SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
Thursday, March 19, 1998.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WITNESS
HON. DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Well, this morning we are pleased to welcome the Secretary of Agriculture, the Under Secretary, and the Chief of the Forest Service.
Mr. Secretary, welcome, and in the interests of time, your statement and all of the statements will be made part of the record. We would be pleased if you would summarize for us.
OPENING REMARKS
Secretary GLICKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have with me, of course, our Under Secretary, Jim Lyons, who has been before this committee many times and the chief of the Forest Service, Mike Dombeck, who is here helping me out, and who will testify later in more detail about the substance of our proposals.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First of all, let me just say this is the second time I have been before this subcommittee, these relates to the priority I place on the Forest Service. One-third of our department's employees work in the Forest Service. It is not generally understood how significant a piece of USDA the Forest Service is. The Forest Service programs make up about one-sixth of our discretionary programs in terms of spending. We operate, as you know, nearly 200 million acres of publicly-owned land. The agency affects millions of people's lives each year, we think in a very positive way. So, this is important to me and to the administration, and we appreciate your personal interest in this.
There is no question that the Forest Service issues are highly controversial. Of course I come from Kansas—we have a grassland in Kansas, but trees are not our most productive growing item in the State of Kansas, as opposed to State like Washington and Colorado which have a combination of forests and croplands, and Ohio as well.
Mr. REGULA. Some.
Secretary GLICKMAN. We have other very important things in Kansas, but the irony is that the vigorous public debate on forest and forestry issues is perhaps the toughest part of the issues I face as secretary. So often, there are such polarizing views as to which direction we ought to be going in this area, and reasonable people can differ as to how the Forest Service ought to go.
I would have to say that a major part of the Forest Service's job in its history is initiating change, dealing with controversy and managing change. Last year, we gave Mike Dombeck the top change job at the Forest Service, and I have asked him to move forward with a natural resource agenda based on sound science and collaboration with the public to lead the agency into the Twenty-First Century.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, Mike came on, I assume, knowing that this job would not be without differences of opinion and controversy, but I think he has handled it exceedingly well.
Mr. REGULA. You mention that the northwest has the forests, but all 50 states have the consumers and the owners.
Secretary GLICKMAN. That is correct and the taxpayers.
Mr. REGULA. And the taxpayers.
NATURAL RESOURCES AGENDA
Secretary GLICKMAN. Yes.
The new agenda is in place, and our budget request supports the aspects that we believe are important for the Forest Service. There are recreation, clean water, sustainable forestry and a sound forest roads policy. One aspect, the roads initiative, has been especially controversial. But, as I said, I encourage the debate and public participation, which is why we are holding 25 public meetings all over the United States. In the end, I have no doubt that the debate will produce a modern, adaptable transportation strategy that will meet the needs of everyone who relies on the hundreds of thousands of miles of roads inside our forests.
Overall, we are requesting $2.6 billion for the Forest Service discretionary appropriation. This is a minimal increase over this year's appropriation, but there are some important components. If I might just summarize, one is watershed restoration. More than half the water in our nation falls on and flows through our national forests. More than 900 communities depend on forest land watersheds for their source of drinking water. That is why we continue to place a very high priority on protecting our water quality and our watersheds on forest lands. Doing so has been the Forest Service's responsibility since the very beginning, but it is one that we take with increasing seriousness.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Forest Service budget has $69 million for watershed restoration, which will pay for repairing damaged fish habitat, preventing soil erosion from roads and other sources and restoring riparian and wetlands areas. These activities will help turn degraded and threatened watersheds on forest lands back into healthy headwaters of our nation's water supply.
Moreover, our state governments are fighting an uphill battle to curb non-point source pollution, which poses serious water quality problems all over the U.S. The $69 million we are requesting will go a long way to assure that our forests are a part of the governors' solutions, not part of their problems.
The second area is sustainable forest management. Congress and the administration share a commitment to improving forests and promoting their sustainable management. I ask that you support our 1999 budget request to continue the progress we have made in reducing fuel loads, thinning overstocked stands, managing vegetation, reintroducing fire to the landscape and revising expiring forest plans to incorporate the latest science and forest management practices.
RECEIPT-SHARING PAYMENTS
We are turning the corner on restoring our forest resources, and our budget will help us move in this direction. One important proposal in this budget is our decision to increase and stabilize payments to counties. For more than 80 years, counties have depended on receipts from Federal timber sales, grazing fees and mining revenues to fund a significant share of school budgets and road budgets. Over the last 8 to 10 years, these receipts have been falling for a variety of reasons, including a reduction in the amount of timber cut on Federal lands.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But school children and rural transportation systems should not suffer as a result of that. Our budget proposal recognizes and continues the strong historic relationship we have with rural communities by proposing to give counties the higher of their 1997 payments or 76 percent of the payments they received between 1986 and 1990. Nationally, this would provide them a $37 million increase over the 1997 payment level.
The third item is recreation.
Mr. REGULA. What is the offset on that? You have to pay for that somehow.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Where is this coming from? It is just part of the whole package.
Mr. REGULA. I know, but there has to be some source of revenue to pay these counties, since it is not going to be from cutting and selling trees.
Secretary GLICKMAN. I am sorry; it comes from other USDA programs.
Mr. REGULA. Outside of the Forest Service.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Outside of the Forest Service, some come from the cotton Step Two program, and some comes from the Export Enhancement Program.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Does your testimony outline those sources?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Mine does not. I do not know if the other statements do that, but they come from other USDA programs.
Mr. REGULA. I think we would want to know the specifics on that, because we are asked to approve the outlay side, and some other committee would have to approve the increase in fees, I assume.
Mr. LYONS. We can provide you the details on that, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Yes, I would like that.
Mr. LYONS. The legislation that provides this authorization is forthcoming.
Secretary GLICKMAN. In one case, it would require legislation. In the other case, it is an appropriation item. We will get you that information in the next two days.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Okay; thank you.
RECREATION
Secretary GLICKMAN. The third major priority is recreation, and that is recognizing that the forests will host 1 billion visitors each year—obviously, many are multiple users. More and more of us like to enjoy the beauty of the forests enjoy a variety of recreation activities, such as hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, skiing, camping and other interests. Congress and the administration have cooperated on this through the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, which will be fully operational on 100 project sites in 1999.
The public likes knowing that the fees that they are paying are being invested into their favorite campsites or trails to make them better. While these fees are extremely useful, they are not enough, which is why I ask you to support our budget increase of $20 million, bringing the total recreation management program to $190 million. We also propose $63 million for the land, water and facility restoration initiative, which will mean improved recreation water systems, more trails, and cleaner campgrounds.
ROADS
Our policy initiative on roads is also supported by the budget. Few natural resource issues in recent years have captured as much attention and public scrutiny and debate and controversy as the whole issue of the National Forest road system. Forest roads are an essential part of the transportation system in many rural parts of this country, and they provide recreational as well as economic opportunities.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we simply have more roads than we can afford. With over 380,000 miles of roads in the forests, we can circle the globe 16 times, and we have a maintenance backlog currently estimated at $10 billion on just 20 percent of these miles. To help address this problem and improve the public's access to the forests, we propose to increase road maintenance funding by 26 percent and road reconstruction and construction funding by 9 percent, with an emphasis on restoration of degraded roads to achieve public safety and watershed health objectives.
In addition to that, we also need to have a broader transportation strategy for our national forests. We cannot afford to keep building roads without having a broader strategy in place that the entire agency follows in making decisions on where and when to build more roads. Creating this strategy is going to take time and require much public participation. I strongly commend and support the chief for initiating this debate, and I know that he is going to comment more on this issue during his testimony. You may have specific concerns that you would like to discuss with him.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Finally, I would like to just mention the issue of civil rights, because one of the primary issues involving the Department of Agriculture right now is an effort to address long-neglected civil rights problems within USDA. Congressman Nethercutt has heard me talk a little bit about this in the Ag Appropriations Subcommittee. As secretary, I am committed to ensuring the civil rights of USDA's customers and employees are upheld. Every customer and every employee must be treated fairly and with dignity and respect. There are no exceptions to this.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In its history the Department of Agriculture has not demonstrated a total and complete commitment by all of its agencies to deal with civil rights problems. All parts of the department, including the Forest Service, have had an unacceptably high level of employee and customer complaints arising out of civil rights issues.
The Forest Service is the largest employer in the USDA, and its employees deal with a large and diverse constituency. So, I fully expect this Forest Service, no less than any other agency within USDA, to devote the necessary time, staff and resources to deal with this problem.
In closing, I would say that I believe that the Forest Service has a clear, broad-based natural resource agenda based upon watershed protection and protection of the water supplies; sustainable forest management, which relies on a prudent but sustained level of harvest; and recreation. This is a resource agenda built on a foundation of science that is sensitive to the needs of local communities. We think this budget provides resources necessary for the Forest Service to begin fulfilling that mission.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Secretary Dan Glickman follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Thank you. As I understand it, you would like to get out sometime shortly after 11:00.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary GLICKMAN. If possible.
Mr. REGULA. If possible.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. We will try to get around to all the subcommittee members.
