[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COMMITTEE OF SCIENTISTS--NATIONAL FOREST PLANNING
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 16, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
56-355 cc U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
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
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania RON KIND, Wisconsin
RICK HILL, Montana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
Doug Crandall, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Jeff Petrich, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 16, 1999...................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 1
Statements of witnesses:
Banzaf, William, Executive Vice President, Society of
American Foresters......................................... 32
Bierer, Bob, Director, Forest Management, American Forest and
Paper Association.......................................... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Dombeck, Mike, Chief, U.S. Forest Service.................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Floyd, Don, Chairman, Task Force on Public Lands Legislation,
Society of American Foresters.............................. 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Johnson, K. Norman, Chairman, Committee of Scientists........ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Lyons, James R., Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Munson, Mary, Senior Associate, Habitat Conservation,
Defenders of Wildlife...................................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Additional material supplied:
Sustaining the People's Land, Synopsis, etc.................. 66
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COMMITTEE OF SCIENTISTS--NATIONAL FOREST PLANNING
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:50 p.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth, Hon. Helen Chenoweth [chairwoman of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee on Forests and Forests health
will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
Committee of Scientists' National Forest planning. Under rule
4(g) of the Committee rules, any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner
and help other members keep to their schedules. Therefore, if
other members have statements, they can be included in the
hearing record under unanimous consent.
Today the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
convenes to hear from the administration's Committee of
Scientists, which was chartered by Secretary Glickman in 1997
to recommend changes to the Forest Service's land and resource
management planning process. The agency itself initiated a
critique of its planning process in the late 1980's and began
drafting new regulations to improve and streamline its
procedures shortly thereafter. Its goal was to develop new
procedures before it was time to begin revising its 10-year
management plans.
Unfortunately, the new planning regulations never saw the
light of day. After many delays, this administration appointed
a Committee of Scientists to develop recommendations for the
Forest Service to follow. Now, originally due in March or April
of last year, then in September, then planned for release in
February, the report was finally released yesterday.
Based on a preliminary review of the administration's
committee of Scientists' report, I am struck with mixed
feelings. Now, while the Committee has, obviously, put a lot of
hard work and thinking into this document, I still can't help
but feel that the committee's recommendations are a recipe for
the status quo, which means a continuation of gridlock, red
tape, continued controversy, and more difficult plan
implementation with fewer on-the-ground results.
But, despite its good intentions, the committee's
recommendations do not resolve a number of problems that have
been identified since the Forest Service first conducted its
critique. The 1982 regulations focus largely on the
development, amendment, and revision of plans, but provide no
direction for plan implementation. Forest plans are not based
on realistic budgets, so the Forest Service is unable to fully
implement them and adequately monitor the results. The public
involvement procedures have not reduced the level of
controversy over plan decisions. The ``viability provisions''
in the 1982 regulations have proven difficult to implement,
setting a higher standard than the Endangered Species Act, and
going beyond the intent and meaning of the diversity
requirement in the National Forest Management Act. Appeals and
litigation have greatly increased the time and cost of
planning, both for forest plans and for projects designed to
implement the plans, without substantially altering Forest
Service decisions.
While I am disappointed with the overall results, I believe
some of the committee's recommendations really have merit,
particularly the proposals to set up experiments and pilot
projects across the country to try different approaches, to
keep decisions close to the planning area, and the report's
emphasis on adaptive management.
Already Congress has passed, and even the administration
has agreed to implement, some very positive pilot projects on
national forest land. The Quincy Library Group bill originated
in this very Subcommittee, and it is a great example of what
local people can accomplish when they work together. The
administration has also set a positive precedent by allowing
expedited processes to be used in Texas for removing a blow-
down salvage. In addition, I will be working with leaders in my
own State of Idaho to implement a pilot project where Idaho can
manage specific portions of national forest land.
With these positive steps in mind, I am particularly
looking forward to hearing how the recommendations of the
Committee of Scientists address the use of pilot projects, and
how they will ensure that the decisions are locally based.
Following the first panel, the Subcommittee will receive a
report by a task group of the Nation's professional foresters.
Their report on public land management laws provides a
different view of the problems and solutions that are needed to
resolve the Forest Service's current forest planning gridlock.
And, finally, we will hear from two witnesses who have
closely followed the deliberations of the administration's
Committee of Scientists, and will offer their views on how to
improve national forest planning.
Now, I look forward to hearing from our panelists and
reviewing these reports in more detail. Because I agree with
the importance of using sound scientific principles in reaching
forest management decisions, I would appreciate the witnesses'
thoughts on the need for an independent scientific peer review
of any of the recommendations that are presented today.
And, when the Ranking Minority Member comes in, should he
wish, I would be happy to recognize him at that time for a
statement.
Now I would like to introduce our first panel: Mr. Jim
Lyons, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture; Mr. Mike Dombeck, Chief
of the U.S. Forest Service, and Dr. K. Norman Johnson, Chairman
of the Committee of Scientists from Corvallis, Oregon.
Dr. Johnson, I know you have others of your committee who
are sitting behind you and, I wonder if you might, at this
time, introduce them, please.
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Dr. Johnson. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
As you said, I am Norm Johnson, College of Forestry, OSU,
and I teach forest management and policy. And, with your
permission, I will turn it over here and I will ask each of
them to introduce themselves, if that is okay.
Mr. Agee. I am James Agee, College of Forest Resources,
University of Washington, Seattle.
Mr. Long. James Long, Utah State University.
Mr. Trosper. Ron Trosper, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff, Arizona.
Mr. Beschta. Bob Beschta, Oregon State University,
Corvallis.
Dr. Sedjo. Roger Sedjo, Resources for the Future, here in
Washington.
Ms. Dale. Virginia Dale, Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee.
Ms. Shannon. Margaret Shannon, State University of New York
at Buffalo, part of the environment institute in the school
there.
Dr. Noon. Barry Noon, Colorado State University.
Mr. Wilkinson. Charles Wilkinson, University of Colorado.
Ms. Wondolleck. Julia Wondolleck, University of Michigan.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, I want to welcome all of you to the
hearing and it is an honor, indeed, and a pleasure to have
these distinguished men and women with us today.
And, as explained in our first hearing, it is the intention
of the chairman to place all of our outside witnesses under
oath. Now, 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. And, I believe that all of
the witnesses were informed of this before appearing here
today, and they have each been provided a copy of the Committee
rules. So, now, if you will please stand and raise your right
hand, I will administer the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
The chairman now recognizes Mr. Lyons for his testimony.
Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be with you again this afternoon. I guess I would,
first, ask that my complete statement be offered for the record
and entered in the record, and I would simply summarize.
I know really the focus of the hearing today is to hear
from Chairman Johnson of the committee, and the members of the
committee. But, I thought what I would offer today is an
attempt to try to put things in context.
You have already alluded to the 1995 rules and decision not
to move forward with those rules. I thought I would offer some
thoughts on that--on the valuable contributions that the
committee's report provides us in terms of our goal of finally
preparing a final set of rules for forest planning; then maybe
just highlight a couple of the key provisions as I see them.
First of all, I want to emphasize, as you know very well,
forest planning and, in fact, forest planning rules have been
fraught with controversy from the very beginning. After the
enactment of the National Forest Management Act in 1976, Forest
Service set about preparing rules to guide forest planning, in
accordance with section 6 of the RPA, which NFMA amended. Now,
those rules were completed in 1979, but, in fact, no forest
plan was ever completed under those rules. As he entered office
as a part of the Reagan Administration, one of my predecessors,
Assistant Secretary John Crowell, elected to pull those rules
back and to take a new look at forest planning rules. At that
time, Doug McCleary was his deputy.
They reviewed rules and the controversy over their efforts
to attempt to revise the rules to conform with what they
thought would provide proper direction led to reconvening of
the Committee of Scientists, which had been originally convened
to prepare the 1979 rules. The 1982 rules finally did go in
place and, of course, all the forest plans that had been
prepared, amended, and as you indicated, litigated, since that
time, have been done so under the 1982 guiding rules. So, it
has been some time since we have revisited the basic rules that
guide forest planning.
When I first took office, one of the bundles of paper on my
desk was a proposal from the Bush Administration to amend
forest planning rules. I elected to review those rules and
decided not to proceed, but, in fact, worked with Forest
Service in preparation of the draft rules that were issued in
1995. In part, as a result of response to those rules and
criticism from all sides about some of the substance of changes
that were proposed--as well as some of the things we were
learning--as the administration in moving forward with
implementing new policy and management direction, lessons
learned from the President's Northwest Forest Plan, from the
Columbia River Basin effort, which you are well aware of, from
implementing the salvage rider, and from working to try to
prove the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, we
found that there were a number of new lessons, and perhaps some
new guidance, that should be incorporated into new planning
direction.
Therefore, we decided, instead of moving forward with the
1995 rules, to establish a Committee of Scientists to take a
fresh look at forest planning and the rulemaking that guides
forest planning. In fact, in December 1997, as you pointed out,
Secretary Glickman chartered and appointed the committee that
is here before you today, and presented this report to
Secretary Glickman on Monday.
I think it is important to note that this is an extremely
diverse committee, selected so as to represent the breadth of
expertise and experiences we thought were essential to
understanding the issues that are associated with forest
planning and to help create a new foundation, if you will, for
forest planning and management direction for the future. And,
so, the individuals that just introduced themselves represent a
wide range of areas of expertise from forest ecologists and
silvaculturists, to economists, to a lawyer, to a sociologist,
range ecologist, landscape background and experience, as well
as extensive experience in other areas of ecology, such as
animal ecology.
We thought it was an extremely valuable team, and I think
the product of their efforts are really outstanding. I think it
does provide us a very valuable foundation for the work that we
need to proceed with.
The report that was presented to the Secretary, that we
will discuss today, I would say, in a phrase, is elegantly
simple in the direction it provides and the message it sends.
And, that is simply this: We need to work in a way that better
integrates science and policy in decisionmaking processes,
working from regional ecological assessments to create a
foundation, if you will, to guide resource management. In using
the scientific information available, we should work with our
public, with interested parties, with our colleagues, and other
agencies, to help develop a desired future condition that
provides some set of goals and objectives for forest management
direction. We should then use that desired future condition to
guide implementation of forest management policies and specific
management actions and measure our managers' performance by how
well they implement actions to help move us toward that desired
future condition, a condition that has, hopefully, been
developed and agreed upon by the community of interest in a
particular national forest or region of the country.
At the same time, we should monitor performance to ensure
that we are getting the results we intended, and, in so doing,
make corrections, as necessary, in the vein of adaptive
management, a concept that we have discussed many times and, of
course, a concept that former Chief Jack Thomas was
instrumental in helping to put in place.
Some key elements in the report that I think are worthy of
focusing on are these: First of all, the report emphasizes that
fact that ecological sustainability should be a foundation for
the management of the national forest. In fact, the committee's
report summarizes that concept in this way: The committee
recommends that ecological sustainability provide a foundation
upon which the management for national forests and grasslands
can contribute to economic and social sustainability. And, I
think, the key there, Madam Chairman, is the linkage between
ecological sustainability and the social and economic
sustainability of the communities that you and I care very much
about across the United States, the emphasis on larger
landscapes.
I think what we have learned from our work in those regions
of the country--I mentioned previously the Northwest, the
Columbia River Basin, the Sierra, the Appalachians--emphasizing
collaboration and the need for agencies to work together. I
think we have come to recognize--we have discussed in this
hearing room many times--the extent to which other agencies,
given the jurisdiction and authority they have in implementing
statutes like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water
Act, and others, certainly impact how we implement planning.
And, working with those agencies upfront is important in a
collaborative vein, a focus on desired future conditions not
devised, simply by the foresters in charge of individual
national forests, but devised through partnership and dialogue
with interested parties, with the public, with commercial
interests that are impacted by the use of these national
forests, and by those who may not live in an area proximate to
a national forest, but certainly have a vested interest in this
forest. Monitoring, which the committee highlights as an
essential element of stewardship, I think is the key to
ensuring that we are actually getting the results that we seek,
and I think it is the key to responding to the concerns that
you, and other Members of Congress, have raised with regard to
our ability to be accountable for the investments we make and
the resource decisions that we implement. Encouraging citizen
participation throughout the planning process is another
critical element and area of special emphasis.
As highlighted in the committee's report, watersheds are
given particular focus, which I think, in some manner of
speaking, helps to validate some of the focus that the Forest
Service is providing on watersheds as well as other elements of
what we refer to as the Forest Service's natural resource
agenda. Most importantly, the recommendation that we measure
performance based on our ability to move towards that desired
future condition that is established on a landscape.
Let me explain, very briefly, Madam Chairman, how we hope
to use the information that has been generated by the
committee. In brief, we have been working on a parallel track
with the committee in establishing a planning team to begin the
process of revising and developing new planning rules--that
track, largely with the recommendations of the committee. We
have worked from earlier drafts of the report, shared
information, which, of course, has been available to the
public-at-large through the website that was established. The
committee--in fact, I know the committee staff--has
participated in several of the FACA meetings that were held by
the committee.
We have used this information to begin the process of
developing rules which we hope we can issue in draft this
spring, with the intent of moving forward, receiving public
comment, making improvements and modifications to respond to
that comment, and hopefully, completing the rules by the end of
this year.
I want to address one other issue, Madam Chairman, if I
could, that I know will be a focus of discussion as this debate
over the future of forest planning evolves. And that is the
issue of the statutory foundation for forest management in this
day and age. Some have argued, in fact, that the laws that
guide the management of the national forests are broken. In
fact, some will argue that the committee's report provides new
direction for forest management.
I would argue quite the opposite, Madam Chairman, as you
might expect. I would argue that, in fact, the statutory
foundation for management of the national forests is quite
sound, and that this report really, in fact, simply reaffirms
direction that has been the ``standing order,'' if you will,
for management of the national forests for nearly a century.
In fact, if I could--and I would ask that this be entered
into the record--I have with me a letter that was sent by
former Secretary James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, to
Gifford Pinchot in 1905, nearly a century ago, which really
provided the initial direction for management of the forest
reserves as they were transferred to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture for administration.
I think, the most salient point in the letter from
Secretary Wilson to Chief Pinchot was the following: The
Secretary noted and directed that, where conflicting interest
must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from
the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in
the long run--I think arguing for the need to, not only deal
with the concerns and issues of the present, but look to the
long term in a sustainable way. In fact, Gifford Pinchot, in
his autobiography ``Breaking New Ground,'' which I know you
have, made note of the Secretary's letter and proudly said, of
the letter, in the four decades between the time the letter was
written and Pinchot wrote his autobiography--this letter has
set the standard for the service, and it is still being quoted
as the essence of Forest Service policy.
I would argue, Madam Chairman, that in the six decades
since Pinchot wrote these words, that direction contained in
the original letter from Secretary Wilson to Gifford Pinchot
still stands. I believe the committee's report simply reaffirms
that direction.
Let me close, Madam Chairman, by emphasizing something that
I think the committee brought forth that is an extremely
important point, and that is, over the years--and you are well
aware of this--the Forest Services lost some credibility with
the public, credibility with the communities we serve, maybe
even credibility with the Congress, and our colleagues. The
committee argues that there are ways in which we can begin to
build or rebuild the credibility in partnership with that
larger community of interest. In fact, the community argues
that, by engaging the public in a dialogue about the use of
their national forests, we can accomplish that larger goal of
rebuilding credibility.
As you know, Madam Chairman, forest planning has become an
exercise that generates documents like these. And, actually
this is one document in a pile that is about this tall, but it
is sad to bring up--I didn't have the strength to bring it all
up here today. We put the public through an exercise of
attempting to review these documents and respond to us, not in
a collaborative way, but almost in a responsive way. I think
that has lent itself to impacting the public's trust in us and
the public's acceptance of the direction we provide.
To the contrary, I think our goal should be to engage the
public in the management of their national forests, and, in
fact, it is highlighted on the inside cover of the committee's
report. Pinchot made the same argument back in 1907, again,
nearly a century ago, when he said that national forests are
made for and owned by the people; they should also be managed
by the people. They are made not to give the officers in charge
of them a chance to work out theories, but to give the people
who use them, and those who are affected by the use, a chance
to work out their own best profit. This means that, if national
forests are going to accomplish anything worthwhile, the people
must know all about them and must take an active part in their
management.
And, I think you would agree that is very true, Madam
Chairman, that we need to translate forest planning, policy,
and management direction in ways in which the public can
understand it and become actively engaged in deciding whether
or not this direction we provide is consistent with their goals
and wishes. In fact, we need to engage the public in a joint
effort in deciding what the desired future condition for these
national assets should, in fact, be.
The committee highlighted this point in their report, they
said, ``People find it difficult to support what they do not
understand. Further, few people have time for in-depth
analysis,'' and they are referring to documents like this. The
Forest Service must make a far greater effort to explain these
policies in an understandable manner to the people who own
these lands.
I think, Madam Chairman, the committee has done us all a
tremendous favor in reviewing past analysis and reviews of
forest planning; in looking at the comments received from the
public on past planning proposals; in fact, reviewing the
internal critiques that you reference in your statement; in
providing us a very sound foundation that should guide us in
revising, what really amounts to, our planning technology so
that we are better prepared and able to prepare plans that are
responsive to, in effect, incorporate the public's views in a
much greater way in the future than we did in the past.
The committee makes a recommendation, specifically, with
regard to how we should measure performance, in fact, that I
think will help us as well. The committee said, quote, ``Past
planning, which often focused on timber harvest and the
allowable cut, tended to polarize people in groups. Planning
that focuses on desired future conditions and outcomes and the
activities to achieve them, on the other hand, gives the Forest
Service the best chance to unify people on the management on
the national forests.''
I hope, Madam Chairman, as we work together on planning
direction and these new rules, that we, in fact, can be unified
in our commitment to attempt to get these rules finalized and
out there as quickly as possible, so that our forest managers
and, most importantly, the public we want to encourage to
become engaged in this planning process, understand the rules
under which they are to operate--and, more importantly, are
encouraged to be more involved in deciding the future
management of their national forests.
With that, Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Lyons, for your excellent
testimony.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Dombeck.
STATEMENT OF MIKE DOMBECK, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Dombeck. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Mr. Sherwood. It is
a pleasure to be here to speak with you today about a very
important topic.
And, it is also an honor for me to be here with our
distinguished Committee of Scientists. I want to publicly thank
Chairman Johnson and Dr. Virginia Dale for leading this effort
through to completion, as well as the entire committee that has
put a lot of hard work into this.
I will be brief. I would like to ask that my entire
statement be entered into the recordbook.
I think we all believe that the national forests of the
richest country in the world be a model for how human
communities can live in productive harmony with the land that
sustains us generation after generation. But, yet, so much of
the debate over natural resources today seems to focus on
things which we disagree about. And, yet, I am sure you and I
will agree that there is more common ground for us to walk as
we chart a course toward sustainability.
After many months of work, the Committee of Scientists
report illustrates that there are many similarities in the
various perspectives of how to manage our national forests and
grasslands. We all share the belief that we cannot allow any
single use of these lands to diminish long-term productivity.
The land's ability to support communities depends on taking
care of the land's health, diversity, and productivity. And,
this certainly is consistent with a multiple-use, sustained-
yield mandate.
To achieve this balance, we must build capacity for
stewardship among communities of place as well as communities
of interest. The best available science from all sources must
be used to help identify options for decisions on the
landscape. Additionally, we would all likely agree that
continued multiple-use management of our national forests and
grasslands is appropriate.
We also agree that multiple use doesn't mean every use on
every acre. And, as Jim has mentioned, the American people are
less concerned about the encyclopedic size of environmental
impact statements and phone book size forest plans than they
are about the results on the land. The results that they care
about are: clean water, healthy forests, healthy watersheds,
wildlife habitats, stable soils, recreation opportunities. This
is the essence of the Forest Service's natural resource agenda.
Combined with the recommendations of the Committee of
Scientists, we will craft a new set of planning regulations
that better meets the expectations of the citizen-owners of the
public lands.
As stewards of the public trusts, we know that our forests
and grasslands will confer economic, social, and other benefits
on people and communities nationwide so long as we manage them
in a way that maintains their health, diversity, and long-term
productivity. Forest planning is the pathway to achieving that
end result.
Based upon the Committee of Scientists' recommendations,
ecological sustainability will lay a critical foundation for
fulfilling the intent of the laws and regulations guiding
public use and enjoyment of the national forests and
grasslands.
And, I want to say upfront that the Forest Service mission
is clear and always has been. If we manage the land in a
sustainable manner, over the long term it will take care of us
generation after generation. And, I believe that is a common
goal that we all share.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dombeck may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Chief. I appreciate your good
testimony.
And, now the Chair recognizes Dr. Johnson. I want to
especially welcome you to the Committee. You are from my home
State, and I was raised in Grants Pass and admire the
university, the Oregon State University. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF K. NORMAN JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE OF
SCIENTISTS
Dr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
Our committee was convened in December of 1997 by the
Secretary of Agriculture, as you have said, and we were given
an assignment to recommend how to best accomplish sound
resource planning within the established framework of
environmental laws and within the statutory mission of the
Forest Service. We were asked to suggest a planning framework
that could last a generation, and that is what we have tried to
do.
In our approach, we met around the country with Forest
Service employees, representatives of tribes, States, and local
governments, related Federal natural resource agencies, and
members of the public.
We found many, many creative ideas being expressed by both
the Forest Service and members of the public about how to
improve planning. And, much of our recommendations, many of
them reflect what we learned. I am going to summarize, very
briefly, the 10 or 12 major recommendations that we have.
No. 1, recognize sustainability as the overarching
objective of national forest stewardship. The national forests
and grasslands constitute an extraordinary national legacy
created by people of vision and preserved for future
generations by diligent and farsighted public servants and
citizens. They are the people's lands, emblems of our
democratic traditions. And, we have named our report, which has
just come out, ``Sustaining the People's Lands.''
The committee believes that sustainability, in all its
facets--ecological, economic, and social--should be the guiding
star for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands.
Looking back across the century, a suite of laws, starting
with the Organic Act of 1897, call for Federal agencies to
pursue sustainability. Thus, for the past 100 years, we, as a
Nation, have been attempting to define what we mean by
``sustainability,'' in part through our grand experiment in
public land management. In the process, we have broadened our
focus from that of sustaining commodity outputs to that of
sustaining ecological processes and a wide variety of goods,
services, conditions, and values. The concept of sustainability
is old; its interpretation and redefinition in this report
should be viewed as a continuation of the attempt by Gifford
Pinchot and others to articulate the meaning of
``conservation'' and ``conservative use'' of the precious lands
and waters known as the national forests and grasslands.
Recommendation two is that ecological sustainability is a
necessary foundation for stewardship. The committee recommends
that ecological sustainability provide a foundation upon which
the management of the national forests and grasslands can
contribute to economic and social sustainability.
This is where planning should start--by ensuring that we
retain and restore the ecological sustainability of watersheds,
forest and range lands for present and future generations so
they can continue to provide benefits to society.
This recommendation does not mean that the Forest Service
is expected to maximize environmental protection to the
exclusion of other human uses and values, rather, it means that
planning, for multiple use and sustained yield, should operate
within a baseline level of ensuring the sustainability of
ecological systems.
The committee believes that conserving habitat for native
species and the productivity of ecological systems remains the
surest path to maintaining ecological sustainability. To
accomplish this task, the committee suggests a three-part
strategy, and we have drafted regulatory language to help the
Secretary understand how the strategy will be converted from
concept to application. With the committee's recommendations,
choices in management still remain about the level of risk.
Recommendation three, economic and social sustainability--
contributing to the well-being of people today and tomorrow--is
a fundamental purpose of the national forests. Conservation and
management of the national forests and grasslands can promote
sustainability by providing for a wide variety of uses, values,
products, and services, and by enhancing society's capability
to make sustainable choices. Included in this effort should be
the recognition of the interdependence of forest and grasslands
with economies and communities; many communities depend on the
national forests and grasslands for much of their economic,
social, and cultural sustenance--as those of us who live in
Oregon know.
Although, the Forest Service cannot singlehandedly sustain
economies and communities, the national forests and grasslands,
nevertheless, contribute many valued services, outputs, and
uses that allow these economies and communities to persist,
prosper, and evolve. Within a context of sustaining ecological
systems, planning must take generous account of compelling
local circumstances. In addition, local communities have much
to offer in terms of the entrepreneurship and people to
undertake the treatments that will be needed to sustain the
forests.
Recommendation four, consider the larger landscapes in
which the national forests and grasslands are located to
understand their role in achieving sustainability. That is,
planning should look outward. In the past--and I was part of
the planning effort in region 6 in the late 1980's--planning
tended to look inward, with each national forest treated
somewhat as an island to provide all the goods and services. We
feel that now planning should look outward and recognize the
special role the national forests and grasslands play in
regional landscapes.
Five, to build stewardship capacity and use a collaborative
approach to planning. Basically, this is getting everybody into
the tent from the beginning to assess resource conditions and
trends as joint public-scientific inquiries; to work with other
public and private organizations toward a sustainable future;
to address all Federal lands within the area and work, to the
degree feasible, with all affected Federal agencies; to
undertake coordinated Federal planning.
Six, to make decisions at the spatial scale of the issue or
problem. To have a hierarchical approach to planning,
developing overall guidance for sustainability for bio-regions
and undertaking strategic planning of large landscapes for
long-term goals and project-level planning for small
landscapes. And, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, we
advocate an adaptive-planning approach where we learn from
planning with experiments and pilots.
Seven, use the integrated land and resource plan as an
accumulation of planning decisions at all levels and as an
administrative vehicle for plan implementation; to make these
``loose-leaf'' plans dynamic and evolving, reflecting the
outcomes of adaptive management; and to support local
management flexibility, which we feel is essential to effective
planning, with independent field review.
No. 8, to make ``desired future conditions'' and the
outcomes associated with them the central reference points for
planning.
No. 9, to make effective use of scientific and technical
analysis and review, including developing scientifically
credible conservation strategies.
No. 10, to integrate budget realities into planning. Last
time we approached planning more in the ``field of dreams''
approach, with the notion being that: ``build a plan and the
money will come.'' Well, the money didn't come, at least not in
total, and we feel that we should set long-term goals,
considering likely budgets, and acknowledge that actual budgets
affect the rate of progress.
Eleven, we provided special guidance on watershed and
timber supply, traditional focuses of the Forest Service in
achieving sustainability that included a six-part strategy for
conserving and restoring watersheds--which, I won't go into
detail, but we have on our summary.
And, next, on timber, to recognize the role of timber
harvest in achieving sustainability; to recognize the need for
predictable timber supplies and how adherence to sustainability
increases long-term predictability; and to focus on desired
conditions and the actions needed to produce these conditions,
including timber harvest, in planning, budgeting, monitoring,
and performance evaluation--to focus on desired conditions, and
the actions needed to produce them, all the way from planning
through implementation, through budgeting. We also acknowledge
external influences on collaborative planning and stewardship
and suggest developing a consistent approach across Federal
agencies for addressing protests and appeals.
Finally, to assist the Secretary in writing/planning the
regulations, the committee has summarized these recommendations
into a set of purposes, goals, and principles, which can serve
as the statement of purpose at the beginning of the
regulations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Dr. Johnson.
And, the Chair now would like to step out of order just a
little bit and recognize the Ranking Minority Member for any
statements he might have. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I don't have an opening statement at this point.
I will go ahead and ask a question as we move around.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Pennsylvania for his questions, Mr. Sherwood.
Mr. Sherwood. Dr. Johnson, it's my understanding that, when
the committee was chartered, Under Secretary Lyons indicated
that he wanted the committee's report to be peer-reviewed. Is
that correct?
Dr. Johnson. That is not my understanding. That is not my
understanding.
Mr. Sherwood. I see. Was the report peer-reviewed?
Dr. Johnson. We have sent it out and made it available, and
various people and scientists have given comments to us, but it
has not--the report that has just come out was not subject to a
formal peer review.
Mr. Sherwood. Has the committee kept detailed minutes of
its meeting, as required by the Federal Advisory Committee?
Dr. Johnson. We have minutes of our meetings that are put
up on our web page.
Mr. Sherwood. Would those be available for our Committee to
review?
Dr. Johnson. Oh, sure, they are already available.
Mr. Sherwood. Good. We might want to see those.
Dr. Johnson. Sure.
Mr. Sherwood. Mr. Lyons, did you attend some of these
meetings?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. I did.
Mr. Sherwood. Okay. Like what percentage?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I know I briefly attended the initial
meeting and perhaps two or three others.
Mr. Sherwood. And then--I have one more of this--and then I
want to get into a little different line.
Dr. Johnson, I understand you resigned from the committee.
Dr. Johnson. Well, I am glad you asked that. I did not
formally resign; I did not send a letter to the Secretary, but
I lost my temper at one of the meetings, and if you had----
Mr. Sherwood. We have all done that.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Johnson. [continuing] and, if you had listened to our
conference calls, you would see that we have a very lively
discussion. I felt that the committee was becoming too
prescriptive in the details of what we were trying to do and
getting away from our framework. And, I did send a note to them
that I could no longer take part. The committee immediately
asked me to rejoin and that we would work this out, and we did.
I did not realize how much that would increase the interest in
our report by the press.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sherwood. Well, and don't think that the rest of us
have never lost our temper in a substantive discussion. We just
try not to throw a hand grenade in the middle of one of those
good discussions.
[Laughter.]
I am pretty interested in the eastern Forest, being from
Pennsylvania. And, I think that we can make some mistakes in
the East that Nature gets us out of a little better than it
does in the States in the West. But, how much did you involve
the eastern Forest, and do you have any comments on SFI and
those type of things?
Dr. Johnson. First off, we had one meeting in Boston and
another in Atlanta. We have a number of representatives from
the East: Larry Nielsen from Penn State who, by the way, isn't
here; Margaret Shannon who is from Buffalo. And, we were
relying on them, and others from the East--and Virginia Dale
who is from Oak Ridge, Tennessee--to make sure that we have the
experience to reflect the conditions in the eastern national
forests. That is how we tried to approach it.
Now, if it is permitted, I would like to ask if any of the
committee would like to make a further comment about that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me ask you, please, to identify
yourself, for the record. Thank you.
Mrs. Shannon. Margaret Shannon. I would just add that some
of our really excellent examples of public participation and
ways in which local people and the forests are working together
came from national forests in the Northeast, the Green and the
White Mountain, and we also have included some examples from
the Huron-Manistee in Michigan.
Mr. Sherwood. Thank you. One of the huge problems that we
are so worried about in the West is the fire danger, and in the
East we are more worried about deer damage. You know, I mean,
things are so different. But, we find as we do our harvests in
the East--and we think we are doing them very carefully, and
timber stand improvement, and taking the mature stuff out and
the junk out--and then we find that we don't have our normal
regeneration because of the deer herd; that a young charier
white ash sticks its head up and the deer lop it off. But, what
does your plan suggest for the fire danger in the West, and how
are we going to--the ladder, and all the natural trash that
makes it--it was very instructive on this Committee to me when
I was shown some old pictures that the forest, 100 years ago,
had more big stems and not near as much underbrush and not near
as much trash because the natural forage had taken it out. We
don't have that anymore. How did you address that?
Dr. Johnson. I would like to ask Dr. Agee, who is a fire
ecologist, to address that.
Mr. Agee. Hi, my name is James Agee from the University of
Washington.
I think the way we addressed this was in the conceptual way
that we addressed all of the lands that are in the national
forests and grasslands. To take a look at their long-term
sustainability, to look at the condition of the land that we
wanted into the future, and obviously, in the case of fire, we
don't want these flammable forests into the future. So, we look
at a desired future condition on a lot of these western forests
that tends to try to save the larger, more fire-tolerant trees
and reduce the smaller trees that would create a ladder, as you
mentioned, that would carry fire into the crowns of the trees.
It is the condition of the land that we feel planning
should deal with, and the implementation and the progress
towards those goals should utilize a combination of the
appropriate tools for that particular place and that particular
landscape. In the case of these western forests, I would
probably include prescribed fire and timber harvest as some of
the two--at least the two major types of tools that we would
use. We did not, in our report, get so prescriptive as to
specifically state that either timber harvest or prescribed
fire should be used at a particular level or at a particular
mix. We feel that those are the decisions that really have to
be made based on this hierarchical planning that we have talked
about and based on the collaboration that begins at that local
level.
Mr. Sherwood. Thank you.
Dr. Johnson. Can I say one more thing? When you get a copy
of this and--there are just very few copies right now--but if
you turn to the very back of it where we talk about visualizing
alternative futures--oh, you do have a copy. How wonderful. I
know, but I barely have one. It is page 189. Okay, and, by the
way, I know this is blurry and we are going to print it so it
is better. The top left is the Eldorado National Forest, the
current fire severity index. Red means, if you have a wildfire,
you are going to burn it up. The righthand top is 50 years from
now without active management; even more of it will be
susceptible to fire. The bottom, left, is if you use a
combination of prescribed fire and timber harvest, you can, by
and large, eliminate that problem. Many people live along that
lefthand edge, and that is a major issue.
What we are trying to do here is, we are trying to point
out that this visualizing the future, thinking of where we want
to go, is fundamental to forest planning. And, this sort of
display can work wonders in helping unify people as to what to
do.
This is the Eldorado National Forest in California, the
same forest that is represented on the cover. No bias here, but
I have spent a lot of time there. Okay. So, we are, in our
report--while we are not prescriptive, we are trying to point
out that, really, looking and understanding the long-run
implications of different strategies is key, and we tried to
illustrate what could be done to deal with the fire hazards.
Mr. Sherwood. Thank you. My limited study of forestry--and
it is a hobby of mine--has shown me, in the East, that no
matter what we do, there are some trends that we can't control.
We took a coniferous forest and we clear-cut it at the end of
the last century, and it came back to be a vital hardwood
forest. And, now, we have been cutting that, and then the gypsy
moth killed a lot of it and the pines are coming back. You
know, it is a moving target.
I am interested in how strongly you took into your planning
the needs of the country for forest resource. And I believe
that it is wonderful to have some stands that we never touch,
that we could look at know how they would be if we never
touched them. But I understand that you get more water
retention in a young forest; you get more growth in a young
forest; you produce more oxygen. There are certainly lots of
economic reasons to have a sustainable harvest. And, I would
like to know if someone would care to address that, or if your
plan was more esoteric than that?
Dr. Johnson. I don't think I will be able to respond on
whether it is more esoteric. The way we approached it was as
follows: When you define where you want to go and what outcomes
you want and the kind of products you want in the long run, and
you try to work toward that, you have to undertake actions to
get there. You, undoubtedly, want all the different
successional stages represented and, thus, you have to find a
way to achieve that, and certainly timber harvest has a
significant role in that, in addition to providing outputs that
people need.
So we tried to define it; set up a framework where people
could think this through and understand the implications,
recognizing the dynamics of these forests. And, one of the
major changes from this approach to planning than what we have
had in the past was to recognize that the forest is not a
static entity. You can't make it just sit there, and you have
got to respond to that. And, if you wish to achieve, over time
some conditions, you often need to get in there and do
something.
Mr. Sherwood. Thank you very much. I am afraid I am out of
time.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Smith for his questions.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
the opportunity. I appreciate all the work that all the
scientists did.
