December 3, 1999
Mr. Michael Dombeck, Chief
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Auditors Building
201 14th Street, S.W.
P.O Box 96090
Washington, D.C. 20090-6090
Dear Chief Dombeck:
When President Clinton convened the White House Forest Conference
in Portland, Oregon in April 1993, he urged the opposing sides in
the Timber Wars to "get out of the courtroom and into the
conference room" to find fair, balanced, scientifically
credible solutions for the national forests. We in the Quincy
Library Group have honored Mr. Clinton’s request, but have
found the Forest Service’s enthusiasm lacking to date. We
hope you will help turn that around.
The QLG Pilot Project presents a variety of opportunities for the
Forest Service to test current ideas in service contracting, the
design and economics of restoration forestry in the Inland West,
forest health monitoring, and forest fuels and wildfire
management. We invite you to make the QLG Pilot Project a
veritable Government Reinvention Laboratory. But please give the
Pilot a chance to succeed. Please do not starve it of resources
or leadership.
As we strive together to implement the first year of this
historic and landmark collaborative effort under the
Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, it is
imperative that the appropriated funding levels be sufficient to
meet the environmental, social, and economic objectives and goals
of both the Act and the QLG Community Stability Proposal. We
request that you ensure (1) that adequate funds are contained in
the President's FY 2001 budget that he will submit to Congress in
January; and (2) that any supplemental funding request by the
President that moves before the regular appropriation process
contains enough funds for full implementation of our
collaborative project in FY 2000.
Though the QLG was instrumental in achieving the additional
$8,000,000 earmarked in the FY99 appropriation process, it
appears that the FY 2000 planning and implementation targets are
currently geared to achieve only 40 percent of the acreage
figures authorized and required under the Act. This 60 percent
reduction in acres treated in the very first year of
implementation has a significant impact on the citizens and
environment in the Pilot Project area, and does not strengthen
the good will we have fostered over the years. In addition, it
will not allow the requirements of the law to be met: the
schedule means that 40,000 fewer acres will be treated in Year
One.
From a social and economic standpoint, the current meager
schedule of work launches the Pilot Project under a defeatist
attitude and with an immediate 12 percent reduction in the
potential economic activities and benefits outlined in the FEIS.
From ecological and species’ viability perspectives, the
Pilot Project’s slow start exacerbates the risks of
incurring more events like the recent 250,000 acres of
catastrophic fires that destroyed lives, homes, and wildlife
habitats in and surrounding the Pilot Project area since the
signing of the Record of Decision. Over 48,000 acres burned this
year on the Plumas National Forest alone, including
high-intensity, intentional "burn out" fires that
significantly, adversely affected eight California spotted owl
SOHAs and Protected Activity Centers in September.
We understood that the combination of earmarked funds and the
flexibility contained in Congressional committee report language
would supplement the baseline appropriation levels for the
Forests involved, to implement the Pilot Project at the
appropriate scale and pace outlined in the Act. Indeed, the
legislative history of the QLG law bears out this notion. This
novel approach for the budgeting process was based upon our
group’s members’ long involvement in service
contracting and stewardship contracting policy issues, as well as
on discussions with local agency management staff. But our
attempt to overcome the agency’s adminstrative and
bookkeeping obstacles was severely challenged when the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Pilot Project projected
costs that are much higher than earlier promised or than they
need to be. Our friends in Congress tell us that we are
experiencing yet another example of the Forest Service
bureaucrats "raising the bar," so that when they fail
to perform, they will have an excuse.
Although the implementation costs outlined in the Pilot
Project’s FEIS are considerably higher than the
Congressional Budget Office estimates in Senate Report No. 257,
you should know that the CBO and Congressional estimates came
directly from your agency. Even so, with the inflated costs
projected in the FEIS, the subsequent gross revenues also
generate a much higher cost-benefit ratio that still warrants
full support and leadership from your office in securing the
necessary funding for full implementation of the pilot project.
This increase in "cost-effectiveness" as specified by
the Act and outlined in the FEIS is precisely the kind of problem
solving sthat generated the support of 429 members of the House
of Representatives in July 1997.
Since we are in the first quarter of the FY-2000 period, we
request your immediate attention to correcting the current course
of action. We request that you ensure that the President's budget
fully funds the QLG project to meet the acreage targets that are
central to the QLG collaborative agreement. To maximize the
social and environmental benefits in Years Two through Five, we
request your leadership and support in initiating the appropriate
actions to secure the necessary funding levels.
Again, thank you for your immediate attention to this request,
and we remain available for any assistance that we may provide.
Sincerely,
Linda Blum Ed Murphy
Corresponding Secretaries
cc: Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Slade Gorton
Senator Ted Stevens
Congressman Wally Herger
Congressman Don Young
Congressman Bill Young
Congessman Ralph Regula