SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
47–765 CC
1998
HEARINGS ON THE INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, WASHINGTON, DC, AND APRIL 14, NAMPA, IDAHO, 1998
Serial No. 105–88
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
HEARINGS ON THE INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT
HEARINGS ON THE INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, WASHINGTON, DC, AND APRIL 14, NAMPA, IDAHO, 1998
Serial No. 105–88
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa
————— —————
————— —————
BILL SIMMONS, Staff Director
ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff
JEFF PETRICH, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held in Washington, DC, March 10, 1998
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from American Samoa
Hill, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Montana
Statements of witnesses:
Decker, Charles, Libby, Montana
Prepared statement of
Dombeck, Mike, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement of
Hahn, Martha, Idaho State Director, Bureau of Land Management, and Chair, Executive Steering Committee, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, and Susan Giannettino, Project Director
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of Ms. Hahn
Haislip, Tom, Senior Project Manager, CH2M Hill, Boise, Idaho
Prepared statement of
Additional material submitted by
Additional material submitted by
Harp, Aaron, Cooperative Extension Rural Sociologist, University of Idaho, Agriculture, Economics and Rural Sociology, Moscow, Idaho
Prepared statement of
Poulson, Mike, Chairman, Environment and Natural Resource Committee, Washington Farm Bureau, Connell, Washington
Prepared statement of
Reynolds, Hon. Dennis, Grant County Court, Canyon City, Oregon
Prepared statement of
Rimbey, Neil, Extension Range Economist, University of Idaho, Caldwell Research and Extension, Caldwell, Idaho
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Hill, Lawrence W., Director, Forest Policy, Society of American Foresters, prepared statement of
Hearing held in Nampa, Idaho, April 14, 1998
Bachman, Cindy, Chairman, Owyhee County FSA
Prepared statement of
Bass, Richard, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, Owyhee County, Idaho
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Response to questions by Mrs. Chenoweth
Beck, Sharon, President, Oregon Cattle Association
Bennett, Donna
Blaylock, Molly
Prepared statement of
Bliss, Steve, Chairman, Northwest Timber Workers
Prepared statement of
Response to questions by Mrs. Chenoweth
Brandau, Connie
Church, Phil, Co-Chairman, Resource Organization on Timber Supply
Prepared statement of
Response to questions by Mrs. Chenoweth
Cook, Adena, Public Lands Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition
Prepared statement of
Response to questions by Mrs. Chenoweth
Cuddy, Charles, Representative, Idaho House of Representatives
Prepared statement of
Response to questions by Mrs. Chenoweth
Dayley, Thomas, Executive Vice President, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation
Prepared statement of
Response to questions by Mrs. Chenoweth
Dwyer, Tom, Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Prepared statement of
Response to questions by Mrs. Chenoweth
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Eiguren, Margene
Findley, Charles, Deputy Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared statement of
Response to questions from Mrs. Chenoweth
Gaar, Elizabeth, Assistant Regional Manager for Habitat Conservation, National Marine Fisheries Service
Prepared statement of
Response to questions from Mrs. Chenoweth
Gibson, Chad
Prepared statement of
Grant, Fred, Nampa, Idaho
Prepared statement of
Response to questions from Mrs. Chenometh
Hays, John, Oregon Cattle Association
Hoagland, Jerry
Holmberg, Pat, President, The Independent Miners, prepared statement of
Kelly, Kay
Larson, Pat
Liddiard, Ed, President, Treasure Valley Chapter of People for the USA
Prepared statement of
Additional material submitted by
Additional material submitted by
Muse, Robert, Nampa, Idaho, prepared statement of
Nielsen, Pete, Chairman, Elmore County Republicans
Priestley, Frank, President, Idaho Farm Bureau
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Reimers, Diane
Skaer, Laura, Executive Director, Northwest Mining Association
Prepared statement of
Additional material submitted by
Response to questions from Mrs. Chenometh
Shane, John
Skinner, Robert
Prepared statement of
Streeter, Jack
Additional material supplied:
Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, Pocatello, Idaho, prepared statement of
Bureau of Land Management, Baker Area Office, ''Lower Grande Ronde Subbasin Review''
HEARING ON THE INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1324, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Helen Chenoweth [chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [presiding] The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health will come to order.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. We have heard many concerns about this project in hearings over the past 2 years. Now that the public has had the opportunity to review the Project's two draft environmental statements, it is time to reexamine the objectives, the costs and other concerns that have been raised.
My colleague from Montana, Representative Rick Hill, has worked very hard on this. I want to thank you, Congressman Hill, for working so diligently on this and with me to plan this hearing. In addition to two Administration witnesses, we will hear from scientists, local elected officials and citizens who have participated in this project since its inception in 1993 or who have reviewed the project information in great detail.
We have now invested 5 years and some $40 million in a project that is not authorized by law and is simply too big to work. In April 1997 the GAO reported that the Forest Service has not given adequate attention to reducing the costs and time of its decisionmaking and improving its ability to deliver what is expected or what it has promised.
Even a 1995 Interagency Task Force chaired by CEQ ''cited potential drawbacks of broader-scoped analyses'' like the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. That task force expressed concern with the inefficiencies and the ineffectiveness in the uses of resources because of the added level of NEPA documentation, and it found limited usefulness and vulnerability to legal challenges. So why does this Administration continue to work on a decision that is not authorized by law, leads to greater inefficiencies and has limited usefulness?
I am told that forest managers working in the basin believe the plan cannot be implemented due to the top-down constraints it would impose, and that the alternatives will not achieve the project objectives. For example, the Preferred Alternative described in the Draft EIS imposes hundreds of new, vague and conflicting management standards on land managers, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and confusion for managers and the public alike, leading to excessive and costly delays in decisionmaking.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Even the Project admits that due to the very broad scale of the ICBEMP, the impacts of changes imposed on local plans cannot be accurately assessed. To use another example, the Preferred Alternative proposes to close thousands of miles of roads in the Columbia River basin, decreasing access and recreational opportunities across the region. Yet there is no consideration in the Draft EISs of the economic, cultural or recreational damage to surrounding communities by closing roads, and there is no factual justification for the closures.
The National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act together required the Forest Service to prepare land and resource management plans for each unit of the National Forest System and to analyze and disclose the impacts of any proposed decisions. By all accounts, the ICBEMP does not meet these requirements.
The CEQ Task Force suggested that this type of broad scale analysis should be used only as ''guides'' during the agencies' decisionmaking processes—it should not result in a one-size-fits-all decision. We should heed this advice and halt this incredible waste of taxpayer's dollars. The Draft EISs note that by following traditional land management practices, ''many ecological conditions and trends have improved over the past two decades.''
If that is the case, as I believe it is, then the current management plans must be working, and there appears to be no clear ecological reason to require a single, basin-wide decision. Instead of funding completion of the Columbia Basin project, Congress should direct the agencies to forward the vast scientific information that has been collected to local National Forest and BLM District Managers so that they may use it where it can best be applied—at the local forest and district level.
The chairman now recognizes Mr. Faleomavaega, if you would like to contribute an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Chairman, thank you. I do not have an opening statement, but I would like to request unanimous consent at the point of time that our Ranking Member will submit a statement for the record.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection. So ordered.
Mr. Hill?
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I'd ask unanimous consent that I revise or extend my opening statement.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection.
Mr. HILL. Madam Chairman, first let me compliment you for holding a hearing on this very important issue. This is an extremely important matter for the people of western Montana. As I travel the State I hear frequently from my constituents about their concerns with regard to the Interior Columbia Basin Management Plan.
It is clear to me that the plan, the Draft EIS, and more specifically the most recent Report on Economic and Social Conditions of Communities still fails to recognize what the social and economic impacts will be to the communities of western Montana and northern Idaho.
It is clear that no effort was made in the development of this additional analyses to modify or even provide any meaningful analyses of the various alternatives in the Draft EIS, which tells me that the Forest Service continues to ignore the concerns—the economic concerns—of the people who live in western Montana and northern Idaho.
Now particularly with regard to the role of recreation, which is given high priority in the Draft EIS but only casually analyzed in the most recent report, Madam Chairman, I would agree with you. I think there is some valuable science that has been developed in this process, but it would be a tragedy for the communities and the people who live and work in western Montana if this Draft EIS goes to a Record of Decision and opposes onerous standards that don't even meet the science and would actually inhibit the ability of the Forest Service to meet the goals and objectives that are described in the EIS.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Madam Chairman, again, thank you for holding this hearing and hopefully we can flesh out some of these issues today.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill, and the Chair now recognizes the first panel. We'd like to call Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; and Martha Hahn, Idaho State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. Welcome, Martha, and I think you will be accompanied by Susan Giannettino, Project Director, and if Miss Giannettino is going to be giving any kind of testimony, we'd like for all of you to take the oath.
I do want to explain for the record that I intend to place all the witnesses under oath. This is a formality of the Committee that is meant to assure open and honest discussion and should not affect the testimony given by the witnesses. I believe all the witnesses were informed of this before appearing here today, and they have each been provided a copy of the Committee rules, and so if you will rise and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, and under the Committee rules, witnesses must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire statement of course, as you know, will appear in the record. We will also allow the entire panel to testify before questioning the witnesses. The chairman now recognizes Chief of the Forest Service, Michael Dombeck.
