Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify on the important issues
associated with federal land management, now and in the future. We believe
that fundamental changes need to be made in our current management practices
and possibly land ownership patterns, to assure the stability of our
communities, their economies and a sustainable future for our citizens.
Federal land management is currently burdened with a web of stringent and often
conflicting laws that place common sense aside, and substitutes regulatory
alternatives that are often unworkable. The Endangered Species Act is a good
example of this problem. A good idea gone awry. The Act, and its associated
regulations, assume we can save them all. We all want to protect important
species to the fullest extent practicable, but some form of reason must prevail
and it may be necessary to acknowledge the need for "species triage". We as a
society have limited resources and we have to admit we cannot save every
species, everywhere. It also only takes into consideration part of the
equation when review the implications of species conservation. Human concerns
are often given short shrift.
In the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), you have a law designed to assure
that federal decisions are made with input from outside the government by
empowering citizen advisory committees. Then, through regulation, the federal
government has made it too complex and too expensive to be workable. Because
of the statute's provisions and regulations, citizen groups that have banded
together on their own to help solve vexing land management questions have been
barred by the courts from "advising" the land managers because they have not
been constituted as an "official" advisory committee. What nonsense! Two good
examples of these citizen groups are the Quincy Library Group of Northern
California and the Applegate Group in Oregon. Both have been prepared to make
significant contributions only to be rebuffed. While this problem has been
solved for state and local officials, it still prevents the citizenry from
having input that might be critical to the successful resolution of resource
conservation/use conflicts.
There are other challenges facing federal land managers often unrelated to the
resources themselves. To the chagrin of veteran land managers, there is
interference from "non-professional" political managers that may have other
agendas besides best land management practices.
A classic example of this situation has been the fight over the so-called
"salvage timber" amendment attached to the rescissions package passed earlier
this year. Congress listened to the professional land managers about the need
to remove dead and dying timber from our national forests. These trees have
been ravaged by disease, insects and fire, and will only rot if not removed in
a timely manner. These resources would go to wood product producers desperate
for raw timber to produce jobs and stable economies for their often small
communities. The "professional" Washington, D.C.-based environmental community
was successful in convincing the political elements of the Administration that
this amendment was tantamount to destroying the forests forever. Nothing could
be farther from the truth and the truly professional land managers are in
steadfast support of this effort. It took action in federal appeals court to
force the Administration to accede the wishes of Congress, and yet, just last
week an Administration spokesman said they would continue to attempt to stop
timbering that wasn't consist with Administration political policy goals. How
can a federal land manager do his or her job in this climate?
While the above example of court intervention worked in the favor of resource
users, the federal courts and their esteemed judges have too often become the
de facto managers of federal resources. These individuals generally do not
possess the experience or background to make good resource decisions, but
rather make decisions based on legal technicalities and paperwork. Thousands
of people have been put out of work, and millions of dollars in revenue have
been denied counties by these court actions. Today, in each of our states,
court limitations have federal managers hamstrung and unable to process timber
sales under the provisions of the National Forest Management Act, and the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act. We believe the series of hearings
undertaken by this subcommittee, are important first steps in resolving some of
these vexing problems.
The Subcommittee has asked us to comment on a number of issues relating to the
ownership, management and control of natural resource assets currently held by
the federal government. We will attempt to address each individually, but will
by necessity move between them as we discuss alternatives.
Common sense, flexibility and a clear vision of what we are attempting to
accomplish. Good forest management practices are often based in good common
sense, which is not easily codified in regulation or law. We need to provide
our managers (regardless of which agency or level of government) the latitude
to make decisions based on their experience, training and, yes, common sense.
They need to have the flexibility to take one set of management actions in an
area, and another set in another area. Adaptive techniques can be effectively
utilized if "on the ground" managers have that flexibility and are not limited
by narrowly drawn EIS alternatives that have been analyzed to death.
Managers need to have a clear vision of what their role is, and what the agency
is trying to accomplish. Without that vision, it is impossible to make the
proper investments for the future and take the proper tactical actions to
assure your strategic future. Without this strategic vision, it would be like
bombing a target simply because it's there, rather than for some purpose that
would advance your battlefield position.