FOREST SERVICE MISSION
Do you feel that the Forest Service has clearly delineated its mission looking into the next century given the fact that historically, it produced fiber initially? Then, you moved to a multiple use, and now, you have a moratorium on the roadless areas, which would seem to be moving in a direction of nonusage. If you have a clear mission, do the 36,000 employees understand what it is? I sense that there may be some transition within the personnel of the Forest Service.
Secretary GLICKMAN. I believe that the chief has created and articulated a clear mission for the future of the Forest Service, and it is a multiple use mission, notwithstanding the recent controversy about roadless areas. I do not think that this modifies the basic mission that I talked about in my statement, and I do believe that the Forest Service is in a period of some transition. I think its mission today is probably somewhat different than it was 20 years ago and 30 years ago. It is not entirely, because it always provided recreation and always was involved in the protection of resources, but I think it was more focused on the timber cut and less focused on the other things.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think the Chief has articulated a balanced mission. I think there are some folks out there who do not like that. I think there are some folks who like the historic mission, which was largely more harvest-focused and less focused on watershed protection and recreation. I think there are some folks who believe that there is an ideological agenda at the Forest Service which is not based on sound science. I disagree with that. I think that Mike is a competent, able public servant who has spent a career dealing with land management issues.
So, the best I can tell you is yes, I think there is a clear mission. Does everybody understand it? Probably not yet. Does everybody agree with it? Probably not yet. But, you know, that is one of the reasons why we are moving in this direction.
TIMBER
Mr. REGULA. Do you envision the future to include the production of fiber? If you note, 8 or 10 years ago, we were providing for an allowable cut of 12 billion board feet in the bill. Last year, it was less than 4 billion board feet. What is the right number, given the fact that we are producing about 20 billion board feet annually?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Let me just say that the answer to that question is yes. I certainly think that the production of fiber is part, a very key part, of the mission of the Forest Service. I would ask Under Secretary Lyons to respond to the question of what the cut ought to be.
Mr. LYONS. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, a decade ago, we were harvesting upwards of 10 billion board feet per year, and I think one of the unintended consequences of that was the adverse resource effects that we are now trying to address through the Chief's agenda and through the budget that we present to you. We have learned more about the critical need to address watersheds and watershed health. We have an extensive road system that supported that higher level of harvest. Unfortunately, we did not have the funds to be able to address the maintenance needs and the reconstruction needs on those roads. We are trying to tackle that issue.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are trying to move in directions that have a sustainable harvest, but quite candidly, I think that decision, what is sustainable, what is the right number, is a local decision. It has to be made by forest managers on the ground, understanding the multiple use mission they have and trying to produce what is both sustainable from the standpoint of fiber production and what will meet the need for goods and services from the communities.
Secretary GLICKMAN. This budget assumes a cut of roughly about 3.5 billion board feet, I think.
Mr. LYONS. Yes, and that is fairly consistent with what we have presented in the last few years.
ROAD MORATORIUM
Mr. REGULA. But you are saying it ought to be a local decision, but you put a moratorium on establishing roadless areas as a national policy. If it is a local policy, should that not be a local decision?
Mr. LYONS. I would like to address that, Mr. Chairman.
I think ultimately, that is a decision that will be addressed on a local basis. What Chief Dombeck has proposed, and I am sure he can give you much greater detail, is a time out on entry into roadless areas, so as to assess the implications and the impacts of entry. It is not a decision to stop all entry permanently but rather a proposal.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Wait a minute; a proposal for a moratorium?
Mr. LYONS. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. So, it is not in effect.
Mr. LYONS. Correct.
Mr. REGULA. When do you anticipate it would be in effect?
Mr. LYONS. We actually have a proposal out for public comment now, Mr. Chairman. That is what is being reviewed. I think Mike can give you the details on that.
There is one point I wanted to make, though, because I know you made the comment in your initial remarks that that might infer in some way a decision not to continue a commitment to fiber production. I would point out that this proposed moratorium would only affect 100 million board feet of timber this year, according to current data, which is less than 1 percent of the Forest Service's total program. It is not in any way meant to indicate a lack of commitment to fiber production. To the contrary, it is meant to indicate a commitment to better understand how we can produce fiber on a sustainable basis and minimize impacts in other areas. But I would let Mike address the specifics on the proposal, if I could.
Mr. REGULA. Well, the one concern I have is that yes, it is 100 million board feet but if you have a little mill that is in that area, you have not proposed to give the local management any discretion. It could have a very serious impact on a community, even though, in the big picture, it is only the 100 million.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LYONS. Well, this is the reason for the extensive public hearings that are underway now, public meetings to discuss this proposal as well as the fact that it is out for comment, so that we can understand implications and see if adjustments are necessary.
Mr. REGULA. So, you could contemplate modification of this to be sensitive to local needs. Would that be a fair statement?
Mr. LYONS. Well, we are going to collect all comment and then make a determination based on that comment, as we should through the rulemaking process.
Mr. DOMBECK. There are a couple of points that I want to emphasize on the moratorium. The temporary suspension of road building deals only with roads and not with the projects that the roads would access. In many cases, we have gotten information from the forests. There are many projects that we initially had anticipated might not move forward that we now believe can be accomplished because they might have alternative access such as by means of helicopters.
Mr. REGULA. Do you mean projects for sale?
Mr. DOMBECK. Timber sales?
Mr. REGULA. Yes.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. They would include timber sales, thinning, and other projects in some places where they have found that helicopter logging may be an option. We know it is less economic, but if it precludes the need to build a road, it also precludes the need to maintain the road decade after decade.
So, we are only talking about road building and reconstruction, and the other thing I want to emphasize is that this is a proposal. We have a 60-day public comment period. There are 25 meetings that we have formally announced through the Federal Register process. In addition, we have added more public meetings based upon requests from either members of Congress or from individual communities.
All of the information is on the World Wide Web, and our effort is to get as much of this information out as possible, because there are a lot of misunderstandings about the issue. For example, an essential part of the proposed temporary suspension of road building is based upon economics. Entering these areas is very expensive for us. Sales in these areas are appealed and litigated, and the failure rate is much higher than sales in other areas. I believe that if we can direct resources to other areas, it is certainly more efficient from the standpoint of the business management side of things.
The other point is that we have a road system of approximately 380,000 miles. With the backlog that we have in reconstruction and maintenance, it is tough to justify building more.
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also like to respond to your point about the 100 million, and yes, even if you only lose one job, if it is your job——
Mr. REGULA. That is right.
Mr. DOMBECK [continuing]. You are out of work.
We understand that, and we would hope that as we assess the impacts on local communities specifically, that we could direct other types of opportunities there such as efforts to increase the maintenance and reconstruction of roads by contractors and other kinds of things. We will be looking for every option to soften the effects of this as much as possible.
Mr. REGULA. Do you have a policy of privatizing your construction and maintenance needs as much as possible?
Mr. DOMBECK. The construction and maintenance is done in a variety of ways. For example, Lemhigh Colony in Idaho does it for us through contract. I believe the largest portion of it would be done by contracting with local contractors.
Mr. REGULA. Well, I have a number of other questions, but I want to allow the other members the opportunity to ask their questions.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Could I just make one other point? One of the nice things about USDA is the fact that we have a very large rural development function. We work with water systems, sewer systems, and business development, and we have instructed our rural development folks to work with the Forest Service so that if, in fact, decisions are made which affect jobs or livelihoods, then, we can bring the resources of the entire Department of Agriculture as well as the Government to try to soften the blow.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are a lot of things that we can do.
Mr. REGULA. Yes; I will have more questions on the moratorium.
One last one: are you going to meet the targets for the allowable cut for 1998?
Mr. LYONS. Yes, we will meet our budget targets.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Skaggs.
Mr. SKAGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. While we have the Secretary here, I wanted to take advantage of his particularly distinguished service in this place as chairman of the Intelligence Committee to——
Secretary GLICKMAN. Scary.
INTELLIGENCE DATA
Mr. SKAGGS. It was a scary time; you are right, Dan.
I have been doing a survey with all of our witnesses about the usefulness of costs and benefits of the effort that the USGS manages for all of the public lands agencies in making intelligence products available for their purposes, whether it is forest fire management or erosion control, whatever it may be. I figured you might have a particular interest in that, given your work up here, and I wanted to get a Forest Service and, for that matter, departmental read on what you have been able to take advantage of from your involvement in that interagency process.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary GLICKMAN. Mike, do you want to answer? Are you involved in this process?
Mr. DOMBECK. I am not sure of the specific process, but we meet regularly with the U.S. Geological Survey. I have been in dialogue with Pat Shea to try to pull together all of the remote sensing resources in the most efficient manner that we can.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Go ahead.
Mr. LYONS. I was just going to point out that I also oversee the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and they have been involved in this whole Federal information effort to try to capitalize on remote sensing data. This includes information that is already available as well as the information that has been gleaned from the Defense Department which has been released from a secure status. This has amplified our ability to make projections with regard to resource needs, forest health and the like.
So, there is a unified Federal effort to try to use this information to the best of our ability.
