pilot project, authority is provided to use any year-end 
excess funds for the administration of the three affected 
national forests. Paragraph (5) provides the Forest Service 
with direction to seek to assure that not more than 12 percent 
of available funds are allocated for general administration or 
other overhead. The subsection (f) provisions are designed to 
either provide flexibility for land managers to utilize under 
curtain conditions appropriated funds to implement the QLG 
pilot program, or to help ensure that land managers are 
accountable and control costs.
    The Committee understands that the acreage treated per year 
may be less than the acreage figures anticipated in the record 
of decision under subsection (b) because of limited 
availability of funding and appropriations authorized by 
subsection (f). The Department of Agriculture has made funds 
available from its existing Forest Service budget to fund 
approximately 30 to 40 percent of the Quincy Library Group 
proposal. The Committee understands that this funding will be 
provided on the condition that other programs conducted in the 
pilot project area and other national forests are not affected, 
consistent with subsection (f). The Committee understands that 
to implement the entire program will require Congress to 
provide additional appropriations specifically for this 
project.
    Subsection (g) specifies that the Secretary shall conduct 
the pilot project until the earlier of the date on which the 
Forest Service has completed a relevant amendment or revision 
to all three of the affected national forest land and resource 
management plans as provided for in subsection (i), or five 
years after the commencement of the pilot project. The pilot 
project shall commence on the date that the record of decision 
for the project required by paragraph 2(b)(1) takes effect.
    Subsection (h) requires the Forest Service to consult with 
interested members of the public, including the Quincy Library 
Group, in developing the Environmental Impact Statement 
required by subsection (b)(1).
    Subsection (i) directs the Forest Service to initiate the 
plan amendments or revisions referenced in subsection (g) 
within two years after the date of enactment of this Act. This 
subsection further directs that the plan amendment or revision 
process include the preparation of at least one alternative 
that: (1) incorporates the pilot area designations in 
subsection (b), the type and amount of resource management 
activities described in subsection (d), and other aspects of 
the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal; and (2) 
makes any other changes warranted by subsequent analysis 
conducted in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
Act and other applicable laws.
    It is the Committee's understanding that the Forest Service 
will complete the environmental impact statement and Record of 
Decision required by subsection 2(b)(1) and implement the pilot 
project before commencing the plan amendment or revision 
process required by subsection (2)(i). Under the terms of 
subsection (g)(1), the pilot project will not terminate in less 
than five years from the date of commencement unless the Forest 
Service completes the amendments or revisions to land and 
resource management plans for all three affected national 
forests, pursuant to subsection (i).
    Subsection (j) provides that, not later than February 28 of 
each year during the term of the pilot project, the Secretary 
shall submit to Congress a report on the status of the project. 
Paragraph (1) specifies the contents of each annual report. 
Paragraph (2) caps expenditures for each annual report at 
$125,000. Each annual report should include a review of the 
status of any plan amendments or revisions undertaken pursuant 
to subsection (i).
    Subsection (k) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 
establish an independent, scientific panel to prepare a final 
report on whether, and to what extent, implementation of the 
pilot project achieved the goals stated in the Quincy Library 
Group Community Stability Proposal. Paragraph (2) specifies the 
contents of the final report. Paragraph (3) directs the 
Secretary to submit the independent, final report to Congress 
no later than 18 months after the completion of the pilot 
project. Paragraph (4) provides limitations on expenditures for 
the final report.
    Subsection (l) states that nothing in the Act exempts the 
pilot project from any environmental law.
    Subsection (m) directs the Alternative Agricultural 
Research and Commercialization Corporation to evaluate the 
advisability of making loans under the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5905) to support 2 
demonstration projects for the development and demonstration of 
commercial application of technology to convert wood waste or 
low-quality wood by products into usable, higher value 
products. To be eligible for such a loan, such demonstration 
projects must satisfy the eligibility requirements imposed by 
the Corporation pursuant to the 1990 Act. This subsection 
further directs that, if the Corporation decides to make such 
loans, the Corporation is required to consider one 
demonstration project in the pilot project area, and the other 
in southeast Alaska.

