For Immediate Release: Friday, 26 July 2002

Contact: Sara O'Connell or Brian Peters, (202) 226-7454

"America Needs a Credible Forest Service" say Inslee and Udall

Request List of Projects Evidenced in Report on Environmental Appeals

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Reps. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) sent a letter today to U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth requesting a list of the "approximately 326" projects that were the basis of a July 2002 report, which claimed that environmental groups had appealed almost half of the Forest Service's fuel reduction projects during years 2001 and 2002. The report has been criticized as being highly flawed because it deliberately omitted a large number of prescribed burns and other fuel reduction projects. Now, the Forest Service has backtracked, claiming that the original list of 326 projects does not exist.

The text of the letter from Inslee and Udall is below:

July 25, 2002

The Honorable Dale Bosworth
Chief
USDA Forest Service
14th and Independence, SW
Washington, DC 20250

Dear Chief:

As you know, on July 11, 2002, the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee held a hearing on the National Fire Plan. Much of the hearing, however, focused on a report released the day before entitled "Factors Affecting Timely Mechanical Fuel Treatment Decisions."

Both before and after the hearing, that report was the subject of headlines across the country that focused on one such "factor," namely the appeals of various Forest Service projects filed by environmental groups. Some examples include "Forest Service says activists played role in fire" from the Washington Times, "Forest Service says suits delay thinning" from the Denver Post, and "Will environmentalists take the heat for the fires?" from the Deseret News.

This focus on appeals was understandable because it was a major element of the report, which stated (on page 2) that during fiscal years 2001 and 2002 "the Forest Service made approximately 326 decisions (subject to administrative appeal procedures) to implement mechanical treatments that reduce hazardous forest fuels on National Forest System Lands" and that "Of those decisions, 155 were actually appealed" and that "In addition, 21 decisions that were appealed have also been litigated." Evidently based on that data, the report also says that "Almost half (48%) of all decisions made in fiscal year 2001 and 2002 for mechanical treatments of hazardous fuel were appealed." An attachment to the report consisted of a list of the appellants, but no similar list of the specific projects that had been the subject of the appeals was included.

In order to assess the data discussed in the report, we have been trying to get a list of the "approximately 326 projects" on which it was ostensibly based. At the hearing, Associate Chief Collins, testifying for the Forest Service, repeatedly assured us that she would provide the Committee with the data that was the basis for the report. For example, the transcript of the hearing shows that in response to Mr. Udall's query, "And we will get the list of those names [of projects]?", Ms. Collins replied, "We will get you those." However, the promised list has not yet been provided, even though the Committee staff, at our request, has placed repeated calls to various agency personnel, including Associate Chief Collins, and has been told the data would be provided.

Further, contrary to those assurances, we now have been informed that the promised list of the specific projects that supposedly were the basis for the report does not exist - and never existed - and that the Forest Service is working on a new, "more accurate" report. We have also been told that for purposes of preparing the report only numbers of projects were collected from the regions, rather than names of projects. If this is correct, it is of course troublesome because there is no way to assess or verify the number and types of projects that were the subject of the report.

We are deeply troubled by the Forest Service's actions. To release such an inadequately supported report demonstrates a distressing lack of professionalism and raises serious questions about the agency's credibility. To do so under circumstances that inevitably led some to link environmental groups to this year's catastrophic fires in the West is not only irresponsible but also unconscionable. Further, to mislead Members of Congress about the availability of the supporting data is equally unacceptable.

Accordingly, we reiterate our request. Please provide us with a list of the "approximately 326" projects that were the basis of the July 2002 report.

JAY INSLEE
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Heath

TOM UDALL
Committee Member
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health