be deposited into the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
•
•
•
-
• •
-
•41
lZo••ttlee 81ll Bud set Oo••tllee co•Pared to Esli•ales Bill Bud~et E~li•ales
---
Lt~sin~ "~n~~e•ent.
OCS leas in~ ~ro~r~• •••••••••••••.••• •• •••••.••••.•••••
Rt5ource ev~lu~l1on ••••••••••••••••..•.•••••••..••••••
Rt~ul~lor'J ~ro~ri•·••••••••••••••••·••••••••••••••••••
Feder~l ~nd lndi~n ~ro~r~•:
Oi 1 and ~~s . . . · · ..
Coal • . . . , .. , . . . ~ ... . Olh•r •n~r~~ . . . .
Hon-ene r~~ . ... • • • · · • · · · • · · • · • · · · · • • • •
Waltr ~owfr, . . . • . . . . ..•.... ..
Subtola 1 ..• . . . • . . . . . ,, ...
General ~d•in1slration •••••••••••.•.•••.•..•.••••.••••
Subtotal• ltastn~ • ;na~••~nt •.•.••••.•••••••.•••
Onshore rov1ll'J ••n~~~•enl .••.••••••••.•••..•••.•••.••
Offshore rovalt.~ •ana~~ ••nt ••...•.•.•.••••..••••.•.•••
Gtner1l 1d•1nislri1lion •••••••••.••..••••••.•.•••.••.•.
Sublol~l· ro~1ll'J •anase•ent .•••..•••••••.•••.••
Tolalt le~s1n~ 1nd rO'Jillv •iJ niJSe•ent •...••.•••.
------ ---
------ ------ ---
~8t~l6r 000
3St27Sr000 31r409r000
23 rS94r OOO 9t579t000 3t798t000 2t27 3t000 680 r000
+48r416r000 +3Sr27Sr000
+31.~09t 000
i23rS9~ r OOO
t9,S?9r000 t3.798t000 t2r:!73•000 +680t000
--- ------ ---
--- 39r92 ~t 000 t39r924r000
--- St943r 000
--- --- --- --- 160t967t000 +160r967r000
----::--- --- ---- ----~
---- --- --------- ------
------
--·-
27r3 17 t 000 3 t 37 7 r000 907.000
t~ 7 .317t000
+3r377 t 000 t907t 000
--- --- --- --- 31t601t000 t3lt601t000
--- --- ---
--- 192r568t000 t192, 568 ' 000
------ --------------- -------
The Committee expects the Service to contract with the Geologi- cal Survey for at least $3,000,000 in the offshore geologic surveys.
In this area, there is some concern that the evaluation of seismic risk problems will be subordinated to the desire to accelerate leas- ing or to increase receipts. The Committee must be assured that that will not occur. The Service can expect to discuss their entire operation at length in the 1984 budget hearings. No funds are pro- vided for OCS protraction diagrams. The BLM should give the
highest priority to any MMS requests for cadastral survey service.
The Committee includes a separate activity and a legislative lim- itation associated with the royalty management program. The Committee expects the Service to continue the emphasis on im-
proving reporting and collections. The Committee requests that quarterly reports be provided which show where the Service ex-
pected to be at that time, where it is, explanation of differences, problems encountered, and where Committee assistance would be helpful in overcoming problems. .
The Committee has consistently provided the resources requested for this program. It will continue to do so and will watch carefully the efforts made to establish a sound progra1n.
The onshore receipts collected by the Service are distributed as follows: Indian lands 100 percent to the tribes; Federal lands 50
percent to the States (excluding Alaska which receives 90 percent);
40 percent to the Federal Reclamation Fund which is spent on rec- lamation projects in the 17 Western States; and 10 percent to the
miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. The full cost of collecting royalties and managing the lands is borne by the Federal Govern- ment. The Committee expects those who receive the receipts to share in the cost of their collection. Language is recommended that
transfers an a1nount equal to the cost of regulation, royalty man- agement and collection, and royalty audit along with an offset to
n ri fun~din b n f I d fr m 1, do n 1 1 .
n t in r f 1 . • i r mm nd ...
i pro r n in ludin n in r f
hi off-r ion r i n of h Indi n hild
fY'pftom. h mn1i r i d im n r n ~·"""''
nd fE i\' n of hi pro n id
-
h indih r i li l oppor uni for dupli ion f r i o fundi
o ur i h o h r pro m . h ur u I o ifi d h~ diffi- ul lndi n roup f in r i · Cunidin ~ r hi p of pro- . r m und r o h r di r 1 i~on r r n pro r n1~ . h r ommi nid -
tion ) . o in lud d r of 1 , 0 o hold h di r r li f
idi to h hr - r r I I of nd d r I
of . 000 to r due Bur u dmini r i o in li h of in- cr d rib 1 con r c in p rticul rl in hi ~o r .