                      Cost and Budgetary Analysis

    The following estimate of costs of this measure has been 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, November 3, 1997.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 858, the Quincy 
Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 
1997.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Victoria V. 
Heid (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the state 
and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 858--Quincy Library Group--Forest Recovery and Economic Stability 
        Act of 1997

    Summary: H.R. 858 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture 
to conduct a five-year pilot project on the Plumas and Lassen 
National Forests, and portions of the Tahoe National Forest, to 
implement resource management activities as recommended in the 
Qunicy Library Group Proposal. CBO estimates that new 
discretionary outlays to implement H.R. 858 would be $3 million 
in fiscal year 1998 and a total of $70 million over the 1998-
2002 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts. 
Implementing the legislation could lead to an increase in 
offsetting receipts from timber harvests, but enacting H.R. 858 
would not, by itself, affect direct spending or receipts; 
hence, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to the act.
    H.R. 858 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Description of the act's major provisions: H.R. 858 would 
direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project 
on the Plumas and Lassen National Forest and the Sierraville 
Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest, excluding certain 
protected areas, to carry out resource management activities as 
recommended in the Quincy Library Group (QLG) Proposal. The 
legislation would require the Secretary to implement these 
resource management activities on not less than about 49,000 
acres and no more than 70,000 acres each year for the five-year 
term of the pilot project if doing so is consistent with all 
environmental laws. According to the U.S. ForestService, the 
act's forest management requirements would (1) increase the total 
acreage on which they carry out fuels management activities, (2) result 
in fuels management on different areas than under current practice, and 
(3) change the type of silvicultural methods used to reduce fuels on 
that acreage. The primary intent of the QLG proposal is to reduce the 
risk of high intensity wildfires which are the inadvertent result of 
years of suppressing low intensity fires that allowed fuel to 
accumulate in the forests.
    Section 2(d)(1) would require the Forest Service to 
construct fuelbreaks in the pilot project area between 40,000 
and 60,000 acres per year. Fuelbreaks are areas of a forest 
where trees and other vegetation have been thinned to reduce 
the amount of material available to fuel wildfires. Section 
2(d)(2) would require the Forest Service to use certain 
silvicultural methods to achieve the forest conditions desired 
by the QLG. Specifically, H.R. 858 would require that trees be 
removed by ``group selection'' on 0.57 percent of the lands 
covered by the pilot project (the Lassen, Plumas, and portions 
of the Tahoe National Forests), about 9,300 acres each year. 
Group selection refers to the silvicultural practice of 
removing all timber within an area up to two acres in size. The 
legislation also would permit individual tree selection within 
the pilot project area.
    H.R. 858 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to begin 
the five-year pilot project following completion of an 
environmental impact statement (EIS). The Forest Service 
expects that the EIS would take about one year to complete. The 
pilot project would end either after five years, or whenever 
the Forest Service completes revisions of the land and resource 
management plans for the three affected national forests, 
whichever is earlier. The legislation would require the 
Secretary to submit annual status reports on the pilot project 
to the Congress and specifies that expenditures for each report 
not exceed $125,000. H.R. 858 would direct the Secretary to 
establish an independent scientific panel to review the pilot 
project and report to the Congress whether the project achieved 
the goals stated in the QLG proposal. The act specifies that 
expenditures for watershed monitoring in connection with the 
report are not to exceed $175,000 per year, and that additional 
spending on the report is not to exceed a total of $350,000.
    H.R. 858 authorizes to be appropriated such sums as are 
necessary to carry out the pilot project. Section 2(f) provides 
that the pilot project may be funded by amounts specifically 
provided to the Forest Service for that purpose or year-end 
excess funds allocated for administering the three affected 
national forests, but prohibits the Secretary from using funds 
appropriated for any other unit of the National Forest System. 
Section 2(f) states that the Secretary shall not exercise the 
authority to use year-end excess funds in other accounts if 
doing so would limit other multiple use activities on federal 
lands for which those funds were available.
    Section 2(m) would direct the Alternative Agricultural 
Research and Commercialization Corporation, an independent 
entity within the Department of Agriculture, to evaluate the 
advisability of making commercialization assistance loans to 
support two projects to demonstrate the commercial application 
of technology to convert wood waste or low-quality wood 
byproducts into usable, higher-value products. If such 
demonstration projects are supported, the agency is to consider 
one in the QLG pilot project area and one in southeast Alaska. 
CBO cannot predict whether the corporation would decide to make 
such loans following their evaluation, but in any case loans 
are made out of the corporation's revolving fund which is 
subject to appropriations action.
    Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: Based on 
information from the U.S. Forest Service, CBO estimates that 
discretionary outlays to implement H.R. 858 would be about $3 
million in fiscal year 1998 and a total of about $70 million 
over the 1998-2002 period, assuming appropriation of the 
estimated amounts. Implementing the act's provisions could 
increase offsetting receipts from future timber harvests in the 
affected forests, but any such change is contingent upon the 
appropriation of fund to implement those provisions, how the 
Forest Service implements the project, and whether the agency 
changes its existing timber program on the three affected 
forests. Hence, enacting H.R. 858 would not, by itself, affect 
offsetting receipts. The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 858 
is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation 
fall within budget functions 300 (natural resources and 
environment) and 350 (agriculture).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--  
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                       
                                                                                                                