Back to my home State's universities, both were represented
with Dr. Agee from the University of Washington and Dr.
Hardesty from Washington State. And, it is nice to have the
balance from the State, as well.
[Laughter.]
Always important.
Let me ask just a couple of questions about some of the
sort of fault lines, if you will, rocks in the hard places that
you all have to deal with. Seems like in most public policy
areas we spend a lot of time dealing with the areas, talking
about the difficult areas out there, and sort of circling
around them, and I understand that. Indirectly confronting them
rarely leads to positive results, but it does need to be done,
and I respect the fact in this report you did that.
Sustainability is one of the key concepts, and I am
wrestling with what sustainability means. Sustainability of how
many different purposes for our public lands, for whom, or for
how long a period of time? And, obviously, a lot of people
think one big portion of sustainability is the timber. You
know, it is very simple; you can't cut it all down now because
you won't have any in the future, but what is the appropriate
level?
But, beyond that, is balancing the different uses for the
public land, some recreation purposes, and all of that. Do you
see a possibility for balancing all of those sustainability
interests? I know firsthand that what sustainability means to
the environmental community is an entirely different thing than
what sustainability means to the timber companies. Do you see
any possibility of recognizing all of those different views and
coming up with a sustainable plan for our public lands?
Dr. Johnson. Well, I want to make just a comment or two and
then ask Charles Wilkinson to talk further.
First off, when we looked back at the history of the
legislation, there was a call for sustainability from the
beginning; it has always been of interest to the people. And, I
know there are many hard issues here. We felt that
sustainability in all of its facets--ecological, economic, and
social--was a really fundamentally important starting point and
goal to have; and could create an approach to planning and an
approach to thinking that would, in fact, focus on how do we
sustain the full suite of outputs and uses and values and would
recognize the legitimacy of all of them.
Now, I would like Dr. Wilkinson, if he would like, to
elaborate on that.
Mr. Smith. And recognizing that is a very big step, I
understand that and applaud that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You have no problem with his being
recognized, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Oh, I am sorry.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please identify yourself, for the record.
Mr. Wilkinson. Yes, my name is Charles Wilkinson, Madam
Chairman.
You are right that it is a large step. And, sustainability,
at the end of this century, is a term that is used widely, and
we think of it as a key notion in natural resources policy. In
working through our report, we spent a good amount of time
trying to understand the many different laws that affect the
Forest Service over more than a century. And, some of them, not
always thought of as Forest Service laws such as: the Clean
Water Act, the Clean Air Act, NEPA, and the Endangered Species
Act, that apply on national forest lands. The more we talked
about and understood those laws, the more comfortable we were
with the idea that their central thrust was sustainability.
Mr. Smith. Actually, while you are on that point, that was
one of my other questions, was about the compatibility of those
laws with land management and the difficulty--I mean, there are
different regulations in different areas. And, from what you
have just said, you basically said you saw greater wisdom in
those laws, as you looked at it more closely. But do you still,
also, see incompatibilities in terms of dual regulations
overlapping, not working together?
Mr. Wilkinson. That is a problem we face as Americans
today, I think, with overlapping regulations, and it includes
State and local, which are getting increasingly active on the
public lands. But, if you had to find an idea that ran through
them, it is sustainability. I am not sure it is commonly
realized, but the first national forests were set aside for
watershed protection, from irrigation districts around the
West, to have the watersheds protect it. In 1897, when the
Organic Act was passed, preserving favorable conditions of
water flows was listed as the first purpose. And, it was just
then that the Forest Service came of age with Pinchot and Teddy
Roosevelt and the extraordinary actions that they took. Their
driving force was conservation, a word that it is worth marking
down and reflecting on.
The Under Secretary earlier mentioned the famous Pinchot
letter where he characterized the mission of the Forest Service
as the greatest good for the greatest number. Over the years,
those ideas have continued, and the Weeks Act was passed in
1911 for watershed protection. We had a Sustained Yield Act in
1944. And, then in modern times, the laws that this Committee
is familiar with, has worked with, has amended, the ones I
mentioned earlier all speak in some way about sustainability.
The National Forest Management Act itself has a direct charge
to the Forest Service to be a leader in maintaining the policy
of conservation, to protect the Nation's natural resources in
perpetuity. And, so, to us, it seemed clear that the broad
mission that this Congress has charted for the Forest Service
is sustainability.
Mr. Smith. What do you see is being most in conflict with
that broad purpose at this point? What are the two or three
directions that we are being pushed or pulled in, in terms of
public lands, that are in conflict with the sustainability
mission?
Mr. Wilkinson. Well, I think a person has to recognize that
we went through a time in public land's administration--I
think, largely, in response to the post-World War II boom,
particularly in the West. The West has grown four-fold since
the War, from 17 million people to 60 million people, and that
required a lot of natural resources, whether it was water or
coal or timber, and we responded. I think that this body has
had serious questions about whether we didn't overdo the
emphasis on commodity outputs. We must have commodity outputs,
in my judgment, from the natural forests, and they ought to be
significant. But, we have lost things in the national forests
also. So, our report and the questions you raise are extremely
difficult to answer in a shorthand fashion, and I know you
appreciate that. But, we do believe it is valuable to recognize
that the mission that this Congress has set out in using terms
like ``sustained,'' and ``conserve,'' and ``in perpetuity,''
and ``future generations,'' that this body has used,
repeatedly, over a century, that the first step is to protect
the soil, and the water, and the watersheds themselves, so that
they can sustain, so that they can provide for future
generations. So, we use the term--the ecological component of
sustainability is that that is the first obligation. Certainly,
our every expectation is--and there was a question earlier
about timber production--the national forests, unquestionably,
can produce very significant commodity outputs. But, as Dr.
Johnson articulated earlier, if you look out to the future--and
the public with the agency sets a future vision--and you look
at the actions and what the landscape should look like, that
the commodity outputs will follow from that.
I briefly say one thing: that we really do have an
opportunity with the fuel loads in the Rocky Mountains, because
there are areas for compromise there, because those areas do
need to be cleared and a lot of that clearing can be done with
harvesting.
Mr. Smith. One last question, if I may, Madam Chairman?
The watershed issue, that is a big concern in the Pacific
Northwest and has impacts on a variety of areas. The salmon
listing that is due out any day now--in fact, it could be
today, Thursday--watershed is a key component of that. But
also, as the region grows, we have greater and greater need for
water and other cross purposes that conflict with making sure
that that water is clean and available.
How incompatible is the current commodity extraction
practices on public lands, primarily timber, with protecting
the watershed? I am operating from an area of very little
knowledge here. From what I understand, particularly when you
are talking about the roads and the cuts and everything, it
creates major problems for the watershed if you don't have the
riparian areas away from the water and that this has
contributed a great deal to the problems I mentioned, not to
mention flooding. I mean, we have had more flooding in the last
five to ten years in the Pacific Northwest than we have
probably have in the previous 100, and it can't all be
coincidental.
I guess the first question: How related it is to that? Is
there a way we can do it differently? Is there a way we can
build the roads differently and log differently? I agree, you
do need lighting on public lands, to a certain extent, but is
there some way to do it in a manner that doesn't lead to all of
those negative consequences?
Dr. Johnson. Congressman Smith and Madam Chairman, is it
acceptable that I ask Bob Beschta--he is a hydrologist from the
forest engineering department at OSU--to answer that question?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Dr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please identify yourself for the record,
again.
Mr. Beschta. Thank you. Bob Beschta at Oregon State.
The question of whether we can both harvest and have high-
quality outputs with regard to water and aquatic ecosystems is
a very controversial topic, as you are probably well aware, in
the Pacific Northwest as well as other places. Very briefly--
and there are a lot of sidebars, if you will, here--but when
you focus on a single product, if you will--I am going to
overgeneralize here, but if we, let's say, maximize timber
output from a watershed, I think what we have learned is we get
into trouble. Okay, we maybe end up putting roads where we
don't need them; we harvest in ways that probably would not be
compatible with today's views on how to do that. There have
been changes in forestry. We have learned a lot over the last
30 or 40 years, or 50 or 60 years. A lot of it is how to grow
trees and how to do that in a better way, but a lot of it has,
also, been on the impacts that harvesting practices can have.
There are a lot of lands on national forests, as well as
private ownerships, where we can build roads and we can harvest
trees and have minimal to little impacts on, let's say, aquatic
resources as well as water yields, or water runoff and water
quality. There are a lot of other places, though, that we have
to be incredibly careful and modify the approaches we use.
So, there is no simple solution to that one, but by being
aware of what your long-term goals are on a given area and
having some local management flexibility that is trying to
reach those goals, I think there is opportunity to have
harvesting and meet water-quality goals, but we have to be
careful how we do it.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to first acknowledge a couple of folks from my
home district who are here with us today: Mr. Wilkinson and Dr.
Noon, who are both Coloradans and served on the Committee. I
thank you for your efforts and for the time you took to make a
trip here to Washington, DC to be with us today.
If I could, I would like to direct a question to Mr.
Wilkinson to begin my questioning. What I hear you saying is
the Committee's recommendations are consistent with existing
laws that are applicable to national forests. Do we need to
pass any new laws in order to implement your report?
Mr. Wilkinson. Again, my name is Charles Wilkinson.
We were asked by the Secretary to prepare a report based
upon existing statutes. There are a number of important issues
that we were concerned about that needed, if they were going to
be dealt with, probably need statutory attention. And, they
include, for example, the budget question of trying to
coordinate planning with Congress' budget process; that would
be one example. But, we tried to keep most of our report within
existing law and, yes, we are satisfied that existing law well
supports the proposals we have made.
The Forest Service has, over the years, been recognized by
the courts to have an extremely broad charter from Congress
and, for example, they supported Pinchot's original grazing
regulations and Chief John McGuire's mining regulations in
1974, as just two of many examples that have come under the
Forest Service's charter. So, yes, we are very confident that
our recommendations are within existing law.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Madam Chair, if I may make a
comment, then I have got another question.
Listening to you talk about commodities, I am reminded of
that old saying about the West, and particularly in Colorado:
``Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over,'' and
we certainly are continuing that tradition in Colorado as we
speak.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wilkinson. I think everyone enjoys having the Udall
humor alive in this building again.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. I hope my Madam Chair does, too.
[Laughter.]
I want to stay in her good graces, of course. We are both
from the West and the great Rocky Mountains.
I want to have another question for Dr. Johnson. As I
understand it, the committee is recommending an emphasis on
maintaining the viability of selected focal species and their
habitats.
Dr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. How would you identify these
species?
Dr. Johnson. With your permission and the permission of
Madam Chairman, could I ask Dr. Noon from Colorado State to
answer the question? Is that acceptable?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, Dr. Noon, please identify yourself.
Dr. Johnson. And, it is not just because he is from
Colorado.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Noon. I am Barry Noon.
Let me, first, answer that by a few introductory comments
about how we address the viability issue. As a committee, we
recognized that the viability standard was, in fact,
impractical and undoable for even the most well-meaning of
managers. The charge to assess and make inferences to the
viability of all species within a management area is simply not
possible. But, yet, we recognize that that remains the goal.
The goal is to sustain all species, but to assess all species
is not possible.
So we sought insight from what we have learned in the last
20 years, broadly, in the field of environmental sciences of
how we could still shoot towards the goal of sustaining the
viability of all species and assess our progress, our
compliance, to reaching that goal. But, in a way, that was
doable. And, we adopted this idea of focal species, in which it
is very generally described as: a species that provides
inference up to the level of the ecological system to which it
belongs. That is, having information just on the status and
trends of that species provides insights far beyond that
particular species itself.
This is an emerging field in ecology; it is a very active
field of research in both marine, freshwater, and terrestrial
ecosystems. I think, since the regulations were initially
written, and we have made significant progress, we recognize
that to do this, the honest and responsible way to do that is
in the form of hypothesis. That is, we are going to propose
species as focal species. The hypothesis is that they are,
indeed, providing inferences upward to the larger system. And,
we are proposing that it is the responsibility of the Forest
Service, through their monitoring program, to determine the
degree to which that hypothesis is true. If it is false, then
we propose that they need to suggest a substitute species or
two.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Do you think this approach will meet
the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and any other
applicable laws that you might identify?
Dr. Noon. Well, that is a really good question. You know,
there is a point at which, even though the goal is to sustain
all species, we have to provide managers with tools that, in
fact, can be implemented. The assumption that a small group of
species is providing inference to the status and trends of all
the vast majority of species that are not being measured is an
assumption that a responsible manager should be testing with
some regularity. And that means going out and looking at the
system, looking at species or processes other than the focal
species or processes, to see if they are working as envisioned
according to our model of how we think Nature works. To the
extent they are not, to the extent that observation is not
concordant with prediction, then you should revisit your
management decisions. And, to us, that is the way we envision
the process of adaptive management.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you. I look forward to hearing
more about this. And, thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
The Chair recognizes the lady from California, Mrs.
Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, I am
from the far, far West.
[Laughter.]
It is interesting to listen to some of the dialogue,
especially from the Committee of Scientists' viewpoint. I have
a couple of questions, and one of them is directed at Under
Secretary Lyons because of his report, page 2, paragraph 3. You
indicate that the lessons learned from the experiences in
developing the Northwest Forest Plan, the President's Northwest
Plan, were factored, concluding that the draft forest planning
rules in 1995 were not accurate. I am interested in, No. 1,
what those lessons were because, after all, you learn from your
experience and you are trying to be flexible. But, do you think
that that report does reinforce the conclusion that the
science-based ecosystem or the bio-regional assessments are a
necessity for national forest planning for the future? And, is
this plan revision process for the 10 national forests over in
the Sierra Nevadas in California a good example? That is
something that is a very key interest for us in California.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, Congresswoman, I think we have learned a
great deal from the Northwest Forest Plan, as well as the
Sierra Nevada ecosystem project, which, actually, was initiated
based upon statutory direction from some of your colleagues in
California. I believe we learned that, in fact, having that
scientific underpinning, borne of these regional assessments
that allow us to understand the condition of forest resources
trends and the range of variability in terms of those systems,
is an important underpinning for the management direction that
we set.
One of the things that the Committee of Scientists, in
fact, focused on was the linkage between these regional
ecosystem assessments and land-management planning and,
ultimately, local decisions; and, in fact, emphasized the fact
that we needed to look at these lands in context before we made
these decisions.
If I could quote from one piece of the report in which the
committee addressed the issue of sustainability, it pointed out
that----
Mrs. Napolitano. What are you referring to, sir?
Mr. Lyons. I am actually referring to the summary document
and, since this is a draft I worked from, I am not sure I can
point to the specific page in their complete report.
Anyway, they stated, quote, ``Moreover, the public lands
rest in mosaic land ownerships, and so public land management
must be integrated into a broader regional landscape. This
context requires a Forest Service with a strong commitment to
ensuring the sustainability of ecological systems on public
lands and to embracing the adaptive management approach that
recognizes the fundamental uncertainties and ecological, as
well as social, systems and allows for policy choices to be
informed by experience and change over time.''
As you know from your experiences in California, the
California landscape is undergoing rapid change. And, I think
we learned, in preparing the Northwest Forest Plan, that we
needed to understand the role those public lands would play in
the larger context. One of the valuable lessons that came of
that was, we worked with our sister agencies in the Department
of the Interior, the jurisdiction over the Endangered Species
Act, in helping to develop strategies that would allow us, if
you will, on public lands, particularly the national forests
and BLM lands, to absorb a dominant responsibility, if you
will, for protecting some of the threatened and endangered
species, which would then relieve some of the pressures on
private landowners for meeting those endangered species
obligations.
That led to the development of what we call Habitat
Conservation Plans, where Secretary Babbitt has really
pioneered. The anchor for those Habitat Conservation Plans is
the strong protection provided on Federal lands for those
species of concern in that region. We had never done that
before. So encouraging the collaboration between agencies,
understanding our missions, and understanding the role the
public lands could play versus the private lands in that larger
landscape context was extremely valuable. And, I think the
Committee of Scientists report highlights the importance of
viewing resource-management decisions in that larger landscape
context.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. Now, my second
question, Madam Chair. With your permission, I will refer to
your report in this book, that I just happened to look at, page
59, section 3-10, where you talk about the planning
coordination of the urban fringe and the San Bernardino
National Forest. And, as your verbal report is indicating, you
are looking at furthering the conservation areas. I must remind
you, or at least implore you, to not forget those of us who
live in those 26 cities that you mention on line 26. The South
Whittier area, for instance, just recently put in about 300
acres into conservancy and we are working to add Brea Canyon
and Coal Canyon to the conservancy. Yet, we are having a tough
time trying to figure out who, when, where, and how can we work
with the different agencies to be able to have assistance, to
not only purchase the lands from the current owners, who are
sometimes demand exorbitant prices, but also to be able to put
it all together.
Our partners have been the TPL, the Trust for Public Lands
in California, and we have had very good success at the
beginning of the mountain range at the base of Whittier, and
now it is moving. But, while you are focusing on the bigger
picture, don't forget those little ones of us that are out
there just flailing around and trying to say ``Help.''
Mr. Lyons. Well, Ms. Napolitano, let me point out that I
think, first of all, coordinating strategies and bringing those
elements together is one of those things that we have a
responsibility to do. So, I would be pleased to work with you--
--
Mrs. Napolitano. Then, where have you been?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lyons. Well, you haven't called; you haven't written.
But, we will be there.
Mrs. Napolitano. The last time I spoke to somebody from the
Forest Service, they indicated to me that, ``Oh, we will talk
to you because we are doing some school-based programs.'' Well,
thank you very much; that is great for my schools. I am
interested in the conservancy areas to help those folks not
directly in my area; at Coal Canyon and Brea Canyon. But, I am
helping Congressman Miller, and others in that area, continue
the work that we started in our area, so that we have this
wildlife corridor and are able to preserve it.
