THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2000
FOREST SERVICE BUDGET^*

Testimony by
Michael Virga
Society of American Foresters
before the

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry
U.S. House of Representatives
March 11, 1999

* Adopted as a position statement by the officers of the Society on
March 11, 1999. This position statement shall expire March 11, 2000 unless,
after subsequent review, it is decided otherwise by Council.

---

Mr. Chairman, I am Michael Virga, a leader in 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 FY 2000 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.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to other programs that we continue to support, we have three main areas of focus we would like to discuss with you today. We believe the priority funding areas for the Forest Service FY 2000 budget are the ecological infrastructure backlog on the National Forest System, federal programs that support a managed forest landscape, and increased spending on the Forest Inventory and Analysis program.

Addressing the Ecological Infrastructure Backlog

Much has been said about the backlog issues associated with the national forests. Whether it is forest health, deteriorating forest roads, endangered species, salmon habitat, recreation facilities, hazardous fuels, or any number of other issues, it is clear that the national forests desperately need attention. The Forest Service must address its ecological infrastructure backlog. Ecological infrastructures are those mechanisms that allow forest and other natural systems to function properly. Any one component of a system that is not functioning properly has the potential to impact other parts of the system. This is not always the case, but clearly there are examples in the national forests. Humans manipulate these processes sometimes acting as an equalizer, sometimes doing more damage. The key is allowing professional natural resource managers to put the infrastructure back in place.

The Agency is attempting to deal with all these ecological infrastructure needs. They have mapped areas of forest health risk across the nation. They are addressing a very serious problem with the National Forest System road network. They are addressing wildland/urban interface issues. The most frustrating thing about all of these efforts is the estimated costs associated with addressing them. The Forest Service believes it will cost $8.6 billion to address the road backlog it faces. The Congressional Research Service believes it will cost $3.9 billion to completely address the hazardous fuels buildup on the National Forest System. These figures do not include other ecological infrastructure issues that plague the National Forest System, such as the costs associated with restoring salmon habitat, enhancement of endangered species habitat, or a host of

other problems. While these figures are astronomical and beyond what Congress can realistically fund, the Forest Service will receive money to address some of these problems and one problem should not be favored over the other by the Congress or the Administration. Forest Service managers know where the most critical problems are, they know how to address them, and they have the wherewithal to get the job done. The Forest Service should continue to develop plans and tools like the forest health risk maps, which Congress can study and consider. We believe this helps Congress, in their oversight role, fund backlogged work with confidence that the work will be completed. The Forest Service needs a reliable multi-year source of funding to address these issues, and the ability to set the priorities at the local level. The Agency also needs adequate and appropriate staff to carry out these activities.

With that said, we feel the need to address the fiscal accountability challenges the Forest Service faces. This subcommittee is well aware of these challenges, as is the Forest Service. The SAF believes Congress, the Forest Service, and the Administration have tried to address these issues openly and with a commitment to solve the problem. There is frustration from everyone, including the SAF, that progress has not been faster. Many believe that the Forest Service should not be rewarded with increased appropriations when their perceived performance on this matter is less than satisfactory. While we understand that philosophy, our primary concern is for the health of the land. We hope that Congress, the Forest Service, and the Administration can find mechanisms that increase accountability and increase the health of the land.

Keeping a Managed Forest Landscape

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 forestland owners 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 non-federal forests. Due to limited funding, the State and Private Forestry programs have yet to fully meet their potential.

We are concerned about the status of private forestland in this nation. State, county, private, and industrial lands are increasingly producing forest-related goods and services. The most dramatic change on these lands is the shift in production of timber. Approximately 94 percent of all timber produced in the US is produced on non-federal 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 12 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. The federal government has some 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.

We are seeing examples of increasing urban sprawl, forest fragmentation, and large managed private forests sold as smaller parcels to individual owners. As a nation we have decided that forests, both public and private, are important for economic, environmental, human health, and spiritual reasons. We express the importance and value of our forest resources through a variety of mechanisms, including legislation. Many federal statutes, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and others, have a regulatory impact on the management of private lands. Other statutes, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, and the 1990 Farm Bill Forestry Title, for example, take a cooperative, incentive based approach to non-federal forests. These acts recognize the need for state, federal, and local cooperation to achieve resource benefits across the landscape, and they use a non-regulatory, incentive-based approach to achieve them. This cooperative approach is vital on issues that cross ownership boundaries, such as watersheds, forest insects and disease, and wildfire.

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. While this may seem like merely a problem of poor business practices, we in the forestry profession view it as a serious threat to the long-term sustainability of the nation’s forest resources. Private land has public value. That is why we actively support programs that increase the amount of forestry advice available to nonindustrial private forest landowners. In addition to private sector consulting and industry efforts, extension programs, and other mechanisms, we believe the State and Private forestry programs can help both public and private sector foresters meet these challenges.

Forest Inventory and Analysis

The current Forest Inventory and Analysis program provides accurate, comparable data across all forestlands in the United States. Local governments, journalists, environmental groups and private citizens, in addition to forestry professionals in every employer category, need and use this information. Understanding the condition of the nation’s forests is critical for appropriate planning and sustainable management. We believe the subcommittee has recognized the importance of this program in the past, as evidenced by the development and passage of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. The new draft strategic plan, created in response to Section 253(c) of that act and recommendations of the Second Blue Ribbon Panel, exemplifies the program’s commitment to adapt for the changing needs of the forestry profession and the larger public interested in the forests of this nation. The draft plan we viewed integrates the Forest Inventory and Analysis program with the Forest Health Monitoring program. It reduces the current inventory cycle and explores ways to make the program more efficient. We look forward to the distribution of this plan in its final form.

Although SAF has not seen the final dollar amount requested by the FIA program to implement the goals of this draft strategic plan, we realize that moving toward the new annualized inventories and increasing the range of data collected will create new expenses for this important program. In order to support these endeavors, we encourage the subcommittee to continue support increased funding for this program. In addition to funding for the overall program we would like to see a separate line item in the National Forest System budget to enable the collection of FIA data on the NFS. While Congress has given the NFS funds to implement the FIA program on its lands before, the Forest Service has not always been able to collect this data. The NFS has many priority issues to deal with. We have discussed their need to address backlog after backlog, and the accountability issues from which the agency suffers are no stranger to this committee. FIA is a priority as well, and data from the NFS must be collected. We hope that by establishing a separate line item Congress will give the agency the opportunity to adequately fund its share of the FIA program, and address the priority ecological issues it must to ensure these forests for the next generation.

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.

POLICY STATEMENT INDEX