STATEMENT OF MIKE DOMBECK, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. DOMBECK. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. I am very pleased to be sharing this panel with Martha Hahn from Boise who is Chair of the Executive Steering Committee and with Susan Giannettino, also from Boise, who heads the implementation of the Project there.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe the Project is the best management tool to create a common vision for the long-term management of the Interior Columbia Basin. I believe the Project is a wise investment in the future of the Basin, and that we will complete this effort, and let me explain why.
As directed by the President, the Forest Service, and BLM are developing a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for the management of the ''East Side forests.'' We are responding to several broad scale issues, including forest and rangeland ecosystem health listings and potential listings under the Endangered Species Act, economies of rural communities and treaty and trust responsibilities to Native American Tribes in the Project.
The Project Area encompasses 24 percent of the National Forest Service System and 10 percent of BLM-administered lands in the Nation. Approximately 72 million acres of lands managed by the Forest Service and BLM are addressed by the management decisions that will result from the plan. A scientific assessment including all lands within the Interior Columbia Basin was published last year.
Two key factors shaped this Project:
First, issues such as ecosystem health and anadromous fish populations could not be efficiently and effectively addressed in independent Land and Resource Management Plans. Judge Dwyer stated in a rule that, and I quote, ''Given the current condition of the forest, there is no way the agencies could comply with the environmental laws without planning on an ecosystem basis,'' closed quote.
Second key factor that shaped the project, land managers must work together to assure that management of public land base provides the maximum benefits to public lands. And as we move forward the Executive Steering was developed to manage the project and is composed of BLM State Directors, Regional Directors of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, Forest Service Research Station Directors and Regional Foresters.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I do not envy them of their task and believe that they deserve our greatest appreciation and respect. They're working hard to balance the needs of seven states, 100 counties, 22 tribes, partners, interest groups, and individuals with a statutory responsibilities of five Federal agencies regarding management of the 72 million acres of public lands.
Despite its complexities, I believe that this planning effort is the best opportunity to develop a consistent framework for public land management and to respond to critical issues facing the interior Columbia Basin.
Completion of the Project decisions, including Plan amendments, will significantly improve our situation and appeals and lawsuits in response to the need to restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and support to economic and social needs of the people in the Project area. The decisions will lay out a broad scale condition needed to assure sustainable populations of species, to provide a framework for future management, and to create consistency regarding broad scale issues, creating a better expectation for goods and services.
I believe that one of the most important things the Project will do is share with leaders of all agencies involved in a planning effort. We are committed to facilitating this planning effort in a manner consistent with the Administration's objectives within the President's budget priorities.
My colleagues, the directors of other agencies, and I stand together in our support for this effort, and national-regional resources have been committed to the completion of this project, with interagency teams here in Washington, DC assisting the Project by providing policy coordination, by providing budget coordination and congressional coordination.
You asked us to provide some specific information about the project's budget. The President's 1999 budget includes specific funding to implement the final EIS and records of decision. Funding projections were developed based upon the Draft EIS Preferred Alternative and the actual 1999 projects that will be developed, consistent with the documented decisions.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The President's Clean Water Initiative provides $10 million in new funds in addition to the $113 million that represents the regular Forest Service program for units within the Project area.
In closing, Madam Chairman, I'd like to reinforce my commitment to the Interior Columbia Basin Management Project. I think that this effort provides the best opportunity to maintain long-term ecosystem health in order to support the needs of people into the future and protect many of the species at risk and the long-term health of the land.
The Executive Steering Committee members and I remain faithful to our promise to work with local communities. I believe that the Steering Committee has the knowledge, relationship, and resources to complete this planning effort successfully. I ask that my full statement be entered into the record, Madam Chairman, and that concludes my opening statement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dombeck may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Dombeck. I'd be interested if you could provide for the Committee the cite that you used of Judge Dwyer's comments, the case, and the number at a later date——
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, we'll be happy to provide that for the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much. It's my pleasure to welcome our Director of the Bureau of Land Management from Idaho, Martha Hahn.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA HAHN, IDAHO STATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND CHAIR, EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE, INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT, AND SUSAN GIANNETTINO, PROJECT DIRECTOR
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to update the Subcommittee on the status of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. I am Martha Hahn, Idaho State Director for the Bureau of Land Management.
Today I appear before you in my capacity as Chair of the Interagency Executive Steering Committee which oversees the Project. My comments today stress the importance of the on-the-ground activities that would be conducted under the Project, such as more aggressive weed treatment and stand density management. I will begin by addressing cost and funding issues.
The Interior Columbia Basin Project is a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based management strategy for Federally managed lands within the east side of the Columbia Basin. By the end of fiscal year 1998, the Project will have spent a total of approximately $40 million to research and produce the Scientific Assessments released in September 1996 and May 1997, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statements for the East Side of Oregon and Washington and for the Upper Columbia River Basin in Idaho and portions of Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada, which were released in May 1997.
In fiscal year 1998, the BLM and the Forest Service expect to spend about $5.7 million on the Project planning activities related to the Draft Environmental Impact Statements. These activities include holding public meetings, briefing State and local governments and Tribal officials, and analyzing public comments on the Draft EISs.
Following the public comment period on the Draft EISs, which at its close will have spanned nearly one year, the Project team will complete its analysis of all public comments and prepare the final EIS and Record of Decision. Public comments may result in changes to the EIS, including changes in the Preferred Alternative. Previous funding estimates likewise may change.
As the final EIS and Record of Decision are developed, the agencies will reassess implementation funding needs and will forward these to Congress. Whatever the final decision on the ROD, we will implement it to restore long-term ecological integrity to the federally managed lands in the Project area.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We expect implementation costs may first be incurred in fiscal year 1999, with full implementation expected in fiscal year 2000. In the fiscal year 1999 Budget request, the BLM is seeking an increase of $6.8 million for project implementation, the Fish and Wildlife Service an additional $1.5 million, and the Forest Service an increase of $10 million. This additional funding would be used to restore lands in the Basin to healthy conditions by combating invasive weeds, improving fish and wildlife habitat, and restoring riparian areas.
The Project's aim is to minimize potential risks that were projected by the Scientific Assessment. These would include the continued decline of salmon and many other species toward endangerment; an increasing threat of wildfires, endangering human life and dwellings; insect pest population growth; declining rangeland productivity; and non-native weed invasions, threatening both native plants and grazing livestock health.
Project funding will be used to reduce the risk of fire, insect infestation and disease, and improve aquatic and wildlife ecosystem health by thinning dense forest stands, completing prescribed burns, initiating integrated weed management and restoring riparian areas.
Some of the funding will be used to complete prerequisite work that must precede on the ground restoration, including sub-basin reviews and ecosystem analyses at the watershed scale that will help to identify priorities and provide the context for making decisions at the local level.
Additionally, we will address backlog work that has been known for some time, such as treating weed infestations, reducing high fuel building, and improving poor riparian conditions.
Let me turn now to discuss public involvement, which has been a cornerstone of the Project. Throughout the planning process, the Project team has emphasized collaboration with stakeholders in order to facilitate the evaluation of new information about socioeconomic and environmental conditions. It's taking more time than we had originally estimated, but we believe the additional time required to include all interested parties in our process is a worthwhile investment.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since the beginning of the public comment period in May 1997, the Executive Steering Committee members and Project staff have participated in over 30 public meetings across the Basin. More meetings are scheduled to occur before the close of the comment period. Last July we produced a satellite teleconference which was broadcast to 56 sites in the region. Over 700 citizens participated.
In addition, we have met with the representatives from State and local governments, Tribal officials, over 26 businesses, conservation and civic groups, Federally sanctioned advisory groups, and local citizens. The Project team has a mailing list of over 8,000 individuals and organizations. It sends out a newsletter and maintains an Internet home page where the public can find Project documents.
In part to address issues raised as a result of this extensive public involvement, the Project team released last week a report, ''Economic and Social Conditions of Communities.'' As you may recall, when the Draft EIS's were released last May, the Eastside Ecosystem Coalition of Counties expressed concerns about the potential social and economic effects on small rural communities due to changes in Federal land management resulting from the Project.
On April 21, 1997, Judge Dale White, Chairman of the EECC, and I jointly released a letter which stated in part, ''the Regional Executives and the EECC have agreed to work together between the Draft and Final EISs, particularly on the sections related to social and economic effects.''
Several months later, in Section 323 of the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 the Congress directed the Project to ''analyze economic and social conditions, and culture and customs, of the communities at the sub-basin level within the Project area and the impacts and the alternatives in the Draft EISs would have on those communities.''
Our goal was to produce a report that would meet Congressional direction and allow the public to have ''a reasonable period of time'' prior to the close of the comment period in which to review and comment on this Report in the Draft EIS's. The comment period has been extended until May 6, 1998, to give the public such time.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The socioeconomic report expands upon information in the two Draft EIS's and provides additional data and economic and social conditions of communities in the Project area. It discusses potential impacts of management alternatives presented in the Draft EIS's on communities specializing in industries, such as agriculture, wood products manufacturing, and mining, for which standardized industry category data were available.
Economic impacts associated with industries that do not collect standardized economic data, such as recreation, and non-resource-related industries that locate in the region because of resource-related amenities, such as high-tech firms, are not fully addressed in this report.
