U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

56–355 u WASHINGTON : 1999

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

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

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ADAM SMITH, Washington

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

RON KIND, Wisconsin

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

DOUG CRANDALL, Staff Director

ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff

JEFF PETRICH, Minority Chief Counsel

(III)

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

(1)

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

2

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.

3

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 comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Oct 06, 2000 Jkt 066282 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\56355 pfrm07 PsN: 56355
4

mittee. 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 direcVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Oct 06, 2000 Jkt 066282 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\56355 pfrm07 PsN: 56355
5

tion 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 agenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Oct 06, 2000 Jkt 066282 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\56355 pfrm07 PsN: 56355
6

cies 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

7

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.

8

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 JohnVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Oct 06, 2000 Jkt 066282 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\56355 pfrm07 PsN: 56355
9

son 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 multipleuse, 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.]

10

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.

11

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.

12

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 projectlevel 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 longterm 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.