|
Statement
Dale Bosworth
Chief, USDA Forest Service
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
December 4, 2001
Mr.
Chairman,
Thank
you for this opportunity to testify this afternoon on the laws and
regulations governing the management of this nation's national forests
and grasslands.
Mr.
Chairman, let me begin by sharing my goals. Forest Service employees
and I are committed to the goals of protecting and improving the
quality of our land, our water, our wildlife, and our air and with
the goals of protecting and preserving this nation's precious historic
and cultural resources. I believe the Forest Service can do so utilizing
its broad authorities, provided by statute and never rescinded,
to make choices among the whole range of public benefits in determining
the proper management of national forests and grasslands.
The
Forest Service should be judged by "how we leave the land," and
I am personally prepared to abide by that judgment. Forest Service
managers will continue their efforts to ensure that all land management
decisions are based on a collaborative, integrated approach that
addresses the environmental implications of our actions in a timely
and efficient manner. That is how it should be.
I want to talk to you this afternoon about improving agency decision
making so that line officers can engage stakeholders, vet issues,
secure all necessary consultations, permits and approvals, focus
on the environmental aspects that truly matter and merit detailed
analysis, and make decisions in a timely fashion.
Since
I was privileged to be named by Secretary Veneman as the Chief,
I have spoken many times about the "analysis paralysis" that grips
the Forest Service.
When
I use that expression, I mean the difficult, costly, confusing and
seemingly endless processes that have been put in place in order
for agency line officers to comply with the laws enacted by Congress
and the implementing regulations put in place by the Forest Service
and other agencies.
Those
processes involve many people, result in many studies and analyses
and involve many administrative appeals and much litigation. Too
frequently, however, these processes combine to keep on-the-ground
work from ever actually being accomplished, even very small projects
or projects of great environmental merit. The inability to complete
projects can have a detrimental effect on the land. We have too
little to show for our efforts except for completion of the processes.
Too little value returns to the public, or the resources that we
are charged with protecting and managing.
Let
me share an example. Last year in Montana, when I was Regional Forester,
we had huge fires in the Bitterroot Valley. Fires burned in both
the Bitterroot National Forest and the Sula State Forest, which
is adjacent to the national forest. The Bitterroot's final environmental
impact statement to cover post-fire treatment and rehabilitation
was released in October. On November 23, I proposed that the Under
Secretary delay his decision on the project until December 10 to
provide public notice that the Under Secretary would be making the
final decision on the project. In contrast, the State finished salvage
of 22 million board feet of fire-killed and damaged timber this
summer and will harvest the remaining 4-6 million board feet this
year.
While
there may be some legitimate reasons for this disparity in reaching
the point of on-the-ground action, I am not satisfied with this
result.
Your
letter of invitation said this afternoon's hearing was to examine
the conflicting laws and regulations, as well as the negative effects
and the growing impacts of regulation by other federal agencies
and to identify some possible solutions.
You
refer to the "conflicting laws." Others talk about the "crazy quilt
of laws." Let me make several points:
First,
many times this is not a conflict between commodity production and
environmental stewardship. Conserving natural environments has been
a statutory responsibility of the Forest Service since it was created,
even as it was charged with producing timber, forage and other commodities.
Second, while I do not believe the laws conflict, their coordination
does present complex challenges.
One
fundamental challenge is the limits on management discretion afforded
agency line officers that have resulted from the numerous laws with
which the Forest Service must comply.
The
Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield
Act of 1960, and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
Act of 1974 shaped the management of the National Forest System
by requiring the Forest Service to apply the principles of multiple
use and sustained yield to meet the diverse needs of the American
public. Specific direction on how to make the management choices
was not provided.
Since the mid-1960's, there have been a plethora of authorities
that affect the Forest Service and all other federal land management
agencies. The Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation
Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental
Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, among others, with some exceptions,
have all too often been interpreted and implemented in ways that
constrict the ability of land managers to make choices or to exercise
broad discretion in determining the appropriate management of forests.
However
well intentioned, Congress has enacted multiple laws and the Forest
Service and other agencies have promulgated thousands of pages of
regulations that often contain overlapping and sometimes conflicting
requirements, procedural redundancies and multiple layers of interaction.
The direction on how an agency is to arrive at a decision under
each law has created an extremely complex operating arena. There
is considerable confusion by the public, even by seasoned and experienced
participants, with the processes and the decisions being made, as
well as interpreting the requirements for making decisions.
That's
what I mean by "analysis paralysis." Resolving this analysis paralysis
is my highest priority.
I want to address this problem head on, not engage in finger pointing,
or blaming everybody but us for the current problem. In written
reports and hearing testimony, the General Accounting Office and
others have detailed their views on the underlying causes of inefficiency
and ineffectiveness in the Forest Service's decision- making. No
question -- we share responsibility for the problem. But we cannot
fix the current problem by ourselves.
A second challenge results from the natural tension that exists
between our desires as managers for clearly defined, logical, and
understandable processes that produce timely decisions on one hand
and the time needed to consider all relevant information about a
vast, complex, and ever-changing environment. The public expects
our processes to use the best available information and to result
in timely decisions and implementation. The processes dictated by
regulation for incorporating new information into decision making,
however, create the potential for never getting out of the planning
loop or halting projects already under way.
We
also need to interact with Federal, state, local, and tribal governments,
local communities, scientists, citizens and public interest groups
so that we consider disparate views into our decision making and
provide appropriate opportunities for redress to those who disagree
with our decisions. Every decision or agency action that affects
the environment represents an opportunity for appeal or litigation
for those who are not completely satisfied with the proposed resolution
of an issue, the implementation of a project, or active management
of federal lands. That is not inherently bad, but this can prevent
an agency from ever finalizing a decision.
Mr.
Chairman, I have a lifetime of being part of the Forest Service
culture, traditions, and debate about the management of America's
forests and rangelands. In 35 years working in the Forest Service,
I've had many jobs and I have developed an appreciation for how
the job being performed on the ground by our employees is the foundation
of our credibility with the public. One of the greatest strengths
of the Forest Service has been the ability of line officers at the
ranger district and forest levels to make and implement decisions
that take national and local interests into account and strike an
appropriate balance. We need to get that flexibility back. And we
won't until we fix this analysis paralysis.
Mr.
Chairman, this problem is not new. We've talked about the effects
and the symptoms a lot. We don't need analysis paralysis about analysis
paralysis. It's time we start trying to do something to get good,
sound decisions and project implementation. Here's what the Forest
Service is doing.
First
and foremost, we have embarked on a close review of our own processes
to reduce the time and expense it now takes to get work done. Not
just to look, but also to make changes. It's very frustrating to
our folks in the field and it's frustrating to us in Washington
that we spend so much time and energy on our processes that add
only marginal value to our decisions.
The
agency's Inventory and Monitoring Institute, in collaboration with
a business consultant, has begun assessing the activities required
for project level planning and implementation. Using information
from the laws, regulations, the Forest Service manual, agency handbooks,
and the knowledge and experience of agency personnel with subject
matter expertise, we are developing a model of the complex and numerous
activities required. Legal and subject matter experts within the
Executive Branch, including the Council on Environmental Quality,
still must validate the draft model. But I believe it could serve
as a sound and powerful tool that the Forest Service, other agencies
and Congress could use to consider changes to the current the legal
and regulatory framework.
I
have also tasked a team to update former Chief Jack Ward Thomas'
study on the Forest Service legal and regulatory framework. You
will hear today from Chief Thomas about his original report. We
will update this work, taking into consideration new laws, regulations,
and court decisions since the study was prepared in 1995. That report
will identify how we can resolve the issues -- through actions the
Forest Service, as well as others can take.
Our
frustration with the status quo provides us the motivation to examine
our processes from top to bottom. Our focus is in large part on
National Environmental Policy Act procedures because they provide
the framework for analyzing our management decisions and, if done
properly, integrate our consideration of all the other requirements
set out in myriad laws, regulations and directives.
Our
opportunity is real. No one doubts that integration is flawed or
lacking, and that these same laws could be implemented more efficiently
and effectively. I am dedicated to revising, not just reviewing,
our processes. We must provide the best tools and training for our
line officers and staff. As we put our house in order, any need
for reforms beyond the Forest Service will become clearer. Our priority
will then be to work with all the agencies that oversee the implementation
of the environmental laws that affect our decision making and, if
appropriate, to seek your help with legislative changes.
I
expect our endeavors to resolve analysis paralysis will take significant
effort and a great deal of time and will generate opposition.
The
Council on Environmental Quality, which, as you know, is responsible
for the NEPA regulations that apply to all federal agencies, and
the other federal agencies and departments with whom we closely
work, such as the Department of Commerce, the Department of the
Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency, share our desire
to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our processes. I
know we can count on their support as we undertake this task.
I
ask you and the other Members of this subcommittee to look at this
issue with an open mind and give me a chance to work with you to
find a way to make Forest Service land management decisions in an
effective, efficient and timely manner.
Mr.
Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions from you and the other Members of the Subcommittee.
Return to Public
Policy Archive |
The
Chief on "Analysis Paralysis"
Forest Resources Association
Inc. (FRA)
600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 350,
Rockville, MD 20852
FRA National office telephone: 301/838-9385
Click here for FRA Staff and FRA Division
contact information
FRA Site Map
|