In conclusion, we must manage public lands to provide for sustainable populations of plant and animal species on behalf of present and future of Americans and we must create a sustainable flow of goods and services that can support our local communities over the long-term. The members of the Executive Steering Committee are committed to achieving these goals through the Project. We ask for you support.
This concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hahn may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Miss Hahn. And I want to thank both the members on the panel for your testimony. I want to remind the members that the Committee Rule 3(c) imposes a 5-minute limit on questions, and, after my questioning, the chairman will begin to recognize members for any questions they may wish to ask of the witnesses.
Before I begin my questioning, I do want to submit to the record a series of resolutions which came in from western counties, from the States of Washington, Idaho, Montana and Oregon.
From the State of Washington: Adams County, Benton County, Columbia County, Perry County, Lincoln County, Okanogan County, and Pend Oreille County. From Idaho: Bonner County, Elmore County, Kootenai County. From Montana: Powell County. From Oregon: Wheeler County.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Generally, what these resolutions have said is they have adopted the resolution put forth by the Western Legislative Forestry Task Force of the Association of Counties, and generally what that task force has stated in this resolution is that the Project should be terminated with no Record of Decision being approved.
It says the ecosystem management data developed by the Project should be communicated to the BLM District Managers and National Forest Supervisors for consideration of public input and statutorily scheduled environmental land and resource management plan revisions, and the Western Legislative Forestry Task Force also strongly supports natural resource planning and environmental management featuring site-specific management decisions made by local decisionmakers, local citizenry and parties directly and personally affected by environmental land and resource management decisions.
So without objection, I'd like to enter this into the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do want to direct my first questions to Chief Dombeck. I'd like to ask you, Chief, was the scientific assessment in the document and the Preferred Alternative peer reviewed?
Mr. DOMBECK. Let me ask Martha Hahn who was closest to the Project the details of how it was peer reviewed?
Ms. HAHN. It actually took place in what's called a double blind review, which means that there is a first reviewer who reviews it and then a second reviewer, and the blind part has to do with—the names are withheld in terms of who the authors are and who actually developed the research.
So it went through—so the second reviewer doesn't know who the first reviewer was in terms of the assessment that was done on a particular science piece.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Who were the individuals who did the peer review?
Ms. HAHN. There were quite a handful of reviewers, and I do not know all of the names. We can get you a list of all of those reviewers.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. How were they chosen?
Ms. HAHN. I think that they were chosen through the universities and processes of whatever issue was at hand, whatever the science was behind, and then through the universities and other type of science entities those reviewers were recommended or identified as specialists in the field.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right, so you will provide the Committee with the names of the participants in the peer review studies.
Ms. HAHN. Yes, we can provide that.
—————
''The science has been double blind peer reviewed. This means that the author of a particular paper is anonymous to the reviewer, and the reviewer is anonymous to the author. This process is managed by a Science Review Board co-chaired by Richard Everett and Evelyn Bull. Individuals selected to participate on the Science Review Board were individuals knowledgeable in resource management and have expertise in specific areas. A list of the individuals on the Science Review Board is attached.
''The Science Review Board established a process of double blind peer review, where the autonomy of both the authors and the reviewers is maintained. Even after the process is complete, the autonomy and anonymity of the peer reviewers is maintained. The Interior Columbia Basin Project, and the Science Advisory Group (SAG) does not have information on the individual scientists who reviewed documents. This process of peer review is a standard protocol for the review of scientific information prior to publication in scientific journals.''
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Were the Draft EISs peer reviewed?
Ms. HAHN. The Draft EIS's are being reviewed right now in the public arena. So all review is taking place right now in this 1-year time period.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. We've gotten word that they aren't being peer reviewed. You are certain that they are being reviewed right now?
Ms. HAHN. They're out for comment right now and can be reviewed, yes. They are available for that.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. They're out for public comment or peer review?
Ms. HAHN. The EIS's are out for public comment and can be reviewed, yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. Have you directed peer review studies on the Draft EISs?
Ms. HAHN. I am not certain what you mean by peer review for EIS's. Do you mean it in terms of the scientists reviewing EIS's?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. In terms of the scientific credibility.
Ms. HAHN. Those, on the EIS's, as far as—they're out for review for anyone who has a desire to review and comment on those.
—————
SCIENCE REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS—INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Dombeck, could you tell me what role have the Forest Supervisors played in this, compared to the Project leaders?
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. Again the Forest Supervisors have been and will continue to be a close part of this process, and from the standpoint of providing information from the standpoint of keeping abreast with what the various aspects of the project—for example, when I was in Orafino last July I sat in with Jim Caswell on one of the broadcasts that was broadcast throughout the Basin—as one of the efforts to continually keep the public informed and involved in the project but also as a way to keep Forest Service employees and Forest Supervisors involved in continually knowing the various steps we were at and obtaining their input.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. My concern is not specifically about Mr. Caswell but all of our Forest Supervisors that—were they in on the development of standards and alternatives and selections of the Preferred Alternatives, not just advice after the fact? Have they been active participants?
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, I believe they have.
Ms. HAHN. Yes, actually we had several different settings with not only Forest Supervisors but other local decisionmakers such as area managers and the Bureau of Land Management District Managers in which alternatives, standards and objectives were discussed and then went through in terms of their opinions on which would be a Preferred Alternative that would be selected, that they would like to see selected, as going out in the Draft.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. My question to both of you on this, and thank you both for answering it, is prompted because I have heard a lot of concerns by both of your land managers who believe the Project can't be implemented. And these are very wide and numerous concerns.
How are these concerns being addressed? Would you both mind answering?
Mr. DOMBECK. Well let me say that the challenges that we're faced with in the Columbia Basin are significant, and what we have is we have a process here through the Project to gather the most up-to-date information to get the broadest public comment and to include employees in probably one of the more—one of the more if not the most comprehensive manner that we've done in addressing an issue like this because the challenges, the risks for injunction and the fact is when we're dealing with landscape issues like we are dealing with in the Columbia Basin, where we are talking about endangered species and anadromous fish, cumulative effects and water quality—and the more and better information we can get, as we move forward, the more effective we will be.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, I want to point out that there's always dialog and debate as we move forward in any issue because many of these challenges are not clear-cut—we wish they were—but we feel the most effective way of getting input is by—and every employee, every Forest Supervisor has the opportunity to be involved and as Martha has described, has been involved in the many, many aspects of the Project.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Miss Hahn.
Ms. HAHN. Yes I'll speak specifically for Idaho BLM because that's what I am most familiar with in terms of my process. The managers have been brought together several times previous to the release of the Draft, as well as during the release of the Draft, in which we've sat down and talked about areas of the Preferred Alternative that we feel could have some change to it or would have better wording and so forth. And we've gone through that type of dialogue together.
In fact, when I return to Idaho next week we will be working on further discussions and how we can make that work well for Idaho BLM and those land managers.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I see my time is up, and I may want to return for more questioning. Miss Giannettino, did you have anything that you would like to add?
Ms. GIANNETTINO. Not at this time, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Mr. Hill.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Dombeck, have you read the—I guess I would call it an indictment of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project by Mr. Thomas Haislip? Have you read his testimony for this hearing and his comments with regard to ICBEMP? Mr. DOMBECK. I am not sure I am familiar with the specific document. I have read lots of testimonials, both for and against.
Mr. HILL. I'd just like to ask you a few questions that he raises in his testimony. I wish—perhaps if the testimony had come in a different order, it might be a little easier to go through this process, but basically his recommendation is—and incidentally this is the recommendation that I'm hearing from people who are on the ground in Montana, people who incidentally who work for you, who will speak privately about this but are concerned about speaking publicly.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He states that if you go forward of the Record of Decision based upon anything similar to the Preferred Alternative that you recommend, that we are going to have greater conflict, not less conflict, and that we are going to make it more difficult to reach the goals and purposes of what we set out to do in the beginning.
And he suggests this: He says there are two options before us. One is to completely rewrite the Draft EIS and publish supplements, and that would be necessary in order for this document to be legally sufficient, to be able to pass muster.
The second option would be to simply not go to a Record of Decision. Abandon the idea of implementing top-down standards, and just move forward using the science that we have to develop individual forest management plans.
Would you comment on those recommendations and whether or not you are considering either of those two alternatives, and if so, who is going to make the decision in terms of considering those two alternative ideas?
Mr. DOMBECK. Let me state to your last question that our position has been and will continue to be that the decisions need to be made within the region by the Regional Executives, of which Martha is the current Chair of that group.
Mr. HILL. Could you identify for me who those people are?
Mr. DOMBECK. There are 11 members of the Executive Committee, and Martha is the Chair. Why don't I ask Martha to. I might leave somebody out.
Ms. HAHN. This is a quiz on names for me. We have the State Directors in BLM, which would be myself, Elaine Zielinski from Oregon–Washington, Larry Hamilton from Montana. We represent the concerns and interests of the other State Directors for Wyoming, Utah and Nevada.
There are the three Regional Foresters. There's Dale Bosworth, and I don't remember the region numbers, so you'll have to help me on that part; Bob Williams, Pacific Northwest, and Jack Blackwell in the Ogden area.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Then there are two Station Directors for the Forest Service, and that's Denver Burns and Tom Mills. And then there is the Regional Director for Fish and Wildlife Service. Right now it's an Acting—Tom Dwyer—and for Environmental Protection Agency they also have an Acting—is Chuck Finley, and National Marine Fisheries is Will Stelle.