Mr. Lyons. Well, now that I am aware of this, I would be
certainly willing to help in whatever way we could.
Mrs. Napolitano. I will be calling you.
Mr. Lyons. I look forward to that. Let me point out one
thing, though, because I know this is an issue of discussion
within the larger committee. The administration has proposed a
lands legacy initiative which would include resources, both for
land acquisition and for the acquisition of forest easements,
as well as for funding urban and forestry activities in those
communities, all of which might be helpful tools in addressing
the concerns you raise. So, I would be pleased to follow up
with you and see what we can do to help.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I appreciate your offer, and I
certainly commend the agency for the work it does. It has got
to be a tremendous job, and I certainly want to impose my own
thoughts, for the record--that, I think the Forest Service
should consider going back to its original intent of protecting
the watershed first, protecting the forest, and then the rest
can come as it may.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. The chairman has some questions
and I wanted to follow up on a question asked of Dr. Johnson by
Mr. Sherwood.
Dr. Johnson, Mr. Sherwood asked you about peer review. Can
you indicate, for the record, why peer review was not done
before submitting the information and the report to the
Secretary and to the Committee?
Dr. Johnson. First off, our charter did not request that,
but, secondly, this report is a little different from regular
scientific work. This is an integration of scientific ideas by
a broad-based group of scientists. And, so we did that and then
provided it to the Secretary. The Secretary, of course, is
welcome to do with it as he wishes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Johnson, will you be moving ahead on
peer review on the report?
Dr. Johnson. I don't plan to. I, actually, hope I am done,
if you understand that.
[Laughter.]
But, I see that a number of individuals and groups are
planning reviews of it. The Journal of Forestry is going to
have a special issue on it, other people that we are about to
hear later today, views of people, and I think there will be a
number of reviews of it. I, myself, am not planning, right now,
on further peer review.
Mr. Lyons. Madam Chairman, if I could, since the
Secretary's office gave the committee the charge--and since Mr.
Johnson is anxious to retire from his current task--let me just
point out that one of the reasons we didn't submit this to peer
review, as Dr. Johnson indicated, this is a different kind of
report. We have asked an esteemed group of scientists to render
some opinions in evaluating current forest planning practices,
the critiques of the past, and the job we are doing on the
ground, as a basis for making recommendations for how we can
improve forest planning. You know, we purposely sought and, in
fact, worked with both bodies of Congress in identifying
members for the committee, to try to come up with a broadly-
based group of people who could provide us as objective and
independent opinion as we could obtain.
So, our intent was not to submit this to peer review,
because it is not like a document that would normally be sent
out for peer review. This is not a research study or a
scientific report in that vein. But, I would point out that,
through the public participation process and the fact that the
committee's report and all its drafts were available on the
website, and through the process I know that we will engage in,
in meeting with you, and other Members of Congress, that I
think there will be an opportunity for a wide-ranging
discussion and the merits of the recommendations that committee
has provided.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Lyons. It has been reported
to me that individuals that had attended the meetings did
report that you did say at the meetings that there would be
peer review. As we reviewed the minutes, the minutes are fairly
sketchy about that. But, we did, specifically, inquire and I
just want to see if you would like to clarify that for the
record.
Mr. Lyons. Well, I would be glad to. We don't intend to
seek peer review.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You don't?
Mr. Lyons. No. We intend to use the information that has
been provided and attempt to move ahead.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Let me ask Dr. Noon to take the
mike again. Dr. Noon, your proposal about the focal species
approach, I would have to guess, not being a scientist myself,
that that is the same as indicator species, focal species. Is
that what we commonly refer to as indicator species?
Dr. Noon. Focal species is inclusive of the concept of
indicator species, but it is broader than that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you please explain it?
Dr. Noon. Some of the concepts that we have drawn on from
the study of natural systems that people have been using, not
just in this country, but throughout the world, to assess
changes in biodiversity, have included concepts like indicator
species, which often have the characteristics of being an early
warning; that is, they respond quickly to changes to
environmental stresses. But, in addition to that, we have added
other concepts such as umbrella species. These would be species
that have large area requirements, and by meeting their needs
for viability, presumably, you encompass the needs of many
other species that share their habitats, but have much smaller
area requirements. For example, I think an argument could be
made that the Northern Spotted Owl serves as an umbrella
species for Lake Seral Forest in the Northwest.
We have also brought in the concept of keystone species,
that is, species that have effects on the transfer of matter or
energy through ecosystems that is far beyond what you would
predict from their abundance. Examples of this, perhaps the
best example for marine systems are sea otters. For instance,
from terrestrial systems, a good example is prairie dogs.
We also talked about species that have unique positions in
the trophic pyramid, the pyramid of transfer of matter and
energy, to primary consumers, to herbivores, up the trophic
chain to carnivorous animals. An example like this, again,
drawing on some of my own research, might be the dusky-footed
woodrat in owl populations. In fact, I noticed there is even an
article in the latest issue of the Journal of Forestry talking
about the role that it plays in managed forests in the redwood
zone of California. So, it is inclusive of the indicator
concept, but it is broader than that, sort of the general
umbrella that we have adopted, that is, it provides inference
far beyond its own status and trend.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So, specifically, the definition of a focal
species is what?
Dr. Noon. It is the definition that I just gave you. It
is----
Mrs. Chenoweth. It is inclusive of all of those
definitions, right?
Dr. Noon. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Okay. Now, I understand that your committee
report acknowledges that this approach has never been field
tested. What testing should be, and will be, done in the field
before this approach is ready to be applied in all the national
forests? What are your plans?
Dr. Noon. I don't think we used the term ``field tested.''
We recognized what we honestly point out that there is no
algorithm that we can pull off the shelf of ecological
knowledge that tells us exactly how one should go about
selecting a small subset of species, from the entire set, that
will provide the most reliable inference upward to the larger
system. The field testing--correct me if I am wrong--is not a
term that we use. I mean, we certainly have a long history in
my discipline, for instance, of wildlife management of
implementing management practices to benefit populations and
their habitats.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Noon, the term is used on page 4 at the
bottom of the second paragraph in the lefthand column. So, that
is what prompted my question.
Dr. Noon. The field testing here refers to the conceptual
idea. The metaphor I made of an algorithm that one would pull
off a shelf--let's imagine that you were a forest supervisor on
a forest in the West, and you were to look at the species that
you are responsible for. And, let's just restrict it to animal
species, not to plant species. Your typical list would be in
the hundreds. Now, clearly, it is not possible for you, if you
were asked by the public, to state, unequivocally, what the
current status and trends of all of those species would be.
Now, the question we are posing is, is it possible that, if
you looked at that list of species and imagine that we
constructed a filter in which the fabric of that filter was
based on our best understanding, both from empiricism and from
theory, of how nature worked, and we were to dump in the top
all 100 plus of those species, and what is retained in the
filter is that small subset of species that provide the most
reliable inference upward to the integrity of the larger
system. That is what we are proposing that the Forest System
work towards. And, that is consistent, really, with what
ecologists like myself, from around the world, are working on
in trying to assess bio-diversity, recognizing that we cannot
measure everything, it is not possible. But, yet, it is our
responsibility to ensure that bio-diversity persists.
Dr. Johnson. Could I elaborate on that, just a little bit,
Madam Chairman? Is that permitted?
What we say there, which has to do with the ecological
sustainability regulation that we drafted, is, we say this
about the overall approach--let me just read a couple of
sentences here: ``that the committee acknowledges that such
concepts as focal species, ecological integrity, and the use of
scientific information may involve technical issues and, thus,
has an obligation to the Secretary and Chief to provide some
insight on how this framework of ecological sustainability
might be converted from concept to application. Therefore,
while our approach has not been field tested, the committee has
drafted regulatory language in the report that we believe
provides a useful approach to the issue.''
Well, first off, as I often do when I read something again,
I wish I had written it a little differently and put ``fully
field tested.'' But, the idea was that there are two parts to
this.
The first idea was that there are a number of parts to this
regulation--that, of course, we have experience in the field.
It was the integration of them that we were talking about as a
regulation that perhaps needs some thought and examination by
the Chief, and his people, to make sure they are practical.
But, in addition to that, we have put forward working
hypotheses, and we are acknowledging that. When the regulations
were written in 1982--well, starting in 1979--I was actually a
consultant to the Committee of Scientists. I was young then.
[Laughter.]
And, they were very much working hypotheses. But, the idea
was we are going to come up with a new set of planning
regulations that are going to last for a long time. We are now
acknowledging these are working hypotheses. I think that they
are much more conducive to management of the forests than what
is in the current regulations. But, we have to acknowledge, I
think, that we need a new set of regulations, but we can't put
them in stone for 20 years. They, themselves, need periodic
updates. And, so it is a different approach to thinking about
management; it is the whole adaptive management concept applied
to planning.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. I would like to
ask----
Dr. Johnson. Could I actually elaborate on this question of
peer review? Is that permitted or not?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, please go ahead.
Dr. Johnson. Since you mentioned that, in our meetings, did
we discuss it, I racked my brain and tried to think of it. We
had like seven 3-day meetings and then we had 10 conference
calls, and I really do not remember where we, as a committee,
said we were going to seek peer review. And, then I thought
about the times when Jim Lyons talked to us, which were two or
three, and I can't remember that happening then, either. But,
we had a lot of conversations at those meetings, but I really
do not remember that happening.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I appreciate your clarifying that for the
record.
I would like to ask Dr. Sedjo to please come to the mic and
please identify yourself.
Dr. Sedjo. Roger Sedjo.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And you are from?
Dr. Sedjo. From Resources for the Future here in
Washington, DC.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Sedjo, what is the statutory mission of
the Forest Service, and does the committee's report, in your
opinion, appear to change that mission at all?
Dr. Sedjo. Well, the statutory mission comes out in the
National Forest Management Act of 1976, which calls for the
sustainable production of multiple outputs and identifies
several of those multiple outputs. The focus was unsustainable
production of outputs. In the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act
of 1960, that calls for a high levels of periodic outputs of
renewable resources in perpetuity. So, in both cases, the focus
is on the outputs being produced on a sustainable basis.
There is an interesting shift in focus over time here, and
I am going to tell a little story that my colleagues sometimes
think is a little soapy. But, if you look over time at the way
we have looked at the national forest system, if we view it as
a goose that lays eggs. In earlier periods, we viewed it as a
goose that needed to be maintained; we needed to protect it;
let it run around. We were in a protection mode. We moved from
that mode into an output-oriented mode. We are looking at the
goose as a working goose whose output was the production of, in
the 1960's and 1970's, multiple-use eggs. The current
perspective that I think this committee has adopted is to take
the focus off of the output, off of the eggs, and put the focus
on the goose.
I sometimes characterize this as ``goose beautiful'' or the
``body-builder goose.'' We are interested in the condition of
that goose, and outputs are sort of incidental to that. And, I
think there has been a shift through time in kind of the
thought perspective, and, certainly, this committee has taken
that view of the focus on the goose, rather than the focus on
the output that that goose might be producing. I am not viewing
it as a working goose, the way we were 20 or 25 years ago.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I have taken advantage of my time, and I
see Mr. Udall from Arizona is here. And, I would like to ask
you--and I think I will do it in writing--what you believe are
the biggest problems with the current regulations? I need to
hear from you on that. And, in your opinion, does the report,
adequately, give direction to resolve the problems with the
current regulations.
Dr. Sedjo. I will send you some thoughts on that in
writing.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from Arizona, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I know you have already been asked about the viability of
focal species and their habitats----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Excuse me, Mr. Udall, for the record, Mr.
Udall from New Mexico.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know
what happened is that at least a lot of my friends in Arizona
say that there were too many Udall's in Arizona. So Mark is up
in Colorado; I am over in New Mexico. We branched out. That is
the theory. I don't necessarily claim that, but Arizona is
where I was born, so no offense taken.
I know you were already asked about the issue of the
selected focal species and their habitats and how would the
species be identified. What I was wondering is, once they are
identified, how would the Forest Service proceed? Would there
be an ongoing process of collecting data about their population
trends to see how they are doing? And, how would the focal
species approach differ from what the Forest Service is doing
now?
Dr. Johnson. With the permission of Mr. Udall and Madam
Chair, could we have Barry Noon respond to that?
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Yes. That is okay.
Dr. Noon. Barry Noon.
The way that we envisioned this working is that, once you
have your smaller group of focal species selected, with the
logic that I outlined earlier, and that we go into detail in
our report, is that you would need to understand their ecology
and life history in detail. One of the key aspects that we
propose is that you would relate that life history and that
ecology to measurable aspects of the habitat, perhaps even the
habitat elements that could be assessed, to some degree, based
on remotely sensed data. You then go through an active period,
in which you develop habitat-based models that make predictions
about population, status, and trend. You, then, can move
somewhat out of the intensive mode of population studies to
assessing habitat as a surrogate--with this key caveat: that a
habitat-based model alone may not be sufficient. There may be
other threats that the species are being exposed to that are
independent of habitat--over-harvest, pollution. So that this
has to be validated with some regularity; that is, you have a
habitat-based model; it makes a prediction about the status and
trend of a focal species. And, then, as part of the monitoring,
you go out in the field and you look to see whether or not the
species is behaving as envisioned. So, you never completely
give up the responsibility of, with some regularity, directly
looking at the populations.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you very much. My second
question is for Chief Dombeck, and it relates to this, but it
is also the broader issue of watershed maintenance. And, I am
wondering how your report meshes with your efforts to
reestablish priority for watershed maintenance and the
restoration of the national forests.
Mr. Dombeck. First of all, I have not read the entire
report, since we just got it yesterday, but I am aware of, have
followed its development. And, with the aspects of the natural
resources agenda that the Forest Service developed over the
course of the last couple of years, with watershed health and
restoration as one of the four primary priorities that we take
on, I view it completely compatible. And, in fact, Charles
Wilkinson talked about earlier in the hearing, talked about the
mandate of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 that focuses
on watersheds and securing favorable flows for conditions of
water as well as the Weeks Act of 1911.
The concept that I am working from, and just to put it
simply, is that, if we take care of the soil and the water,
everything else will be okay. The watershed function is what is
most important: the groundwater recharge, the soil-holding
capabilities, and capacities of the root systems of the trees
and the vegetation, and all of that. This works as a unit on
the watershed to keep things healthy and functioning. So, we
recharge aquifers, maintained clean water flows in streams, and
dampened the effects of floods, and all of these things work in
concert. And, this is why it is so important to look at the
watershed as a functional entity.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
I would like to direct this statement to Dr. Johnson. Dr.
Johnson, I do have other questions that I want to ask you,
specifically about nine. And, so I am going to ask them to you
in writing. My concerns are, generally, how will the
recommendations of your committee comport with what is regular
Forest Service planning? I am concerned about how it will
comport with the Government Performance and Results Act. How
many levels of planning and decisionmaking have we been able to
eliminate, or have we added more? One of my concerns comes out
of a regional plan that was developed in the Northwest called
the Interior Columbia Ecosystem Management Plan. And, it has
had enormous cost overruns and it seemed to present itself here
in Washington with many layers and levels of decisionmaking
before we could get to the Chief.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I am going to be reviewing the entire
report--and I have only had a chance to review your summary--
and with the entire report, with that in mind, because we do
need to expedite the ability, especially in the appeals
process, to be able to get right to the Chief and on up, if we
need to--so, I will be looking at that and I will also be
asking you questions about whether the agency will be able to
make decisions more quickly. I will be reviewing the study, and
your recommendations, with regard to, are we enhancing the
process that is already well enhanced and needs to be made more
efficient, while we, actually, can see results out on the
ground?
And, with regard to your testimony and the testimony of Mr.
Lyons, I still have questions about that and deep concerns.
I do want to say that it is a privilege to be able to work
with you and the committee. It is an honor to have you here,
all of you. And, I want to thank you very much for the time you
have put in for the Nation, for the forests, for the Chief, for
the Under Secretary, for all of us in building this plan. I am
sorry, but you are not entirely off the hook because I will
have other questions for you. But, again, thank you for your
service. Your time, energy, and intelligence is so greatly
appreciated.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Dr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. The entire
committee took part in this, and we did it because we care
about these lands.
I want to say just one final thing. If you look at the
cover, there is a very small person looking up at the Eldorado
National Forest, sitting on a rock; it is my 81-year-old
mother.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is that right?
Dr. Johnson. Yes. So certainly criticizing the report is
fair game, but I get sensitive when people criticize the cover.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I don't blame you, and I am prepared for
that.
Mr. Lyons. Madam Chairman?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, Mr. Lyons?
Mr. Lyons. I don't want to interrupt, but, if I could, just
for the record, I want to acknowledge and agree with your
commendation to the entire committee for Dr. Johnson, and the
entire committee, for their extraordinary commitment and hard
work in producing this document. We may, you and I, and others,
may disagree about some of the elements of the committee's
recommendation. And, I would simply point out, perhaps, some of
the questions you may put to Mr. Johnson he may not be in a
position to answer, because they ultimately will be issues that
we have to address as we look at future planning regs. But, I
don't think we would disagree that they have done a tremendous
job and provided a tremendous service to the Nation in helping
us tackle these difficult issues. And, I want to agree with you
and thank you for offering your congratulations and
commendation as well.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. I wonder, Dr. Johnson, if you would ask
your committee, with the indulgence of the Chair, to stand up,
so we may know who they are.
Dr. Johnson. We introduced them once before, but, please,
let's do it again. And, you might give your specialty when you
identify yourself.
And, I am Norm Johnson, College of Forestry, OSU, and I
teach forest management and forest policy.
Mr. Agee. James Agee, College of Forest Resources,
University of Washington, Seattle.
Mr. Long. James Long, Department of Forest Resources, Utah
State University.
Mr. Trosper. Ron Trosper, forest economist and Native
American studies, Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff,
Arizona.
