The following is copied from the original letter from the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Washington, DC. Key statements are bold-faced for reader attention. It is not clear, depending upon how long Mr. Dombeck has been Chief of the Forest Service, that he is to blame for years of loss of public funds used in subsidizing big logging and mining companies. What is clear is the lack of responsibility of the undersigned Congressmen in supporting the sagging Forest Service budgets and their support of a "custodial management regime", while threatening the Forest Service with Reduction in Force (RIF = loss of jobs), and abrogating their responsibility to maintain lands held in public trust by opening them up to big recreation industry for development for profit.

[Emphasis added.]

The letter reads:

Dear Mr. Dombeck:

As you know, there is presently very little agreement on a discrete mission for the National Forest System. Consequently, there is no consensus on appropriate governing statutes, nor any real collaboration within government or among competing interests in setting management goals. Neither Congress, the Administration, nor the Forest Service have been able to consider together, let alone find, cost efficient and effective ways to streamline the legislative, regulatory, and legal morass in which Agency currently finds itself. In the face of continuing controversy over Forest Service management, it is increasingly clear that the costs of managing the National Forest System are increasing (in some cases dramatically) and may, in the view of some, outweigh the benefits being received by interest groups, communities, and the public. While it is painful for us to contemplate, the time may have come instead to consider ways to reduce the investment of billions of dollars each year in light of the increasingly diminished returns on that investment.

This is not our preferred course. But the trend of present events - accelerated by some of the Administrations own initiatives - suggests we may be moving in this direction irrespective of our preferences. Consequently, we would like your assessment of the costs and savings from converting to custodial management of the National Forest System. We also would like your assessment of the savings that might be available - through down-sizing the agency, out-sourcing some management functions, or other alternatives - to match such a management approach. In order to accurately and thoroughly assess what a conversion to custodial management might mean - particularly if events are already moving in this direction - we need to more fully understand both the biological and financial implications of this management strategy.

Most Americans believe that each generation should leave the public resources in a better condition than they received them from their parents. Thus, we first want you to generally assess: (1) how past management has changed the condition of the federal lands in the last I 00 years; (2) the condition they are in today, compared to what the current forest plans call for; and (3) the ecological condition of those lands if no vegetative management or man-induced, prescribed fire are practiced on the National Forest System for the next 100 years.

As you are aware, many forest ecosystems in the West are currently severely overstocked, and becoming progressively more so. The age-class distribution of their forests suggests they are increasingly susceptible to natural pathogens and catastrophic fires. If Congress were to direct the Forest Service to manage National Forest System stands under only custodial management - with only the most limited active management intervention and fire suppression limited to avoiding spread to other ownerships - what will be the biological conditions of these forests in one hundred years? Specifically, how much less productive would soils be due to severe erosion after fire? How will wildlife and fisheries resources be affected by radical changes to habitat conditions?

Turning to the financial part of the question, we recognize there are a limited number of activities which must continue under even a custodial management regime. For example, some fire suppression must be continued (to avoid spread to other ownerships). We also understand that a limited amount of land line location and survey work must be carried out to ensure the integrity of National Forest boundaries. Additionally, the Forest Service will incur costs to maintain right-of-way access to private lands within the National Forests. There will also be some costs associated with wildlife and fisheries restoration and enhancement work which must be carried out in the National Forest System under any fully-approved Endangered Species Act (ESA) Recovery Plan (this is distinguishable from the costs of any restoration and enhancement work which is discretionary, whether or not that management is prescribed in existing forest plans, which would not be part of acustodial management regime and would occur naturally more slowly). Additionally, fundswill be needed to administer existing contracts, permits, leases, or other instruments - through the termination date of these instruments. Finally, funds will be needed to coverthe cost of maintaining only those roads in the National Forest System which are currently designated as a Federal, State, or County highway, road, or right-of-way, and any recreation facility that is accessible from such a road. We assume continued management of any recreation facility that is still accessible and would want to evaluate the costs and how they should be borne, including management by other entities.

Please provide an estimate of what the above efforts would likely cost on an annual basis. Additionally, if you feel any other work will be required to properly discharge custodial responsibilities, please provide us with the legal citations which list the work you believe will be needed, along with the specific legislative language which directs the additional management.

In addition to the above information, please provide specific answers to the following questions and transmit your response no later than March 20, l998. We intend to discuss these issues with you in a preliminary way at our budget oversight hearings in late February and early March. Your prompt and more detailed response will help us develop our final Committee recommendations for the Forest Service FY 1999 Budget.

