LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: "Lands Legacy Initiative", House or Senate or Joint

Document 43 of 118.

APRIL 15, 1999, THURSDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 2264 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
THE HON. JAMES R. LYONS
UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
INTERIOR SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - USDA FOREST SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET

BODY:

Chairman Gorton, Senator Byrd, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Forest Service's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000.
BACKGROUND
Last year when I testified before this Subcommittee, I emphasized that despite many contentious debates we have had on Forest Service management issues, Congress and the Administration agree more than we disagree on our goals for the sustainable use of our national forests. Despite differences regarding budget priorities and the environmental riders which were part of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations debate, we worked together to develop a bill which moved the Forest Service forward to resolve some of the contentious issues we faced in addressing high priority watershed and forest health concerns. Let me note some examples of this cooperation: In your home state of Washington, Mr. Chairman, we worked closely with you to convey portions of the Wind River Nursery to Skamania County in exchange for county lands while protecting the research values of the Wind River Experimental Forest. We worked with you to finalize a complex land exchange between the Mr. Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee National Forests and the Plum Creek Timber Company which will enhance recreation opportunities, improve wilderness management, and result in more efficient administration of Forest Service and Plum Creek lands. We also worked closely with Congress on broad national issues including developing an experimental program for end results contracting to improve forest health in collaboration with local interests. We jointly addressed the sensitive issue of anchor bolts in wilderness areas by increasing public involvement as part of the decision making process. As these examples show, I continue to believe we have common interests and greater agreement than disagreement, although I'm sure we'll be involved in tough debate again over this year's budget.
As for the Forest Service fiscal year 2000 budget, it would provide for an overall increase in discretionary appropriations of 6.5 percent compared to the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act. The budget continues to emphasize critical investments necessary for the management, restoration, and protection of the agency's 192 million acres of public lands. In addition, the budget proposes a substantial increase of $37.2 million to enhance the agency's leading role in Forest and Rangeland Research. Finally, the budget also proposes increases in selected State and Private Forestry programs, which are key components of the agency's management portfolio that has been largely overlooked.
PRESIDENTIAL PRIORITIES
The President has proposed several initiatives in the fiscal year 2000 budget, as well as continued investment in the Clean water Action Plan, first initiated as part of the fiscal year 1999 budget.
The President's budget includes a new Lands Legacy Initiative, the largest one-year investment ever made in the preservation of America's lands. The Lands Legacy Initiative is a $1 billion federal program, and includes $217.6 million in Forest Service funding. The initiative focuses on working with states, tribes, local governments, and willing private partners to protect great places, conserve open space for recreation and wildlife, and to preserve forests, farmlands, and coastal areas.
Currently, 30 million people live within an hour's drive of national forest system lands. The pressures on these lands to meet growing recreation demand are tremendous. Recently the front page of the Portland Oregonian highlighted a decision by the Mount Hood National Forest Supervisor to reevaluate a proposal to limit hiking on parts of the forests' wilderness lands. Limits were proposed to maintain the wilderness character of these hiking experiences, yet public outcry required a new look at the proposal.
National forests adjacent or in close proximity to cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boise, Salt Lake, Albuquerque, Boston, Durham, NH and many others are increasingly challenged to meet the multiple and expanding needs of customers who also share in the ownership of these resources.
In New England, for example, the Forest Service has made judicious use of limited land acquisition funds to purchase key recreation areas and lakefront properties to ensure continued public access. The Lake Tarleton acquisition completed last year in partnership with the Trust for Public Land provides one good illustration of how limited acquisition dollars can have a large impact in the region.
Similarly, in partnership with the governors of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, the Forest Service has committed funds from the Forest Legacy program to aid in acquisition of key timber and utility lands that are now being put up for sale in large blocks. This is the same program, Mr. Chairman, that we've used in partnership with the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust and other land conservation groups in the Pacific Northwest to preserve important recreation areas and hiking trails such as those that line the Interstate 90 corridor.
Two elements of the President's Lands Legacy Initiative would support the acquisition of long term conservation easements of forestlands and open space threatened by development. To be clear, these programs are used only to acquire lands and interest in lands on a willing seller basis. But we believe additional investment in the Forest Service's land acquisition and Forest Legacy programs are critical components of the fiscal year 2000 budget.
I want to also highlight another element of the Lands Legacy initiative by use of satellite photographs. I'm sure you recognize this part of the world, Mr. Chairman. It's the Puget Sound region and the three photos illustrate the degree to which tree cover has disappeared. In fact the total loss in this time period has been 37 percent of tree cover in the 24 years between 1973 and 1997 as growth occurred in the area. I want to thank American Forests for providing me with these photos to help illustrate the point that the loss of forested cover in rapidly urbanizing environments like Seattle is a risk to the watersheds, viewsheds, and, in general, to the quality of life of the region. The Forest Service administers programs designed to work with communities to help maintain forest cover, preserve open space and those quality of life elements that are disappearing in the Puget Sound region. The specific program I am referring to is the Urban and Community Forestry Program and it is one of the progra f proposedneor increases (and, hopefully, permanent, funding) in the President's budget.
This program is vital to helping communities help themselves protect the natural resources in their communities, neighborhoods, and backyards. Just three weeks ago, I participated in a project to restore a wetland in the Dwuamish estuary in the industrial part of Seattle. I know you know that area, Mr. Chairman. I won't suggest to you that we can bring back the Dwuamish entirely, but I can assure you that the 50 or so schoolkids who participated in the project and the federal, state, and local partners who joined in probably got more benefit out of the project than the watershed.