Mr. HILL. And this group will make the decision on whether to move forward with the Record of Decision, whether to move forward or not?
Mr. DOMBECK. That's correct.
Mr. HILL. And then also if we need to go back and start over the Draft EIS, this group would make that decision?
Mr. DOMBECK. They're responsible for the decisionmaking of where the Project goes, the analyses of the comments and moving into final, yes sir.
Mr. HILL. And this group would be empowered to make the decision to not move to a Record of Decision, if that was how they felt?
Mr. DOMBECK. I believe so. Yes.
Mr. HILL. OK. So let me go forward then. I guess it would be better if they were here than you perhaps then if they are the ones that are going to be making the decision with regard to that.
Let me just go through some of the comments that Mr. Haislip makes, and I would ask you if you could respond to them specifically.
First, he talks about the identification of forests require and priority treatments, and he says, ''the key feature of a forest ecosystem assessment should be to identify the types and locations of forests needing various types of treatments or prescriptions.
For example, the standard structures that offer the greatest opportunities for forest ecosystem health risks reduction appear to be dense intermediate aged forests with multiple canopy layers in the high and medium risk categories. These are forest structures that could provide the basic components for producing the older forest structures that are stated to be in relatively short supply.''
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''However the DEIS fails to provide sufficient analyses of these basic issues and available methods for assessing risks to forest health and displaying the risk radiants were not used.'' Could you address that? Is that accurate or inaccurate in your view?
Mr. DOMBECK. Since I'm not the technical expert on the issue, I would defer to technical experts for specifics like that, but what I would comment on in general is that the important thing is that we have an overarching framework, so decisions are not made in isolation with one another, which is one of the risks we run by individual units making decisions, because we have in part—as I mentioned in my opening statement Judge Dwyer's comment—but to achieve the greatest efficiencies in prioritizing projects, in spending money, in prioritizing the sequence of projects, this is best done, I believe, under an overarching framework that we have here produced by the Project.
Mr. HILL. In essence, that's what you're saying? You're saying we'll ignore what the situation is in any individual forest and in any individual area of the forest, but we'll adopt some general standards, and that's going to produce a healthier forest. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. DOMBECK. No. I don't believe it is. I think what I am saying is that the individual projects and individual forest health situations—watershed health—are nested, you know, as part of a larger framework in the condition of the landscape.
Mr. HILL. Do you believe in the gathering of data for this Draft Environmental Impact Statement, that that was accomplished through what you've just described, which is nesting local data and then developing a larger picture because I will say to you that that is exactly the opposite of what the people in the local forests in Montana are telling me?
They're telling me that this data may be fairly accurate in the general terms, but it is off by a matter of several factors on a local forest-by-forest basis.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HAHN. Sir, the EIS does provide a broad framework for the desired, what they call ''potential vegetative groups,'' that we would like to see over time throughout the Interior Columbia Basin. Each alternative approaches that somewhat differently, but each alternative has a description for broad forest types and the seral stages of vegetation that would be desired.
That provides an integration and a broad picture of the vegetative condition and the forest composition that would be desired over time by alternative. Then each forest or each BLM District would work within that framework at their local planning level through their forest plan and then through project planning to actually do the site-specific implementation that makes the vegetation move in the direction that this broad direction states.
It's no problem using broad scale information to provide broad scale framing of direction. The forests will use local data to develop the specific projects that translate that broad direction into actual happenings on the ground.
Mr. HILL. So in other words, this is going from general to specific rather than going from specific to general? Is that correct?
Ms. HAHN. Within the context of the EIS the data is broad scale. It is general as is appropriate for something that covers 72 million acres.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will have another group of questions.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to offer again my personal welcome to Director Dombeck here this morning and his associates. So that I may somewhat be descriptive of what we are trying to explore here this morning, and I don't know for want of a better way of pronouncing this acronym. Is it ICBEMP? How do you pronounce it? Is that the best way I can pronounce it? ICBEMP?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. I think that will do.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Columbia Basin. OK.
Mr. DOMBECK. We get so familiar with acronyms. Maybe we're talking about it too much.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I guess the concern that my friends here and the majority have is that since President Clinton announced this project in 1993—this is 1998—we've expended $40 million in the project; but it seems that you're running ahead, and the Congress is still waiting for this report or whatever it is, through the Environmental Impact Statement, which is in a draft form, and yet we're—you see the concern that seems to be ringing here.
And I just wanted to ask some questions along these lines because there is some legitimate concern in terms of—we're talking about 144 million acres involving some 4 or 5 states. I mean a tremendous undertaking. Involvement of some five Federal agencies. I mean this is a significant undertaking.
For those of us who sit here on the Committee, it becomes very difficult. Of course, you know, every year we pass an annual budget of about $1.6 trillion. Fiscal year 1999 alone, the Forest Service budget is about $2.5 billion, but here we're talking about a $40 million expenditure over a 6-year period, and yet we still haven't heard a sense of finality of where this project is, nor received the bottom line so that we can then make a decision on this side of the downtown scale, if you will.
So, I don't know if this is where things just seem to be running, but I do have just a couple of questions. I suspect that more than anyone, Miss Hahn, you probably have absolutely the experience since when this project first started in 1993, and you've held—what? 900 hearings or meetings, town meetings, and not just with the State of Idaho—you've done it in Washington, you've done in Oregon, you've done it in Wyoming. I suspect also in Utah as well. Is Utah involved?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So here you're doing a hearing process that we're doing here too, and I guess for a sense of not wanting to duplicate efforts in the sense that maybe the Federal agency—just give us the bottom line. Where are we? You've included the scientists. You've included development issues. You've included the ecosystem environmental issues. You've included conservation measures. So, you know, put them all in a pot. It's a mess.
And so what we're trying to define exactly is where are we going. And I think—I am just trying to give you this sense of perspective, Mr. Dombeck and Miss Hahn, and maybe you could help me with this.
You have in your report here, for example, Economic and Social Conditions of Communities, issued this year, in fact last month. Is this part of the Draft EIS report that is being discussed now this morning?
Ms. HAHN. Yes, it is.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK, and you have here on page 5, for example, you were looking at the factor like what is the jobs involvement, and you have here this circle that says if you're to look at the whole basin, this 144-million acre project that you've undertaken now for 5 or 6 years, you're looking at the timber and ranching industry—you're talking only about 4 percent jobs involvement in this, and the rest of other in terms of the impact is 96 percent. Can you explain that, Miss Hahn?
Ms. HAHN. Yes, I will attempt to.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I mean, it's an interesting configuration.
Ms. HAHN. When we started out, we were looking at the broad scale. Before doing this, we needed more step down analysis, that's the type of indication we got. Once we stepped down and started looking at counties and then communities, we recognized that the 4 percent becomes a very critical factor when it becomes almost 100 percent for a small community.
And so that's the type of information that was brought out in this report that you are referring to here. It starts to recognize that in a broad scale that can be masked, but in a real specific scale it can become very important for a small community.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My time is limited I know, but if I represent a rural area that 4 percent means a lot to me. So I think there may be some further explanation needed of this statistic because it could be misleading. That 4 percent of employees would mean a lot to me if I were to represent a rural district because it could be that 4 percent of the employment provides hundreds of jobs or thousands of jobs when you talk about the trickling effect, the impact that the timber, the mining industry could have in other job-related industries.
So I want to get a better clarification of that, Miss Hahn.
Ms. HAHN. And that's exactly what this report begins to get into—originally in looking at that broad scale, 4 percent is what came up, but then once you look through the report you'll see how significant that 4 percent is. Like I said, for example in one community it may be 100 percent, and that's brought out in this report.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK, and here's my problem. If I come from a rural district, and I do. My district is so rural you wouldn't even find it on the map. It's a small little speck out there somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, but I have 300 million lobsters; 100,000 sharks, you know all kinds of stuff like that.
Now I notice for the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget you're adding $10 million, $73 million for green timber, $18 million for a station, $8 million for fuel treatment and fire expenditures. Now these $10 million, this is part of the fiscal year 1999 Budget I notice in Mr. Dombeck's statement.
Now were these proposals in the President's Budget based on the recommendations of the EIS statement panel group?
Mr. DOMBECK. Let me say that the $113 million is the natural resources part of the base program or the Columbia Basin, and the—in fact this represents 24 percent of the land base managed by the National Forest System. The $10 million is part of the President's Clean Water Initiative and those——
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I don't question what you've got on your statement, Mr. Dombeck, but the point I am making is that this is after a result of conducting a series of a thousand meetings among the four states for the last 6 years. Am I correct that this is the result of this?
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, but the important thing is that the decision has not been made. The Record of Decision has not been signed. We're basing some of the projections that we're making on the Preferred Alternative, but as Martha indicated, the public comment period is still open. So this is at this point a project in progress.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. See my preference would be is that the President makes an announcement, ''I am going to do this project study, 1 year or 2 years,'' then you bring back the final results of that project study, let us look at it so we can hold hearings in Idaho, in Washington and whatever it is, but it seems that we're reversing the process.
You're holding the town meetings, you're going out there at the concerns of some of the members who represent those districts and those constituencies, and they're getting conflicting messages. And the message you're giving us here is quite different from what they're hearing from their constituents.
So I think this is a concern that we're having here. So the bottom line question I have: When are we getting a final report on this, after expending $40 million in a 5- or 6-year period that this project has been ongoing, as it was announced by the President since 1993?
Mr. DOMBECK. The largest proportion and let me ask Martha of the expenditure to date has been for the science. Is that correct?
Ms. HAHN. Yes, 55 percent.
Mr. DOMBECK. Fifty-five percent has been for the science. The remainder has been for the public involvement process, the NEPA process that we would normally go through, and again the key point is: The decision will be made at the time the Record of Decision is signed.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I feel bad about it because the Forest Service isn't the only agency involved. You've got the BLM, you've got the EPA, but the fact is that the President has made this decision administratively without any Congressional mandate, no enactment, no law whatsoever, but we've expended $40 million of the taxpayer's money on this project, and I just think that there's got to be some sense of finality at one point in time.
So that give us what you found out, and then we'll do our job and see if it takes another $73 million to do this and that or whatever. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong, but I sense the concern that my colleagues seem to have on this issue.
My time is over, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega, and we will return for another round of questioning if you would like.
I would like to ask both Mr. Dombeck and Miss Hahn, what law authorizes this new level of decisionmaking?
Mr. DOMBECK. The National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act are the framework under which we move forward with our planning processes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you consult with your attorneys here and ask them the specific cite of the NEPA?
Mr. DOMBECK. I am not sure any attorneys here, but we'd be—we'll get back to you very quickly with a specific citation and a response and an interpretation of that, yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Because as I read both of those laws, I don't see it at all, but I would be interested knowing what their and your thoughts are. Miss Hahn.
Ms. HAHN. It would be FLPMA.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. It would be FLPMA. Under what section?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HAHN. I'd have to get you that citation.
—————
Section 202 of the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) sets out the requirements for the development and revision of land use plans for the public lands. Since current land management plans were completed, new information on natural resource issues such as forest health, rangeland health, and listed and candidate species has surfaced. Section 201(a) of FLPMA requires Federal land managers to deal with significant new information and incorporate it into natural resource management. Also, Federal agencies are required to identify and disclose the environmental effects of any proposed activity on Federal land. Specifically, NEPA requires Federal agencies to identify and consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of activities on Federal land. The impacts of these activities must be examined both singly and in conjunction with the activities of other agencies and landowners.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you do that please? Do you have anything new to add? Anything additional? OK. Now, we're moving on ICBEMP to a single Record of Decision and the EIS. Is the decision appealable?
Ms. HAHN. Yes it is.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you believe it is?
Mr. DOMBECK. I believe so, yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Under what process is this one decision appealable? Forest Service or BLM's processes?
Ms. HAHN. Both processes will be considered, so they will be melded together in terms of the opportunities that exist under both processes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. They'll be melded together. Do you have anything to add, Chief?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. No I don't.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right, do you believe then that this can be litigated?
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Under the melding together of the processes of appeal?
Ms. HAHN. In the melding together of those processes, both processes will be considered or used so they can either be litigated under the Forest Service process or the Bureau of Land Management process.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And it's your opinion that there's a clear, bright line to enable people to appeal these decisions?
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, in fact the process of appealing and the process of litigation are essentially separate processes. Typically the appeal process would follow first, whereby the appeal would be made to the next level of decisionmaking authority in the agency, which in the case if this is made by the Regional Executives then the Chief's Office would be the next of decisionmaking that would occur.
And if the appellant is not satisfied with the resolution then of course it can go to litigation.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Chief, you understand my concern, I am sure, that this is one single Record of Decision. We are having the processes that normally people could appeal a BLM decision through the BLM processes or Forest Service through the Forest Service processes. They're multiple agencies and their processes are being melded together, and it's not addressed in the Administrative Procedures Act.
And so even if a Forest Service decision is made that is appealable, we'd still have to refer it to other agencies. Our concern is that it would take forever to get through the appeals process. Don't you think we have a legitimate concern about that?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. Well, what I would do is I would be happy to provide a legal opinion to the Committee on those concerns.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right, I'd appreciate that. Will the plan be implemented during an appeal if an appeal is filed?
Mr. DOMBECK. There is typically an appeal period. In this case would it be 90 days? There would be a 90-day appeal.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would that hold up the implementation of the plan?
Mr. DOMBECK. I believe the Record of Decision, the appeal period starts when the Record of Decision is signed, and at that point—let me ask one of the staff the specific point as to where the implementation begins—at the Record of Decision or the—it starts with the Record of Decision. I have my planning expert here.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. My concern is what the impact will be if we find ourselves in litigation, and everything is halted by the courts, everything, in a multi-state area. So will your people please address that, and also I'd like it if they would address: How does the agency or the ecosystem benefit by this result of having absolutely everything stopped in all of the agencies?
So with that I will recognize Mr. Hill for the next round of questioning.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to go back to this issue that I was discussing earlier, and that is that in my reading of the Draft EIS and my more recent reading of the material I was delivered I think last Friday on the update on the Economic and Social Conditions of Communities.
Again this all seems to be generalized data. This was an effort I think to get a little more community-specific, but it's still very generalized data. I think you would agree with that, wouldn't you, Chief Dombeck?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes.
Mr. HILL. And so the whole idea of this study is to be general in the development of the Draft EIS with the idea, as I understand it, that would be more specifically applied within each forest management plan that would be updated. That's the scheme here is that is contemplated. Would you agree with that?
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, it provides an overarching framework; however I do believe—and I read the socioeconomic analyses just recently myself—and where we have information with regards to job sectors and so on, it does get into some specifics there that I believe will greatly a decisionmaker in looking at what specific sectors are important to a community.
Mr. HILL. Which decisionmaker are you referring to when you say ''decisionmaker''?
Mr. DOMBECK. I am referring to our local field managers.
Mr. HILL. The individual forest managers?
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes.
Mr. HILL. Is it your view that the social and economic issues should be an integrated part of the Draft EIS and integrated part of the various alternatives?
Mr. DOMBECK. I would—I guess I am not sure what you mean what integrated. I think it's very important information to be considered in the——
Mr. HILL. Well in the development of alternatives under the Draft EIS there are a number of factors that you have to take into consideration. Is it your view that the social and economic factors ought to be integrated into the alternatives? Or do you believe that you simply have to assess the impacts, the social and economic impacts, on the various alternatives in the Draft EIS and in the final Record of Decision?
Mr. DOMBECK. Well again, from a matter of semantics I think that we need to use the most and best information we can get in arriving at the conclusions.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. This isn't semantics. This is substantial, and it's very significant on whether or not the social and economic considerations are built into the EIS and into the alternatives, or you simply draft alternatives and then do an assessment of what those impacts will be on the economy and the culture of those communities.
That is substantially different. Do you see the difference that I'm trying to——
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, I believe so.
Mr. HILL. And so which of those do you believe is your responsibility under the Federal Land Management Act and under NEPA? Do you believe that those considerations need to be an integrated part or do you believe that it's just your responsibility to assess the impacts?
Ms. HAHN. In this project we have integrated it into the Purpose and Needs statement as well as the development of the alternatives, and you'll see in Alternative Four, which is the Preferred Alternative, I think is a good example of how the economic portion of it is actually what's driving a lot of the balance between having the sustainable type of output over the long-term in relation to the issues at hand.
Mr. HILL. More specifically, do you believe that the social and economic considerations are an integrated part of the proposed alternatives under the Draft EIS or not?
Ms. HAHN. I think that they have been integrated into the alternatives, yes.
Mr. HILL. So then why did you do the Supplemental Economic and Social Study?
Ms. HAHN. The integration was at the broad scale level in which we're talking about.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. So we were general rather than specific with regard to economic and social impacts again, correct?
Ms. HAHN. To look at the broad scale area and then we did what I termed a step down process, going from that broad scale to the county level, then to the community level in this newly released publication.
Mr. HILL. And did you then revise any of the alternatives in the Draft EIS based upon this more specific data?
Ms. HAHN. We analyzed how that would affect it and found that the alternatives, the assessment—or the analyses of the alternatives do not change specifically, that those changes are going to occur more at the project level.
Mr. HILL. So, what—I want to be real clear here because this is a real important issue as far as I am concerned. Is that what you found then would you say that in analyzing this data on a more specific basis, that you did not have to change any of the alternatives in the Draft EIS as a consequence of what those impacts might be on those individual communities?
Ms. HAHN. The Draft Alternatives, those alternatives in their draft situation then will—that analyses—will be placed against those as we move into a final decision. As far as impact analyses, that did not change.
Mr. HILL. My judgment, having read all of these documents, on more than one occasion, you did some kind of generalized impact analysis on individual communities, but in terms of the impacts of the various alternatives of EIS I mean casual statements like ''Alternative One would cause a slight increase of impacts on wood products,'' or et cetera. And I am not quoting exact from the document.
There is no analyses. There is no data here in terms of what that will do to those individual communities with regards to jobs, with regard to recreational opportunities. I saw none in this report, and I mean it—I will say to you that it looks to me as though this was an effort to address the criticism that has arisen from those communities in as general a way as you could.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And the reason for that is, is that if you take this proposed Record of Decision, this proposed alternative, and you start translating it into the impacts it's going to have on individual communities and individual forests, it would frighten the people in those communities if you told them the truth.