Spending Under Current Law:                                                                                     
    Budget Authority \1\........................................       5       5       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       5       5       0       0       0       0
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization Level.........................................       0       3      28      20      10      10
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       0       3      24      21      11      11
Spending Under H.R. 858:                                                                                        
    Authorization Level \1\.....................................       5       8      28      20      10      10
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       5       8      24      21      11      11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 1997 level is the amount appropriated for that year. For fiscal year 1998, the agency expects to allocate
  a similar amount from an appropriations act that was recently cleared by the Congress (H.R. 2107).            

    Basis of estimate: According to the U.S. Forest Service, 
the Secretary of Agriculture allocated $5 million in each of 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to supplement the regular 
appropriations for the purpose of implementing resource 
management activities recommended by the QLG for the Plumas, 
Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests. The agency expects to 
allocate a similar amount in fiscal year 1998. CBO estimates 
that implementing H.R. 858 would result in total additional 
outlays of about $70 million over the 1998-2002 period 
(excluding the $5 million in 1998 funding shown in the table as 
spending under current law). We derived that estimate by 
summing estimated costs for preparing an EIS, constructing the 
fuelbreaks, carrying out the group selection, conducting 
project-level planning and environmental reviews, and 
completing required reports and monitoring. These discretionary 
costs could be offset by savings if the Forest Service chooses 
to implement the pilot project in lieu of the current timber 
programs in those forests.
    Based on information from the Forest Service, CBO estimates 
a cost of $1 million for 1998 to complete an EIS before the 
pilot project would begin. Outlays to implement the group 
selection would be about $2 million for advance planning in 
fiscal year 1998 and would total $14 million over the 1998-2002 
period. CBO estimates that constructing the fuelbreaks would 
require outlays of about $19 million in fiscal year 1999 and a 
total of $51 million over the 1999-2002 period. The estimated 
costs for project-level planning and environmental reviews are 
included in the above amounts for fuelbreak construction and 
group selection. H.R. 858 would accelerate the existing 
schedule for revising the land management plans for these 
forests, resulting in additional discretionary spending of 
about $2 million over the 1999-2002 period.
    Assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts, CBO 
expects that the fuelbreak construction and group selection 
required by H.R. 858 would result in timber harvest volumes 
from the pilot project area of about 165 million board feet in 
the first year and about 250 million board feet per year in the 
subsequent years of the pilot project. Such volumes could 
reduce direct spending by $6 million in fiscal year 1999 and by 
$74 million over the 1999-2002 period. That net change in 
direct spending would reflect gross offsetting receipts of $90 
million over the 1999-2002, and mandatory spending (such as 
required payments to states) of $16 million over the same 
period. Actual receipts could vary significantly (higher or 
lower) from these estimates depending on which acres are 
treated, the volume and value of the timber inventory on those 
acres, and the time required to plan and carry out the forest 
management activities. Whether such potential volumes are in 
addition to currently planned timber harvests or in lieu of 
current harvest levels would depend on how the Forest Service 
chooses to implement H.R. 858.
    If the Forest Service stopped its current timber management 
program on the three national forests, discretionary savings of 
about $5 million per year would offset additional costs to 
implement H.R. 858. (Because it is unclear whether such savings 
would be generated, the above table does not reflect that 
potential change in discretionary spending.) In any case, 
because implementation of the pilot project would be contingent 
on additional appropriations. CBO estimates no change in direct 
spending (including offsetting receipts) from enacting H.R. 
858.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 858 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal 
governments. States generally receive 25 percent of the timber 
receipts from national forests within their borders. Assuming 
appropriation of the estimated amounts necessary to implement 
this legislation, CBO expects that the State of California 
could receive additional payments of $13 million over the 1999-
2002 period.
    Estimated impact on the private sector; H.R. 858 would 
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Previous CBO estimate: On June 17, 1997, CBO prepared a 
cost estimate for H.R. 858 as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on Resources on May 21, 1997. The two versions of 
H.R. 858 are similar, as are the cost estimates. The version 
ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources requires completion of an EIS before the pilot 
project begins, which would delay implementation of the pilot 
project and change the timing of expected spending, as compared 
to the pace of spending under the version of H.R. 858 that was 
approved by the House Committee on Resources.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Victoria V. Heid; 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 
Miller.
    Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      regulatory impact evaluation

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out H.R. 858. The Act is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or 
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals 
and businesses.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the 
enactment of H.R. 858.

                        executive communications

    On October 27, 1997, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of 
Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget setting 
forth executive views on H.R. 858 as amended. These reports had 
not been received at the time the report on H.R. 858 as amended 
was filed. When the reports become available, the Chairman will 
request that they be printed in the Congressional Record for 
the advice of the Senate.
    On July 24, 1997, the Administration offered testimony on 
H.R. 858 as reported by the House, and S. 1028 as introduced. 
The testimony provided by the Department of Agriculture at the 
hearing follows:

Statement of Ronald E. Stewart, Acting Associate Chief, Forest Service, 
                       Department of Agriculture

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for 
the opportunity to offer the Administration's views on S. 1028 
and H.R. 858, the ``Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and 
Economic Stability Act of 1997.'' I am Ron Stewart, Acting 
Associate Chief of the Forest Service and I am accompanied by 
Forest Supervisor Mark Madrid of the Plumas National Forest.
    The Administration supports the goals of H.R. 858 and S. 
1028 and is currently implementing much of the Quincy Library 
Group (QLG) Proposal using existing statutory authority, 
consistent with environmental laws and available funding. While 
the Administration believes the actions directed by these two 
bills could be implemented administratively, given the interest 
in pursuing legislation and supporting the goal of local 
collaboration between different stakeholders, the 
Administration will support enactment of this legislation.
    If enacted, the Forest Service will implement the actions 
directed in either one of the bills within the constraints of 
available funds. We believe that additional funds must be 
appropriated to fully implement the project. We will work to 
ensure that our actions meet the objectives of the QLG and the 
surrounding communities, as well as the objectives of the 
broader public. We feel that it is important to allow enough 
time to measure the success of this project.
    The Administration, through the Forest Service, will 
continue to utilize its administrative and statutory 
authorities to work with communities who come together to 
establish consensus on land management goals. Community 
involvement is very important to the Administration, 
particularly the Forest Service, as a way to bring people 
together to generate collaborative solutions to problems on 
public lands. However individual National Forests should not be 
managed by specialized statute for a number of reasons, 
including the fact that forest conditions change more quickly 
than the legislative process can respond. An administrative 
approach gives the Forest Service a great deal of flexibility 
to change management strategies in response to changing 
conditions and with full public involvement.
    Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the efforts of certain Members 
of Congress and their staffs to make changes to improve these 
two bills. With regard to S. 1028, we would recommend 
additional refinements to further improve the bill, to ensure 
consistency with all environmental laws, and to avoid potential 
confusion in land management planning. It is our understanding 
that an opportunity exists to resolve outstanding issues prior 
to Committee action on either bill.
General conditions of the Sierras
    In 1996 the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) Report, 
chartered by Congress, found that the Sierra Nevada range has 
become highly susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. The virtual 
exclusion of low- to moderate-severity fire, as well as past 
harvesting and grazing practices, have affected the structure 
and composition of much of the Sierra Nevada vegetation. The 
resulting forests can be characterized as having dense stands 
of small to medium size, shade-tolerant, fire-sensitive tree 
species. Fuels have become more continuous from the ground 
through the upper canopy. Most stands in the Sierra Nevada 
range have experienced increased mortality from the cumulative 
effects of competition, drought, insects, disease and, in some 
cases, ambient ozone air pollution. This has created conditions 
favorable to intense and severe fires that are more damaging to 
the ecosystem, are more expensive to suppress, and pose a 
greater threat to life and property.
    The SNEP report describes a number of approaches to reduce 
the susceptibility of the the Sierra Nevada range to 
catastrophic fire by reducing the potential for large high-
severity wildfires in both wildlands and the wildland/urban 
interface.
The Quincy Library Group (QLG)
    The QLG was formed in 1992 and became a three-county 
alliance of elected officials, timber industry, workers, union 
representatives, local environmentalists, and citizens. The QLG 
has worked to resolve long-standing controversies over some 
aspects of vegetation management on the Plumas, Lassen, and the 
Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. They 
have developed a proposal that addresses various aspects of 
vegetation management including timber sales, fire hazard 
reduction, watershed and riparian area restoration, monitoring 
and forest planning. Most importantly, they have negotiated and 
compromised locally, crafting a program that is generally 
acceptable to all. In recognition of the importance of this 
effort, Secretary Glickman has prioritized funding for these 
three forests to support forest activities consistent with the 
concepts of the QLG proposal and forest plan standards and 
guides.
Contents of the billsyh
    Both S. 1028 and H.R. 858, as passed by the House, would 
direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project 
on designated lands of three National Forests--the Plumas, 
Lassen and a portion of the Tahoe National Forests. The purpose 
of the project, reflecting portions of the QLC proposal, is to 
demonstrate the effectiveness of various vegetative management 
activities directed in the bill. These activities are: (1) 
construction of a strategic system of defensible fuel breaks on 
not less than 40,000 but not more than 60,000 acres per year; 
and (2) implementation on an acreage rather than volume basis, 
of uneven-aged forest management prescriptions utilizing 
individual tree selections and small group selections to 
achieve a desired future condition of an all-age, multi-story, 
fire resistant forest.
    This legislation reflects some of the analysis in the 
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report (SNEP) that identifies 
defensible fuel profile zones as an initial, but not exclusive, 
focus for fuels management activities in the Sierra Nevada. 
SNEP stressed, however, that the fuel zones are an initial step 
in bringing the landscape into a more fire-resilient condition, 
that other management tools are also needed, and that periodic 
maintenance will be required to maintain benefits of fuel 
zones.
    The project would terminate 5 years after date of enactment 
of this bill or when the land and resource management plans for 
the three forests have been revised or amended as appropriate, 
whichever is later.
Comparison of the bills
    S. 1028 is identical to H.R. 858, as passed by the House, 
except for the following modifications:
    Section 2(c)(2) would prohibit any pilot project 
activities, and all road building and timber harvest activities 
in ``off base'' and ``deferred'' areas during the term of the 
project.
    Section 2(j)(1)(G) requires the annual report include a 
description of any adverse environmental impacts; and,
    Section 2(k)(1)(B) includes a similar requirement for the 
final report.
    The Administration is comfortable with these additions to 
the House passed bill.
    We are concerned that S. 1028 is not responsive to several 
issues identified in the Statement of Administration Position 
for H.R. 858. Those concerns still exist and I would like to 
briefly describe them:
    Section 2(c)(3) (A) and (B) could freeze riparian 
guidelines to the knowledge and expertise available when the 
``Viability Assessments and Management Considerations for 
Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-Growth 
Forests of the Pacific Northwest'' was published. New 
information may necessitate amendments to the riparian 
guidelines. It is the Administration's position that the 
legislation should allow for adaptive management rather than 
preclude the use of new information for the term of the project 
by locking in the guidelines for the project area.
    Section 2(g) calls for termination of the pilot the later 
of: (1) completion of plan amendments or revisions or (2) 5 
years from date of enactment. The Administration believes that 
plan amendments or revisions should trigger termination of the 
project if they are completed within the 5-year period.
    Additionally, it is the intent of the Administration, in 
fulfillment of Section 2(l) to conduct site specific analyses 
for individual projects or groups of projects.
    Finally, the Secretary has supported implementation of the 
QLG proposal to date through reprioritization of funding. We 
have funds in the FY 1998 budget to implement approximately 40 
percent of the the project. In order to fully implement the 
project an additional $12-14 million will be needed. The 
Administration would like to work with Congress to find 
appropriate offsets for this amount. Without these additional 
funds, the project cannot be fully implemented.
Summary
    We applaud the Quincy Library Group and the bills' 
proponents in the House who addressed the need to assure 
consistency with existing environmental laws. Representatives 
Young, Miller, Fazio, and Herger were able to negotiate a bill 
that passed the House with overwhelming support. Senators 
Feinstein and Boxer have built on that success.
    During the Forest Conference in April, 1993, President 
Clinton challenged natural resource dependent communities to 
develop collaborative and locally-based solutions to 
controversies surrounding public land management. The science-
based assessment of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem commissioned by 
Congress recommended implementing programs that reduce the 
potential for catastrophic fires. The QLG is an illustration of 
democratic process at work in achieving these goals. The 
project has the potential to enhance the health and 
productivity of the affected national forests, help those 
communities that depend on these forests for their well being 
and, demonstrate that forests can be managed in a way that 
satisfies the needs of a broad cross-section of forest users. 
For these reasons, the Administration is looking forward to 
working with the Committee to further improve S. 1028.
    This concludes my prepared remarks. My colleague and I will 
be pleased to answer your questions.