Mr. Beschta. Bob Beschta, hydrologist at Oregon State
University.
Dr. Sedjo. Roger Sedjo from Resources for the Future here
in Washington. I specialize in economics and policy.
Ms. Dale. Virginia Dale from Oak Ridge National Laboratory
in Tennessee. I am a landscape ecologist.
Mr. Shannon. Margaret Shannon, State University of New York
in Buffalo. I specialize in social science and natural
resources policy.
Dr. Noon. Barry Noon from Colorado State University. My
specialty is wildlife ecology.
Mr. Wilkinson. Charles Wilkinson, University of Colorado,
Federal and public natural resource law.
Ms. Wondolleck. Julia Wondolleck, School of Natural
Resources and the Environment at the University of Michigan. I
specialize in public participation and dispute resolution.
Dr. Johnson. And, the other members were Dr. Linda
Hardesty, Department of Natural Resources Science, Washington
State University, Pullman, Washington, range ecology and
management, and Dr. Larry Nielsen, School of Forest Resources,
Penn State University, Fisheries and Public Administration.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much. You are welcome. And,
this panel is now excused.
We will call before us Dr. Don Floyd, who is the chairman
of the Task Force on Public Lands Legislation, Society of
American Foresters, out of Syracuse, New York. Dr. Floyd, I
wonder if you could introduce Mr. Banzaf?
Dr. Floyd. Actually, we thought we might do it the other
way around, if that is all right with you?
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I wonder if you might both please stand and
swear to take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Floyd, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BANZAF, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SOCIETY
OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Dr. Floyd. Actually, I would like to start by giving Bill
Banzaf, who is the executive vice president of the Society of
American Foresters, a minute to introduce the report and what
we are up to here.
Mr. Banzaf. Thank you, Don.
Madam Chairman, if I may. I have had the pleasure of
testifying before you on prior occasions; it is a pleasure to
be back.
My name is William Banzaf. I am executive vice president of
the Society of American Foresters, that organization that
represents the broad field of forestry. In a professional
sense, we provide the accreditation to universities, publish
five peer review journals, and attempt to set standards for the
profession.
What I would like to do, very briefly, before turning it
over to Dr. Floyd, is to describe the process that is used by
the Society of American Foresters to develop objective,
science-based information that represents a very diverse
professional constituency. We have, within the organization,
practitioners and scientists representing the employment
sectors of the forest products industry, academia, the
consultant community, the environmental community, State and
Federal governments. So, we have a very broad philosophical
diversity within our organization, and we attempt to develop a
process that reflects that diversity and uses the wisdom that
comes from that diversity to develop our reports.
Our charter was set for the committee by our council, our
board of directors, in December of 1996, and it was a bit
different than that of the Committee of Scientists in that we
were to look beyond the planning regulations and examine all of
the laws and regulations that affect the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management. I might say that this was, at times,
a truly overwhelming task.
And, as the chief staff officer of SAF, it really is my
pleasure to take the opportunity to thank our volunteer task
force, scientists who volunteered their time, under the
direction of Dr. Don Floyd, to work over two years in putting
this document together.
Our process included meeting with the SAF membership at two
national conventions, where we had close to 2,000 people in
attendance, at several State society meetings, and the various
regions affected by public land management, as well as visiting
field offices, both of the Bureau of Land Management and the
Forest Service.
Our report was given an internal peer review by our forest
science and technology board, some of the best scientists in
the field. It was also reviewed by our forest policy committee.
And, finally endorsed, after a great deal of debate, by our
board of directors this past March 10.
And, I will tell you that, in terms of at least internal
peer review, Dr. Floyd and I, though certainly appreciating the
comments of others, when one sees commas changed, semi-colons
changed, and a small ``of'' replaced by another word, one does
realize that one is getting peer review.
I think it is important, in my concluding comment, to say
that really what we hope is that: No. 1, the release of our
report, along with the report of the Committee of Scientists--
and it was truly a pleasure to listen to their testimony--that
these two reports will foster the bipartisan discussion that
really needs to take place with Congress and the administration
to make certain that we have constructive change.
Finally, the executive summary report that you have before
you is in official position, based on its endorsement by our
board of directors of the Society of American Foresters.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, gentlemen.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Udall for questions.
Mr. Banzaf. Excuse me, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Udall, depending on your--Dr. Donald Floyd will be
giving the actual full testimony.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Oh, okay. I thought he had yielded to you.
I do want to recognize him at this point.
Dr. Floyd. Very rarely do the volunteers yield to me.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DON FLOYD, CHAIRMAN, TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC LANDS
LEGISLATION, SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Dr. Floyd. I will gratefully reclaim my time. Thank you,
Mr. Banzaf.
I want to make a couple of points and I am just going to
speak informally from some notes. I think the first thing that
I want to say is I want to acknowledge the Committee of
Scientists' work. I think they have really worked very hard on
this document.
The first observation that I would make is that many of the
recommendations that we make in the SAF task force report are
very similar to the ones that are made in the Committee of
Scientists' report. So, there is a great deal in common between
the two. There are a couple of differences, and I am going to
come back and highlight those in just a minute.
The second point I would make is that we purposefully
prepared what I think is an independent assessment and did not
look at the Committee of Scientists' work until--the first time
I really reviewed their work was their fifth draft, which I
think became available--the first time I saw it was in December
of this year.
We are quite hopeful that these two reports, taken
together, will provide an impetus to reduce what we believe is
significant polarization between the Congress and the
administration regarding public lands policy. We think there
have been some significant differences and the only way we are
going to make things better is by moving in a bipartisan
direction right now. And, that may be the most important thing
that we can suggest here.
Some differences: We do suggest a legislative approach
rather than regulatory reform for addressing these issues. We
believe that there are significant differences within the
statutes that ought to be addressed and that life would be much
simpler if we could have Congress say that these are the most
important values, and these are the most important issues, and
this is what the national forest ought to be managed for. We
think that it is important to have that debate at the
legislative level because the Constitution specifies that it is
Congress' job to make the needful rules and regulations for the
management of public property. And, if we can set the direction
through legislation clearly, and that is a difficult task, but
if we can set the direction for legislation clearly, it becomes
much easier for the manager on the ground to know what she or
he is supposed to be doing, in terms of what the priorities
are.
We think that one of the biggest issues that we have got
right now is lots of different priorities that have been handed
down through a variety of different laws. Then it becomes very
difficult to interpret which one of those mandates is most
important. That is not atypical; this happens in all fields of
public administration and public policy, but it has become a
significant problem.
I think the second difference that I would highlight, I
believe we are a little less sanguine about a more intensive
public-participation process than the one that we have already
seen. I think that there has come a time to really define what
the purposes of public participation are in national forest and
Bureau of Land Management planning. In my mind, those are not
very clear right now, and we don't really say what the roles of
those communities of place and communities of interest ought to
be. I don't think that we are very clear about which decisions
get made at which levels and, without being able to do that, it
becomes difficult to participate, as a citizen, in the natural
resource planning process.
So, that if I were to go back and highlight--I think what I
will just emphasize here are two or three important findings
out of our work. First, the purposes of the public lands and
national forests are no longer clear. That has been a
continuing theme in the literature for the last 20 years. The
General Accounting Office has said that; the Congressional
Research Services said that; the Office of Technology
Assessment has said that. There are multiple documents in
places in the literature that indicate that what we have got
here are--we use the analogy of a roof that is leaking. And,
that what we do is we keep adding a few shingles here and a few
shingles there, but we think that the roof is still dripping
inside and it is time to tear the shingles off and start again.
The second thing that we would point out is that we think--
and this was emphasized today and I want to reiterate this--
that multiple uses is a useful policy construct, but only in a
broad regional or national level. And, I think it is important
to specify that someplace. I would prefer to see that specified
in legislation. I think that creates an awful lot of difficulty
on the ground.
Third, we are not certain, we are not convinced, that the
more intensive planning is going to resolve basic values
differences. We see fundamental differences between what
interest groups want from the public lands, and we are not
certain that we can resolve those differences through a better
planning process.
What else would I say? I guess my concern, my last concern,
is that I think sustainability is a good goal, but I am not
sure that it really translates into a clearly-defined set of
purposes and priorities. I think that sustainability in a lot
of ways is similar to multiple use or to sustained yield, or to
ecosystem management, or a number of other terms of art that we
use in natural resources management. When we talk to our own
professional members about what those terms mean, there is very
little agreement. It is important that we be clear about where
we are going with that.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Floyd may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Dr. Floyd.
And, now, the Chair recognizes Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall passes. The Chair does have some questions of Dr.
Floyd.
You said that, at first place, your report and the
Committee of Scientists' report differ because you feel the
purposes of the national forests are unclear. Now, given the
fact that in the National Forest Management Act the
congressional purpose is pretty well stated----
Dr. Floyd. But there are many of them. And, which ones are
most important? I think that is really what we would like to be
able to begin to determine, through some kind of discussion or
debate, is that if we are going to call ecological
sustainability the most important purpose of these public
lands, then let's say that, clearly, in legislation. Or, if
protecting the soil and water, as Mrs. Napolitano said earlier,
is what is most important, let's say that. But, right now, what
we have really, if you look at the basic laws that drive the
Forest Service, at least--I will talk about that rather than
FLPMA, specifically--is that if you look at the Organic Act and
the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act and then the National
Forest Management Act, what you have is, essentially, a layer
of three different statutes that are more than 100 years old in
total, that have changed the direction gradually, and we think
made unclear exactly what the priorities are.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I wonder, Dr. Floyd, if you would be
willing to summarize the findings in your report in a few
sentences. Specifically, I would like to know if the planning
process is clear about which decision should be made, and when.
And, then, will the regulatory changes alone be sufficient? I
think you have elaborated on that, and it is my more than
guess--it is based on what I am hearing from you--that it is
going to take legislative changes. But, is the planning process
clear?
Dr. Floyd. The feedback that we got from members and
citizens that we talked to was that there was a great deal of
confusion about what happens in the national forest planning
process and which decisions get made at which scales; what
things are appealable at what decision. I am sure that you have
heard that comment before. It is a pretty widely-reported
phenomenon, I think.
Could that be simplified? I think it probably could be.
And, I am not here to suggest that regulatory reform is not a
part of this package and that regulatory reform should be
avoided in some way. I think that both of these kinds of things
have to advance. But, I really believe, ultimately, that we
really need to clarify the purposes. I think that is the most
important process.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now you mentioned that the Forest Service
should be given a chance to develop regulations that implement
the ideas outlined by the Committee of Scientists and others.
Do you plan to evaluate those regulations based on your report,
Dr. Floyd?
Dr. Floyd. The Society of American Foresters does plan to
undertake a review, both of the Committee of Scientists' report
and of the proposed regulations.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now, will you also evaluate the chairman's
proposed legislation for reduction of hazardous fuels in the
wildland/urban interface and our proposal to seek expedited
procedures for treatment of emergency situations, similar to
that approved for the blowdown that occurred in Texas last
year?
Dr. Floyd. I have to tell you that I am not personally
familiar with--I read the Fuels Reduction Act last session, and
we provided testimony on that. Our staff folks tell us that,
yes, we will be happy to do that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But on the need for parity as well?
Dr. Floyd. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right, very good.
Well, Dr. Floyd, I really appreciate your comments, too. In
fact, I have some questions that I personally want to present
to you with regard to stated purposes. And, I would like for us
to get our attorneys involved in it and really start focusing
on this, because you bring out a very good point. We do need in
the Congress, to provide the direction. So, I thank you very
much for your comments, both of you.
And, Mr. Udall, do you have second thoughts on any
questions?
Mr. Udall of Colorado. No second thoughts. Just I thank you
for your hard work.
Dr. Floyd. Thanks. It is a pleasure to be here.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. This panel is excused and we
will recognize the next panel.
Ms. Mary Munson, who is the senior associate, Habitat
Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, and Mr.
Bob Bierer, the director of forest management, American Forest
and Paper Association in Washington, DC.
Let me ask you both to stand and raise your arm.
[Witnesses sworn.]
The Chair recognizes Ms. Munson for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARY MUNSON, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, HABITAT
CONSERVATION, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Ms. Munson. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Defenders of Wildlife is a nonprofit organization with 300,000
members and supporters. We are dedicated to the protection of
native wildlife in their natural habitats. I will summarize my
remarks and request that I submit full written text for full
insertion into the record.
The Committee of Scientists' report offers an innovative,
science-based approach for protecting structures, processes,
and conditions to sustain wildlife and ecosystems. Overall, the
report represents an improvement for planning and it expands
the viability rule, making it, basically, more realistic to
implement, and it reinforces ecological sustainability as the
foundation of national forest stewardship.
The major challenges ahead, and our deepest concerns, are
that the recommendations are adequately translated into
regulations. The regulations, we believe, must contain clear
standards for ecosystem integrity and species viability, as
well as objective methods for determining whether the standards
are being met.
The report establishes ecological sustainability as the
foundation of national forest planning. Taken in totality, as
several other people have testified, our national environmental
laws reinforce this conclusion. We do not believe this is
controversial, and we congratulate the committee for
acknowledging its veracity.
A major innovation in the report, we believe, is its
approach to wildlife protection, which I already touched upon.
It reaffirms the notion that managing forests to maintain the
viability of wildlife species is a cornerstone of biodiversity
protection.
One of the major criticisms of the existing species
viability regulation is that it is difficult to implement. The
committee is proposing a trimmed-down, more efficient way to
protect species viability without giving up that essential
component, collecting and analyzing species population and
trend data. Instead of requiring this assessment for all
species, the committee applies it to a subset of surrogates
known as focal species. We believe this compromise is fair and
reasonable. The challenge for the agency is to produce
regulations that define focal species in a way which is true to
the committee's vision, so the agency is responsible for
selecting truly representative surrogates for all species in
the forest.
But because the subset of species evaluated by the Forest
Service will be limited, it is essential that the regulations
state that the collection of quantitative inventory data for
those species is an indispensable duty. A recent 11th Circuit
Court case, Sierra Club versus Martin, identified two sections
of the current code of regulations that, taken together,
require the Forest Service to gather quantitative data on MIS,
which is the Management Indicator Species, and use it to
measure the impact of habitat changes on forest diversity. That
was how they interpreted those two regulations. These
regulations are identified specifically in my full written
testimony.
This is the role envisioned for focal species, and these
sections should be taken as guides when rewriting the new
regulations. Existing mandates also require gathering empirical
data for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species as well.
The current viability regulation limits managers to
ensuring viability only for vertebrate species. The report
suggests that this be extended to non-vertebrate species as
well. Also, we are pleased to see that a full range of natural
conditions, processes, and habitats would also be protected
under this new proposed planning regime. By including such a
broad spectrum of criteria, beyond just viability of species,
the approach reflects current thinking, and it has been adopted
by international experts.
While we generally support the report's recommendations
regarding ecological sustainability, we are concerned about
some other aspects of the report. For example, it states that
plan-implementation priorities for funding, in the face of
budget shortfalls, are determined during a collaborative
planning process. To be consistent with its conclusions about
ecological sustainability, we believe that the regulations
should clearly state that some elements in planning are simply
not optional. Assessments, analysis, and monitoring or the
viability of species are examples of indispensable planning
steps. If there is no budget available for them, program
activities should be curtailed. No collaborative group should
be allowed the discretion to eliminate them.
One of the most pressing issues in national forests,
roadless area protection, was given virtually no attention in
the report. Defenders and many other organizations are
concerned about the continual pressure applied by the Forest
Service to enter those areas. The basis has been to push
forward timber sales. What makes this so tragic is that these
areas command low timber prices or have high administrative
costs associated with them. However, these lands have very high
values for use by wildlife and contain conditions and qualities
that argue for leaving them roadless. The committee was remiss
in leaving this out, we believe.
And, finally, the report included discussions about
collaborative stewardship, but did not point out the problems
associated with self-appointed collaborative groups such as
Quincy Library Group. There needs to be caution about embracing
similar bodies and planning processes that engage them.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Munson may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Ms. Munson
The Chair recognizes Mr. Bierer.
STATEMENT OF BOB BIERER, DIRECTOR, FOREST MANAGEMENT, AMERICAN
FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bierer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank you
for the opportunity today to provide some views of the American
Forest and Paper Association on the report prepared by the
Committee of Scientists. I am Bob Bierer. I am the Director of
Forest Management for the association, and I am presenting my
testimony today on behalf of AF&PA's member companies,
associations, and allied groups. Many of our members are
totally or partially dependent on timber coming from the
national forests and other Federal lands.
As you know, Secretary Dan Glickman appointed the Committee
of Scientists to evaluate the Forest Service land and resource
management planning process and to provide recommendations for
new planning regulations. Because our association has an
intense interest in the agency's land management planning
process, we have followed the committee's progress and
deliberations closely through a series of public meetings and
conference calls over a 15-month period, starting in December
1997. We have submitted background information for their
consideration as well as written comments regarding the current
Forest Service planning process.
At the meetings that the committee held, they heard that
the Forest Service has spent many millions of dollars and
thousands of employee person-years, and conducted countless
meetings and public comment periods, to develop the current
forest plans for each national forest. But to what end? The
agency is not committed to implementing the forest plans. No
forest plan is being fully implemented at this time. The public
is even more polarized than ever. Virtually every forest plan
is appealed and litigated. Local communities and businesses
cannot rely on the outputs they expect from the forest plans,
and the cost of forest planning and project planning to
implement the forest plans continues to skyrocket. Did the
committee address these issues? In our opinion, from what we
have seen reviewing the draft reports, only marginally.
We do have some concerns that I would like to share with
you, based on our review of the draft. And, I have not had an
opportunity to review the final.