And so what this is an effort to do is to generalize that impact, generalize that analyses, rather than to tell the people what is really going to happen to their communities, and I hope that you don't consider this a delivering on the instructions that Congress gave you with regard to analyses of impacts because this doesn't even come close to what Congress was asking you to do.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to clear up a couple of questions that I had asked earlier. Let's say that President Clinton never made an announcement in 1993 to set up this project. What would have happened if we had maintained the status quo?
Mr. DOMBECK. We would likely have been shut down on projects and actions in many areas. There would be a high level of instability. We would not have a good ability to predict a variety of projects, the goods and services that might come out of the whole area, the Columbia Basin.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As an example even this year, what would have happened to the funds that are being requested for this fiscal year Budget? Would that have an impact?
Mr. DOMBECK. Are you saying would the——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, I mean the recommendations, the President's recommendations for this fiscal year alone would not have come about if it had not been for the recommendations by the Project.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. Well certainly the findings, the science and so on, helped us determine what the greatest needs were.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I guess one of the questions I have too is the time factor involvement here of the projects. Since the President's announcement in 1993 to set up this interagency group working on these specific issues, when did this thing really take off? When did these Federal agencies actually become actively involved in doing whatever the mandate is that the President wanted since 1993. Miss Hahn, can you help me with that?
Ms. HAHN. Specifically it began in January 1994, and so after the President made his announcement, which was based on the Everett Report and other information coming about in terms of the Northwest issues, then we began in 1994.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So since 1994 it has been a collective recommendation from these 4 or 5 agencies involved, that has been part of the President's basic policy decisionmaking as it is translated into the budget that this is how we've done the budgetary process for the last maybe 3 or 4 fiscal years.
In other words, if you had been doing this since 1994, after a 6-month's study you make recommendations. That recommendation then becomes a basic Administration policy decision. That policy decision then is translated into—or integrated into—the budget process as part of the President's proposed budget.
Am I correct in saying that this has been going on now for 3 or 4 years since this interagency group was founded?
Mr. DOMBECK. Let me say on your first point, about gathering data for a 6-month period and on certain types of projects, I think that kind of example, it could possibly be, but the thing that's important with the Columbia Basin that as we analyze this project, which I think is very, very important that we do; and I too have been very concerned about the cost, but if we—we also need to step back and think about where we found ourselves in the early 1990's when we started dealing with this issue.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And let me just mention a few points of where we found ourselves——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please.
Mr. DOMBECK. [continuing] the agencies and the people that lived in the Columbia Basin——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That's what I wanted to ask you initially: Where were we then and where would we be now without this project starting in 1993?
Mr. DOMBECK. Well where we found ourselves is a situation where wildfires—we were beginning to have wildfires or were having wildfires of unprecedented intensity and size. We were dealing with damaging noxious weeds issues across the rangelands. We were concerned about wildlife habitats. Rural communities could no longer depend upon a predictable flow of wood, of other goods and services from the public lands.
We found ourselves in a situation where these natural resources, the issues were being debated. We found ourselves in a situation where expectations had changed. We found ourselves in a situation where we were facing serious endangered species problems and in a situation where we were near injunction and gridlock on many, many projects.
And the important thing to realize is this is an effort to move out of that situation, to move into a situation of greater predictability and stability based upon the best science and knowledge that we can have.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well maybe you can help me this way, Mr. Dombeck. Give me, and I would like to ask for the record, a mini economic impact statement. Our investment of $40 million to this project for the last 5 years has also saved the taxpayer's money. How much would have been prevented? For all the good things that you're explaining, at least substantively, what would have been the savings to the taxpayer.
The fact that we've invested $40 million—sure the report is not final yet—but how much really has this been a plus for the American taxpayer? I think I would appreciate some kind of an analysis on that, if a question is helpful.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. Let me say under a normal planning process for the Forest Service, and Martha can speak for BLM if she wishes, we would typically invest $3 to $4 million per plan or revision, and it would normally take about a 4-year timeframe to do that, and we have 31 forest plans.
So if you multiply the 31 times $3 to $4 million you have a significant amount of money involved in what we believe is that by having this framework—and I might add the best science that would be applied to any of the planning that we have done in the Forest Service to date I believe is coming out of the Columbia Basin, that we will get a substantially better product as a result of that and a greater probability of dealing with the endangered species issues, being able to strengthen our position in court as we move forward in implementing the results of the Project and all projects.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If you don't get the $124 million the President is requesting for fiscal year 1999 Budget, what happens?
Mr. DOMBECK. Well, first of all let me say that of the $113 million that's—a portion of that, that's part of the base program. It's part of the Natural Resources Programs of those National Forests. For example, about $70 million of that is for our forest management, timber harvest, salvage, other programs like that.
It's part of the—that support the grazing on the public lands, the recreation opportunities, other kinds of opportunities and services that we provide. So it's part of the core program.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. HILL. I thank the gentleman, and I will go out of order, and I'll ask a round of questions again. Again I want to go back to this issue with regard to general and specific.
There are some analyses, Chief, that most of the alternatives propose that between 20 and 40 percent of the forests would be allowed to naturally burn each year as part of the prescribed burning effort in this plan. Would you agree with that or would you disagree with that?
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. Well, I'd say I'm not prepared to talk about specifics; however, let me ask Martha or Susan to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm assuming that prescribed fire is and that fire is part of the natural system, and that where we would do prescribed burning, that would be integrated with other kinds of treatments. That could be thinning; it could be timber harvest; it could be other kinds of mechanical treatments. In a typical inner-mountain situation, we would go ahead and implement the appropriate tool, whether it's a timber sale, a thinning, to get the fuel levels down to the point that we could do accrual burn. And, typically, the timeframe for something like that is you would go in and do your sale, your mechanical treatment, and then anywhere, say from maybe about 3 to 6 years after that, you would go ahead and do the prescribed burn to finally achieve the situation in getting the forest health trends in the way you want them.
Mr. HILL. Many of the areas of the West, and many of the communities in western Montana, are having serious difficulty complying with the particulate matter standards associated with the Clean Air Act today. Could you identify for me what analysis was incorporated into the development of these alternatives to take into consideration the impacts prescribed burning will have on air quality issues in those communities?
Mr. DOMBECK. Let me ask either Martha or Susan to address that.
Ms. GIANNETTINO. Sir, I don't have the specific numbers with me, but we did, in the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, model, using two or three particulate air quality kinds of models, all the alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, which does significantly increase the amount of prescribed burning that would occur throughout the Project area, and found that in all the alternatives we modeled, we were well below the threshold, or constraint. Now, I have to say that since the comment period opened on these draft EIS's, there has been a change in EPA particulate size rule, and we're doing some additional modeling during this comment period to make sure that those alternatives are still within the threshold of what is acceptable. With the prescribed fire we do have the opportunity to time that burning better than if it was just a wildfire situation. So that gives us a little bit better opportunity to stay within constraints.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. Would you characterize those again as general rather than specific?
Ms. GIANNETTINO. Yes, by the nature of the decisions that are being made, those, we didn't specify specifically on which acres the burns would occur.
Mr. HILL. Or what communities might be impacted?
Ms. GIANNETTINO. Only to the extent that certain habitat types would be more appropriate for prescribed fire than others.
Mr. HILL. OK. With regard to the recreational impact, and recreational considerations, it seems to me that the draft DEIS contemplates that there is going to be an increase in demand for more primitive types of recreation on the forest. Would you agree with that statement, or would you disagree with that statement?
Ms. GIANNETTINO. The increase in demand, I don't believe, was specific to certain types of recreation. We simply said that demand would increase as a result of population growth in the West.
Mr. HILL. But almost all of the alternatives, in terms of what the objections of those alternatives, are, would be to increase the amount of forest that would be available for more primitive types of recreation, as opposed to motorized recreation. Would you agree with that?
Ms. GIANNETTINO. Some of the alternatives—yes, that's true. Some of the alternatives, I don't know that you could say that specifically.
Mr. HILL. Did you do any analysis, any kind of surveying, with regard to what kind of demand that is out there in the current population, and what they think the recreational needs of the forest are going to be? For example, there was just a poll published in Montana that indicated over 50 percent of the people of Montana think there should be as much, if not more, recreational, motorized recreational access. This plan certainly doesn't contemplate increased motorized recreational access, in my view. Does it in yours?
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GIANNETTINO. We left the decisions on access management to the local managers.
Mr. HILL. General to specific. The interesting point about all that is—and the reason I've asked a lot of questions this, it may be my last round of questions, is that I agree with you—there should be a general plan. And if it was that, I think I could probably be more supportive. The problem is, is that in adoption of the standards that are proposed to be adopted, it's not so general. As a matter of fact, it's quite specific. For example, let's take the riparian area standards. Have you done any, have you made any maps available on the individual forests, other than the Kootenai Forests, with regard to how the adoption of those riparian area standards would impact future management of the forests, and if so, could I get copies of those maps for the other forests in Montana?
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, if they are available.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Have they been done, Chief Dombeck?
Mr. DOMBECK. I'm not sure.
Ms. GIANNETTINO. No, they have not, and the Kootenai ones simply took a very broad-brush approach, assuming more general application then would actually happen on the ground where the local manager would tailor the standard to the local situation.
Mr. HILL. Who prepared the Kootenai maps? Were those maps prepared by the local forest?