1. Please provide the total amount of acres in the National Forest System as of October 1, 1997.

2. Please provide the total number of acres, under the existing National Forest Management Act (NFMA) forest plans, available for active management for the production of commodity and non-commodity goods and services in the National Forest System as of October 1, 1997.

3. Please list all management activities which will have to be carried out under a custodial. management regime. Please also provide the statutory citation which requires this work to be carried out in a specific area or areas (please be specific and quote the actual language which requires this work to be carried out).

4. Please provide the current number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE's) positions employed by the U.S. Forest Service in all three arms of the Agency.

5. Please provide the number of the employees, the salaries, and other compensation which could be saved by shifting to custodial management, as described above, with any additions you believe necessary. Include savings in support functions which would no longer be necessary. Exclude from these savings the estimated cost of providing the following management activities: (1) the decadal per acre average cost of providing fire protection (pre-suppression and suppression) times the number of acres so treated per decade to prevent the spread of fires to adjacent ownerships; (2) the cost of any land line surveys planned over the next decade; (3) the expected annual cost of administering existing grazing, mining permits, and mining claims and special use permits; (4) any costs for maintaining roads needed to maintain access to private in-holdings; and (5) the minimum cost of stream or habitat rehabilitation work required under existing, approved ESA Recovery Plans.

6. Please provide the FY 1998 per-acre cost of management of the lands entrusted to the Forest Service. This cost should be computed based on the funds appropriated for the National Forest System and the authorized expenditures of trust funds in FY 1998 divided by the number of acres entrusted to the U.S. Forest Service.

7. Please estimate any additional or reduced costs of fighting wildfire in the National Forest System given the more limited road access mentioned, and a de-emphasis on suppression that does not threaten other ownerships.

8. Please describe the number of person days and the associated cost in the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Justice, and the Council on Environmental Quality that have been expended each of the last five years related to conflicts over current management. Please also estimate how much money was spent in each of the last five years to deal with appeals and lawsuit over National Forest System management. Include costs associated with support functions and a description of how these costs were calculated.

9. Please estimate the cost of reducing the number of FTE's to a level needed to carry-out custodial management on all National Forest System acres (comparable to 1950's management). Assume that the Agency will only be able to use existing early-out authority or Reduction in Force (RIF) authority. Also, assume that the Agency will have to absorb the cost of these reductions. In calculating these cost estimates, assume necessary reductions would occur early in FY 1999 or early in FY 2000 using orderly RIF or other appropriate procedures.

10. According to the FY 1998 Presidential Budget Request, driving for pleasure is the most popular recreational use of the National Forest. In a recent Journal of Forestry article, the President of the Society of American Foresters is quoted as saying less than 4.5% of the recreation use on the National Forests occur in the congressionally-designated wilderness areas. Please describe the reductions in on-road and off-road visitor use which are likely to occur as a result of a custodial management regime which allows only those roads currently listed as part of the Federal, State, or County road systems to remain open. Assume other agencies will shoulder the administrative responsibility and cost of road maintenance. Additionally, estimate the loss in recreation user fees which will be experienced as a result of such a policy.

11. Please provide an analysis of the portion of the FY 1998 Forest and Environment Research budget that is spent in direct or indirect support of the National Forest System management programs. Please specify what percentage of this would be necessary to support custodial management regime.

12. Similarly, please provide an analysis of the portion of the FY 1998 State and Private Forestry budget that is spent in direct or indirect support of the National Forest System programs. Please specify what percentage of this would be necessary to support a custodial management regime.

As you might guess by these questions, we are trying to respond to questions about whether it is financially or environmentally prudent to continue to shift to management regimes that are more costly and produce less benefits. Since you seem bent on producing fewer and fewer results from the National Forests at rapidly increasing costs, many will press Congress to seriously consider the option to simply move to custodial management of our National Forests in order to stem the flow of unjustifiable investments. That will mean the Agency will have to operate with significantly reduced budgets and with far fewer employees. Before taking this step though, it is only fair to let the Forest Service articulate how our National Forests and the various constituencies might fare under a carefully considered custodial management regime.

Sincerely,

ACTION ALERT!     Greeting Page     News     Calendar     The Fees     Why Fees Are Wrong    
Corporate Agenda     Opposition     Editorials     Discussions     Activist Resources     Write Congress    
Online Petition     Support Us     Partners' Sites     Contact Us     Mission Statement     webmaster