There are too many process-oriented requirements on land managers in the
federal system. What are we really trying to accomplish in our national
forests? We should be goal-oriented in our approach. Environmentalists would
probably scoff at this notion because they believe we have been too oriented to
getting the timber out of the forest. By being goal-oriented we need to set
the correct goals. This indeed may be the proper thinning and specie selection
in our forests. This may be riparian regeneration and repair, this may mean
brush clearing and habitat regeneration, but we need to decide what we are
trying to accomplish and get it done. It shouldn't matter whether every hoop
has been jumped through, but more importantly have we accomplished the needed
activities to improve our forests and their resources?, but we need to decide
what we are trying to accomplish and get it done. It shouldn't matter whether
every hoop has been jumped through, but more importantly have we accomplished
the needed activities to improve our forests and their resources?
Another concern, is that current federal regulations focus on restrictions on
activities, and behaviors rather than on offering stewardship direction for
federal managers. These managers are trained to identify and control perceived
problems, but are not sufficiently focused on positive opportunities for our
forest resources. Citizen groups could be helpful here if they were not barred
by FACA.
The answers to these concerns are to provide federal managers (or those who
would take their place) with a more goal-oriented, flexible system that has a
clear vision of the strategic plan for the national forest, and the tools with
which to accomplish these goals. Unfortunately in this budget-cutting era,
this means dollars, which are a scarce commodity when it comes to public land
management.
This question can be answered only on a state-by-state basis. In many western
states the second leading resource land owners are private interests, followed
by the state and local jurisdictions. Laws relating to the effective
management of non-federal resources vary across state lines and some states
take a more aggressive approach than others. There are some counties that
manage substantial timber resources, Gray's Harbor County, Washington is a good
example. They have thousands of acres of timber available for sale, and have
chosen to manage it for a sustainable yield that will bring the best price in
the marketplace. Rather than conduct a sale just because some schedule says it
is time, the county chooses to wait until stumpage prices meet a predetermined
level and then they sell, but again only enough to maintain their sustained
yield. They have chosen the twin goals of sustainability and profit as their
"benchmarks" for their management regime. This effort produces a significant
revenue stream for the county, and reduces pressure on other tax resources. It
is clear that not all counties have the resources, or would be prepare to take
on additional burdens in this area without significant increases in personnel
and funding.
Again the results will vary from state to state. Large private owners have not
always been the best stewards of their resources, but have improved
dramatically in recent years. States have been at the forefront of providing
for healthy, sustainable forests for years. Oregon's sustainable yield
requirements of its Forest Practices Act are a good example that has been
replicated throughout timber county. Indeed, the federal government's
management response to environmental concerns is too often unnecessarily
restrictive, and prescriptive rather than adaptive an innovative. Private
firms such as Collins Pine Company in Plumas County, California, have found
ways to improve wildlife habitat, riparian health, forest health, reduce fire
danger and, most importantly, get sufficient resources from the forest
to make a profit. The federal response to similar environmental pressures was
to virtually eliminate resource production entirely. Many states have tougher
environmental requirements than the federal government, but they provide
sufficient flexibility and innovation to allow timber interest to proceed while
the environment is maintained.
They don't. Federal managers are often faced with a "one size fits all"
management regime that has been handed down by the courts, or Washington, D.C.
bureaucrats, without the freedom to do what's best for the resource. At this
point in our statement, we should point out that the local managers of these
federal land managing agencies are often in personal agreement with our
comments, and would love to be able to have the necessary flexibility to do
their jobs as the professionally see fit. Unfortunately, they do not have this
luxury. State, county and private interests have a much greater latitude in
dealing with environmental and resource issues. While constrained by laws like
the Endangered Species Act, and others, these non-federal agencies are
generally more creative in responding to specific concerns. Flexibility is
again a key ingredient for effective land management.
By their very nature, governments place extra burdens on their employees and
managers. Private landowners are much more likely to manage their resources
for efficiently because of their need to establish and maintain profitability.
There is no incentive for the federal government to maintain such a standard.
Depending on the breakdown of revenue sharing between entities, there may be
greater efficiencies generated at the state or local level than within the
federal land management hierarchy. What should be our focus here however, is
good forest practice. Efficiency is one thing, but good sustainable forest
practices based on emerging science and a better understanding of the
interactive nature of nature is where we should be heading. Clear cuts are
efficient, but are proving to be less effective in securing our long term
timber resource interests.
Some, but at this point we don't believe we can advocate wholesale transfer of
federal forest land to state or local public managers. The costs associated
with this transfer would be significant and beyond the resources of many states
and counties. Having said this, we do believe that there are portions of the
federal forest that make sense to transfer to state control and management. A
good example of this is the Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands in the
southwestern part of the state of Oregon. These lands present a patchwork of
state, private and federal lands that cause many management problems that could
be resolved if the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was authorized and directed
to turn over these lands to the state of Oregon for management and control.
