THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1999 INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES BUDGET

Testimony by William H. Banzhaf^*
Executive Vice-President
Society of American Foresters
before the

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
U.S. House of Representatives
March 3, 1998

Mr. Chairman, my name is William H. Banzhaf. I am the Executive Vice-President of the Society of American Foresters (SAF). The more than 18,000 members of the Society 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 to comment on the President's proposed FY 1999 budget for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. I wish to thank the subcommittee for its continued support of professional forestry, and its continued support of our priorities. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to testify on these important issues.

The public policy activities of SAF are grounded in scientific knowledge and professional judgment. From this perspective we review proposed budgets for forestry and related natural resource programs to determine their adequacy to meet stated objectives and public needs.

The Bureau of Land Management

The Fiscal Year 1998 Interior and Related Agency Appropriation Act (P.L. 105-83) included language that expanded the use of the Bureau of Land Management's Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund (FEHRF). This authority change allows for broader forest ecosystem health and recovery activities as well as monitoring. The expanded authority for the FEHRF, combined with increased funding for prescribed burning, will provide BLM managers with the tools to improve forest and wildlife habitat on BLM lands.

In spite of the funding available under the FEHRF to implement ecosystem health projects, the BLM lacks the on-the-ground personnel, within the Public Domain, necessary to plan and implement these important activities. Since 1981, the BLM Forestry Management program has experienced an inflation-adjusted 65 percent budget decrease, whereas the entire Management of Lands and Resources budget has experienced only a 10 percent decrease over the same time period. We believe the BLM needs to increase its forest management expertise in order to take full advantage of the FEHRF and effectively shift to a focus on forest restoration. Therefore we support an increase in funding for additional forestry personnel to plan and administer forest health improvement activities under the BLM Forestry Management program.

The USDA Forest Service

There are four main areas of the Forest Service budget that deserve particular attention:

1. Research
2. State and Private Forestry
3. International Forestry
4. Road Maintenance and Reconstruction

Research

The Society of American Foresters promotes public policies that advance knowledge about the behavior and functioning of forest ecosystems and their responses to specific actions and policies. SAF believes forestry research is critical to understanding the relationship between societal expectations for diverse needs and values from the forest, and the capability of the forest to meet and sustain those expectations. We advocate continued public and private funding of research activities that address a broad variety of natural resource concerns. Such knowledge, based on sound science, is vital for resolving conflicts about forest policy and management.

There has been a general concern for increased funding for forestry research since the publication of the 1990 RPA program report, which identified improving scientific knowledge about natural resources as a high priority. The National Research Council's (NRC) 1990 report, Forestry Research: A Mandate for Change, found the knowledge required for sound forest management policies inadequate. The 1997 NRC report entitled Forested Landscapes in Perspective, which focused on the needs of nonindustrial private landowners, continued to report that information needs were not being met. SAF is concerned about the relatively stagnant research budget of the last few years, but was encouraged by last year's slight increase. These appropriations, however, represent a significant decline in constant dollars and have lead to the unavoidable loss of not only administrators but scientists with significant expertise in highly specialized areas. For example, the agency has put real emphasis on ecosystem management and while it claims all its research programs are aimed toward that end, the Administration's budget proposal will spend only 3 percent of the total research budget on ecosystem management research. Money spent on ecosystem management research represents 0.2 percent of the entire USDA Forest Service budget.

Natural resource management issues are more complex today than they ever have been in the past. To find solutions we need interdisciplinary research in the biological, physical, and social sciences. This is especially true now that the Forest Service is focusing significant program energy on watershed restoration and community wellbeing. The Agency has done a good job, and could do more, to reduce overhead and put more research dollars to work in direct research projects. But if we continue to lose scientists and research dollars, we believe complex issues are unlikely to be resolved, and the future will show continual policy debates without the knowledge base for resolution. With recognition of this disturbing trend, we encourage the committee to increase the appropriation for Forest Service Research over FY 1998 levels.

Forest Inventory and Analysis

We are pleased that the Administration has offered a proposal to more closely integrate the Forest Inventory and Analysis and Forest Health Monitoring programs, but we note this is only a down payment on ensuring that the programs offer a national perspective on inventory and assessment of the nation's forests. These programs can provide accurate, comparable data across all forestlands. This type of strategic information is critically important to forestry professionals in every employer category across the nation. We believe the subcommittee has recognized the importance of this program in the past, as evidenced by the FY 1997 Interior Appropriations Report.

It would be wise for the Forest Service to develop a strategic plan for reducing the current inventory cycle and exploring ways for the program to be more efficient and effective. In developing this strategic plan, the agency should explore the program's relationship with State and Private forestry, the National Forest System, other federal agencies with relevant expertise, and the state foresters. The proposal should develop alternatives that could leverage funding and personnel to improve data collection and analysis.

If we are to manage our forests sustainably, the Forest Service should continue to provide land managers with an accurate and timely inventory of forest resources. We encourage the subcommittee to continue to increase funding for this most important program.

State and Private Forestry

It is important that the Forest Service and the federal government not waiver on their commitment to state and local forestry agencies and the 10 million private nonindustrial forestlandowners of this nation. The Forest Service has a unique partnership with the state forestry organizations, a partnership which has the opportunity to improve the health of our nation's forests through technical assistance, inventory and monitoring, and protection from fires, insects, and disease on the 490 million acres of nonfederal forests. Due to limited funding, this program has yet to meet its potential.