First, the report has not undergone any scientific peer or
public review. We heard some testimony from Secretary Lyons and
from Chairman Johnson that they did not understand that to be a
charge. We understood that it was a charge. We heard that at
one of the early meetings, and so we were expecting the peer
review to occur.
Why is that important? Well, the committee is recommending
some modeling and theoretical stuff here that has never been
field tested or operational. Especially in terms of the
viability regulation, we feel it is very important to get some
second opinions from other folks that are qualified,
credentialed scientists, who probably have some differing views
regarding some of these things, and might offer some other
changes.
Secondly, we feel that the report recommends what is
clearly a new mission for the Forest Service that is in
conflict with much of its statutory mission. It stresses a
sharp shift towards ecosystem preservation with ecological
sustainability being the kingpin, and kind of ignores the
Forest Service's statutory mandate of multiple-use management.
As one of the committee members has noted, the focus on the
preeminence of ecological sustainability, coupled with the new
stringent viability regulations recommended in the report,
would have the effect of operating the national forests as
biological reserves.
This change goes well beyond the Secretary's charge ``to
the committee to provide scientific and technical advice that
can be made in the national forest land and resource management
planning process,'' and that this be done ``within the
established framework of environmental laws and within the
statutory mission of the Forest Service.''
The third major area where we have concerns is that most of
the fundamental flaws in the current forest planning process
will not be corrected by the changes suggested in the report.
Forest plan implementation, for example, is frequently
disrupted by administrative fiat, the most recent example being
the recent road moratorium. These top-down directives from
Washington render the forest plans useless, undermining the
ability of local managers and communities to manage based on
local conditions, and overriding years of local negotiations
and compromise that went into the development of current forest
plans. No wonder that local residents feel betrayed and
frustrated and that forest plans have no credibility.
The report acknowledges, but does little to address the
problems of endless appeals that has plagued the forest plans
and the planning process. It ignores other available successful
models for handling appeals process, such as the pre-decisional
appeals process used by the Bureau of Land Management.
Meaningful forest-plan implementation will remain
impossible without basic reform to force the budget and
planning processes to operate in concert. Plans without
corresponding budgets cannot be implemented.
Madam Chairman, I would like to close with a quote from a
recent editorial by former Chief Jack Thomas. He said that,
``We have learned, and continued to learn, a great deal about
our forests. We know that the heavy hand of one-size-fits-all
government regulation does not land lightly or evenly. We know
our crazy quilt of laws and policies often prevents management
practices from working properly. And we know it is the
stakeholders, the people, who stand to win or lose, who seem
best situated to guide the decisionmaking to preserve their
forests and protect lives and property.'' We fear, Madam
Chairman, that the report has missed this mark.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bierer may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Bierer.
The Chair, again, recognizes Mr. Udall for questions.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. I would just like to thank the
panel for their comments and for their work on this issue.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
I would like to ask Ms. Munson my first set of questions.
The courts have ruled that the Forest Service cannot be sued
over the forest plan decisions, as I am sure you are aware.
Given this ruling, what provisions are need in law or
regulations to ensure interested parties have their concerns
addressed in the forest planning process? And, the second part
of that question is, does the Committee of Scientists' report
provide this protection?
Ms. Munson. I am not sure what you mean. The Supreme Court
opinion that you're referring to I believe is the one that it
did say that you can appeal the forest plan in certain
circumstances, but there are a number of circumstances where
the court did leave it open that they could be appealed.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you specify the circumstances?
Ms. Munson. Well, they weren't real specific on it, but
they just said that their opinion only applied to the specific
circumstances of that case.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Which?
Ms. Munson. I can't recall exactly what it was right now,
but I can get that information. But they made it very clear
that they said there were cases, and there were actually later
on in the case were given some new evidence that they said, if
they had given the evidence earlier, they may have been able to
rule on that.
[The information follows:]
------------
Ohio Forestry Association Inc., v. Sierra Club, decided by
the Supreme Court on May 18, 1998, ruled that the Forest Plan
for the Wayne National Forest could not be appealed based upon
allegations that the plan permits too much logging and
clearcutting. The court held that it was not ripe for judicial
review until those activities were implemented. The reasoning
was that the alleged harm was only theoretical, and ruling on
it at this stage would circumvent the system set up by Congress
for those plans to be revised or appealed after a decision is
made. Thus the Court ruled out ``pre-enforcement'' challenges
to the plan, where alleged harm would take place in the future.
However, it is my opinion that the Court was very clear
that there are circumstances when forest plans can be appealed.
In section III of the opinion, the Court declared that one of
Sierra Club's arguments had validity, and if it had been
presented in the original complaint, the ripeness analysis
would have been ``significantly different.'' (However, the
plaintiff had not made that argument in its original
complaint). The argument was that the forest plan permitted
many intrusive activities and omitted certain land use options
that would have immediate effect on the forest. Thus, the Court
essentially implied that plans could be appealed if it allowed
intrusive activities, such as ``opening trails to motorcycles
or using heavy machinery,'' which would have harmful effects on
forests. They could also be appealed if plaintiffs alleged that
activities that should take place in a forest area, such as
``affirmative measures to promote backcountry recreation, such
as closing roads and building additional hiking trails'' would
be precluded by areas designated for logging by the plans.
There may also be other circumstances where the facts of the
situation differ, and the logging designations cause immediate,
appealable harm. In any case, it is clear from this case that
the logging components of the plan are appealable, given the
right argument.
Finally, it should also be mentioned that once a timber
sale is contemplated or proposed on a forest, presumably the
``ripeness'' obstacle could be overcome even for the
allegations that the plans allow too much logging and
clearcutting.
The Supreme Court did not make a blanket prohibition on
appealing forest plans, and in fact left open considerable
opportunities to challenge them.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So the court did limit that opinion only to
that set of circumstances?
Ms. Munson. The court did leave open the possibility of
appealing forest plans given the proper circumstances.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now you indicated the regulations must
contain very clear standards for ecosystem integrity and
species viability and objective methods of determining whether
the standards are being met. Would you share with the Committee
how you would draft regulatory language just to do that, and
could you submit your recommendations for the record?
Mr. Munson. I would be happy to. Just as an example, and I
think that the Forest Service on-the-ground managers would
agree--that language is needed that clearly identifies the
manager's duty, and defines what that duty is. And, I don't
think it is that they can't perform their existing duties; it's
just that existing duties are not defined well in the current
regulation. So what we are asking for is very similar to what
the forest managers are asking for: clear standards that they
can follow.
[The information follows:]
------------
Clear standards and objective methods for determining
whether the standards are met would include precisely defined
duties and responsibilities for managers. For example, in
regulations drafted to maintain diversity, the standard must
indicate that managers must achieve a 90 percent probability of
viability of all wildlife species, both vertebrate and
invertebrate. To be clear, the standard must indicate the
definition of ``viability.'' The Committee of Scientist's
report recommends that a ``viable'' species have ``self-
sustaining populations well-distributed throughout the species
range. Self-sustaining populations, in turn, can be defined as
those that have sufficient abundance and diversity to display
the array of life-history strategies and forms that will
provide for their persistence and adaptability in the planning
area over time.'' The reason I have included ``90 percent
probability'' is that scientists and managers have acknowledged
that 100 percent probably of maintaining viability is
impossible, given uncertainty and effects beyond the managers'
control. But Court decisions and the necessity of achieving
ecological sustainability require that managers allow the least
risk possible. Thus I would recommend language that allows no
less than 85 to 90 percent probability of survival.
Objective methods for achieving the viability standard must
be contained in the regulations setting out the ``three-pronged
strategy'' outlined by the Committee of Scientists to achieve
viability (see page xix of their Report). These steps include
selecting focal species and identifying their habitat needs,
maintaining conditions to achieve ecological integrity, and
monitoring the effectiveness of this approach. Objective
methods must leave the managers no uncertainty about what they
must do to perform those steps. Regulatory language is proposed
by the Committee of Scientists, beginning on page p. 151 of the
Committee's Report (version of the Report released on March 15,
1999. Pages may be altered in the final printed version, due to
be published in April). This contains an outline of objective
methods which I would support. For example, it lays out the
criteria for selecting focal species, and the components of an
effective, ongoing monitoring program. The Committee also
recommends independent, scientific review of the plan to
achieve ecological sustainability. I agree with much of the
other language in the Committee's draft language, and encourage
the Subcommittee to review it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now, regarding the committee's focal
species approach--and you know I have taken particular interest
in this--how many species should be included in focal species?
Ms. Munson. However many species that the scientists on the
ground feel are necessary.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now, you indicated that the collection of
quantitative inventory data for the species is an indispensable
duty. If that is the case, should the collection of that data
be reviewable in appeals or by the court?
Ms. Munson. The actual data collection? I'm sorry, I don't
understand your question now.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Should the collection of that data be
reviewable?
Ms. Munson. Absolutely, if data is not collected, the court
should be able to rule on it. I think that the scientific
information should validate any kind of management decision
made, and where the data had not been collected, the decision
should be appealable.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now, the focal species concept is brand-
new, to me, anyway, and we seem to be embracing a whole new
dimension here. Because of that, in your opinion, don't you
think that that whole new dimension, that approach, should be
peer-reviewed?
Ms. Munson. Well, I believe it has been. The concepts
behind it have been peer-reviewed. I can provide the Committee
with a list of articles that have been peer-reviewed and
published, but although they don't call it focal species, they
talk about surrogate approaches that do represent larger
ecosystems.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Can you recall some of the----
Ms. Munson. The names of them?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Ms. Munson. Not off the cuff. I would be glad to provide it
for the Committee, though.
[The information follows:]
------------
The following reports and articles provide peer reviewed,
scientific support for the focal species approach and/or the
concepts underlying this approach.
Chapin, F.S. III, M.S. Torn, and M. Tateno. 1996.
``Principles of Ecosystem Sustainability.'' American Naturalist
148: 1016-1037.;
Christensen, N.L., A.M. Bartuska, J.H. Brown, S. Carpenter,
C. D'Antonio, R. Francis, J.F. Franklin, J.A. MacMahon, R.F.
Noss, D. J. Parson, C.H. Peterson, M.G. Turner, and R.G.
Woodmansee. 1996. The Report of the Ecological Society of
America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem
Management. Ecological Applications 6: 665-691;
De Leo, G.A. and S. Levin. 1997. The multifaceted aspects
of ecosystem integrity. Conservation Ecology [online] 1(1);
Keystone Center. 1991. Biological Diversity on Federal
Lands. A report of the Keystone Policy Dialogue. The Keystone
Center, Washington D.C.;
Mulder, B., B. Noon, T. Spies, M. Raphael, C. Palmer, A.
Olsen, G. Reeves, and H. Welsh. In press. The strategy and
design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the
Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW-XXX. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Portland, Oregon.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right, thank you.
Mr. Bierer, why do you suggest a scientific peer review and
public review of the Committee of Scientists' report be
completed before the Forest Service attempts to utilize this
report as basis for new planning regulations?
Mr. Bierer. That is a good question, Madam Chairman. One of
the reasons that I think it is very important is that, although
the committee was made up of 13 excellent and super-qualified
folks, there were some expertise that was not represented on
the committee. I think in terms of a geologist, there was
nobody looking at geology or the minerals state or mineral
resources. Having coming from a background working with the
Bureau of Land Management, I certainly appreciate the need to
look at both the surface and the subsurface resources when you
deal with land management.
Another reason that I feel that a scientific peer review is
very important is that there has been no outside look at this
report. It has been done internally, and although Jim Lyons
indicated earlier, I think in his testimony, that the data was
posted timely on the website and available for public review, I
would beg to differ. I found that that was very frustrating;
the data was not kept current on the website, and it was a
difficult process to follow.
Thirdly, I just feel, and our members feel, that there are
things like the viability regulations that are untested, and we
should have some other folks looking at that proposal and
offering their suggestion and thoughts on that kind of approach
before we apply it to 191 million acres.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, Mr. Bierer, how would you describe
the process used by the committee in developing this report and
this plan?
Mr. Bierer. It was a very interesting process to follow,
Madam Chairman. No offense to the committee members, but
sometimes, especially listening on the conference calls that
they held, it was kind of like listening to a soap opera
unfold, in that there were all kinds of different dialogues
going in different directions. As I pointed out, I also found
it very difficult to obtain current information. When we
listened on the conference calls, for instance, they would be
working from a draft that had been just circulated and that had
not been available to members of the public, like Mary and
myself, who were trying to track the development of the report.
Sometimes, in my opinion, it seemed like the content format
boiled down to who became the most obstinate and refused to
back off of their position. So that became the position or that
type of format was ultimately selected.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Bierer. You indicated
earlier in your testimony that it was your recollection that
peer review and field testing would be a part of the
submission.
Mr. Bierer. Yes, Madam Chairman. It is my recollection that
was stated by Under Secretary Lyons at their first meeting in
Chicago, that he wanted the report to be peer-reviewed.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Well, I want to thank the panel
very much for your testimony, and it has been a very, very long
hearing, but this is such an interesting subject, and the
chairman was very
liberal in the five-minute rule. Usually I bring the hammer
down right at five minutes, but I was so interested in hearing
what the committee had to say, and I am looking forward to
studying the entire report. Again, I want to thank all of you
very much for all of the effort that you have made in investing
in the report, and we will continue to work together, I hope,
in good solid results.
I do want to say that the record will remain open for five
days, should any of you wish to amend your testimony or add to
it. And, we will be sending to you additional questions. I
think we would be here until 10 or 11 tonight if I expected you
to answer all the questions we have been able to conjure up
here. But it is a very interesting subject, and I do have more
questions.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. So, again, I want to thank you all very
much. Please excuse the length of this hearing. We did have a
vote early on and we got started late. But, again, thank you
very much for you good work and for your patience.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Hon. James R. Lyons, Under Secretary, Natural Resources
and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to discuss with you the final report of the
Committee of Scientists. The Committee was chartered and
appointed by Secretary Glickman in the fall of 1997 to review
the present forest planning process as well as propose
revisions to the current regulation and recommend improvements
in the development of future land and resource management plans
(LRMPs). Today I want to help put the Committee's report in
context by discussing the status of forest plans, the rationale
for establishing this Committee and conducting its review, and
the ways in which the Department and the Forest Service intend
to use the Committee report and recommendations to improve
forest planning and management in the future.
Background
In accordance with Section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) (16 U.S.C. 1600), the
Secretary of Agriculture ``shall develop, maintain, and, as
appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for
units of the National Forest System. . . .'' In the two plus
decades since the enactment of RPA, as amended by the National
Forest Management Act (NFMA), there has been considerable
debate surrounding planning.
Initially following enactment of the NFMA, the Forest
Service promulgated rules for implementation of the planning
requirements. Although completed in 1979, no forest plans were
ever completed under these rules. Soon after the Reagan
Administration took office, then USDA Assistant Secretary for
Natural Resources and Environment, John Crowell, withdrew these
planning rules and sought to revise them. Such controversy was
generated as a result, that the Committee of Scientists
involved in the development of the first set of rules was
reconvened and enlisted to work on what eventually became the
1982 LRMP rules.
Under the 1982 rules, 127 forest plans have been developed.
However, in accordance with the planning statute, LRMPs are to
be revised at least once every 15 years. By the end of FY 1999,
12 of the 127 LRMPs will have completed revision. An additional
39 plan revisions are due in CY 2000 and CY 2001. At present,
we are concerned that in CY 2000, eleven plans may go beyond
their 15-year due date, and an additional 28 plans may pass
their 15 year cycle in CY 2001.
Much has been learned in developing, implementing, and
litigating the 127 forest plans and the numerous plan
amendments and revisions that have been completed during the
past two decades. Several reviews of the planning process have
been conducted, leading the Forest Service to seek revisions to
the 1982 regulations.
When the Clinton Administration first took office, one of
the first documents for our consideration was a proposal to
rewrite the forest planning regulations. We elected not to
proceed with this proposal, but instead began working with the
Forest Service on a new approach to the rules. This effort led
to the issuance of draft rules in 1995, but, based on the
comments we received from the public, our lessons learned from
our experiences in developing the President's Northwest Forest
Plan, regional assessments and other regional ecosystem
management strategies were not reflected adequately in the
draft rules. In short, our experience was outpacing our ability
to incorporate it fast enough in the draft rule.
After working two more years on applying ecosystem
management strategies on the ground, the Secretary, the Chief
and I felt more confident about taking on the task of rewriting
the regulations to incorporate an overall strategy for
consistently applying ecosystem management across our forests
and grasslands. As a starting point, the Secretary decided to
use his authority under the National Forest Management Act
(NFMA) to convene a Federal advisory committee of scientists of
diverse backgrounds to provide advice on revising the planning
regulations.
Secretary Glickman directed the committee to make
recommendations on how to best accomplish sound resource
planning within the statutory mission of the Forest Service and
the established framework of environmental laws. The committee
also was asked to provide technical advice on the planning
process and provide information for the Forest Service to
consider in revising the planning regulations. Finally, the
committee was to recommend improvements in Forest Service
coordination with other Federal, state and local agencies, and
tribal governments while recognizing the unique roles and
responsibilities of each agency in the planning process. In my
first meeting with the Committee of Scientists, I emphasized
that the Secretary and I wanted the committee to develop a
conceptual framework for land and resource management planning
that could last a generation.
The committee met in cities in each region of the country
and heard from Forest Service employees, representatives of
tribes, state and local governments and other Federal agencies,
members of the public, former Chiefs of the Forest Service and
members of the original Committee of Scientists. They shared
their concerns and offered ideas about the current planning
process as well as the current management of national forests
and grasslands.
Overview
At the outset, Madam Chairman, I want to acknowledge that
some have argued that NFMA is broken and that the environmental
laws that guide national forest management are, themselves, no
longer manageable. I disagree. On principle, these laws remain
sound and reflect the evolution of American interest and
concern for our lands, air, water, and wildlife. In addition,
we have not exhausted the flexibility within these laws to
improve their implementation. Only after we have exhausted this
flexibility, should we revisit the basic statutes.