Ms. GIANNETTINO. Yes, they were, with the Project's involvement.
Mr. HILL. Chief, would you have any objection to the other forests preparing similar maps, for citizens to review?
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. I can see no reason—I'm not—why don't I respond for the record and let me check, and unless Susan has an opinion. We can provide you with the information that's available.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Well, it goes beyond that, Chief, and that is, that I think that one of the things that we have a responsibility to do here is to provide communities with as much data as we can, and as much information about the impacts as we can. And those maps were very, very useful. Unfortunately, and it appears to the citizens of Montana as though, that the other forests have declined to produce those maps because they were so startling in terms of the impacts, that it might create negative reaction to the whole management plan. I'm hopeful that that's not the strategy of the Forest Service, to deny citizens access to quality information.
I would like you today to say that you're going to direct the individual forest supervisors in each of those forests to prepare similar maps, to provide that kind of information to the communities that are going to be impacted, so that all people who use the forest, and are dependent on the forest, can have that information. Could you give me that assurance today?
Mr. DOMBECK. We will certainly have that information when the—you know, the point I want to make is that the EIS is in draft at this point.
Mr. HILL. All we want to know is what the preferred alternative, or even all the alternatives—that would be even better yet—if you could prepare maps that would show the impacts of the adoption of these standards. Chief, that's the problem here. The problem here is that you make the argument that this is a generalized approach to providing a road map, if you will, a general road map to the development of individual forest plans. But then in the adoption of standards, you take all the flexibility away from those individual forest supervisors.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you think that this is going to reduce gridlock in forest management, I think you're wrong, because any individual forest management plan, or any timber sale or road management plan, that was outside the proposed standards in this Record of Decision, would be appealed that fast. And that's the problem, and so I think that the people of Montana deserve the right to know, and if that information is available to the Kootenai forests then it ought to be available to the other forests, and I think that it ought to be put into a format that the people of Montana can understand, which is maps, and I would certainly urge you to direct the regional forester in those individual forests to make that information available to the people of Montana.
Mr. DOMBECK. I will get back with my staff on that and make a determination as to—and we'll deliver the best, the most detailed information we can.
Mr. HILL. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, and the Chair recognizes Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I only have two-and-a-half more questions, if I could.
Just to help me out, Mr. Dombeck, the scientific study task force that is part of the project has made an assessment with reference to roadless areas, I think basically to the effect that the conditions are OK ecologically; it has met scientific standards. I'm not a scientist. Can you help us with that? What does this mean, that it's OK?
I notice that Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon seems to offer some common-sense advice about let's not talk about the controversial aspects of what you're looking into, but look into more practical solutions, related situations. In fact, even suggested here, in terms of the short run, avoid operating in roadless areas near fish habitat and old growth areas. Can you reconcile this report, Ms. Hahn, if there's any contradiction in this about the——
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. Well, let me start out by saying I believe where we're headed, and where we need to be headed philosophically, is to integrate timber harvest, integrate all of the tools that we need to achieve the condition that we want.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I want to say for the record, Mr. Dombeck, it's really unfortunate that it's only your agency that is represented here in the hearing, because we don't have the benefit of hearing from BLM and their problems, because you're looking at this as, you know, as a total—I'm sorry, Martha. You're with the BLM. It sounds like you're forestry to me.
Ms. HAHN. I'm representing the——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK, I'm sorry. I thought you wore two hats. OK, go ahead. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to——
Mr. DOMBECK. So, with that as a context, we need to integrate all of the tools available to arrive at a desired future condition. In fact, and I believe a lot of the controversy that we have been in, and the topic of many hearings, and we will continue to work through this as to make sure that we understand that we need to be arriving at a condition and integrate fuel treatment, a fire management, the urban wild land interface to get the fiber where we can in a more integrated manner. But, then, that's one part of the philosophy.
The second part of it you mention as the importance of roadless area, or low road density areas, and let me say that some of the most thorough science that we have associated with roadless areas has come out of this project—that about 60 percent of the best aquatic habitats are within, found in roadless or low road density areas.
Another interesting statistic that we have from this is that about 87 percent of the acres with high potential for fire, particularly crown fires, insect disease problems, other mortality, are within already roaded areas, and we have a tremendous amount of work that we need to get on with in these areas.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I think this project helps us move forward with the, knowing that we've got to make investments in land, and none of us are happy with the conditions that are out there that I indicated in the earlier round of questioning and some of the challenges that we face. But I do believe we have the technologies to be able to move forward, and in an integrated way, to active management.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to share with you a statement issued by this gentlemen, which I think it's very interesting, and I certainly would like your comment of this, and I'd like to quote the statement. ''The Federal agencies' preferred alternative for managing Federal lands in the Columbia Basin does not present a sound, science-based management strategy. Most important, it does not adequately protect the region's remaining old-growth forests, roadless areas, and stream habits. It does not ensure wildlife liability as required by law. It calls for excessive amounts of logging and grazing. It presents a skewed economic analysis that ignores the changing role of public lands in the region's economy, and moreover, the draft environmental impact statement fails to present any alternative that fairly represents the views of the environmental community. Instead, it presents the public with a false choice of active versus passive management.''
This is a statement by Mr. Michael Anderson, Senior Resource Analysis of the Wilderness Society. Can you comment on that?
Mr. DOMBECK. Well, what I would say is the project focuses on habitat, on water quality, on moving forward through active management and achieving the objectives set forth, and, I would rather not speculate on individual projects, but there are situations where you would have various projects implemented. There are other situations where you might not. But the focus that we need to look at is the outcome that we want to achieve.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So it's your feeling that the administration is carrying out a balanced view between development and ecosystem, the environment. Everything is being held on an equal basis. Does that seem to be your best opinion and response to this statement?
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This gentleman is saying, ''you're not doing your job. Environmentally it's way off the bat.'' But you're saying, ''No, this is not true.'' You're doing a better job than what this gentlemen is observing, his observation.
Mr. DOMBECK. Well, I think we've got a good balanced, science-based approach.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dombeck.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, and the chairman will take her third round of questioning, and then we'll move on to the second panel.
Congressman Hill was asking some very interesting questions about maps, and the impact by definition of the riparian zone. If, indeed, in the Record of Decision or in the final EIS, by definition a riparian zone takes into consideration certain setbacks of several hundred feet, from even intermittent streams, as well as flowing streams, that could mean every little potential rivulet, intermittent streams and so forth.
So, by definition, one of the reasons we're most concerned about having the map show the impact is that virtually from ridgetop to ridgetop, where there is an intermittent stream, it could be locked up in riparian zones. So that's why it's important to us to receive the maps that will clearly delineate the definition of riparian, and I really think that public comment should not even be considered, really, until we have the maps in hand, so people will know what they're commenting on in terms of the definition of riparian.
So, I join Congressman Hill, as Committee chairman, in urging that the maps be turned into the Committee, and also made available to the public as soon as possible.
Any further comment?
Mr. DOMBECK. No.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. And my final round of questioning involves how this was financed. Of course, we have allocated $40 million from the Congress, but more funds than that have been expended because in testimony that this Committee has received, funds have been taken from other agency funding allocations and transferred into the project. Are you prepared to give to the Committee a dollar amount of the funds that have been transferred out of other allocated projects, such as grazing, or timber harvesting, or whatever it might be, into the project? I think our staff indicated to you I would be asking this question.
Mr. DOMBECK. In checking with the regional budget staffs on that question, that the primary dollars came from the planning dollars, fire management and roads, the planning portions of the areas that are most influenced by the activities and the outcome of the plan. And let me just ask my budget expert. Is that—that's correct. We are not aware of moneys being moved without following appropriate guidelines.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I realize that it may be read that there were appropriate guidelines, even within what may be considered appropriate guidelines, as set forth by the Congress. It was very vague, but I can see where they could read that. And these were set forth in 1994, I believe. I'd like to know, for instance, how much money that had been allocated to say grazing, was allocated to the project, and all other categories. So I'm not inferring that something improper was done legally. I think that the language was unclear and it occurred, Mr. Dombeck.
Mr. DOMBECK. The information that I have indicates that a grazing, timber, a watershed program dollars, have not been used to fund the project. However, I believe all program areas, or most program areas, are also part of the planning process that are administered through our planning line items, and, what I am told, is that the dollars used for the Columbia Basin Project, came from those planning dollars.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. However, they were labeled, we have had testimony from agency personnel in the Committee that moneys were reallocated after the Congress had allocated them to a certain project, and that is what the Committee wishes to see. Whether it's planning or what, I mean, there's nothing but planning now. So we'd like to see what moneys were moved from other projects, and what is the total amount of money that has been expended for the planning to date.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We'd also like to include in that the interagency teams in Washington, DC that, Chief, you described in your testimony. I'd like to know how many people are working on the ICBEMP here in DC, and how much of their time is spent on the ICBEMP.
Ms. Hahn described the requested funding increases for fiscal year 1999 budget. I'd like to know what is the total cost of the fiscal year 1999 for the ICBEMP, and how does the breakdown by agency and subject area occur?
I would also like to ask you why in the other projects, the Appalachian project, which I think cost maybe $2 million, and some of the other projects, have not—I mean, why is this one costing so much? Now, the Southern Appalachian Project and, where—oh, here we are—yes, the Southern Appalachian project, I think, is about $1.9 million, and there are other projects involving the Dakotas and the Midwest. Why has so much money been expended on this compared to the other projects?