Th ommi 1 p1 d to I , rn hi ~ r of h con inui d uicc of th Indi n hildr n' rogr m hich i conduic d joint- } i h h In~di n H 1 h r ic . Th mmi · p h Bu- r I u o con inui o gi high priiori o hi progr m nd ks th, t di cu ion of curr nt ~cti i ii und r h progr m iniclu~ding
th e tim t of funding o b m idi il bl~ ,
b
inicluid d in th fi cal y r 1. 4 budg t ju tific ion.The pr~oposed incre I e for law nforc m n i r due d by 100,000. Thi will reduce the numb r of ni v hicl s o b - pur- cha ed by about 7, since ju tifi~c tion for r pi c m nt of ot 1 of
2 a~ proposed was not provided.
An incr ase of $1 000,000 is recommend d for con r c upport funds. The Bureau has experienced chronic shortfall in thi ac- count, and is already expecting the 19, 3 budget d liev
1
to be inad~equate. The Committee is distressed at the
Bureau
s failure totake
any action~s
to
addre s the many ongoing problems withits
con-tracting
process, particularly in vi~ew ofits
reliance onthe
in~creased level of tribal contracting as a basis for the administrative reorganization it has proposed. However, an additional reason for
the estimated shortfall is
the
fact that negotiated ratesare
staying high or increasingin
relation to the size of the programs which are being contracted. The Bureaumust
ad~dressthis
issue too, and be certain that indir ct cost rates are adequate, yetnot
out of pro- portionto
scaled-hac program levels, particularly where funding from other agencieshas
beena
factor.The Committee r~ecomm~ends $2,500,000 for the new small tribes initiative, a reduction of $2,500,000. This new initiative will provide needed core-management capability for tribes with less t han 1,500 population,
to
en,able them to fun~ction more effectivelyas
stable, competent tribal governments. The Bureau shoul~d take careto
ensure these
funds are
not duplicativeof
other funds available to thie tribes involved. Itis
expected that dueto
start-uprequire-
ments,
and
the needto
doa
thorough reviewof all
proposals sub- mitted, the Bureau willnot
be able to provide the funding untillate in the fiScal year, m ,aking it possible to reduc the funding level.
Economic development.
For several years, the Committee has requested an econ~omic d~evel~opment plan from the Bureau which would address the unique needs of reservation~-based economies and-
'
c
--- ---··
-
---····--
lc 1., n FUftd,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
lOft •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
lt • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
rlc " I •
~lc r ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••~··
GP ra\lon 1r" •••••••••••~•••••••••••••••••••••••
Con \rue ion ren ••·~··~••••••••••••••••••••••••••
c ltv I Fund•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I a I PPOIPI lr n\ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
r\h rn "arlan11
O..r \toni Iran\••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
liLf' ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Cont\ruc\lon Iran\•• covenen\,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,,,111••
Con \ruc\lon ren\ • o\her••••••••~~·•••••••••••••••
IYb\o\alt Mor\hern "•rlan•••••••••••··~·~···~·
Federal Co \roller•
Vlr•ln Island••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••·~···
lru1\ lerri\otv and Mor\hern "arlan•••••••••••••••••
erlcan •• .. •~·••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
lu I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Technical attlt\ance.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,l, lub\o\elt Federal Co '\roller•••••••••••••••~•••
Vlr•ln I l1nd1 cont\ruc\lon •ran\••••••••••••••~••••••
Gfflce of Terrl\orlel Affair••••••••••• ·~·•••••••••••
ILUC leduc,lon.,,,,,,l,,,l,,,,,,,,,,,l,,,,.,,,,,l,,l,, To\el• Ad•lnls\re\lon of Terrl\orl••~•••••••••••
SOOtOOO
t 16 tOOO
SOOtOOO
6t HtOOO
---
---·--·-Je66St000
-- --··-
ltllltOOO--- .. --· ----
• t22··--··
.ooo•••••••• • • ••• •••••••••••••••• ••••• • ••••
llltOOO llt222t000
••
IOtOOO--·
---···· 20tlllt000
---
••••• • •••••••••
I t221t000 JtOlleOOO 6tl97t000
eOOOtOOO
611t000 llt222t000
lt777t000 500t000
---21tll0t000
---
••••••••••••••••
I t221e000 leOIItOOO 6t897t000 lt900t000
-· ·--
297t000 tSOO 000
-
---··-t797t000---
•••••••••• • •
--- --- ---
t4t900t000
--- --- ---
21•1 ltOOO lltO ltOOO t900t000
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
IIOtOOO
---
-aao.ooo960t000
---
·960t000569t000
---
·569t000ltltOOO
---
700t000-
·lfltOOO t700t000---~---lt300t000 --- ---700t000 •2t600t000
•••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••• • •••••••••••••••
·--
ltOOOtOOO tleOOOtOOO 2t515t000 5t96lt000 tlt376t000---
·29t000 -29t000--- --- ---
58t076t000 70t743t000 tl2t667t000
•••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••
The Committee reco ends 0,748 000 or the administratio ..
of the Territories, · c ease of $12,667,000 o er the estimate.
Reports from the rritorial go e en , as well as the Depart- ment itself, ha e con rmed the Commit ' e pectations of a year ago that the dmin · t atio ' eco o1nic p ogram ould have a par- ticularly evere · pact o he flag Te
•to·es of the U ited States.
The Committee, bile recognizing the need for the Territories themselves
toaddr hese p oble , particularly by local initia- ti es that could be en
toaddress re enue shortfalls due to Fed- eral
taxcuts, · conce ed a he failure of he Department to ad- dress hese i1npac in the budget as presented. 'fhis is particularly true in light of he · · tration' aribbean Basin •tiative,
hich will pro ·de economic assistance and benefits to the inde-
pendent natio of hat region· yet the budget p
tedfailed en-
tirel
toadd , ress he needs of the U. . i1gin lands. Therefore,
the Co1n1nittee has eco1n•nended increases, totaling 26 percent
-
•
..
•
-
69
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$17,904,000,
a reduction of$1,167,000
below the budget estimate.The recommendation includes a reduction of
103 000
which was budgeted to help accomplish the transfer of Department of Energy programs to the Department. It does not appear that such transfer will occur. The Solicitor testified that should it happen, staff and funds would also be transferred.A
reduction of$64,000
is made for GSA space payments.The Committee notes the ruling of the U.S. District Court on No- vember
17 198' 2,
which held that the Government has failed to rep-r~esent properly American Indians \vith regard to legal claims
und~er the Statute of Limitations. The Court found that the Depart- ment has failed to carry out its duty under the la"'r and has unrea- sonably delayed submitting legislative proposals relating to these
clai1ns to the Congress. The Committee cannot understand the De- partment's continuing inability or refusal to carry out adequately its legal responsibilities in relation to the Federal trustee role, and expects immediate action to be taken to resolve this situation in both the Office of the Solicitor and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
While this Committee, like the Court in this case, cannot order a change in attitude it does fully expect to see one reflected in the actions taken from this point on by the Department with regard to
t'his specific issue as well as the entire area of Indian rights issues.
The Committee is concerned that the Solicitor is 11ot using re- sources available to him to assure that the laws establishing poli-
cies administered by the Department of the Interior are being faithful!)' executed. The budget documents and testimony before the Committee revealed what the Committee felt was an indiffer- ence to legal requirements if such requirements were contrary to
the views held by the Solicitor or his key staff particularly in the areas of Indian rights, surface mining, and fish, wildlife, and parks.
This attitude is resulting in many lawsuits against the Depart- men.t. The Committee recommends language permitting use of this account to pay attorney fees authorized by the Equal Access to Jus- tice Act
(28
U.S.C.2412(b)).
The amount recommended includes the increase requested to implement an automated legal system.OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
1\ppropriation 198?. ........... . Budget estimate 1983 ....... · ... . Recommended. 1983 ....... .
ompartson: •
App1·opriation, 1982 ... . Budget estimate, 1983 ... .
$13,369,000 18,900,000 21,500,000 + 8,131,000 +2,600,000
The Inspector General is the Department's focal point for super- vising and providing policy guidance for audit and investigative work within the Department and for conducting significant reviews of program management with the purpose of promoting program eco110my, efficiency, and effectiveness, and of preventing and de-
tecting fraud and abuse. In this role, the Inspector General reviews and comments on existing and proposed legislation and regulations and investigates employee complaints about any violation of law,
mismanagement, gross waste, abuse, and substantial dangers to public health and safety. The Inspector General is responsible for
•
• •
73
Coaaittee Ptll Bud!lel Uoaa1ttee coaPared t o
Estia~tes Bill Budtel Es tioat es
---------------- -------------
R•sourc~ Protection Resa~rch
Fire ~nd ataos~h~ric science ••••••••••••••.• •• ••• ••.
Forest insect ~nd dis~~se •••••.•••••••.•••••••••••••
R•newabl~ resource evaluation •••••••••••••.•••••••••
Renewable resource ~conoa1cs •••••••••..•.•••••••••••
Surface ~nv1ronaent ~nd a1n1nt •.•..••.••.•..••.••..•
Subl.ota 1 • •• ~· •••••••• ~· •....•••.•...••.•.••.••• ~· ..
Tr~~s and l1aber aana9~aent •••••••.••.••••.••••.•.••
For~st w~tershed aana9ea~nt ••.•••...••. •••••••••••••
Wildlif~, r~n9~ ~nd fish hab1lat •••••.•.•••.••••••••
For~sl r~cr~ation •••••• ,, •.•••.••••••• •. • •. ,, • • • · • • • • ·
For~sl ~roducts ••••••••••••.••.• •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ·
For~st En91nt~rtns ••.••••••••••••••••••. • • • • • • • • ,, • • •
Subto\al . . . • . ~· ... ,, ~• . . . .
SLUC rttduct 1on •••••••••••••••.••• • • • • • • • • •' • • • • • · • • • • ·
Tolalr Forrsl R~s•~rch •.•••••.••••••••••••.•••••
~ r::?l 7 r000
19r897r000 lltl60. 000
•·J"s, ooo
t,JJt, OOO
•
8r317r000 2lr 247 t000 l2r210t 000 4t89St 000 2 r028t 000
t1. 100 '000 +lr350r 000
tlr Oso .ooo +SSO rOOO
t 697 t000
------- ----·--- --- ----
43r950 r000 !4r 747r000
--- - --- --- ----- --- ---
18r520t 000 l 9 t920 r000 +lr4 00 r000 8rl 78r 000 9r~ 28 r 000 llr ?50 r000 7r957 t 000 8 rJ07 rOOO •Jso .ooo
lt 920 t 000 lt 920r 000 ---
14t813r 000 15 r563r 000 +750 t 000 2 r652 t000 2 r852 r000 t :?OO rOOO
--- ---- ---
S7 r9C?O r000 +3 r9SO rOOO
------- ---=----- --- --- ---- ----- -------- ---
--- -335 ,,000 -335 . 000
-==- ---:r------- ----------
===•z=:r == ===- - ----- -- ----- ---· --
97r990r000 106 r352 r000 +Br362 t000
---==---- --- ---
===~============ =--- ----· ----- --- ----
The Committee does not agree with the Administration's propos- al to reduce forest research activities by 11 percent, which would
result in closing 9 research locations, terminating 34 research work units, and terminating an estimated 420 positions. The short-term savings accomplished by such a proposal would be more than offset
by the long-term losses in productivity and resource protection, in addition to the costs of restoring the activities or positions elimi- nated at some future time. The Committee does not believe that such a shortsighted policy is in line with the Congressional policy
for the Nation's forest resources, as stated in the National Forest Management Act and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Re- sources Research Act.
The Committee has recommended restoring only the highest pri- ority activities. These include $250,000 to continue the research
program on prescribed burning and l0ng-term silvicultural studies at Bend, Oregon; $100,000 for watershed and related research on pinyon-juniper forests at Reno, Nevada; $6,150,000 for research aimed at enhancing timber production and utilization of forests, in- cluding Eastern hardwoods research; $1,847,000 for research aimed at minimizing the impacts of mining and forest development, par- ticularly on watersheds; and $350,000 for accelerated gypsy moth
research. Three agencies within the Depar-tment of Agriculture, the Forest Service, the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service and the Agricultural Conservation Research Service, all have re- search programs to combat the gypsy moth. There also exists a co- ordinating body known as the Gypsy Moth Advisory Board. Yet de- spite a decade of funding by the Committee, little progress appears to have been made in stopping the spread of this pest.
The Committee suggests that the Gypsy Moth Advisory Board be dissolved immediately and replaced with a new coordinating com- mittee that will bring ideas and proposals from the academic and research community to give new direction and impetus to gypsy moth research. The Committee is aware of one such proposal from the Pennsylvania State University. The Committee suggests that the Department solicit additional proposals from the research com-
•
•
•
•
75
Coaaitlee lhll
Budset Coaailtee coaPared to Est1aates 81ll Budsel Est1aales
---·------ ---------- ---
Forwst Pwst "~n~~eawnt •••••••••••••.•••••.•..•••.••••.
Rur~l tire control •••.•••••••••••••••••.•.• • • • • • • • • · · ·
Rur~l forestr~ ~ssistance ••••••••..••..•••••••••••••.•
Urb~n torestr~ ass1stancf·•···
Ass1slancw 1n a1n~~eaent and technolo9~· ···••••····
61fford P1nchol Insl1lule .•.••••.••..• • ·. • • · • • · · • • · · • ·
<Bv transfer> •.••••..•.•...•..•...•.... · .... • ·.
S~WC1~1 ~roJectS••••••••••••••••••••• ,•••••••••••••••••
SLUC r•ductlon ... , ... , , . . . . .... .
Total• Sl~te and Private Fores lr~ ••••••••••••••.
16r790 t000 23 ·690 t000 +6r900t000
14t380t 000 l4t380r000 ---
l2t37S t000 13 •3 7S r000 +t. ooo . ooo
--- 2t 000 r000 +2. ooo . ooo
975.000 lt97Se000 tt. ooo . ooo
--- 400 . 000 +400 t 000
--- ( lOOtOOOl (+ 100 I 000)
3e000 e000 3t000t000 ---
--- -so , ooo -so . ooo
------ ----- --- --- ------ ---
47t520 r000 S8t770 t 000 +t 1 t 250 ' 000
------------- ------·--- ------------
The Committee recommends an increase of
$6,900,000
for forest pest management. This will pz:ovide a total of$9,014,000
for gypsy moth suppression, assuming a47-53
Federal/State cost share. The Committee does not agree with the Department's assessment of the Federal role in this program, considering the epidemic nature of the gypsy moth infestation, and the resulting economic, aesthetic, and resource losses that will occur without adequate Federal sup- port for the suppression effort. The Forest Service and the Depart- ment must take every step possible to combat this infestation. The Committee will expect the Forest Service to notify the Committee promptly if additional resources are required to meet identified needs in this area during fiscal year 1983.Under forest pest management, the Committee expects
$20,000
to be made available for the Texas Live Oak Mortality Project.An increase of
$1,000,000
is recommended for rural forestry as- sistance. While the Committee recognizes that significant tax bene- fits are potentially available to the non-industrial private landown- ers who are served by this program, the Committee also realizes that other significant sources of funding assistance, such as the Forestry Incentives Program, Agricultural Extension Service, and Agricultural Conservation Program, are not likely to be available or will be sharply reduced from previous years in fiscal year 1983.Therefore, the Committee has recommended this
$1,000,000
in- crease to continue high-priority activities in forest management($700,000),
and tree improvement($300,000).
The Committee recommends
$2,000,000
for urban forestry assist- ance. This program authorizes matching Federal funds for State forestry agencies, to provide technical assistance to local govern- ments for the management of trees, forests, and associated natural resources in and near urban areas. In1981,
all50
States and the Territories participated in the program, which involved over3,500
of the Nation's urban areas .
The Committee recommends
$1,000,000
for planning assistance to States. The data developed through State forest resources planning is essential for preparation of the RPA program to meet national needs. The increase will allow States to complete their plans andmeet all six assistance goals, where feasible. It will also allow ade- quate levels of participation in Wild and Scenic Rivers studies, sponsored by the Department of the Interior, to ensure Department
of Agriculture interests are addressed.
The Committee recommends restoration of a total of
$500,000
for operation of the Gifford Pinchot Institute. Bill language has been(
ll
•
•
r
,
•
J,
hi
.... ·- 1 I rt
• •
1 I I I •
t j . ·J
:§
.1 •
' I
• •
I • ) r~
I kJ
h 1 H • ·1 · t ' l i 1 r 1 uJ
·I l 1
•
I l
tl t •
li-
u
r
U 'l$1. I u .. h 4 hi 'I ll ' '"I I ' ' l 1"1 ' l U l .
r 1 · 1 n r 1 I • • 1 ifi~ kiJ f · lin 1 ill~ ~ k-
-" J i 11 . l1 · I i I · • 1 i 1~ i 11 r n r · ·
~·.- i 1 i 1 i fi I J fi 1 · 11 i J 1 t l1. ·n J 1 n .
i . ,· I· r . · p · l r \ i l I i n i 1 1 11 ·, J . _ 1 1~ 1 .1 d
__ urin l1 ' lu1 f i11l r k 1 1 r t~r~~~t:l
r 1 u r 1 1 n . l1 I., r 1 1~ l1 _ i 11 • ~ 11~ · , d b • l1~ itl - i 1 11 d ~. i , 1 · 1~ n1~ u r 11 I n . ' . 'l1 i I 1 i l'l u 1 d
11. b.' F 1 - ,. 1111 l. 'I h _ )u111 1111 u UJld 1 • l1~ r~ ·
ur 11 n b 1 1 1 r f 1 l1 I 11 r · I i11 1 l1o. · , Y'~ r i 1
n'l I -
. Jld it i l1 vo l u 1 l }} p u " 111 I • p ,
c •
I'I l1 i11 i r p011 11 i · 11., r 11iz d l1 1 robl ~ 1 id 11 i-- fi d i 11
11 •
ud , b. i 11~di~ · ti 11 i 1'1 J) • 1 .' r d ,· ] I i 1· i, I
J) · 1 -1 1 I 1 r rid I , J) i 1 fu 11 d 1 • b fin, 11 d fr~ · 111 • J 1 r c i Jl fr 111 Y'l1icl1 l1~ ·l1ird-p r .. , C' li11 ·~ Jliz· i _ uld l JJ id b.. l1
, r 11 111 11 · . 'I hi ~ Jl J) ~ r b · r · 1 ~· b I · i 11 · i n1 . J u i 11 11 d
1 11 l1ould , rk 'ri l1 l1 · u l1 rizi11 n ·1111i n ur l1i~
11 11 i I OJllJ))i l1 d . I ui~ kl , lO ibl . l11 l1 l 1g- rn1 l1o I , r ·11 J11n1it~ b ]j v ·11~ 111u. 1 11 . - . • ui k]y ... .-
Jl o i b 1 to r 111 · u 1'" 111~ 11 · ·}1 r u l1 u · i .. 111. I 11 · d d i i o 11
ill li11 V_Jj }l t}1 . r~ <COI11Dl ll 1d i011 }1~ I . }lOU)~d in11n~ di ·. Jy
di co11 i11u~ n1ill-d ck-d ·r~ d c· ]ill .
Tl1< fi11 • 1 r~ f COl'1 rn i. ·)1 k ' d biddj11g 1'1 . oc urr d i11
11~ ou11 1 t. I I 1~ n . l ,, g 1 . 'I 11~ · gr d 1 h l1i shouJd h· v b 11 avoi~d d b.' fix-r i11 l1~ J) ci itl\10)\1 d.. ow v~ r th~
~di r~ . ~i11 _ · , p ct of . hi · u io 1 i 1 l1~ hi ,,. I k11 wn b for i
h,· 11l ~ 1 d 11d ·11~ F 1 lie r~ quir d fix-r i11g J d J' · it w· . 1-
lo\, d ~ · 11 pp 11. 111u · ~ · k r I ctio11 ·o e11s·ur h
t
i sOY\'11 polic i11 ·11 e I • ·u · ion. i , dl1 ~ r d ~ ·o.
