U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth said "analysis paralysis," arising from the many laws and regulations governing his agency, is keeping the Service from getting its work done on time, and is creating confusion and frustration among the officials and staff.

In testimony before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health in the U.S. House of Representatives on December 4, Chief Bosworth said, " When I use the phrase analysis paralysis, 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.

Bosworth told the Congressmen, " 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, Bosworth said, " 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 the resources that we are charged with protecting and managing.

Chief Bosworth related an example from his personal experience as Regional Forester in Montana, the job he had before his appointment as Chief by USDA Secretary Anne Veneman. " We had huge fires in the Bitterroot Valley, he said. "Fires burned in both the Bitterroot National Forest, and the Sula State Forest, which is adjacent to the national forest. Bitterroot's final environmental impact statement to cover post-fire treatment 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, said Chief Bosworth, " the State finished salvage of 22 million board feet of the fire-killed and damaged timber this summer, and will harvest the remaining four to six million board feet this year. While there may be some legitimate reason for this disparity in reaching the point of 0n-the-ground action, I am not satisfied with the result.

Heavy regulation and slow-moving on-the-ground activity by the Forest Service is not the result of conflict between goals of commodity production and environmental stewardship, Bosworth said. " 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, he said.

And, he said, " while I do not believe the laws conflict, their coordination does present complex challenges. Our 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.

Bosworth told the Congressional committee, " Since the mid-1960s 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 Historical Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Managemetn 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 abiolity 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 abnd other agencies have promulgated thousands of pages of regulations that often conain overlapping and sometimes confluicting requirements, prorecudral redundancies and multiple layers of interaction. The direction on how an agency is to arrivfe at a decision under each law has created an extremely comlex operating arena. There is considerable confuction by the public, even by seasoned and experienced participants, with the processes and decisions being made, as well as interpreting the requirements for making decisions.

That's what I mean, Bosworth said, " by "analysis paralysis". Resolving this analysis paralysis is my highest priority.

I want to address thks problem head-on, not engage in finger pointing, or blaming everyhbody 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 ineffienccy and ineffectiveness in the Forest Service's decision-making. No question, we share repsponsibility for the problem. But we cannot fix the current problems by ourselves.

We need to ibnteract 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 compeltely satisfied with the proposed resolution of an issue, the implementation of a project, or active management of federal lands. This is not inhernently bad, but this can prevent an agency from ever finalizing a decision.

It's very frustrating, Bosworth said, " 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.

Back