State, county, private, and industrial lands are increasingly producing forest-related goods and services. The most dramatic change on these lands is the production of timber. Approximately 94 percent of all timber produced in the US is produced on nonfederal lands. The volume of timber from national forests has decreased dramatically, from 12.7 billion board feet (bbf) to 3.4 bbf, over the past 11 years. Such reductions shift the burden of producing wood fiber to state and private lands in order to meet the nation's increasing demand for forest products. When considering the importance of state and private forestry appropriations, please remember 66 percent of the nation's forestlands are in nonfederal ownership. The federal government has a responsibility to protect and enhance the sustainable flow of forest products from state and private lands precisely because of the substantial decrease in production on Forest Service lands.

President Clinton has committed to sustainably managing all our nation's forestlands by the year 2000. Even without this commitment, we have a responsibility to ensure that all our lands are managed sustainably. This is particularly true on nonindustrial private lands. The programs funded in the State and Private budget can deliver information to nonindustrial private land owners so that they can make informed choices about sustainably managing their lands to meet their own objectives. Adequate funding is essential if the program is to reach nonindustrial private landowners, only about 10 percent of whom have written management plans for their land. Even worse, the majority of timber sales on private lands go forward without the benefit of professional forestry advice. The State and Private forestry programs can help both public and private sector foresters meet these challenges.

The Economic Actions Programs funded through the Forest Service's State and Private forestry program deserve special attention. These programs have helped numerous startup businesses utilize forest resources that have been given little attention in the past. These nontraditional uses of our forest resources often lead to new jobs and new markets. These incentives to manage our lands often result in healthier forests. Few other programs in the federal government have the opportunity or the flexibility to foster forest resource development in rural America.

Without significant funding for the State and Private forestry program, the United States will have difficulty meeting its own demand for forest services and products. Therefore, Americans will look elsewhere and likely shift demand to countries that do not currently have the same conservation ethic we have in the United States. The Society of American Foresters recommends funding consistent or above FY 1998 State and Private forestry appropriations.

International Forestry

The Society of American Foresters supports international efforts to advance policies and practices that provide sustainable conservation and management of forest resources for ecological, social, and economic objectives. To reach these multiple objectives for forest resources, SAF believes it is necessary to address international forest issues in a managerial framework based on science and an understanding of social values. The Society supports expanding opportunities for mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge between the United States and other counties and increased private sector participation in international programs. The United States will gain both technical information and knowledge about innovative approaches to a variety of resource management problems, including working with human communities, fire behavior, and insect and pest management. The United States needs to work worldwide to promote concepts of sustainable forestry and demonstrate our 100-year-old record of sound conservation and forest management to natural resource professionals around the world.

The United States is the world's largest wood importer and the second largest wood exporter. International trade in forest products is gaining more and more interest every day. A strong international forestry program will enhance United States trade efforts. Our lands comprise 7% of the world's entire forest base, the fifth largest in the world. Many Americans are concerned about how forests are managed both nationally and internationally. Increasingly, forests are being regarded as a global resource and are receiving significant international attention. It is important that the United States be a participant in these dialogues. Both binding and nonbinding agreements can affect our forests and the products that come from them. The Forest Service is a key partner in the international policy dialogue and brings specialized skills, science, and technical information few others can match. The United States should continue to enhance our relationships with other nations to advance sustainable forestry on the ground.

Even though the Forest Service is a critical component of the nation's international forest policy and trade program, the Agency's international program funding has been seriously neglected. With these thoughts and challenges in mind, we support an increase over FY 1998 funding levels for international forestry.

Road Maintenance and Reconstruction

The issue of road maintenance and reconstruction is something we believe the agency should address. Although we are extremely frustrated with the proposed moratorium on road building in the national forests, we do support funding for road maintenance and reconstruction.

The National Forest Road System is facing a crisis. According to the Forest Service, three quarters of the agency's roads are more than 50 years old, and 60 percent of them are being maintained below the Forest Service standards for which they were designed. Maintenance and reconstruction of existing roads have not kept pace with repair needs in recent years. The Forest Service should propose a multi-year, realistic work plan and budget to address its road system backlog. We ask you to seriously consider their proposals and fund the appropriate maintenance, reconstruction, or obliteration needs of roads in the National Forest System.

Closing

In conclusion, we strongly support the BLM Forestry Management program and the Forest Service research, forest inventory and analysis, state and private, international, and road appropriations we've highlighted. Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to share our views with you and the Committee today.

ABOUT THE SOCIETY The Society of American Foresters, with about 18,000 members, is the national organization that represents all segments of the forestry profession in the United States. It includes public and private practitioners, researchers, administrators, educators, and forestry students. The Society was established in 1900 by Gifford Pinchot and six other pioneer foresters. The mission of the Society of American Foresters is to advance the science, education, technology, and practice of forestry; to enhance the competency of its members; to establish professional excellence; and to use the knowledge, skills, and conservation ethic of the profession to ensure the continued health and use of forest ecosystems and the present and future availability of forest resources to benefit society. The Society is the accreditation authority for professional forestry education in the United States. The Society publishes the Journal of Forestry; the quarterlies, Forest Science, Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, and Western Journal of Applied Forestry; The Forestry Source and the annual Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters national convention.