Mr. SKAGGS. What I am trying to do, department or agency by agency, is to establish as concrete a record as possible about the usefulness of this, particularly in terms of early warning or other risk assessment that has enabled, in this case, the Forest Service or more broadly the department, steps to have been taken that save us money.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary GLICKMAN. Yes; from a general department perspective, you know, much of the satellite data that we use is not intelligence-related such as crop predictions. Of course, we work with intelligence agencies on reporting conditions within various countries such as crop reporting, weather, and other kinds of things. But I would have to get back to you with more specific information.
[The information follows:]
The Forest Service has participated in the Civil Applications Committee (CAC) since it was first chartered in 1975. We have worked through the CAC to develop a broad range of applications using intelligence data and products to augment and supplement commercial and other government imagery sources. Our original use of these assets was, with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to support topographical map revisions of National Forest lands. Over the years we have expanded our use of these systems to support a broad range of natural resource conservation and ecosystem management applications. These applications have included disaster preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery associated with wildland fires, floods, landslides, hurricane, tornadoes, insect and disease outbreaks, and drought. Agency missions and mandates have also benefited by the use of National Technical Means (NTM) data for natural resource inventory and monitoring, and development of conservation measures, and land management support.
In 1995, the Government Applications Task Force conducted a series of eight pilot projects to test the use of classified data to support civil agency missions. These projects led directly to the convening of renowned scientists in a collaborative applications effort. Two examples of these applications groups is MEDIA and Environmental Programs. The Forest Service has participated in these programs, sponsoring a pilot study on the detection of changes in alpine forests as an indicator for global change detection. More recently, the Forest Service has supported the Imagery Derived Product (IDP) program, which will provide unclassified data sets to support specific needs of critical agency programs. This year, the Forest Service was selected to participate in a cost-sharing initiative to create and establish automated and semi-automated IDP techniques and processes, and develop IDP production capabilities.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For several years, national imagery systems have been successfully used to protect lives, property and natural resources from the ravages of wildland fire in the United States. These systems augment conventional airborne fire mapping systems operated by the Forest Service. In cooperation and coordination with the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) located in Boise, ID and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), Disaster Response Team, requests for support are forwarded through the CAC to produce maps showing areas of active fires and intense burns. Once the fires are contained, IDPs are used to help in burned area emergency restoration efforts. In 1997, large fires raged in Alaska requiring the effective use of fire maps produced from national imaging systems.
Wildfires have recently created one of the worst environmental disasters in recorded history in Indonesia. Fire maps have been and are being produced from national imaging systems in cooperation with the NIMA, Disaster Response Team showing the location of active fires and intense burns. These maps are being made available via the Internet from the Forest Service. In 1997, these maps were used for fire suppression tactical support by the Department of Defence (DOD) and Forest Service working in Indonesia. These maps were also used to support international efforts in damage assessment and ecosystem restoration activities.
The Forest Service is also working with USGS and DOD to test the potential of using classified and commercial systems for early fire detection. If successful, this system has the potential to significantly improve our capability to detect and respond to wildland fires. A prototype capability will be operational by June 1998 and the Forest Service is working with other land management agencies and the USGS to develop testing procedures for the new facility.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF RECREATION
Mr. SKAGGS. Well, if you would be kind enough to get into the record a fuller treatment. Maybe, in your case, there simply is not that much that is going on compared to some of the other public lands agencies. But I wanted to get that.
Moving to what may be a context setting proposition for the debate about the roadless area moratorium, can you just paint for us the rough picture of the economic activity and contribution to GDP coming out of the national forests on the timbering side versus the recreation side?
Secretary GLICKMAN. I think maybe Jim might be able to do that the best.
Mr. LYONS. Well, the best information we have, Congressman, from our own Resources Planning Act assessment indicates that recreation, by and far, is contributing a great deal more to the gross domestic product than many of the other activities on the national forests. In fact, a survey that we have done indicates that by the year 2000, 75 percent of what the national forests contribute to the gross domestic product actually will come from recreation.
That does not diminish the importance of these other program activities and outputs, but it just indicates that I think that this element of our program is much more significant than we ever realized, and, of course, that is why this budget proposal seeks additional funds to support our recreation efforts.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SKAGGS. Well, staff just handed me the Economic Report of the President from a year ago which has a wonderful pie chart that says you were at three-quarters attributable to recreation even in 1993, with timbering being, my guess is, something like 5 percent and then other activities, grazing, mining, whatever. So, I just think that sense of perspective is important for us to have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Wamp.
OLYMPICS
Mr. WAMP. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, welcome again this year, and thank you for coming. I want to say publicly at the outset that the Forest Service, from my experience in East Tennessee, where I like to spend most of my time, has just been wonderful. The Forest Service personnel there are efficient, capable, innovative, and I really mean that. I do not need anything from them. We have that Olympic whitewater venue there in our district. It is kind of the crown jewel of the Cherokee National Forest now, and the Forest Service 10-year plan is ambitious, but it is just going to really capitalize on that Federal investment, and Ann Zimmerman and the entire team there are just fantastic people.
I have worked with them and toured creeks with them, and we have coordinated with Fish and Wildlife and USGS and all of the different agencies, and it is really a great example leading up to the Olympics and then the work following the Olympics in our region of how Government can work, even at this high level. And so, you probably will——
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary GLICKMAN. Thank you.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Mr. WAMP. Catch some grief today but not from me. But I want to ask this question. We had the Secretary of the Interior here last week, and we had hearings on this issue of backlog maintenance. It continues to be a puzzle to us that agencies under the Interior and Agriculture do not have a universally-adopted definition of backlog maintenance and that in both departments, there are some programs being requested that are not backlog at all, that are actually prospective.
There are new projects that are being lumped into backlog maintenance, and I think it is the will of this committee that we address these backlog needs. In order to do that effectively and efficiently, we have to determine, in both departments, Interior and Agriculture, what does backlog mean? Let us not throw things into backlog that are actually prospective. I just want to know if you are aware of that and if you plan to do something about it and what?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Yes, first I would like to say, in connection with the Cherokee forest and the Olympics that, we are involved in an even more active way with the 2002 Winter Olympics in the Salt Lake City area. We are providing the land mass, the resources for the downhill racing. It is a good example of public-private sector partnership.
Mr. REGULA. Will it cost us some extra money, then?
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LYONS. Minimally, we hope.
Mr. REGULA. We hope so, too.
Mr. LYONS. Yes, sir. [Laughter.]
I would address the question you raised, Congressman, and just point out that in large respect, I think Chairman Regula deserves the credit for raising the deferred maintenance issue a number of times. It has brought a lot of attention within the administration to this issue. It is one of the reasons we have brought forth our concern about our road maintenance and reconstruction backlog of $10.5 billion. This is the backlog for only 20 percent of the system, the portion of the system that actually gets 80 percent of the use.
We have also identified about a $2.5 billion backlog in our recreation facilities maintenance needs, and in part, the proposed increases in funding in the recreation program will help address those concerns.
We are working with the Department of the Interior, and I am working directly with John Berry, who heads up the policy shop over there, to try and get on top of this issue and come up with an appropriate way to respond to the issues that have been raised by this committee and by the chairman time and again. This is the investment that will support many communities and many interests. The whitewater venue, for example, is a showpiece, and unless we continue to invest in it, we run the risk of losing the value of the investment already made.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Jim, his question, though, relates to definition.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WAMP. Definition of backlog maintenance.
Secretary GLICKMAN. How do we deal with that?
Mr. LYONS. We are working with Interior to try to come up with an agreed approach. As is often the case, agencies have different ways of dealing with those particular issues. It just takes us sitting down and agreeing on how we are going to categorize these things.
Mr. WAMP. Just in all due respect, and I am only a year and a half on this committee, but I have been hearing that for a year and a half, and I understand my predecessors were hearing it 3 and a half years before I got here. So, it really is important that between here and next year's cycle, we have a definition that is universal, that this is backlog maintenance, and anything that is added into that particular area that does not qualify has to be put into another area so that it does not continue to be squeezed down.
Otherwise, we are going to end up having to, at some point, turn down legitimate programs just to keep these facilities open, I believe.
Mr. LYONS. Well, I will make a commitment: you will hear a different story next year. We will get it done.
Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Nethercutt.
EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr. Secretary, I came in when you were speaking about the delinking of county payments to timber receipts, the 25 percent that goes to schools, and I thought I heard you say that you proposed that the sustainable figure would be maintained by taking money out of EEP, the Export Enhancement Program.
Secretary GLICKMAN. The President's budget proposes changes in Step Two cotton and in the aggregate on EEP. I will get you the specifics in the next 2 days. Obviously, a lot of that relates to what you do in your subcommittee.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. And I appreciate that. And I am one who is frustrated with the department's lack of use of EEP in terms of the ag policy for the country. In my part of the state and across the country, we are facing low wheat prices. I am going to be assertive, frankly, Secretary, respective to the department to use the tools that have been given, including EEP, P.L. 480 and other agriculture programs that can help our farmers make it in this freer market environment.
So, I guess I am protective, certainly of——
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary GLICKMAN. Can I just make one comment here if I might?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Sure.