So, I see my time is up, but if you could prepare an answer for the Committee, I would appreciate it very much, and the Chair is going to recognize Mr. Hill for further questioning.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And that will be the end of our questioning.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would like to talk a little bit about the riparian standard. Is it your view, Chief Dombeck, that the riparian area standards should be universally applied throughout the region?
Mr. DOMBECK. I'm not personally familiar on a technical standpoint from each and every standard, however, let me make a statement and then ask Martha to correct me, as I understand, or Susan, as I understand, that what the objective of the standard is to achieve a particular condition, whether it's water quality, reduced—prevent sedimentation—those kinds of things. And the activities within those areas, then would be governed basically by our ability to do whatever it is that one might want to do in that area, or not do, based upon that desired, that product we want, is that correct?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. I'm talking about the buffer areas that are, the buffer area standards, specifically. Do you believe that those should be universally applied to the individual forests throughout the Interior Columbia Basin, to all the area that is included in the study?
Mr. DOMBECK. I believe those buffers would vary, depending upon the watersheds and the geology of those kinds of things.
Mr. HILL. But those standards are set; that's the point, is that the proposed standards are already set. And so if you were going to manage outside those standards, are you suggesting that we could manage outside those standards, or are you saying that we would not manage outside those standards?
Mr. DOMBECK. The standard does not preclude management.
Mr. HILL. OK. There are some folks who, well, the EIS suggests that, I think about 24 percent of the forest would be restricted through the applications of the riparian standards. There are some independent analyses that would indicate that it could be as much as 40 to 80 percent in some areas. The question that I have is, again going back to the maps that we made reference to, I would appreciate it if you would prepare those maps using the standards that are suggested in the proposed EIS.
But I guess the next question I have is that, if, in fact, those standards would impact a greater area of the forest than the 24 percent that is recommended, is it your judgment that we should go back then and do an additional analysis on the economic and social impacts, and as well as an effort to incorporate those particular effects into the various alternatives proposed in the draft EIS?
Mr. DOMBECK. I would say that typically if there is a significant change, for whatever reason, then that would be addressed at some point, and let me ask the planning experts where that would occur.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GIANNETTINO. If we found through our internal review, or through the public review that people are doing right now, we would certainly make significant changes between draft and final. But if we had inadequately predicted the application of those standards, that would certainly be something that would have to be corrected. But, I also would caution that the standards are specifically written to take into account a lot of local variability, so that local managers have flexibility to deal with local circumstances.
Mr. HILL. Substantially, these standards are—part of the objective here with this whole management plan is to try to gain more predictability, would you say, with regard to particularly the consult of process with the Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to impacts on endangered species? Is that a fair characterization of one of the objectives of doing an ecologically, ecology wide management plan? Is that one of the outcomes that you anticipate?
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, I believe so, and let me say that the more we can do upfront from the standpoint of consultation and our interaction with regulatory agencies, essentially the easier our job becomes, and I think we've learned a lot with our experiences with the Northwest Forest Plan and our having reduced a significant backlog of consultations in that are by working up front in more of a parallel process, rather than a serial process, and by this I mean where the agency would propose a project, go through a significant amount of analysis, and then consult with a regulatory agency.
And we might have three or four outcomes as a result of that consultation. One might be that, a typical one, well, maybe we have to go back and get some more data, or maybe we have to modify the project to mitigate some of the concerns, or maybe the project is OK. And by having the regulatory agencies up front, as we have in this case, that significantly streamlines that process.
Mr. HILL. Would it be fair to say that substantially the standards that are being recommended here are being driven by the regulatory agencies, rather than the land managers?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HAHN. No, the standards were developed jointly; we've all sat in a room for many days and used the information that came from the scientists as well as——
Mr. HILL. The people I talked to in the field tell me that these rigid standards are substantially being driven by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Is that an accurate or inaccurate conclusion?
Ms. HAHN. They were developed jointly.
Mr. HILL. Well, I understand they were developed jointly, but the drive to adopt standards—is it your view that the land managers that are out there on the land want to have these standards adopted, or is it your view that it's more being driven by the regulatory agencies?
Ms. HAHN. They were developed together and we, basically, put that as a part of——
Mr. HILL. That's not a responsive answer——
Ms. HAHN. [continuing] projection.
Mr. HILL. [continuing] to the question that I asked. I guess, perhaps, I'm not going to get a responsive answer to it. I can tell you that the people that I talk to out there in the field don't believe what you've just stated. At least they haven't expressed it to me. I think it's extraordinarily unfortunate, Madam Chairman, is that those people that are going to have to implement this management plan aren't here, and don't have the freedom to be able to express publicly what they all express privately with regard to the hazards associated with moving forward with the proposed Record of Decision and the proposed alternative. It is not going to achieve the results that we are setting out to achieve, which is less gridlock and better management, and a better environment, and a better ecology. As a matter of fact, it will do the opposite, in my view, and the view of the people that are going to have to implement it.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. And this really is a conclusion that I would like to ask Mr. Dombeck and Ms. Hahn, if you could submit for the record, where, or even answer, where you are with this Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, the Southern Appalachian Assessment, the Great Lakes, the Ozarks, and Ouachita Highlands Ecosystem Plan, and the Northern Great Plains. We'd like to know moneys expended on those projects, what the timelines are, who's going to be the next ICBEMP, where will the focus of the administration be on developing a major plan, and any additional ecosystem plan, if you could submit that to the record.
Mr. DOMBECK. We'd be happy to.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, and I want to thank this panel very much for your time, and you are dismissed, but I would appreciate your staying to listen to the rest of the testimony, if you possibly can.
And with that, I would like to introduce the second panel. The Committee welcomes Judge Dennis Reynolds from Grant County, from the Grant County Court in Canyon City, Oregon; Mike Poulson, chairman of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee of the Washington Farm Bureau, from Connell, Washington; and Charlie Decker, from Libby, Montana.
I wonder, gentlemen, if you would rise and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.
The Chair notes that, in spite of my request, the agency personnel did not remain. We will now change the method in which we will call agency personnel. We will now call agency personnel last.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will proceed with the testimony. The Chair recognizes Judge Dennis Reynolds.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS REYNOLDS, GRANT COUNTY COURT, CANYON CITY, OREGON
Judge REYNOLDS. Madam Chairman, it's with great pleasure that I appear before you today on this Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health. I guess I'll deviate slightly from the previous style.
I want to admit that I am humbled by the environment that I am seated in today. I'm only so pleased to be able to represent the citizens of Grant County. My name is Dennis Reynolds, and I am the Grant County judge, and I represent approximately 7,950 people in an area 2,897,920 acres in size. Of that area, 64 percent of it is federally managed and, unfortunately, that 7,950 people is 150 people less than it was in the last census.
In our area, the entire acreage falls within the ICBEMP planning area. Our principal industries are forestry, livestock, agricultural, and recreation. I first need to explain from where I'm coming. I describe myself as a forester by education, a sawmill manager by experience, a contract logger by choice, and a county judge by means of temporary insanity.
Unemployment in Grant County is another noteworthy element. Currently, at 1997, Grant County finished with a whopping 12.5 percent unemployment, while the State of Oregon was at 5.3. Six times in the year 1997 Grant County topped the highest rate of unemployment in the State of Oregon. We currently have 3,300 jobs. Our entire work force includes 3,300 jobs; 2,890 of those are jobs associated with non-farm employment, while 410 are farm jobs. Forty-one percent, or 1,200 of those jobs, are government jobs. Grant County's average annual pay in 1996 was $21,831. That's 25 percent less than the national average of $28,945. Oregon's, Grant County's is 19 percent less than Oregon's average. Grant County, Oregon has been identified by the Oregon Economic Development Division as the second most likely county to encounter economic collapse in the years to come.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let it be understood that Grant County shares common goals with the Eastside Ecosystem Coalition of Counties. Those goals include our desire for vital communities, clean water, clean air, healthy forest lands, and a functional Federal County relationship. However, we respectfully disagree on how to obtain these objectives.
The ICBEMP, I should remind you, is dealing with representation of county associations, not representation from counties themselves. Grant County, be assured, has not delegated its representative authority to the EECC.
I should also like to have it recognized that counties are not alike. Like ecosystems, they have different needs and different desires. A plan that comes down with a multitude of objectives and 166 specific standards does not appropriately, and can't begin to appropriately, address the needs of communities. Nothing in this plan is being done to address the high degree of non-resiliency.
The new social economic study talked about here today is not yet in the hands of the counties; it was promised that we would receive it this week. But it is my understanding after visitation with Judge White in December 1997, that again, Grant County's nine incorporated cities have risen to the top of the list. That only goes to show that not all counties are the same.
The environments in which we exist are not all the same. The question comes to mind, why is the planning process so involved with the Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management Act of 1996, while it ignores the Sustained Yield Forest Management Act of 1944, that was established to provide even flow sustained yield policy for timber harvest with focus on community stability? Federal county collaborative efforts—Grant County feels that those collaborative efforts are in vain. Presidential roadless area moratorium is one example; the Governor's enactment of 26 timber sales—he endorsed 26; Governor Kitzhaber endorsed 26 timber sales, saying they were environmentally sound and should proceed to sale. One of the first of those offered is one that's now in litigation.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, the