This Committee of Scientists was carefully selected to
represent balanced views, experience, and academic backgrounds.
Together, they have a breadth of expertise and a sum of
experiences that well-qualified them to undertake this review.
Their task was not easy. And, at times, differences of
professional opinion boiled over. Yet, the recommendations they
offer provide an important foundation for new directions in
forest planning and management which we will seek to reflect in
new forest planning rules.
Much of what we know about forestry and forest management
has changed since the 1982 NFMA regulations were developed.
Science has assumed a much stronger role as a foundation
for national forest management.
We are focusing more on managing the sum of the parts--on
entire ecosystems--rather than single species or outcomes. The
cumulative effects of management activities over time and over larger
parts of the landscape are considered, regardless of whether or not
they occur within a specific national forest boundary.
The concept of ``adaptive management'' encourages changes
in management emphasis and direction as new, scientific information is
developed. Of course, this requires more effective monitoring of
management actions and their effects.
Regional ecosystem assessments have become the foundation
for more comprehensive planning, sometimes involving multiple forests
and other public land management units. The President's Northwest
Forest Plan, for example, affected 17 national forests and 6 BLM
districts in a three state region. The Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Project will affect lands encompassing 25 percent of the
entire national forest system and 10 percent of the public lands
administered by the BLM nationwide.
The number of agencies participating in management
decisions has grown. Agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
NMFS, and the EPA are now partners in the planning process, as well as
states and tribes, as appropriate.
The unit of analysis for management decisions has changed
to a focus on watersheds discrete and ecologically intact units on the
landscape. As a result, discrete administrative units such as national
forests, are proving less useful for resource management purposes.
Our view of communities is changing. We no longer think
solely in terms of ``timber dependent communities,'' but instead
recognize that other resource outputs and values affect community well-
being. And, we are working more with communities, in partnership, to
develop resource management strategies.
The public's role in forest planning and decision-making
is also changing. Collaboration has replaced litigation in some
instances. In others, the courts continue to play a significant role in
shaping forest policy.
New science, new technology, and a renewed emphasis on seeking
greater involvement on the part of the public and other agencies in the
planning process warranted a new look at how we go about planning the
management of the national forests. With this in mind, the Committee
was encouraged to be bold and creative in their thinking and ask tough
questions of the agency and others regarding the current planning
process.
As Gifford Pinchot stated nearly a century ago in offering his
perspective on managing the national forests,
``National Forests are made for and owned by the people. They
should also be managed by the people . . . . If National Forests are
going to accomplish anything worthwhile the people must know all about
them and must take a very active part in their management. What the
people as a whole want will be done. To do it, it is necessary that the
people carefully consider and plainly state just what they want and
then take a very active part in seeing that they get it.''
The Committee's report paints a refreshing picture of the future
for forest management and planning. The Committee acknowledges that
they were surprised to learn that innovations in planning and
collaborative partnerships already abound on many national forests and
grasslands. Of necessity, many forest managers and Forest Service
regions have developed innovative ways to commingle science and
collaborative public processes to improve land management decisions.
As we believed would be the case, these innovative strategies
provided a good starting point for the committee to use in developing a
more integrated, long-lasting, and flexible planning framework. The
committee's recommendations would do away with the one-size fits all
approach to planning. Its proposed framework provides flexibility to
managers in dealing with a multitude of resource issues at various
scales across the landscape. Most importantly, the framework calls for
managers to integrate public collaboration with science to identify
desired future conditions of these lands that represent sustainable
management. As pathways to achieving these conditions, forest plans
should include adaptive practices, monitoring, performance and measures
budgeting strategies. All should be linked to achieving desired future
conditions with the underlying tenet of ensuring sustainability.
Ecological Sustainability: Foundation for Management
Based on this strong foundation, we strongly support the
committee's recommendation that ecological sustainability should be a
foundation for management of the national forest system. Managing for
ecological sustainability will provide the public with a long-lasting
flow of benefits from forests and grasslands, including clean air and
water, productive soils, biological diversity, goods and services,
employment opportunities, and broaden community benefits. I believe, in
fact, that this is simply a reaffirmation of the direction provided to
Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the Forest Service, by then
Secretary Wilson which stated, ``. . . where conflicting interests must
be reconciled the question will always be decided from the standpoint
of the greatest good of the greatest number In the long run.''
We agree with the committee that conserving habitat for native
species and the productivity of ecological systems remains the surest
path to maintaining ecological sustainability. To accomplish this, the
committee suggests that the agency maintain: (1) the viability of
selected ``focal'' species and their habitat needs; (2) maintain
conditions necessary for ecological integrity; and (3) monitor their
effectiveness.
As many of you know, our current regulations require the agency to
ensure viable populations of wildlife in our forests. In addition, as
the agency has developed a keener understanding of how our forested
watersheds function through management and research, it has undertaken
to preserve and enhance these functions. In other words, we are working
towards these objectives already, but we can improve the means by which
we achieve these ends. Therefore, we welcome the committee's
recommendations and will evaluate them closely as we propose the draft
rule.
At all levels of planning, we agree that ecological sustainability
is inextricably linked to social and economic sustainability. We must
manage our forests to ensure that they are healthy and able to provide
present and future economic and social contributions to society. At the
same time, to achieve sustainability, the agency now relies and will
continue to rely on the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit and
investment of people in communities locally and elsewhere. We have a
lot of work to do in the forests to achieve our goals and we cannot do
it without people and healthy economies. Achieving ecological
sustainability also means identifying the important social values of
these lands to all, including Native Americans, and preserving or
enhancing them.
From a management perspective, this concept of ecological
sustainability has evolved in practice over the years since the passage
of the 1897 Organic Act. And, from a legal perspective, a host of laws
since then has decisively affirmed the overarching responsibility of
the Forest Service to manage these lands in an ecologically sustainable
way in order to ensure that multiple use values are preserved. The
proposed regulation should encapsulate the multi-faceted policy of
sustainability--a policy whose meaning has certainly evolved since
1897.
Collaborative Planning:
Involving the Public and Others to Gain Understanding
We strongly support the committee's recommendation to make public
collaboration and coordination with other Federal, state, local and
tribal entities one of the main elements of the new planning framework.
As stated in the report, collaborative planning creates opportunities
for people and organizations to work together to find agreement on a
common vision for future land conditions. In doing so, the planning
process would cultivate an understanding around problems and issues as
well as strategies and actions. The overall purpose of this effort is
to build effective stewardship for sustainability.
The agency has been experimenting with ways to involve the public
earlier in the planning process to identify problems and solutions. The
committee supports this and calls for even more vigorous involvement at
all stages of the planning process. For example, the committee strongly
recommends that the agency and the public look beyond the forest
boundaries to determine the role that national forests play in
ecosystems and communities. It is a starting point in helping the
agency and the public determine future desired conditions when people
understand the role the forests play or have played in the ecosystem.
We agree with the committee that even with more collaborative
relationships and shared understanding of the planning process,
conflicts will remain. However, through collaboration, the scope of the
conflicts may be narrowed and the public will have a better
understanding of how and why decisions are reached and a stronger role
in affecting these decisions.
Integrating Science and Accountability into Collaborative Planning:
Assessments, Adaptive Management, Monitoring
Budgeting and Performance Measures
As components of highly complex ecosystems, forests are always
changing. The agency always will be working with imperfect
approximations of conditions. However, we agree with the committee that
credible scientific assessments at both large and small scales, as
deemed appropriate, can shed light on tough issues, guiding the
decision maker and the public toward identifying problems and reaching
solutions. Assessments can be used for a number of reasons, such as
identifying issues of special importance; laying the groundwork for
developing regional conservation strategies; improving inventories; and
providing the context for planning.
The agency currently uses large and small scale assessments, such
as the Sierra Nevada and the Interior Columbia Basin assessment efforts
for some of these purposes. For example, recently, in tackling the pine
beetle infestation affecting the Idaho Panhandle National Forest
Supervisor Dave Wright not only used the Interior Columbia Scientific
Assessment as a guide, but he initiated an intermediate level
assessment over a large area of the Panhandle, and then a smaller-scale
assessment at a more site specific level to determine the scope of the
problem as well as possible solutions. The Forest Service was pleased
with the outcome of this analysis and the range of alternatives in the
Draft EIS which is out for public comment.
I think the most important aspect of this recommendation is that
the agency should decide, after involving the public, at what scale to
conduct its assessments. Management decisions would be matched to the
scope and scale of the issues addressed. Issues or problems can be
addressed at the regional, large, or small, or a combination of the
three, depending on the need.
Assessments and other scientific information can help shape
problems and issues as well as a common vision for the future
conditions and outcomes of the national forests. This is as essential
to the planning process as focusing on a schedule of management actions
needed to reach desired future conditions. Ensuring that the forests
and regions stay on track will require adapting to changing conditions;
therefore, monitoring and adaptive management strategies are essential
to forest plans. Underlying these efforts must be land managers'
commitment to measuring performance regularly and adjusting management
strategies when desired future conditions are not being met. The agency
is already working on land based performance measures which will be
implemented by 2001.
In addition, forest managers, as they develop forest plans, need to
be realistic about their budgets. The committee recommends, and we
strongly agree, that a nexus needs to exist between the plan, the
budget and the public's expectations.
Other recommendations in the report underscore the need for science
and research to play an integral part in the development and
implementation of forest plans. Without the science, achieving desired
future conditions will be difficult, if not impossible, because we have
no way to ensure that our management strategies are working. We have
known for years that science is integral to management, but our efforts
presently are falling short due to lack of funding and an inconsistent
commitment on the part of the agency. We believe that a planning
regulation with more rigorous adaptive management and monitoring
requirements is definitely needed, but we are mindful of budget
constraints.
Watersheds and Timber Supply: Traditional
Focuses in Achieving Sustainability
The Organic Act and NFMA both recognize the importance of watershed
protection and timber supplies from National Forest System lands. The
committee recommends that strategies for achieving healthy watersheds
must be integrated with collaborative planning processes at all levels.
I strongly agree with the Committee's belief that watersheds must be
restored and maintained to achieve sustainability. As you know,
restoration and maintenance of healthy watersheds is one of the primary
goals of the Forest Service's Natural Resources Agenda. As stated
earlier, the agency now uses watershed assessments to guide management
decisions, particularly in the Pacific NW and California. The agency
also collaborates with interested parties, Indian tribes, and other
Federal state and local agencies to achieve watershed goals.
I also agree with the committee that a functioning timber industry
can help the Forest Service accomplish long-term timber stand and
landscape objectives, just as predictable timber supplies from the
national forests help the timber industry and surrounding communities.
Communities need as much certainty as possible in planning for their
futures. A collaborative planning process, using assessments and
scientific information, adaptive management and monitoring to develop
strategies to achieve desired future conditions can result in watershed
protection and timber harvest that contributes to long-term
sustainability for forests and communities.
Summary
The Committee of Scientists exceeded my expectations in responding
to the Secretary's direction. Indeed, the Committee's work verifies
that the mission of the agency is very clear, to sustain these forests
and grasslands for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future
generations. We have been striving to meet this charge, but we can do
it better with more clarity, purpose, coordination and consistency, as
indicated in the report. For this very reason, the agency needs to move
forward to write a new forest planning rule, incorporating much of what
it already knows from practice and building upon the strong foundation
established by this Committee report.
In closing, the Secretary and I are very grateful for the
committee's public service in writing this report. I want to thank the
committee for giving us this opportunity today to discuss this report
and now I will let Chief Dombeck add a few more comments before turning
it over to Dr. Norm Johnson, chairman of the committee.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to join you today.
______
Statement of Mike Dombeck, Chief, USDA Forest Service
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to join Under Secretary Lyons and Dr. Norman Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee of Scientists, as we discuss the Committee of
Scientists' final report. I will share with you my expectations for
taking the report's scientific and technical recommendations and
drafting a new set of planning regulations.
Background
I believe the Forest Service's 192 million acres of national
forests and grasslands should be the model for other landowners and
other nations about how we can live in productive harmony with the
lands and waters that sustain us all.
The National Forest System (NFS), comprising public land in 42
States and Puerto Rico consists of 155 National Forests, 20 National
Grasslands, and other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Agriculture. These lands provide a variety of public uses and an
enduring supply of goods and services for the American people
consistent with its statutory mandates.
During the twenty three years since the National Forest Management
Act's (NFMA) enactment, uses of public lands have increased and much
has been learned about the planning and management of National Forest
System lands. NFMA's premise of land and resource management planning
promoted public participation and improved interdisciplinary management
of resource stewardship. Nonetheless, based on our knowledge today, we
now know we can do an even better job of integrating science and the
public's participation for the next round of forest planning.
Land and resource management planning cannot, and should not, be
expected to resolve all problems; however, improved planning can refine
the focus of many issues, expand available choices, and enhance public
service.
Common Ground
So much of the debate over natural resources today seems to focus
on those things about which people disagree. Yet, as I am sure you will
agree, there is common ground for us to walk on and chart a new course
toward sustainability. After nearly two years of study, the Committee
of Scientists' report illustrates that there are many similarities in
various perspectives on how to manage our national forests and
grasslands.
We all share the belief that we cannot allow multiple use of these
lands to diminish the land's productivity. Moreover, the land's ability
to support communities depends on taking care of the land's health,
diversity, and productivity. This certainly is consistent with the
multiple use, sustained yield mandate.
To achieve this balance, we must build the capacity for stewardship
among communities of place and communities of interest.
The best available science from all sources must be used to help
identify options for decisions on the landscape. Additionally, we would
likely all agree that continued multiple use management of our national
forests and grasslands is appropriate.
The American people are less concerned about encyclopedic
environmental impact statements and phone book size forest plans than
they are about tangible results such as cleaner water, better habitat,
abundant populations of fish and wildlife, stable soils, and so on.
That is the essence of the Forest Service natural resource agenda.
Combined with the recommendations of the Committee of Scientists, we
will craft a new set planning regulations that better meets the
expectations of the citizen-owners of public lands.
Development of a New Planning Rule
Forest plans are documents of the public trust, they are the
delivery systems for public benefits from national forests and
grasslands. Without scientifically based forest planning, the agency
cannot provide management that is credible, legally sound, and
responsive to public interests.
As stewards of the public trust, we know that our forests and
grasslands will confer economic, social, and other benefits on people
and communities nationwide only as long as we manage them in a way that
maintains their health, diversity, and long term productivity. Forest
planning is the pathway to achieving this end result.
Based upon the Committee of Scientists' recommendations, ecological
sustainability will lay a critical foundation for fulfilling the intent
of laws and regulations guiding the public use and enjoyment of
national forests and grasslands.
To promote vibrant ecological, social, and economic environments,
our proposed planning regulations will deliver a collaborative planning
process designed to engage the public and apply the best available
scientific information.
We will build upon over two decades of experience and advice
regarding the principles and practice of land and resource planning and
management.
We will simplify and streamline the current planning process. It
will facilitate conversation rather than confuse; encourage rather than
impede communication.
Watershed maintenance and restoration are the oldest and highest
callings of the Forest Service. The agency is, and always will be,
bound to them by law, science, and tradition. The national forests
truly are, the headwaters of the nation. I mention this because I
firmly believe that if we take care of our watersheds, if we allow them
to perform their most basic functions of catching, storing and safely
releasing water over time, they will take care of us. Hence it is my
expectation that future forest plans will develop strategies and
document how we will:
maintain and restore watershed function, including flow
regimes, to provide for a wide variety of benefits from
fishing, to groundwater recharge, to drinking water;
conduct assessments that will characterize current conditions
and help make informed decisions about management activities,
protection objectives, and restoration potential;
protect, maintain and recover native aquatic and riparian
dependent species and prevent the introduction and spread of
non-native species;
monitor to ensure we accomplish our objectives in the most
cost-effective manner, adapt management to changing conditions,
and validate our assumptions over time;
include the best science and research, local communities,
partners, tribal governments, states, and other interested
citizens in collaborative watershed restoration and management,
and
provide opportunities to link social and economic benefits to
communities through restoration strategies.
Many of our forest plans contemplate the use of management regimes
which are simply now out of synch with the public's expectations and
science. As an example, many forest plans project the use of even-age
management or clearcutting, when that practice in many cases, is
inconsistent with science and the public's expectations. The Forest
Service very much needs to revise its planning regulations to get on
with the job of managing these lands consistent with the best science
and public needs.
A Forest Service team will employ the committee's recommendations
in preparing proposed planning regulations. The planning framework will
build on the work of the committee and highlight the role of
sustainable natural environments and the actions necessary to provide
strong, productive economies, enduring human communities, and the
variety of benefits sought by American citizens.
It is anticipated that revisions of the planning manual will
accompany or soon follow the proposed planning regulation. Both of
these are anticipated for public review and comment this Spring. At
that time, we would like to hear from a wide variety of people
regarding our proposed planning procedures.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Statement of Dr. Donald W. Floyd, Chair, Society of American Foresters
Task Force on Public Lands
Madam Chairman, my name is Don Floyd, Chair of the Society of
American Foresters (SAF) Task Force that has been studying the
management of the national forests and BLM public lands since December
of 1996. The product of that work is the report you have before you
entitled Forest of Discord. This report represents the collective
wisdom of the almost 18,000 members of the Society that constitute the
scientific and educational association representing the profession of
forestry in the United States. SAF's primary objective is to advance
the science, technology, education, and practice of professional
forestry for the benefit of society. We are ethically bound to advocate
and practice land management consistent with ecologically sound
principles. I am especially pleased to be here today and I thank the
Subcommittee for its continued support of professional forestry. I
thank the Chair for the opportunity.
I am not here today to give a response to the Committee of
Scientists report. Like our report, theirs took a great deal of time to
develop and is at least 100 pages. It will take SAF considerable time
to provide a scholarly review of their important work. We have
committed to this review, and will make it available to this
Subcommittee, the Department of Agriculture, and the public as soon as
we complete it. In addition to SAF's formal review, the May Journal of
Forestry is devoted to the Committee of Scientists report and will
contain analysis from leading scholars reflecting a variety of
viewpoints.
I wish to briefly describe the process we used to develop our
report. The Task Force represents natural resource professionals from
all employment sectors and regions of our membership. They are an
excellent group of people and it was an honor to work with them. Our
charter was different than the Committee of Scientists in that we were
to look beyond the planning regulations and examine all the laws and
regulations that affect the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). Our charter reminded me of the charge to the last
Public Land Law Review Commission in the 1960s. It was, at times, an
overwhelming task.
As part of our process, we met with the SAF membership at national
conventions, state society meetings, and one on one. We also visited
field offices of the Forest Service and spoke to BLM managers. The
Society's Forest Science and Technology Board and Committee on Forest
Policy have reviewed and approved the report. In addition, scholars
both inside and outside the SAF membership have reviewed the report.
The SAF Council (our board of directors) endorsed the report on March
10, 1999, after a very deliberate debate on its contents.
In developing our report I made a conscience effort not to review
the Committee of Scientists' work. I felt this would ensure some
independence of thought. I have now read some drafts of their report,
and the executive summary released yesterday. It is remarkable to find
so many similarities between the two efforts. I am pleased that our
report and the Committee of Scientists' report offer a platform for
Congress and the Administration to put aside their differences and
begin the overdue discussion about priorities for conservation.
Madam Chairman, as I mentioned there are similarities between the
two reports. If I was forced to find a difference after my initial
screening of the Committee of Scientists' report, I believe that
difference is that we call for new legislation. The SAF believes that
the purposes of the national forest and public lands are no longer
clear. After careful analysis we hold the belief that multiple use,
when viewed as a guiding principle for all forest lands, has become an
engine of conflict that pits one interest group against another and
denies land managers a clear mandate. Bob Wolf (formerly of
theCongressional Research Service) compares multiple use to a product
created accidentally in a G.E. laboratory over 50 years ago. He states
``Silly Putty can be shaped, but if left for a few minutes it reverts
to its indeterminate mass. Multiple use has the same characteristic: it
can be stated specifically . . . but it defies meaningful description
when one seeks to portray examples on the ground.'' Congress has the
constitutional responsibility to set policy for the national forests
and public lands and should act decisively to establish clear
priorities for their management. Congress should work cooperatively
with the Administration to develop new legislation. This legislation
should articulate that multiple use is not necessarily appropriate on
every management unit, but may be better applied in the aggregate
across that national forests and public lands. It should also spell out
how to rectify perceived conflicts between our revered environmental
laws and our land management statutes.
The Society of American Foresters is a group of professionals
trying to solve problems to benefit society. We are not the timber
industry, we are not the environmental community, we represent all
these interests in our membership and like to think of ourselves as
moderates. We do want change. We want better forest management. Our
concern is not how it is achieved, as long as it is achieved. The
Administration does not believe new legislation is needed. The Congress
does not believe the Administration can fix the problems through new
regulations. If bipartisan solutions cannot be developed, I fear that
our effort and that of the Committee of Scientists will be just another
in a series of discarded reports. Perhaps we should not be called
moderates but idealists, as we believe that a bipartisan Congress and
the Administration should work together to develop new regulations and
new legislation to address these important issues. This will take a
commitment to negotiate in good faith, with a clear goal of balancing
the legitimate public values for national forests and public lands.
The Committee of Scientists ``believes that sustainability in all
its facets--ecological, economic, and social--should be the guiding
star for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands.'' We
strongly agree with this concept, and we think the American people do
as well. We all would be angry if the Forest Service and the BLM were
not good stewards and if sustainability was not the agencies' primary
goal. We do believe, however, that sustainability is a goal but does
not clearly define the purpose of these national lands. The SAF feels
the questions of sustainability for whom and for what have not yet been
answered. This is why we call for a cooperative approach between
Congress, the Administration, and others to develop new legislation to
clarify the purposes of the national forests and public lands.
We believe our report presents a framework to ask the people,
through Congress and the Administration, to define the purposes. This
does not mean that we believe the Forest Service should not develop new
regulations for the forest planning process. That effort should move
forward based on the excellent work of the Committee of Scientists and
other organizations and individuals interested in the national forests.
As we reinvigorate the national dialogue about the purposes of the
national forests and public lands we would like to see change in the
following areas:
Improving the planning process
Resource management plans and subsequent monitoring
strategies should provide an appropriate range of diverse,
resilient aquatic and terrestrial communities.
Resource management plans should identify and quantify
(to the extent feasible) appropriate goals and outcomes,
including vegetation management goals, and commodity and
amenity outputs.
The plans should compare and contrast the goals and
outcomes with recent performance, highlighting situations where
a significant change in direction is proposed.
Plans should indicate expected financial performance
and expected economic and environmental consequences (including
economic and social stability, downstream air and water quality
and other environmental effects).
The goals and outputs (including fiscal expectations
and downstream effects) should be set forth in a manner that
provides a basis for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting
agency performance.
Both citizen participation and professional discretion
are important in resource management planning. Citizens clearly
have a responsibility to make their wishes known, and
professional resource managers have a duty to listen carefully
to the public.
Public participation at the local level should enrich,
not paralyze, implementation of national or regional policy
goals. Congress must clearly define the role of local
participation with regard to national policy directives.
National and regional decisions should be shaped through
national and regional participation.
Both Forest Service and BLM forest planning
regulations should identify the analyses and decisions that
must be made at each planning level.
Forest or area plans and resource management plans
should identify necessary monitoring as well as the type,
location, and intensity of measurements needed. Monitoring
should be cost effective and should concentrate on key
outcomes. The monitoring plan should be part of the decision
document.
Both Forest Service and BLM forest planning
regulations should provide a systematic means for addressing
new information, including the results of monitoring. This
should include ways to preserve or protect values of concern
while the new information is examined for scientific validity
and incorporated into analyses and decisions, but without
overriding or invalidating the planned targets and budgets.
Experimentation should be encouraged, but it should be
limited to certain conditions. Authority for experiments should
be constrained until the agencies have demonstrated that
adequate controls are in place.
Any legislation designed to improve the planning
process should be clear in its relationship to existing
planning legislation.
Financing land management
A variety of experimental programs exist for
collecting revenues from recreational users and nontraditional
forest products. These programs should be expanded. If, for
example, watershed management is reemphasized, Congress must
address how to pay for it, or how it can pay for itself.
Forest or area plans should explain how the goals and
outcomes would be affected by differing budgets. Annual
reporting on agency performance can then compare and contrast
the goals and outcomes of the plan with the requested budgets
and actual allocations.
Use of the trust funds and special accounts should be
reviewed and modified if necessary. Administrative reform is
warranted before legislative changes are considered. The
agencies should use care to ensure that projects funded through
these accounts meet the legislative intent Congress had when
developing the accounts.
Congress should continue to examine the adequacy of
payments in lieu of taxes and other compensation programs to
ensure that the states and counties are fairly and consistently
compensated for the tax-exempt status of Federal lands.
Madam Chairman, I believe you will see many similarities between
the Committee of Scientists' report and the recommendations I have
outlined. Our hope is that everyone who cares about the management of
our public lands and national forests will carefully consider these two
reports. While we differ in the institutions we would pick to make
these changes, both the Committee of Scientists and the Society of
American Foresters have the same goal: ensuring the health of the land.
This concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity to
present our views today. I will be happy to answer any questions at
this time.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.004
Statement of Mary Munson, Senior Associate, Habitat Conservation
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Committee
of Scientists' historic report. Defenders of Wildlife is a
nonprofit organization with 300,000 members and supporters,
dedicated to the protection of native wildlife in their natural
habitats. On behalf of Defenders, I welcome your interest in
forest planning and management, and your willingness to hear
the views of the environmental community on this important
issue.
In their report, the Committee of Scientists states that
protecting biodiversity is vital to public lands stewardship.
To carry that out, it offers an innovative, science-based
approach for protecting structures, processes and conditions to
sustain wildlife and ecosystems. Overall, the report represents
an improvement for planning regulations by strengthening and
expanding viability rule and reinforcing ecological
sustainability as the foundation of national forest
stewardship. The major challenges ahead, and our deepest
concern, is that these recommendations are adequately
translated into regulations. The regulations must contain clear
standards for ecosystem integrity and species viability, as
well as objective methods of determining whether the standards
are being met.
The report establishes ecological sustainability as the
foundation of national forest planning. This conclusion is
widely accepted among conservation biologists. It is also
intuitively obvious. How can the wide range of uses occur over
time if they are harming the conditions necessary to bring them
about? Taken in totality, our national environmental laws
reinforce this conclusion. We do not believe this is
controversial and congratulate the Committee for acknowledging
its veracity.
A major innovation in the report is its approach to
wildlife protection. It reaffirms the notion that managing
forests to maintain the viability of wildlife species is a
cornerstone of biodiversity protection. One of the major
criticisms of the existing species viability regulation is that
it is difficult to implement. Many witnesses that came before
the Committee claimed it was unworkable, since it had been
interpreted to require scientific evaluations of all species.
The Committee is proposing a trimmed down, more efficient way
to protect species viability without giving up that essential
component, collecting and analyzing species population and
trend data. Instead of requiring this assessment for all
species, the Committee applies it to a subset of surrogates
known as ``Focal Species.''* We believe this compromise is fair
and reasonable. The challenge for the agency is to produce
regulations that define Focal Species in a way which is true to
the Committee's vision, so the agency is responsible for
selecting truly representative surrogates for all species in
the forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Focal species indicate the integrity of certain ecological
communities or are particularly affected by management actions or
certain stresses. Focal species are also selected if they play an
ecological engineering role, are threatened with extinction, or play
indicator or keystone species roles. Best science is used to assess the
conditions necessary to protect and restore viability of focal,
threatened, endangered and sensitive species, and management decisions
are based on achieving those conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But because the subset of species evaluated by the Forest
Service will be limited, it is essential that the regulations
state that the collection of quantitative inventory data for
those species is an indispensable duty. Since the Committee
emphasizes that monitoring and adaptive management are integral
to planning, data collection for the designated surrogate
species must be done on an ongoing basis. Currently, two
important sections of the Code of Federal Regulations--36 CFR
Sections 219.19 and 219.26, which apply to Management Indicator
Species (MIS)--might be examined as models, substituting the
``Focal Species'' for MIS. We believe that the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals ruling on February 8, 1994 in Sierra Club v.
Martin defined the intent of those CFR sections as consistent
with the intent of the Committee in data collection, assessment and monitoring for Focal Species. Section 219.19(a)(6) states that ``[p]opulation trends
of the management indicator species will be monitored and
relationships to habitat changes determined.'' Section 219.26
states that diversity must be considered throughout the
planning process, and that ``[i]nventories shall include
quantitative data making possible the evaluation of diversity
in terms of its prior and present conditions.'' In Martin, the
Court held that those sections, taken together, ``require the
Forest Service to gather quantitative data on MIS and use it to
measure the impact of habitat changes on the forest
diversity.'' This is the role envisioned for Focal Species, and
these sections should be taken as guides when rewriting the new
regulations. They should also be used as models for gathering
empirical data for threatened, endangered and sensitive species
as well.
The current viability regulation limits managers to
ensuring viability for only vertebrate species. The Report
suggests that this be extended to non-vertebrate native
species as well. Also, a full range of natural conditions,
processes and habitats would be protected under the proposed
planning regime. By including such a broad spectrum of criteria
and indicators, the approach reflects current thinking that has
been adopted by international experts.
While we generally support the report's recommendations
regarding ecological sustainability, we are concerned about
some other aspects of the report. For example, the Report
states that the plan-implementation priorities for funding in
the face of budget shortfalls should be determined during the
collaborative ``learning'' process. To be consistent with its
conclusions about ecological sustainability, the Regulations
should clearly state that some elements in planning are not
optional. Assessments, analysis and monitoring are examples of
indispensable planning steps. If there is no budget available
for them, program activities should be curtailed. No
``collaborative'' group should be allowed the discretion to
eliminate them.
One of the most pressing issues in national forests,
roadless area protection, was given virtually no attention in
the report. Defenders and many other organizations are
concerned about the continual pressure applied by the Forest
Service to put roads into the relatively small portion of the
forests that remain roadless. The basis for pushing these roads
forward is timber sales. What makes this so tragic is that
these areas command low timber prices and/or have high
administrative costs associated with them, so sales are bound
to be money-losing for the agency. However, these lands have
high values and use by wildlife, as well as conditions and
qualities that argue for leaving them roadless. The Committee
was remiss in leaving this issue out.
Another concern is that the discussions about collaborative
stewardship did not point out the problems associated with
self-appointed collaborative groups such as the Quincy Library
Group. There needs to be caution about embracing similar bodies
and planning processes that engage them.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
------
Statement of Robert W. Bierer, American Forest & Paper Association
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide some views of the
American Forest & Paper Association on the report prepared by
the Committee of Scientists. I am Bob Bierer, Director of
Forest Management for the Association. I am presenting my
testimony today on behalf of AF&PA's member companies,
associations, and allied groups. AF&PA members include forest
land owners, manufacturers of solid wood products, and
producers of pulp and paper products. The U.S. forest products
industry has sales of over $195 billion annually and employs
1.6 million people. One point two percent of the entire U.S.
work force. Many of our members are totally or partially
dependent on timber from the national forests and other Federal
lands.
As you know, the Committee of Scientists was appointed by
USDA Secretary Dan Glickman to evaluate the Forest Service land
and resource management planning process and provide
recommendations for new planning regulations. Because our
Association has an intense interest in the agency's land
management planning process, we have followed the Committee's
progress and deliberations closely through its series of public
meetings and conference calls over a 15-month period starting
in December of 1997. We submitted background information for
their consideration as well as written comments regarding the
current Forest Service Planning process.
At their meetings, the Committee heard that the Forest
Service has spent many millions of dollars and thousands of
employee person-years, and conducted countless meetings and
public comment periods to develop the current forest plans for
each national forest, but to what end? The agency is not
committed to implementing the forest plans (no forest plan is
being fully implemented), the public is even more polarized
than ever, virtually every forest plan is appealed and
litigated, local communities and businesses cannot rely on the
outputs the expect from the forest plans, and the cost of
forest planning and project planning to implement the forest
plans continues to sky-rocket.
Although the Committee's final report has not yet been
distributed to the public, we have several concerns I would
like to share with you based on our review of report drafts.
First, the final report has not undergone any scientific
peer review or public review. At one of the Committee's early
meetings, USDA Under Secretary Jim Lyons expressed his belief
that the report should undergo a scientific peer review. In its
haste to finish the report, however, the Committee has opted to
forego any outside review of the report. Why? Both a scientific
peer review and a public review of the report are essential
before the Forest Service issues new draft planning
regulations. The Committee is recommending a new theoretical
``viability'' regulation that is operationally untested. Other
qualified, credentialed scientists probably have differing
views regarding species ``viability'' and other changes
recommended in the report.
Second, the report recommends what is clearly a new mission
for the Forest Service that is in conflict with much of its
statutory mission. It stresses a sharp shift towards ecosystem
preservation with ecological sustainability being paramount,
ignoring the Forest Service's statutory mandate of multiple-use
management. As one Committee member has noted, this focus on
the preeminence of ecological sustainability, coupled with the
new stringent viability regulations recommended in the report,
would have the effect of operating the National Forests as
biological reserves.
Furthermore, the Committee uses a definition of
sustainability that is different from the one being used in
international negotiations by the U.S. Government and other
countries. Internationally, sustainable forest management gives
equal consideration to social, economic, and ecological values.
This definition was just endorsed at a national conference last
week in Reno, where over 150 school administrators and elected
county officials passed a resolution that sustainable forest
management must include ecological, economic, and social
factors equally.
This change goes well beyond the Secretary's charge to the
Committee ``to provide scientific and technical advise to the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service on
improvements that can be made in the National Forest System
Land and Resource Management planning process'' and that this
be done ``within the established framework of environmental
laws and within the statutory mission of the Forest Service.''
Third, most fundamental flaws in the current forest
planning process will not be corrected with the changes
suggested in the report. Forest plan implementation, for
example, is frequently disrupted by administrative fiat, the
most recent example being the recent roads moratorium. These
top-down directives from Washington render the forest plans
useless, undermining the ability of local managers and
communities to manage forests based on local conditions and
overriding years of local negotiations and compromise that went
into the development of current forest plans. No wonder that
local residents feel betrayed and frustrated and forest plans
have no credibility!
The report acknowledges but does little to address the
problem of endless appeals that has plagued the forest plans
and the planning process. It ignores other available.
successful models, such as pre-decisional appeal process used
by the Bureau of Land Management.
Meaningful forest plan implementation will remain
impossible without basic reform to force the budget and
planning processes to operate in concert. Plans without
corresponding budgets cannot be implemented! We are also very
concerned about the disconnect between the strategic planning
being conducted for the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), annual budgeting, and forest planning.
I would like to close with a quote from a recent editorial
by Former Chief Jack Thomas. ``We have learned, and continue to
learn, a great deal about our forests. We know that the heavy
hand of one-size-fits-all government regulation does not land
lightly or evenly. We know our crazy quilt of laws and policies
often prevent management practices from working properly. And
we know it is the stakeholders--people who stand to win or
lose--who seem best situated to guide the decision-making to
preserve their forests and protect lives and property.'' We
fear, Madame Chairman, that the Committee's report has badly
missed the mark!
------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6355.272