The state is currently in a position to manage these lands and we believe it
would be in the best interest of the state and federal governments to
accomplish this transfer. There are other checkerboard lands in Arizona and
New Mexico that would also benefit from the consolidation of management
authority. Any transfer to the state, and or local government control should
come without the federal mandates currently burdening federal management, and
if just management responsibilities, and not outright ownership is transferred,
state and/or localities should receive the majority of revenue from these
lands. An example would be the 75% share of timber receipts going to counties,
rather than the 25% currently in law. Could some federal forests be sold,
leased, or otherwise transferred to private interests at their own cost, or on
some sort of cost reimbursement or revenue sharing basis?
You used the word transferred here. That implies an actual exchange of
ownership. We would only comment that this approach could be quite
controversial and could meet with high resistance because of the perceived loss
of public input. It might be more practical to consider a stewardship approach
where private interests participate in management of public lands--an
innovative partnership solution. The property tax revenue would be enticing
for counties currently struggling with increasing costs and decreasing sources
of revenue, however, at this time we do not believe this would be an acceptable
alternative.
As mentioned above, any transfer of lands to states and/or counties in fee
title or for just management activity, must not be transferred with the heavy
burden of mandates currently clogging the management system. If the federal
government would retain title and expect certain goal-oriented outcomes as
guidance, we don't believe there would be a problem. However, if state and
local managers were burdened with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the ESA and other federal
environmental laws, along with the burdensome load of case law that has been
heaped on federal managers, there would be little point in making such a
transfer. Just as state law differs, the needs and expectations of public
lands in those states differ, and while we may have some national goals for our
public lands, these goals can be accomplished in different ways.
Given the authority, the Forest Service would be advised to attempt to contract
out some of the management activities they are currently pursuing.
The reality of the marketplace is that federal workers receive a premium wage
and benefit package (although not overly generous), that the state and local
managers are not generally matching. The private sector, too, can accomplish
these tasks for less money. But this begs the question. The issue of better
management is not one solely based on cost. The burdens imposed by federal
statute, regulation and practice are the truly limiting factors for federal
land management.
We believe that contracting out in this manner could be done, but only with
significant changes in the requirements of managers. If the contractor was
expected to follow all the laws, regulations and practices currently in place,
the effort and savings would be minimal at best. This begs the true question
of what is causing the gridlock in America's forests? It is the plethora of
interlocking requirements that have caused today's problems.
Today the Forest Service has no specific incentives to improve management
techniques or pursue new avenues for better forests. Indeed there are many
disincentives. With severe reductions in staff precipitated by reinvention and
buyouts, and even more draconian budget cuts, the professionals of the Forest
Service are disheartened and discouraged. Tie this with the second-guessing of
our courts and you have an untenable position for a professional resource
team.
We should reevaluate how we use funds from America's forests. It may well be
that dedicating the financial resources deriving from the federal forest to
that forest's management might provide an incentive, but only if the manager,
whether federal, state or local is fully free to make the appropriate resource
and environmental decisions necessary to secure a well managed and sustainable
forest.
12. What demonstration projects could test any of these possibilities?
America's counties, working with the National Association of Counties and its
Western Interstate Region would be prepared to examine possible alternative
programs for forest management that may provide a window into the viability of
some of these proposals.
There have been some examples of better working relationships between federal
managers and state and local officials. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project has been an example of this type of cooperation and
coordination.
The bottom line is this. Wholesale transfer (either ownership or management)
of national forest lands to non-federal entities is no panacea. Professional
federal managers, freed from the ridiculous web of federal laws and regulations
and given the flexibility and freedom to make wise choices, can manage our
federal forests and grasslands effectively. Non-federal managers can also
perform these management functions, with sufficient resources, if they too are
freed from the heavy burdens imposed by current law and regulation. No one can
meet the land management challenges of the next millennium with the continuing
legal baggage heaped on resource managers.
Having said this, we firmly believe that some federal lands can be better
managed by certain non-federal managers. Our colleague John Howard, from Union
County, Oregon has made an eloquent case for the Oregon Department of Forestry
taking on the O&C Lands in western Oregon. It makes sense. We ought to
review all of our forests for these types of opportunities. It won't work
everywhere, but in those selected areas, the resources can be better managed,
cheaper, with more citizen involvement than is currently possible. We need to
explore these opportunities and provide the flexibility within federal law to
make them happen.
Return to Table of Contents