Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1277 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
DR.
ROBERT LEWIS, JR.
DEPUTY CHIEF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
FOREST
SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT - S. 1457:
FOREST RESOURCES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY ACT
BODY:
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss S. 1457, the Forest Resources for the Environment and the Economy Act. I
am Robert Lewis, Forest Service Deputy Chief for Research and Development..
The Administration agrees with the general goals and objectives of S. 1457,
the Forest Resources for the Environment and the Economy Act, and would support
the bill if it is amended to address concerns and incorporate suggested changes
as described below. Overview
S. 1457 would amend the Energy Policy Act of
1992 to assess opportunities to increase carbon storage on national forests
derived from the public domain and to facilitate voluntary and accurate
reporting of forest projects that reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations, and for other purposes.The legislation would direct the
Secretary of Agriculture to:
1) report to Congress on carbon storage, and
the potential to increase carbon storage on national forests;
2) establish a
Carbon and Forestry Advisory Council to advise him on the development of
guidelines for accurate voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas sequestration from
forest management actions, to evaluate the potential implementation of the
guidelines, and to estimate the effect of proposed implementation on atmospheric
carbon mitigation;
3) maintain a database on results of the carbon storage
program and report annually to Congress on the results of the program; and
4) make grants to the States for the States to administer revolving fund
programs for forest carbon activities.
The goals and objectives of S. 1457
are consistent with existing Forest Service programs. For instance, we continue
to research carbon storage and carbon cycling, and modeling, with a current
emphasis on below ground carbon storage in roots, soil, and organic matter, ha
addition, programs such as the Stewardship Incentives Program and Forestry
Incentives Program provide technical and financial assistance to private
landowners for reforestation and other forestry improvement projects that result
in better management of forest lands, and through this better carbon storage.
The objectives of S. 1457 are goals that the Administration supports. We
support the bill provided that funding, as well as certain technical concerns
and clarifications are addressed.
Specific Concerns with S. 1457
In
terms of funding, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget (FY'00) contains $12
million for Forest Service research that would help accomplish the work needed
to develop criteria and guidelines within the bill's timeframes. However, the
current House and Senate Interior and related agencies appropriation bill for
FY00 have rejected the President's forestry research initiatives and do not
provide this funding. In addition, the Senate decreases the Forest Service
research budget by $10 million. As a result, this carbon related research would
not be started and related ongoing research would likely be reduced.Technical
concerns with sections of the bill are as follows:
1) Section 4 (b) Carbon
Management on Federal Land: The bill as written would limit the assessment to
national forests derived from the public domain, which would exclude most of the
forests in the eastern United States and some portions of forests in the western
United States, While useful, we believe that this would provide an inaccurate
and incomplete picture of the potential for federal lands.
2) Paragraph
(5)(B) as added by section 4 (c) Carbon and Forestry Advisory Council: Prior to
establishing a new committee or council, we suggest that the Forest Service be
given the flexibility to consider utilizing an existing advisory committee such
as the National Research Advisory Council. We also suggest that a tribal
representative be added to the committee. This is important since many tribes
have forest lands held in trust, and are eligible to participate in the program
outlined in the bill.
3) Paragraph (5)(D) as added by section 4 (c) Criteria
for reporting guidelines: The criteria for reporting guidelines are extremely
complex and would be potentially expensive to implement. For example, the
comprehensive accounting system linking forest management actions and
sequestration to potential offsets and emissions in other sectors does not
currently exist. We would have to undertake a major research effort to develop
such a comprehensive carbon accounting system.
4) Paragraph (6)(B) as added
by section 4 (c) Reports: The database contemplated does not currently exist,
and would require a major costly effort to develop and implement.
5) Section
5 (b) Revolving Loan Funds: We assume that this section of the bill directs the
Secretary to make grants to the States for the States to administer revolving
fund programs. Private nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners and Indian
Tribes could use the assistance to do reforestation work for the purpose of
increasing carbon storage.
We have concerns with this section, as currently
written. Our primary concern is with the revolving loan program. The Forest
Service does not have experience monitoring and evaluating State revolving loan
programs. The administration proposed a similar loan program called the Smart
Growth Partnership, as part of the Lands Legacy initiative m
the President's FY00 budget. A key difference was that the Forest Service would
transfer funds for this program to the Department of Agriculture's existing
Rural Intermediate Relending Program for administration of the loans.
Furthermore, we believe that the goals and objectives of this program can be
achieved utilizing existing authorities.
If, however, the intent is that the
Forest Service would initiate its own credit program, the Forest Service does
not have the experience with the direct administration of loan programs. We
would work with Congress to provide necessary technical changes to the loan
program authorization to ensure conformance with the Federal Credit Reform Act
of 1990. Also in this section, it is not clear whether the term watershed, m
section 5(B) refers to a "National Forest Watershed" as.defined m section 3(6),
or to something else. Also, the term "forestry carbon activities" m section
5(b)(3) is defined differently in section 3(1).
The size of the watershed is
not defined in terms of proximity to national forest lands, so that seemingly
any landowner may qualify within a watershed that contains national forest land,
even if they are literally hundreds of miles downstream. If this is the intent,
then this should be more clearly stated.
Restricting the funding to native
species in section 5(b)(3)(F), with preference given to species that formerly
occupied the land, restricts the landowner's opportunities to take advantage of
science and technology advances in woody cropping systems. Use of genetically
improved stock or species native to the region but not necessarily native to
that particular site, in a manner that is consistent with Executive Order 13112,
Invasive Species, may offer opportunities for increased productivity, increased
local income, and increased carbon sequestration opportunities that would not
otherwise be realized.
Closing:
In summary Mr. Chairman, we support the
objectives and intent of S. 1457, but are concerned with both the funding
aspects of the bill, as well as some of the specifics of the bill. We look
forward to working with you to make necessary changes and clarifications to this
bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or members of your Subcommittee may have.
END
LOAD-DATE: October 2, 1999