Secretary GLICKMAN. While this does not relate to the specific jurisdiction, the heart of our programs to move our commodities are in the GSM credit programs.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Right.
Secretary GLICKMAN. This involves billions of dollars to guarantee loans, in Korea, in Indonesia and in other countries. EEP is one of our tools, but based upon what I see now, the use of EEP will reduce world wheat prices, not increase them. It will be a subsidy to European consumers, and the Argentines and the Europeans will increase their subsidies to meet it.
What I want to try to do is find a way to build wheat prices up, which means legitimate market sales to get more grains sold in the world markets. I have not ruled out using EEP, but I want to make it clear that there is a lot of frustration out there. I understand that. People are saying do it, do it; move it, move it, get it done. But I do not want to do something that adds gasoline to the fire and causes prices to go down further.
There is a lot of wheat out there in the world right now. So, I only say to you that our goal is mutual: get prices up.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Right; and I understand that. I think we are going to have more debate on that but for another day.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Yes, okay.
ROAD MORATORIUM
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I know time is short here.
Mr. Lyons, I heard you testify that you are giving attention to and public comment on the roadless moratorium proposal. I will wage money that the policy is not tentative; it is not a proposal. We are going to be facing that policy permanently. I appreciate the fact that we need public comment on the proposal. Has the administration taken a position on the Peterson bill, to have a hearing in every single national forest that is affected by the roadless moratorium? If not, why not?
Mr. DOMBECK. I testified before the House Resources Committee on Tuesday, and our position is in opposition to that bill.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Why is that?
Mr. DOMBECK. There are two parts to the Peterson bill. First it calls for approximately 120 hearings around the country, and there are some areas where the roads issue is not controversial. So, we believe that it is not universally needed across the country. But where it is needed, we think it is important.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other part of the Peterson bill, requires that we not move forward with the temporary suspension of the road building if there are adverse economic effects; if there are any adverse effects on forest health or a third category. The fact is that part of multiple use management is that we cannot maximize every category of the resource. That is something that we do not do for any issue or area. That is our more significant concern about the bill, because it asks us to maximize forest health; it asks us to maximize economic return and other considerations, and it is difficult to do all three.
ECONOMIC RETURNS FROM FORESTS
Mr. NETHERCUTT. What is wrong with that? I heard the comment earlier that your return comes from recreation. That is entirely consistent, it seems to me, with these requirements in this bill.
Mr. DOMBECK. Well, what we do is balance uses.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Sure.
Mr. DOMBECK. There is not enough of everything to go around.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. You make judgments.
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, yes.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NETHERCUTT. And I guess the concern from those of us in the Northwest is that the judgments are going to be against economic return and in favor of some other predetermined policy decision about what is good for the people of that region. I guess I have a prejudice about what you are going into here, and I say it respectfully. I have had a good relationship with all of you as far as I am concerned, but there is great concern out there that there is some social engineering going on in terms of what is right for the forests—not for forest health but in terms of shifting away from any resource extraction in favor of recreation or preservation.
Forgive my prejudices, but that is what I am hearing from people on the ground in my region, and they are very concerned in the West about it. I have a lot of questions to ask you about the Interior Columbia Basin Project, which I think is a furtherance of this policy that may be underlying the decisions that you all are making, but I probably am out of time.
Mr. REGULA. Well, we have a vote on tropical rain forests and then a 5-minute vote on the Journal.
Can you come back, Mr. Miller?
Mr. MILLER. I am planning to come back.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Mr. MILLER. Will the Secretary be here? Or are you going to be——
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Well, I would like for you to stay.
Secretary GLICKMAN. I can stay until about 11:30.
Mr. REGULA. Okay; well, it will take us about 10 or 15 minutes to get through——
Secretary GLICKMAN. Okay.
Mr. REGULA. You have been through this.
Secretary GLICKMAN. No problem; do you want me to go vote for you?
[Laughter.]
Mr. SKEEN. There are no proxies anymore.
Secretary GLICKMAN. I cannot do that; that would be wrong.
Mr. Skeen, I would not do that to you.
Mr. SKEEN. You would vote right every time. [Laughter.]
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. We will reconvene as quickly as possible, because I know that members have a number of questions.
[Recess.]
Mr. REGULA. Okay; we will get started here.
You know how it goes, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary GLICKMAN. I know how it goes. Mr. Yates!
Mr. YATES. Hello, hello.
Secretary GLICKMAN. It is a pleasure to see you, sir.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Yates, would you like to get a couple of questions in before we get back to our other group?
Well, here is Mr. Dicks.
Mr. DICKS. Let him go ahead.
Mr. YATES. No, no; Dicks, you go ahead, because you have an interest in the Forest Service. [Laughter.]
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Okay, Mr. Dicks, you are on. And he was here earlier, anyhow.
PURCHASER ROAD CREDITS
Mr. DICKS. I want to welcome the Secretary here and Mr. Lyons and Mike, who have been working on a lot of these issues.
You know, one of the problems that we have had over the last couple of years has been on the whole roads issue. It has been, as you know, very controversial up here, and the administration, as I understand it now, has again proposed in its budget—this was not agreed to last year—to get rid of purchaser credit on timber sales, and I do not know whoever wants to take this question, but explain that. Explain why that decision was made and what should be done about the Purchaser Elect Program, which has been important to the smaller companies.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Jim?
Mr. LYONS. Well, the philosophy behind that change, Congressman, is simply to allow timber purchasers to assume the costs of road construction in their bids and to simplify the process. The Purchaser Credit Program provides essentially trading timber for roads, and the trading of credits, et cetera, has been a very complicated process.
The simple, straightforward way to do it would be simply to allow a bidder to look at the cost of road construction as well as the cost of acquiring timber and factor that into their bid.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DICKS. But, then, the department does the actual road construction, then, is that correct?
Mr. LYONS. Not for those purchasers who have the capacity to build the road themselves. For those who do not, we need to create a system that would allow the purchasers to elect to have the department build the road. That is the old Purchaser Elect Program.
Mr. YATES. I know.
Mr. DICKS. Well, as I understand it, some of the smaller companies cannot do it, do not have the financial wherewithal to do it. Then, they can elect to have the department do it, as I understand it.
Mr. YATES. Well, it is kind of hard. Suppose that a company that the department thinks can do it wants the department to do it? What do they decide in that case?
Mr. DICKS. I think there are limitations. Is there not a criterion, you have to be a certain size company, certain number of employees? Mike, do you want to——
Mr. DOMBECK. On the Purchaser Elect, without purchaser credit, there would be a modification required. However, the Purchaser Elect is available for companies with 500 employees or less, and this has typically been used by companies that do not have the capital to make the investment up front.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YATES. So, there is that limitation.
Mr. DOMBECK. Correct, yes.
Mr. YATES. Okay; thank you.
ROAD BUDGET
Mr. DICKS. Now, how much money this year is in your road budget? Can you describe it?
Mr. LYONS. Well, Congressman, to try to clarify the road budget, we offered a different display of the road funding this year. We worked some with the committee staff on it to make sure that there was some understanding of what it looked like and that there was agreement to clarify the confusion that has occurred in the past about roads. We have broken this out into a number of categories.
Mr. YATES. Do you know what page it is on, the document you are looking at?
Mr. LYONS. Well, the document I am working from is our summary document on page 38. It is in the more detailed explanatory notes in a different place; I apologize for that.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But basically, we have identified the overhead in program management costs for all construction and reconstruction activities. Then, we have identified the engineering support for new construction and reconstruction and broken that out as well as the engineering support for timber; that is, for the roads that would be built by timber purchasers for which we would actually do the engineering work. In addition, we have tried to break out, or we have identified the funds that would be allocated to road maintenance and the funds that would be provided for roads and trails maintenance by each state.
So, the total for the Forest Road Program, Congressman, is about $96 million, and that includes engineering support for timber, our actual cost for new construction and reconstruction as well as the overhead for the program.
Mr. DICKS. Okay; so, reconstruction is $26 million, right?
Mr. LYONS. Correct.
Mr. DICKS. And new construction is $1 million?
Mr. LYONS. That is right; we only propose to build 7.5 miles of new road this year. That is for general access.
Mr. DICKS. And then, road maintenance; this is a different category than reconstruction, right? Because——
Mr. LYONS. Correct.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DICKS. And that is a total of $107 million.
Mr. LYONS. Right.
Mr. DICKS. Now, one of the problems here, you know, in our area of the world is that a lot of these roads are contributing to environmental problems, that you have washouts. You have sediment going into the rivers, et cetera, and so, being able to properly maintain these roads; in fact, a lot of the money, when we talk about watershed restoration, Mr. Secretary, a lot of the money that we got for watershed restoration under the President's program wound up being used to fix roads. About 80 percent of it in Washington State was used to fix roads.
Now, you know, frankly, there is such a small amount of watershed restoration money, I would like to see it used more for fixing of the culverts and other things rather than having it come out of—and winding up taking our watershed restoration money and using it for road maintenance. But if you listen to the people who are concerned about the fish, and I am one of those, the salmon issues, they say that the roads do more to contribute to the sedimentation and those problems.
ROAD MORATORIUM
Now, if you are going to have a timber program, on the other hand, you must still have some roads out there, and the one thing that I wanted to ask you, too, because this is somewhat controversial—the administration, now, in some areas, where you do not have current planning, declared a moratorium on any new roads. But that does not mean you would not necessarily have access to that timber. I mean, is it not possible to do things like helicopter logging, things of that nature, so even if you are not building the new roads does not mean you are not going to be harvesting some of the timber in those areas?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Will you yield?
Mr. DICKS. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. If you do helicopter logging, do you not have to have a road for the people to go in and cut with tools and so on?
Mr. LYONS. You do that from the existing road network, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary GLICKMAN. In most cases, you would not need new roads.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Mike might be able to answer that more specifically.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you.
Mr. DOMBECK. First of all, this is a proposal.
Mr. REGULA. Right.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. It is in a public comment period at this point, and that public comment period closes on March 30. Since the proposal was made public, and we have been able to review the data more closely we have found that we can often go ahead and do the forest management job in many areas without road building. Some sales of timber have helicopter logging alternatives, which are less economic up front. But then, we are not saddled with the costs of the long-term maintenance of that road for decade after decade.
So, there are a variety of options. I can say that some of the engineers in California have told us that we could probably do the forest management job today with about half of the roads that might have been designed and put in there 15 or 20 or 30 years ago. And this, again, accentuates the need to review at this policy and continually search for new technologies and different ways to get in there and do the job.
The proposal, I want to reemphasize again, is only about road building or reconstruction. It is not about land allocations; it is not about changing anything else. It is about the activity of road building.
Mr. DICKS. Well, one other point I wanted to—again, anything we can do to educate members up here about this roads issue, to explain that, one, we have a problem, and we need to get some funding in ISTEA, hopefully, for this but that we have got to explain that a lot of this money is being used to maintain the existing roads, and if we do not do that, we are going to have deterioration in clean water and other issues.
The other thing I just wanted to raise briefly, Mr. Chairman—I appreciate your being a little bit flexible here—with the Secretary is the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. We see this in Washington State. The Governor has just put in some money at my request and urging to get this; we took Park Shackleford of your staff out there. We see the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program as having tremendous applicability in both Washington and Oregon and in the West generally, but we think that is a very good program, and we want to work with you on that.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Miller?
Mr. MILLER. These questions will continue later? We will have another round with the Forest Service? Yes; I have some questions of the Forest Service, but since I have a chance to talk to you on some other issues, I thought I would bring them up.
Basically, on the logging issue, I am probably very supportive of your position. So, you have one supporter in this group.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Okay. [Laughter.]
Mr. REGULA. By that do you mean the moratorium?
Mr. DICKS. He means everything. [Laughter.]
Mr. MILLER. I look at it from a corporate welfare standpoint.
However, let me ask——
Mr. DICKS. Have you ever heard of building houses in this country? You know, the stuff does not just immaculately fall out of the——
Mr. MILLER. I do hope, by the way, to make a trip out to some—and see, get a better, first-hand view of the logging issues.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DICKS. It would be difficult to learn something about it.
METHYL BROMIDE
Mr. MILLER. But anyway, let me ask a question about methyl bromide. As you know, that is getting ready to be banned in the United States in less than 3 years, and it will be devastating to Southern agriculture, including California and Florida and such, the concern is that Mexico and other countries continue to use it. Two questions, what are you doing, and what do you see can happen as far as having to have this level playing field with countries like Mexico? And then, have you done any analysis of the economic impact of this ban on methyl bromide? I am told by my farmers in my area that we are going to devastate their ability to compete with Mexico.
Secretary GLICKMAN. There are alternatives, but they are not all very feasible.
Mr. MILLER. Right.
Secretary GLICKMAN. We have basically directed our Agriculture Research Service through Mr. Skeen's committee to try to come up with substitutes and alternatives. We are involved with international agreements on methyl bromide, but I, too, am worried about making sure that the playing field is level. Notwithstanding our compliance with various agreements in the international arena, we continue to try to deal with that issue and to ensure that we do not shoot ourselves in the foot in the process.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I do not have any good, hard answers for you except that we are doing our best to redouble the dollars that are available in research, both internally and through the land grant schools, to try to come up with some alternatives that are feasible to be used by the time that the deadline clicks in.
Mr. MILLER. Do you know if there has been any economic analysis of what the impact of that would be on agriculture yet?
Secretary GLICKMAN. I am sure we do, but I do not have the information off the top of my head.
Mr. YATES. Why is it being eliminated?
Mr. MILLER. They consider it bad for the environment. And so——
Secretary GLICKMAN. Scientists pretty much agree that methyl bromide ought to be phased out.
Mr. MILLER. Right.
Secretary GLICKMAN. The problem has to do with the compliance by Third World countries versus the U.S. and who gets a little break in terms of the time period for compliance and whether our producers are being put at a disadvantage.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MILLER. And there is no alternative for it.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Right now, there is no alternative.
Mr. MILLER. It is used as, in my area, for tomatoes, to sterilize the ground between crops. And so, there is no alternative. When there is an alternative, the farmers will change.
The other areas used simply are shipping products into the United States and as a pesticide or fumigant. It is about the only powerful one they can use in ports and so, for agricultural importation, it is critical, too. So, they want to change, and, it is just a matter of getting the alternative. So, you are putting the research into it. Vic Fazio is working on trying to get something. If there is some way we can get some help, push along the administration to agree to something that we can legislatively do, our concern is the competition with Mexico. So, it is a California issue as much as it is a Florida issue.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Our deputy secretary was former director of the Agriculture Department of the State of California.
Mr. MILLER. Right.
Secretary GLICKMAN. He is intimately involved in working on this issue.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MILLER. Any help you can push would be appreciated, and Mr. Fazio is working with us on this.
EVERGLADES AND SUGAR
The other question I want to ask about is on the Everglades and sugar. The chairman and I were down in the Everglades in January seeing what was happening. There is an extremely complex program going on down there with, 23 different Federal and state agencies, including the Department of Agriculture. The problem we have, it seems, is we have a conflicting policy with the Federal Government. We are spending billions of dollars to get the Everglades back, and a lot of it is caused by population growth and such.
But we also have a Federal policy to encourage overproduction of sugar in those areas and the overvaluation of the land that sugar is grown on. We are having to buy all of this land from the sugar companies for the Everglades, which we agree that we need to buy it, but because we have doubled the world price on sugar, it makes it very expensive. So, it seems like we are wasting Federal dollars, because one Federal policy, the sugar program, encourages overproduction, overvaluation, and then, we are spending all of this money trying to correct it. How do you explain that to somebody?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Let me just say, Mr. Miller, that Congress had an opportunity in the 1996 farm bill to deal with sugar policy, and it chose to deal with it in the way that it did, and we administer that policy as fairly as possible. [Laughter.]
I mean, that is about the best I can tell you. [Laughter.]
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I mean, sugar is a complicated policy. It has different roots than the other commodities. We also have a great amount of sugar being grown by beet producers. This is now a major factor which we did not have 50 or 60 years ago.
There were some changes in the sugar policy last year that the new farm bill made, but ultimately, it is a policy decision that Congress has got to decide on.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Skeen? [Laughter.]
Mr. SKEEN. Ball two.
Mr. Secretary, I came down to see how they were treating you down here, and they already have your jacket off. [Laughter.]
This is a tough outfit. I just wanted to say that I appreciate the coordination and the cooperation that we have. I also wanted to say we have very serious problems, particularly those on international trade and the rest. So, I have no questions for you. I think we have just about exhausted you, so, I will give you a little chance here to talk about sugar.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Thank you.
Mr. SKEEN. By the way, I went down and visited Florida. It is quite an engineering feat they are using to address a very serious problem.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary GLICKMAN. I will have to say that the Government overall is putting extensive resources into Everglades-related issues. Our soil conservationists, technicians, engineers with NRCS, which is our old Soil Conservation Service, are actively engaged in this effort.
Mr. SKEEN. I yield back.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Yates.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to join my good friends in congratulating you and commending you upon the superb job you have done as secretary. It could not have been a very easy thing to move from the legislative branch to the executive branch, but you have made the transition very well. And from this urban dweller's point of view, I think you are a great Secretary. I do not know what the farmers think but——
[Laughter.]
Mr. YATES. I think you are terrific.
Mr. DICKS. I love him. He giveth with the right hand, taketh with the left.
LITIGATION
Mr. YATES. Anyway, tell me what is going on between the Department and the environmental groups? Are they still suing to keep you from carrying out timber contracts?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary GLICKMAN. Well I am a defendant in lots of lawsuits.
Mr. YATES. I bet you are.
Secretary GLICKMAN. And I would say that I do not know if the pace of litigation has slowed down at all. It seems to have slowed a little bit.
Mr. YATES. Well, it should slow down if you are cutting your contracts should it not?
Secretary GLICKMAN. It has certainly not slowed down at all the last few years.
Mr. YATES. Well, but you had not slowed the pace, then, really, had you?
Mr. TAYLOR. But you cannot scare people to give money unless you are suing them.
Mr. YATES. I am sorry?
Mr. TAYLOR. You cannot scare people to give money unless you are suing, and that has nothing to do with cutting.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary GLICKMAN. Let me make this point, and then, I would like to ask one of my colleagues on this side to respond to the issue of the amount of litigation. My philosophy is that I am not in this job to please the environmentalists or to please the timber industry. We get pulled. I must tell you that on these issues, you get pulled both ways very, very hard, and as I have said, the forests have multiple purposes and multiple roles.
We have probably given more emphasis to recreation and the protection of the environment than was the case in previous years, but I also still believe that there is a role for responsible and sustainable harvesting of the forests as well. There are some people who want to see no cut, period. That is not my philosophy, and that is not the philosophy of the Chief of the Forest Service.
There are some people who think that we are far, far too stingy in the amount of timber that we are allowing to be cut. I think that they fail to take into account the other uses of the forest, including the water issue that I talked about before. It is always a question of balance, and usually, when you try to walk down the middle of the road, you end up pleasing nobody, but I think we are generally doing the right thing.
Mr. YATES. Okay; well, I knew that there had been a lot of lawsuits in previous years, and I knew that you had announced that the size of your timber cut would not be as great. I thought, perhaps, that they were laying off of you to some extent. But it is too early to know whether that will happen or not.
ROAD MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thought I saw somewhere in your statement that you have a backlog of about $10 billion in road maintenance.
Secretary GLICKMAN. That is correct.
Mr. YATES. How are you going to take care of that?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Mr. Lyons?
Mr. LYONS. We need your help.
We hope to tackle it a number of ways. The 1999 budget proposal includes requests for increased funding for road maintenance. But even that will only get our program up to where we can maintain 45 percent of our major roads to standard. The Secretary indicated earlier that we have 380,000 miles of road in the national forest system. About 86,000 get most of the use, and we are really focusing on the maintenance of those roads and bridges.
We have 7,000 bridges, 1,000 of which have been deemed deficient already.
Mr. YATES. Have been deemed deficient?
Mr. LYONS. That is right, they have been deemed deficient from a safety standpoint or a structural standpoint.
Mr. YATES. Are you still using them?
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LYONS. Well, we try not to.
Mr. YATES. Well, no, I did not ask you that.
Mr. LYONS. Yes, I imagine that in some places we are.
And we know that we need to continue maintenance on those bridges at a rate of 150 to 200 a year, but we only have adequate funds for 40. It is not an issue that can be dealt with solely by this committee, and I want to thank the committee for the support provided last year in increased road maintenance funding. That helped some.
But what we really need is some support from the Transportation Committee and perhaps some funds from the ISTEA program to get at the backlog, and we have talked to some of the members of that committee. I know Chairman Regula was helpful in talking that issue through with us the other day.
A $10.5 billion backlog cannot be cleaned up under the current circumstances we face. We have to get at it with a larger pot of funds.
Mr. YATES. Well, as a matter of fact, it will probably increase, will it not.
Mr. LYONS. It will increase if we do not get on top of it. It is accelerating because at the current pace we are only maintaining 40 percent of the system to standard.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GRAZING PROGRAM
Mr. YATES. Does the Department of Agriculture have a rental system like they do in Interior for renting Federal land for—what is it now—$2 a month?
Mr. DICKS. You mean like the BLM program.
Mr. YATES. Yes, BLM.
Mr. LYONS. The grazing program?
Mr. YATES. Grazing program.
Mr. LYONS. Yes, we do have a large grazing program.
Mr. YATES. You do have?
Mr. LYONS. Yes.
Mr. YATES. And it still costs a lot of money, does it not?
Mr. LYONS. Well, hopefully, we will improve the efficiency of that program, but our rental rates are consistent with Interior's. That is set by executive order.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YATES. Yes; I see; of course, that is the problem. How do they compare with state rates?
Mr. LYONS. Well, they vary, but, in general, I am sure private rates and the rates in certain states are higher than those on the lands we administer.
Mr. YATES. Significantly?
Mr. LYONS. In certain places, yes, sir.
Mr. YATES. Can you put a comparison in the record?
Mr. LYONS. I would rather provide you that information for the record, but we could do that.
Mr. YATES. That is what I asked you.
Mr. LYONS. Yes, sir, we can do that.
[The information follows:]
The livestock grazing fee for 1998 is $1.35 per month for each ''head-month'' of grazing use on the National Forests. This is the rate charged on the National Forests and National Grasslands in the western States. The following table displays the rates charged by western States where livestock grazing is taking place. The ''per-head'' rate is that rate most comparable to the head-month rate used in the Forest Service.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. YATES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Let me say to the committee members that it is my understanding that the tropical forests bill will finish between 1:00 and 1:30, it is still up in the air whether we will go forward with the State Department reauthorization. If not, we will be finished voting around 1:30. So, what I would anticipate is we go forward with two members who have not yet had a chance to ask you questions, Mr. Secretary. I would like if they could, and then, we will keep going until we adjourn the committee, rather than trying to break.
So, Mr. Taylor.
TIMBER SALVAGE SALES
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, we have had these discussions before. Our best schools have schools of forestry, and we ignore them. About 2 years ago, we set out a group of educators from all across the country and put together a report, which they did. They presented it about a year ago to Congress. Then, they asked for a peer review of the study, and the information came back without serious scientific fault.
You have experimental stations that you, the Forest Service, maintain as well as private and state experimentation. Now, all of those, and let us focus on one area, because I do not have the time, but all of those are consistent that salvage, for instance, is essential for forest health. We are bringing in insects because we are bringing in more imports. We are creating fires. We have disease and insect spreads all over the country.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Yet, when we had a very modest salvage bill, it was fought by the administration, I suppose, to pander to the 1996 election, and, in fact, it was stopped about a half a month earlier than what the Congress had put in the actual bill, which I think is illegal. But to see that kind of action on behalf of the department when all of the evidence says this is for the forest's health; we had a very modest situation here, and, of course, there was the pandering, the hue and cry that it was being abused in some way. And yet, every investigation showed that it was not.
And just looking at that one area before I go into other areas, how can we say that we are managing the forests on a scientific basis when we ignore all of that? I know you folks have reviewed; we gave you a copy of the scientific report and so forth. Open to question at any time.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Mike or Jim, do you want to respond?
Mr. TAYLOR. I do not want it to go more than about a minute, because I would like to ask another question, if I could.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Well, let us talk about the salvage and then let me comment quickly.
Mr. LYONS. Congressman Taylor, I would point out that, consistent with the Congressional direction under the salvage rider, the administration exceeded the commitment that Secretary Glickman made to the speaker in terms of the volume that would be generated under the salvage program. We followed through on our commitment.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TAYLOR. Why did you stop it a half a month early?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Well, our instruction to the field was to start to transition back to a normal timber sale program. We had quite a bit of volume that had already been prepared under the salvage program. We wanted to clean that out and deal with the normal program, so we were simply transitioning.
Mr. TAYLOR. The law, I think, required you to go through December 31, and that was a commitment in writing by the President, and you stopped it early.
But let us go beyond that and say if that was a good idea, why are we not doing that every year instead of ignoring it?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Well, Congressman, I would just point out that of our proposed timber offer for 1999, nearly a third is salvage. We are trying to respond by shifting the program to address forest health concerns focused primarily on salvage.
Mr. TAYLOR. But you probably have way more than $30 billion of free board feet that are going to rot right in the forest now. So, it is like you are making an effort right now. It is way below what you were doing even during the salvage legislation, and it is very far below what is needed.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Mike may want to add a comment about the forest health issue. I think that underlying your question is the desire to make sure that we do what we need to do to deal with diseased, insect-infested or dying timber.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. I think we are in agreement in several areas, and one is that active management is required. We need to do a better job integrating timber sales and timber harvests with the forest health issue and with the urban wildland fire issue, and I would say that the dialogue that I would like to enter into over the course of the next couple of years involves the incentive systems. When we take a look at timber salvage, this gets us into the issue of below-cost timber sales, because much of this is lower value wood.
In my view, we should not even be talking about below-cost timber sales. We should be talking about the condition that we want in the forests and then, how do we get there.
Mr. TAYLOR. Certainly.
Mr. REGULA. Do you have another question, a brief one?
PROFITABILITY OF TIMBER SALES
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; the last year, I think it was just announced that you lost money in 1996, Mr. Secretary. Did you consider firing your undersecretary if you lost $15 million? I certainly would have in my company, because we do not have—you have almost a zero basis in your land, and we have much higher than that. And yet, we do not lose money, and yet, we have excellent wildlife proposals. And we are not sided; we plant roads and things of that nature.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Why did you make that announcement when the GAO says the Forest Service lacks adequate controls to ensure that all billings for timber sales and other revenue-generating activities submitted are accurately recorded? And, in fact, you really cannot make that statement, because your information seems to be faulty. Why would you make a statement like that when your books are really—it is impossible?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Well, Mike, are you going to comment on this? Because I need to make a comment as well.
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes; some of the things that have changed over time are that we are doing about 84 percent less clear-cutting over the last decade, and that about 70 percent of the timber sales that are being offered now have objectives beyond getting the cut out. They are the kinds of things we have been talking about dealing with: forest health issues and other types of things. I believe the direction we are going in is to better integrate timber harvests into our other watershed forest needs in order to maintain the long-term health of the forests.