Projects like this occur every year in communities in every state in the nation and the Urban and Community Forestry Program makes that possible. This program needs your continued and expanded support.
The President's fiscal year 2000 goal for the Clean Water Action Plan is to further enhance Forest Service programs which assure that all the nation's lands, not just National Forest lands, provide clean water, healthy fish and wildlife habitat, as well as the sustain production of goods and services that the public demands of our forested lands. Certainly the debate over salmon and the future of listed species of salmon, steelhead, and bulltrout has brought regional if not national focus to the importance of clean water. It is important to keep in mind the fact that approximately 25% of the water that flows in the west originates in the national forests. Yet the health of many national forest watershed has been adversely affected by excess roading, logging, and the management activities whose cumulative effects are a cause for concern.
Equally important to watershed health will be appropriate investments in sustainable forestry, particularly where insect and disease have killed thousands of acres of productive forests leaving a powderkeg of dead and dying trees awaiting ignition. For this reason, renewed focus is being placed on investments in thinning forest lands and treating devastated watersheds through tree removal and prescribed fire.
I know some Members of the Committee have seen the forest risk maps. Let me refer to the insect and disease map now. Note the severe problem in Northern Idaho as identified by the large red area. In recognition of this problem the Forest Service is working cooperatively with the State of Idaho to limit the impact of the bark beetles in high value stands in recreational and wildland/urban interface areas using pheromones to manipulate local beetle populations. The Forest Service is proposing watershed restoration work on National Forest System lands to improve forest health by removing currently infested trees, reducing the build-up of hazardous fuel, and implementing stand treatments to restore stands to drought resistant and insect and disease tolerant species composition with greater proportions of white pine, western larch, and ponderosa pine.
The fiscal year 2000 budget contains additional initiatives. As was proposed last year, the Administration again intends to forward legislation to stabilize payments to states. I believe it is essential to provide these payments through a process that does not link the output of forest products to the education of our rural school children or the quality of the roads used by their parents. If enacted, the legislation will result in long-term predictability of payments needed by the states and counties of America.
On this subject, Mr. Chairman, I implore the Congress to take a different look at this issue. Unfortunately, some would have this be another debate over the future of timber harvests on the national forests. But this describes the issue in too narrow a context.
The reality is that this issue is about education. Is it right to continue to balance the education of thousands of children in rural communities on the back of the timber sale program? If you asked a parent of one of those children if they were more comfortable with a stable funding base for their children's education needs as opposed to funding that depended upon future federal timber sales, they might provide you with a different perspective. And that's not to say that the Administration and the Forest Service are not committed to a sustainable timber supply from the national forests. We've made clear our opposition to "zero cut." But the uncertainties of timber supply, dictated by budgets, an annual debate in the halls of Congress, public opinion, and local challenges are eate that gren la to "zeroy is needed in terms of the payments to counties for education.
Let me briefly focus on the forest road system. The fiscal year 2000 budget seeks increased funding of $22.6 million for maintenance of roads important to rural transportation, and to obliterate roads no longer need or beyond repair. Although we are pleased with this increase, it is important to emphasize that road needs are significant and the backlog of deferred maintenance and capital improvement needs continues to grow. Let me show you a chart that depicts this. As you can see the annual maintenance needs for our road system today is $568 million as compared to a fiscal year 1999 funding level of $99 million. Until we close this gap, either through increased funding or reducing the size of the road system, the $8.4 billion backlog will continue to grow significantly each year.
Finally, the President's budget includes a significant increase in funding for the Forest Service's Research Program. Research and sound scientific information are the foundations for natural resource management and critical elements in guiding future natural resource management decisions. As recommended in the recent report of the Committee of Scientists, we are seeking to enhance our research investments to build a stronger link between science and management. The proposed increases in research funding in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget are vital links to a sound scientific foundation for sustainable forest management.
SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman, I will end my remarks simply by restating that I am confident that with your support we can work together to build a Forest Service program that accomplishes long-term land health objectives, delivers clean water, provides quality access, assures diverse recreational opportunities for greater numbers of Americans, and continues providing strong livelihoods for communities for generations to come.
I know that the numbers are tighter and therefore, the challenges even greater. But, we've done it before and, with your continued leadership, will do it again. I look forward to working with you in constructing the fiscal year 2000 budget; the agency's first step toward its second century of conservation leadership.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
END

LOAD-DATE: April 16, 1999

Document 43 of 118.


Search Terms: "Lands Legacy Initiative", House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: