simplified the process of designating wetlands, particularly as they relate to agricultural lands? How? Has agency review of farmland increased or decreased as a result of this MOA? What changes would you consider to improve the Agreement? ANSWER: First, to clarify any misunderstanding, the Office on Environmental Policy no longer exists. It was disbanded after President Clinton's decision to revitalize the Council on Environmental Quality in early January 1995. Before it was disbanded, the White House Office on Environmental Policy (OEP) played a central role in developing the 1994 Memorandum of Agreement between the Army Corps of Engineers (the Army), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the delineation of wetlands on agricultural lands regulated by both the Clean Water Act and the Food Security Act. In response to a letter from seven U.S. Senators in June 1993, OEP launched an interagency review of wetlands policy. The review included EPA, the Army, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Justice, and Transportation. The interagency process began by soliciting the views of a broad range of stakeholders representing all points of view in the wetlands debate. For example, presentations were received from a bipartisan group of eight members of the U.S. Congress; representatives of state and local government; environmentalists; agricultural and development interests; scientists and others. On August 24, 1993 the Administration released its comprehensive wetlands reform package. The package included a provision requiring EPA, USDA, the Army, and the FWS to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) giving Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) the authority to perform wetlands delineations on agricultural lands regulated by both Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act. The Administration's goals in developing this MOA are relatively simple. We wanted to eliminate the duplication and inconsistency that occurred when America's farmers were forced to comply with two different processes regulating wetlands under two different federal statutes. It was duplicative because farmers had to deal with NRCS for the Food Security Act and the Army for the Clean Water Act. It was inconsistent because farmers sometimes got two different answers from the federal government because NRCS and the Army used different methodologies to identify wetlands. To solve these problems, the MOA required the harmonization of the delineation manuals so determinations would be consistent regardless of which agency conducted the delineation. More importantly, the MOA gives the NRCS lead responsibility for delineating wetlands on agricultural lands that are within the jurisdiction of both statutes. The Administration is confident that the MOA has both improved and simplified the process. Federal agency review of farmland has decreased because only one agency, not two, is responsible for delineating the same wetlands. Approximately 2,000 NRCS employees have been trained to use the same delineation techniques used by the Army for the Clean Water Act, which ensures the consistency of federal determinations regardless of agency or statute. The process has been simplified because the MOA has been implemented fully, with the NRCS responding to all requests for wetlands delineations on lands within the jurisdiction of both Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act. Overlapping federal agency review of farmland has decreased because, under the MOA, only one agency, not two, is responsible for delineating the same wetlands. Overall our wetlands changes have significantly improved the system. Today 99.3% of all permits are approved and processing time has been reduced so that most are processed in just 16 days. I would be happy to discuss with the Committee any concerns related to the agreement and would be pleased to consider any changes that might improve the agreement. QUESTION 3: What role, if any, has either the CEQ or the OEP played in the development of the Administration's rangeland reform policy? Has the CEQ participated in, reviewed or commented on the Administration's different proposals? Please describe the CEQ's goal for rangeland policy. Please comment on the specific actions taken by the CEQ to "streamline the environmental review process for issuing grazing permits.' What has been the reaction to this policy? What statutory authority underlies this action? ANSWER: Our involvement in grazing issues is confined to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the grazing permit process. Neither CEQ, nor the OEP (prior to its dissolution), was involved in the development of the Administration's overall rangeland policy. The Council on Environmental Quality's role in the development of the BLM's new livestock grazing management regulations was confined to assuring the integrity of the NEPA process and that the Rangeland Reform '94 Environmental Impact Statement complied with CEQ Regulations. CEQ's grazing pilot project, which was initiated in June, represents a new NEPA management model. It emphasizes monitoring, education, and adaptation - rather than paper production. The initiative provides a broader, more flexible approach to approving permits. Importantly, rather than analyzing each permit as the Forest Service has traditionally done, the new approach groups many permits in a common landscape and prepares just one document. Individual grazing permits should not presumptively be considered "significant" actions. Based on the ecological features of the landscape (soil, vegetation, water, etc), the Based on the ecological features of the landscape (soil, vegetation, water, etc), the analysis undertaken in this approach will estimate how much forage is available for grazing and in what areas. The Forest Service, the ranchers, and the public will jointly determine indicators of range health. The new model will expedite the NEPA analysis; put the experts on the ground instead of behind computer terminals; discourage one-size-fits-all approaches and allow ranchers who help enhance range quality to run more animals. This system will be flexible, tailored to meet the actual conditions of the range, and adaptable to changing conditions. Three national forests have been selected to participate in the pilot project: (1) the Caribou National Forest in Idaho; (2) the Wenatchee National Forest in Washington; and (3) the Sante Fe National Forest in New Mexico. The Forest Service team recently visited the Caribou National Forest and is scheduled to visit the Wenatchee soon. The Forest Service is quite optimistic about the potential benefits of this new approach. One of the issues that will be examined in the pilot project is the amount of resources necessary to implement the level of monitoring that is integral to the success of this approach. I believe this approach does have application outside the grazing context. It is particularly suited to projects that do not require a large irreversible commitment of resources and that therefore are, themselves, flexible and adaptable. The key is that environmental conditions can be monitored and mitigated prior to having significant impact and that activities can be contoured to meet those conditions. Some timber activities could also be suited for this approach. CEQ has pursued this project based on our responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to oversee implementation of the statute's environmental assessment requirements. QUESTION 4: We discussed the President's Forest Plan, also known as Option 9, during the hearing. I would like to follow up on a few points. Specifically, how many sales have been offered as a result of Option 9? Were any of those the result of efforts by the Forest Service before Option 9 went into effect? How many of those sales have been sold and how many have been harvested? What is the sawlog volume of the sales offered and completed? How does this compare to what is called for under Option 9? What specific steps have been proposed and are being taken to achieve the figures established under Option 9? Please specify how the $1.2 billion set aside for job programs is being spent. What types of programs are included and how are they structured? How many individuals have participated? How many have been placed as a result of these programs? What has the average wage and average length of employment of these new jobs? Are the jobs resulting from these programs comparable in wage earning potential and longevity to jobs held traditionally in the region? Are these jobs that will continue to be viable should federal assistance cease? What sort of provisions have been made to address the loss of jobs indirectly associated with timber harvest? What steps have been taken to ensure federal funds are directed at those affected by the decrease in timber activity in the Option 9 forests? ANSWER: The following information is based on draft end of the fiscal year 1995 estimates provided by the Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as of 10/12/95. All data is for sales greater than $2,000 in value. Approximately 529 timber sales have been offered by the BLM and the FS in Oregon, Washington and Northern California in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. A small quantity of these sales would have been the result of efforts by the agencies prior to the effective date of the Record Of Decision concerning Option 9. After a sale is sold and awarded, the timing of harvest is at the discretion of the purchaser who has up to three years to harvest. Of the 529 sales, 25 remain unsold. These sales are being evaluated for reoffer. Harvesting has begun or is completed on approximately 160 FS sales. The BLM reports their harvest volume on a lump sum basis for all active contracts; therefore, they do not keep track of the number of sales harvested. For the period of time from May 1, 1994 to October 1, 1995, 145 million board feet (mmbf) was harvested. This includes volume that had been sold prior to the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan. The sawlog volume of the sales offered is approximately 565 mmbf. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 8, 1994, the Chief of the Forest Service explained the projected implementation schedule for the Northwest Forest Plan. Both the Forest Service and the BLM expected to meet our commitment of 600 mmbf in 1995, 800 mmbf in 1996 and 1.1 billion board feet in 1997. The agencies have met, and in fact, exceeded their fiscal year 1995 target: a total volume of 610 mmbf were offered for sale. The agencies are working closely together to expedite preparation of timber sales. Where efficiencies can be gained, they have shared skills for preparing watershed analyses and designing sales. They have revised and shortened the Endangered Species Act consultation process from over 120 days to 30-60 days. Regulatory agencies are reviewing sales at the earliest stage of project development which helps reduce or avoid potential problems later in the planning process. The Economic Adjustment Initiative (EAI) is the President's initiative to make available $1.2 billion in assistance over a five-year period directly to help those workers, families, businesses, tribes and communities affected by harvest reductions. The President took this action to respond to the nearly 20,000 jobs that were lost in the wood products industry prior to 1992. Since 1992, no further losses in the total number of workers employed in the wood products industry have occurred and instead, according to state labor officials, there have been modest gains across the region. With regard to the type of assistance, it is important to note that the federal government is providing the seed capital, but the initiatives are the vision of the communities themselves. Some 16 different federal programs are contributing to this effort, and they are as follows: Assistance to Workers and Families for Retraining and Jobs Worker retraining through Job Training Partnership Act ($12 million) Watershed restoration work through the Jobs-in-the-Woods program ($38 Assistance to Businesses and Industries to Encourage Investment Rural business enterprise grants to support business investment ($4.1 million) Business and industry loan guarantees ($37 million) administered by USDA Direct community assistance grants to support all types of community Technical assistance, local capacity building and business infrastructure grants Assistance to Communities for Infrastructure Development Water and wastewater development grants to rural communities ($32.3 Water and wastewater development loans to rural communities ($58.8 Direct loans for construction and development of rural community facilities Guaranteed loans for the development of rural community facilities ($14 Community development block grants made to the states ($1.9 million) Since the Initiative began in 1994, more than 4,200 worker retraining opportunities |