                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR BUMPERS

    During consideration of H.R. 858, the Committee adopted an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute that incorporated a 
number of changes to the bill, including a requirement that the 
final report assessing the success of the pilot project be 
conducted by an independent scientific panel rather than the 
Forest Service or the Quincy Library Group. In addition, the 
Committee adopted an amendment which I offered regarding the 
term of the pilot project. Because of these and other changes, 
I did not oppose reporting the bill to the full Senate. 
However, it is important to recognize the following issues with 
respect to this legislation.
    H.R. 858 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to implement 
a pilot project and, as such, the ultimate results of this 
legislation are very uncertain. The project is an experimental 
pilot in two respects; it legislates a management plan for a 
few identified forests; and it directs the Secretary to conduct 
management activities that are untested. Therefore, it is 
absolutely imperative that the Congress carefully review and 
monitor its implementation and results before other similar 
projects are initiated either legislatively or 
administratively. If this is truly a pilot project, the 
Congress should not support any similar proposals until the 
final report, as described in the bill, has been completed.
    Legislating a management plan for a few specific forests is 
a dramatic departure from current law and practice. Our 
national forests are currently managed through provisions set 
forth in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) that require 
full public participation and ensure the application of all 
environmental laws. Individual national forests should not be 
managed by specialized statute as this bill requires. 
Similarly, the benefits thought by the proponents of this bill 
to be derived from some of the forest management activities 
directed by H.R. 858 are neither generally accepted nor 
supported by the scientific community. Professor Don Erman, 
team leader of the Congressionally sponsored Sierra Nevada 
Ecosystem Project noted that, with respect to the management 
activities identified in the bill, ``in many ways ideas are 
untested.''
    In his remarks upon passage of H.R. 858, Congressman Don 
Young, Chairman of the House Resources Committee, referred to 
the potential need to ``make similar plans easier to 
implement.'' At least 35 groups across the country are working 
on proposals similar to the Quincy Library Group plan. 
Therefore, similar legislative proposals can be expected in the 
near future. Congress should ensure that other such projects 
not proceed until it carefully evaluates the results of the 
Quincy Library Group proposal.

                                                      Dale Bumpers.

                        changes in existing law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of the rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no 
changes in existing law are made by this Act, H.R. 858 as 
reported.