But one of the questions I always ask myself is why is it that we wait for a forest to have severe problems and then salvage it? Why is it that we are not practicing the appropriate silvaculture on the land to keep it healthy? I think that is where we want to move forward.
Mr. TAYLOR. But you cannot do that if you are not cutting and you are now——
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Secretary, you wanted to make a comment?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Well, I read the GAO report, and it struck me that the inference of that report was to cut timber to make money; the Forest Service was a money-generating operation. they are no longer generating money in the traditional way. My perspective on that is that I did not believe the statute required us to be a money-generating operation.
Mr. TAYLOR. That is not my question. I know that is not the mission they said that you wanted to do. But what the GAO said is that it lacks adequate controls to ensure that all billings for timber sales and other revenue-generating activities are submitted and accurately recorded and recognized.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Okay.
Mr. TAYLOR. And that has entirely——
Secretary GLICKMAN. Okay; that is a fiscal audit issue. Those issues are serious ones, and they are being addressed.
Mr. REGULA. And I think perhaps you should provide Mr. Taylor with——
Secretary GLICKMAN. Yes.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA [continuing]. A more complete response for the record.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. Because I have the same question.
Secretary GLICKMAN. That question needs to be specifically responded to.
Mr. REGULA. Yes.
Secretary GLICKMAN. I agree with that.
[The information follows:]
The Forest Service recognizes its weakness in the area of financial statements and is currently in the process of improving its financial situation through such initiatives as its effort to implement a new accounting system know as FFIS (Foundation Financial Information System).
Although the difficulties with our current accounting procedures are not specific to the Timber Sale Program Information Reporting System (TSPIRS), which is used to compile the financial information presented in our Forest Management Program Annual Report, the data compiled from the accounting system by TSPIRS could be affected. Recognizing this, there was considerable internal discussion about whether or not the agency should release a TSPIRS report in FY 1996. The decision to release was based upon two considerations that were felt to overshadow any potential inaccuracies in the financial data. These were: 1) the fact that the report is prepared at the request of Congress; and 2) the fact that failure to release a report, in the first year the program appears to have lost money, would almost certainly have been perceived as an attempted cover-up. We do not know for sure that the timber sales program lost exactly $14.7 million in FY 1996; but we strongly feel this is the best estimate of actual loses based on the information we have.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is our harvest data, not our accounting data, that document the timber program's continuing shift away from timber commodity and towards forest stewardship purpose sales. This shift means that decisions regarding sale design are being made less and less on the basis of commercial considerations, and more on the basis of considerations such as forest health related objectives; for example, reducing the risk of catastrophic fire.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Moran?
Mr. YATES. Mr. Moran, would you yield for just one question?
Mr. MORAN. Sure.
TIMBER SALVAGE
Mr. YATES. Mr. Secretary, was part of the reason for stopping that program not because of the criticism that it did receive because it went far beyond the actual salvage of the forest but because it was cutting down the green trees as well?
Mr. TAYLOR. I would like to hear that.
Mr. REGULA. I think the law allowed the green trees to be cut.
Mr. TAYLOR. There was never any proof after I think it was about 12 or 14 investigations that showed that any ringed timber other than that affected was ever involved.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DICKS. Let us be honest about this, too. I mean, scientifically, you know, there is going to be some timber adjacent——
Mr. TAYLOR. Sure.
Mr. DICKS [continuing]. To the diseased timber that if you are going to try to stop the disease, you have to take it out.
Mr. TAYLOR. Sure.
Mr. DICKS. I mean, that is a scientific requirement. That is not some malicious, terrible eco-attack.
Mr. REGULA. Let us get a comprehensive answer for the record and please send a copy to Mr. Taylor. I think he has a very legitimate concern.
[The information follows:]
The emergency salvage provisions as provided for in Section 2001(b) of the 1995 Rescissions Act requires that salvage timber sale contracts be offered prior to December 31, 1996 (Section 2001(j)). According to contract law, a timber sale is considered offered only when the Forest Service receives the bids for the advertised timber. Salvage sales were advertised for 14 days. Given these conditions, the agency started the transition to the expiration of the emergency provisions on December 13, 1996 by withholding any future advertisements of salvage sales under the emergency provisions. Any salvage sale advertised under the emergency provisions but not receiving valid bids before December 31, 1996 would not have qualified for the provisions and would have needed to be reworked to meet all NEPA requirements, including full public participation and legal review. It was not prudent for the agency to solicit bids for salvage sales that could not be offered before the expiration of the emergency provisions.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. Yes; I do not think Mr. Yates was suggesting that people should not use common sense but that they should exercise judgment just in determining——
Mr. DICKS. That is correct. I am not suggesting it either.
INCOME FROM RECREATION
Mr. MORAN. No, I know.
I think you are doing a hell of a job, Mr. Secretary, and I appreciate the work that you are doing and the guidance that you have given. Might as well get it on the record.
Speaking of money, the Forest Service just concluded a study that showed that the income from recreational activities is going to be five times as much as the income from extraction activities by the year 2002.
Mr. TAYLOR. Look at how many people are using it.
Mr. MORAN. Yes; that is right; that is an excellent chart. We can put that in for the record right here.
Mr. REGULA. Without objection.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. MORAN. Do you find that communities around the country are starting to realize this trend and benefiting from all of the tourism and the recreational opportunities on forest lands, particularly areas that used to be almost solely concentrating on timber harvest production are now looking toward tourism and recreation; and, of course, that means that they have to put in restaurants and lodging and so on. They have to put in the infrastructure. Do you see that taking place in anticipation of this economic growth potential?
Secretary GLICKMAN. There is extensive rural development going on in and around our forests to take advantage of the multiple uses of our forests, recognizing that there is still a role for timber cutting but that there are enhanced roles for other functions as well. One of the great things about the Forest Service being in USDA is that every state has a rural development state director whose job it is to promote water systems, sewer systems, business and industry development and working with the Forest Service to provide the kind of a venue for infrastructure improvements to get this kind of development.
You do have a lot more community interest in this. Trying to establish entrepreneurship is not often as easy as I would like it to be in some of these areas which are particularly remote, but it is a high priority with us.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. Well, I am not surprised. That really seems to be the economic bridge. It is not that people are so gung ho about harvesting forests as much as the jobs that are involved bringing revenue into areas that have been economically disadvantaged, and if we can provide an infrastructure to bring in revenue for other purposes, we will have, perhaps, a more stable source of income.
ROAD PROGRAM NEEDS
The other thing I just wanted to raise if I could, Mr. Chairman, to put this road moratorium into perspective, how many miles of new roads were you slated to build in last year's budget? And what percentage of total roads would those new roads have represented? Do we have a figure on that?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Mr. Lyons, do you have those numbers?
Mr. LYONS. You asked for new road construction as a percentage of total roads?
[The information follows:]
The planned construction of new system roads for FY 1998 is 11.1 miles from appropriated funds and 503.7 miles by timber purchasers, for a total of 514.8 miles. That's an increase of 0.14 percent in system miles.
Mr. MORAN. Yes, as a percentage in last year's budget. And then, the other thing that I wanted to ask while you are getting that is to tie it in to the previous question. Is the road building moratorium going to reduce recreational access to the forests? Or do you think, in your judgment, we already have enough roads to adequately access those areas for most recreational users?
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information follows:]
To respond to your question on recreation access, the road moratorium has no significant effect. There would be less than two miles nationally of road being constructed or reconstructed primarily for the purpose of recreation access within roadless areas. Therefore, the majority of pre-existing recreation access continues.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Well, we have 380,000 miles of roads. Many of them are not being properly maintained, because there are not enough funding resources although we are maintaining those roads that are actively involved in recreation usage. You know, the big problem we have is the inadequacy of resources to deal with this backlog of maintenance needs on the roads that we already have.
Mr. MORAN. So, it is not so much building new roads as much as you would consider a higher priority really adequately maintaining the existing road network.
Mr. LYONS. That is correct; certainly, for the recreational activities, that is correct.
Mr. DICKS. Would the gentleman yield just on one point that Mr. Lyons made with some of us that he met with yesterday? He is actually having to shut down some roads because of a lack of maintenance funding and bridge funding; is that not correct?
Mr. LYONS. That is correct. With the budget situation, for example, we face circumstances where we have to shut down the system for public safety concerns. And so, unfortunately, without the investment in maintenance, we are seeing a shutdown.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TAYLOR. Would the gentleman yield on that?
Mr. MORAN. Yes; let me just make a point, and then, you can probably respond to that, too, Charles, while you are at it.
It just seemed to me with all of the reaction that occurred with the 18-month moratorium that it is interesting to put this in perspective, that the real priority is having the resources to maintain the road network we currently have even greater than——
Secretary GLICKMAN. I did not mean to leave the impression it was only for recreation.
Mr. MORAN. Yes, sure.
Secretary GLICKMAN. It is also for the timber interests as well.
Mr. MORAN. Charles?
Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman that we—in 1996, we built 147 in new roads. We took out 1,440. Ten times as many were obliterated. And that is what concerns a lot of us about why we need the 18-month moratorium.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Lyons, do you want to respond to that?
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LYONS. I think that I prefer to give you accurate figures on that. That is not the figures I have, Congressman Taylor. So, we would have to get you that information.
I would tell you, for example, that, in the 1999 proposal we would actually propose to increase the number of miles decommission roads to 3,500 miles, which is the biggest increase that we have seen. We know from current forest plans, this is information generated at the forest level, that we have about a 40,000 mile backlog of inventoried and uninventoried roads which could be decommissioned over a 10-year period. This has been determined through a public planning process.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit as part of the record with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service fact sheet, and that is with the figures I just quoted.
Mr. REGULA. Without objection, this will be made part of the record.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. TAYLOR. I would hope the Secretary would read that.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORAN. I do not want to impose on your indulgence any more, Mr. Chairman. I know we are on a tight time frame. So, I will conclude.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Mr. REGULA. We will continue; however, Mr. Secretary, I think you have to go. Let me just comment that I would like to stress that you work with the agency, and your role is to enhance the accountability. Mr. Taylor touched on that, and I think it is a serious problem.
Secretary GLICKMAN. That is a fair question, and we will respond specifically to that. There is no question that the Forest Service has administrative management challenges. We are working along with our Chief Financial Officer and Mike Dombeck and our IG to update and modernize their accounting systems, information systems and the like.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. REGULA. Yes?
Mr. DICKS. Is there any estimate of how much money is not being collected?
Mr. REGULA. I do not think they really know; am I correct?
Well, in any event, if you have that for the record, please provide it.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary GLICKMAN. We will provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
The Forest Service has not estimated how much money is not being collected to recover costs associated with some services. However, the Agency is currently reviewing the appropriateness of cost recovery regulations for processing and administering authorizations, i.e., primarily special use authorizations, for the occupancy and use of National Forest System (NFS) lands. The issue of recovering costs for services historically provided by the Agency at no charge to applicants can be very controversial. The issue was also raised in a 1998 GAO report where fair market value cost recovery for goods or services such as resort lodges, marinas, guide services, private recreational cabins, and the like were mentioned. Previously, Forest Service management had not proposed that the Secretary of Agriculture promulgate regulations for the recovery of costs to the United States related to special use authorization applications. Costs eligible for recovery in association with special use authorizations may include costs of special studies, environmental impact statements, monitoring construction, operation, maintenance and termination of any authorized facility, or other special activities.
Mr. REGULA. But I do think it is a serious problem. It requires the attention of everyone in the agency. We reserve the right to have you back. It all depends how we work it out. And let me say particularly, the President's budget request is based on a lot of user fees, which I do not believe the public will embrace. Given that fact, we are probably going to have to prioritize in the use of the funds that are available, and we would like to work with you and get your input on any prioritizing we have to do based on what is reality as far as the funds we have available.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary GLICKMAN. I understand the controversy about user fees because Mr. Skeen and I have talked a lot about them in other areas of the department. What we have found in the case of recreation user fees is that the public is very supportive if they know that the collections are going into something that they see every day.
Mr. REGULA. Well, those are the fees that you collect at the gate. But, many of these user fees are something entirely different.
We appreciate your coming, and I understand you will stay, Mr. Dombeck.
Secretary GLICKMAN. Yes, Mr. Dombeck will stay to answer the detailed questions.
Mr. REGULA. Okay; Mr. Dicks?
Secretary GLICKMAN. Thank you.
Mr. DICKS. Are you back to me?
Mr. REGULA. Yes.
[The following questions and answers were submitted for the record:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thursday, March 19, 1998 and Tuesday, March 31, 1998.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
WITNESSES
MICHAEL P. DOMBECK, CHIEF
ROBERT JOSLIN, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
ROBERT LEWIS, DEPUTY CHIEF, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
JANICE McDOUGLE, ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
CLYDE THOMPSON, ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF, OPERATIONS
RON STEWART, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS AND LEGISLATION
FRANCIS PANDOLFI, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Would you like to put any statement in the record?
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chief's Opening Remarks
Mr. DOMBECK. I would like to make just some very brief comments.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Mr. DOMBECK. And introduce some of my staff.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here to answer your questions. I would like to take a moment to highlight some issues that I have been thinking about and talk a little bit about budget priorities. I have been in the job now about 15 months. The goals I have been focusing on are: restoring and maintaining the health of the land within the context of multiple-use management; ensuring accountability for what we do on the land; our financial resources and business systems; civil rights of our employees; and promoting collaborative stewardship partnerships and decisions based upon the best science.
As you know, the Forest Service has a National Forest System of 191 million acres, a very significant research program, and also a State and Private Forestry program that provides assistance important to many, many people.
On March 2, I delivered an address to employees where I outlined an agenda we have been developing for some time based upon much input from employees, many, many meetings, and many years of professional forest management assistance by the Forest Service employees. I am really focusing on four key areas with this agenda: watershed health and restoration; sustainable forest management; the forest road system; and recreation. I would be happy to discuss any of those areas with you or any of the members of the committee.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I do want to close in mentioning one issue that is very, very important to me. That is the combined issue of accountability, financial management, data systems, and performance measures. As of February 7 this year, the level of concern over accountability is very high. We have more than 100 separate audits going on conducted by the General Accounting Office and the USDA Office of the Inspector General. I want to assure you that accountability and our business management practices are very, very high on my list. We are going to be moving forward aggressively to address those issues. I would invite the committee, as well as other members of Congress, to work with us. The situation has evolved over time. It is something that, if any of us could snap our fingers to fix it instantly, we would like to do just that.
So, I ask you for your support and cooperation in highlighting something very important to me and the Forest Service.
I have with me Bob Joslin, Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, and in the empty chair here, I hope to utilize other leadership of the Forest Service: Clyde Thompson is Acting Deputy Chief in charge of operations; Robert Lewis is Deputy Chief in charge of Research and Development; Ron Stewart is Deputy Chief for Programs and Legislation; and Janice McDougle is Acting Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry. I will be calling on their expertise. It is a big program, lots of issues, and they are the experts.
[The statement of Michael Dombeck follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Thank you.
Mr. Nethercutt, your friends over here have deferred to you because you have to chair another committee; so, you may lead off with your questions.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Well, thank you very much. I will be brief because I do have to leave. Thanks again, Mr. Dombeck.
INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT
I want to talk about the Interior Columbia Basin Project. It has been a concern of mine for the last few years. Section 323(a) of the FY 1998 Appropriations Act from this subcommittee requires that a report be submitted to the committee which must include the estimated production of goods and services from each unit of the Federal lands for the first 5 years of the implementation of the project.
I understand you may be working on this. Has it been completed or where are we regarding that requirement of this committee?
Mr. DOMBECK. Let me ask the staff exactly where that is at.
Mr. JOSLIN. Are you talking about the economic study there?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I am quoting out of Section 323: the estimated production of goods and services from each unit of the Federal lands for the first 5 years. What are you going to get out of the Colville National Forest for example?
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. JOSLIN. Yes; we have submitted that economic study. We have not completed the work that you are talking about. We are working on that.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. But the record of decision, to the extent that it issued, will immediately amend all 74 land management plans; is that correct?
Mr. JOSLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Okay; and if those land management plans are affected, the local planning, the land management planning for each forest and BLM district will be affected; would you agree with that?
Mr. JOSLIN. Yes; the plans would be amended overall, but those specifics for each individual plan will not—the total amendment will not occur as a result of the Columbia River Basin Project.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Well, my concern is that we are going to amend the local land use plans; we are going to amend the local forest plans; but, yet, the project managers do not have any sense of what the estimated production of goods and services from each unit of these lands is going to be.
Mr. JOSLIN. Well, I think they will have, yes.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Well, how will they have that if the work has not been done that is required to be done under existing law?
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. JOSLIN. That work will be done before that comes out.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Before the record of the decision?
Mr. JOSLIN. Yes, I hope it will be, yes.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. You hope, sir, or it will?
Mr. JOSLIN. Yes, it will be. [Laughter.]
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Because it is required that it be submitted——
Mr. JOSLIN. Yes.
Mr. NETHERCUTT [continuing]. Prior to any decision document
so——
Mr. DOMBECK. The timetable for the close of the comment period, as you know, is May 6, and I believe, then, we would anticipate that the record of decision would be signed in about a year.
Mr. JOSLIN. Right.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NETHERCUTT. So, you think you can get it all done within that time.
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes.
INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT FUNDING
Mr. NETHERCUTT. You indicated you need another $10 million in additional funding and the redirection of $114 million from your existing budget for implementation of the project. Are those still good numbers?
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. You have asked for $124 million for fiscal year 1999 to implement. Is that the number that you have asked for?
Mr. DOMBECK. That is correct.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. If you have $124 million budgeted for FY 1999, is it accurate, then, to assume that in fiscal year 2000, you would need about four times that amount for the implementation? In other words, if you look at the numbers for fiscal year 1999 versus what is coming in the years ahead, is that consistent with your projections? Do you follow my question?
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. I think so; let me start an