l11 un In r. ·h on1111i b li v ·h ·}1 l11V~ . tig· iv
·---"·tu~d · og IJi · 'ri ·h I · ~0 r JlO.. COil ul I 11t s udi 11<d USDA
I
r~ po • · .]] poi11 t ·o .r~ of I rio us C0111C r11 inh FS
m · n · g -111 11 of ·l1e 1 in1b r 1 progr· m. Tl1 S n1u~ r pond ad qua Jy
11d i11 d p ·}1 ·o l1e cone rn . Tl1 refo ~_~ th ommi r com-
m~ 11~d ·11~ folio\ ri11g p cifi c io ~ 1 :
-Th · S Ill US · ak in1m d' o impleill ~eil ,a manage-
m n infor111 _ io 1 . em h pro id ccurate, timely
11d d~e il d inuormati~o 1 011 11 Jlects of i timber sales pro-
gram including for I ch con rae crui~ d volume versus
ac1 ual · olun1 cut an~d b "d pric ersu price actually r ceived.
Th~e FS should I o con · d~ r inclu~ding in 1 h sy em a capabili- , o provid~ n1~ · . ing£ul anal sis of trer1ds an conditions, an d
t
1 •
t
II • I
r I I
•
• •
Ul
••...•••..••..•••• , ...•...•.
··~11 • I , • ..••.......•...•..•..
,r . n • 9 1 • u II \ I
I 'Jil I ' I. 1111 • I , . . .
···••If•••···
"11V.r - ''- j I h I hI t 1 1 r u n, \\' . r • t • 1 1 h I i U 'l fll i n
iJ~ l """I'\' i011 ... .
'] l ~~ ................... .
L ,.,],· 1 1 f 11~ i 11 r~ i ect \ l i
111 _ • ,i ill I f~ ••1 .. ,,.. w- f• I ")i ll,.l'""
l • u
n~ 1 . o .. it l1 ~ : u n \ ·' •
111
_i •
1
Oil . l1 1 llli l1
f it1111 o · nd i' )1 \ 1 r
' , ·k ' i I
1 1 n .
1 •
·~ ... 1 1 li l1 111 ·-r . i ~ of 11 di
I
OJl of 111 futld I 0 1 iJll in 11 ill 11 u)d u d ·u- d i . ll
o · c 11 ru · 11 ' , ffi for l1 011 11 I r i or i · ~ .
111 ·~ i I 11 uld 110 I ·o d \ rj 11 u }l ill 11
fu ur~ \ ,i l1 U · Jl · ifi ju ·jfi ' i~ Jl , 11d , Jll _· · } ~Olllll j -
•
'I l1 OtJ1l1li r~ OlllJlJ< 11d ~ d r _ for r d
co11 ru ·j ~ 11. I11 lud~ d i d c_· f. f ·· k t rvi ~
o o 11 · 11 . 0 · r, 11. J)id . 11 o · d co · ~ · i 11
b CO\' ·r~ d u11d r 11 I ~ r·_ Jl · 11d~ · ])] ro1 '"i• i · 1 u11d 1· ·}1 ....,ur u of · 11d m n .
r d
u
i o 11 i . r co n1 n1 11 d d l · d OJ'l t h ;for . ·
r\i r - ··inl · of 1, I · ~ tin1b r r ip1 . I11 li11 ~ ,i l1 l1 'om-
n1it c io11 1 . 1 •
, I
r l1 bud in1· i11 clud d , ·. ~ . 00.00fo ~ ro. d on ru. · io11 . ' ,hich r~ pr n d 1 Jl rc 11 of ·11 ·im -
d 1 ~ I 2 i11 b r r c i Jl 11 , I • O\ · - r ·11~ · r st ·rvi
ha~ r~ - im· d l1 r c ·ll o \\' 1jcJ1 r due h
1. p rc ll 1n1 . a 0 ' 1" d U C 1 . 0 n 0 . f "" ' ' · r.::: • · 0 . Th . '-..#onlilli . l1 J o co11 intl d t}l b. ll 1 11gu g~ pro · djng for ran.-
£ r of 1~1 r c ip r · tu. 11) r~ c i d o h n r 1
Fu11d of h Tre ur hi ]lJlropri· tion. •
Fin 11 l1 ommi r omm 11d~ d 1. ; in1b r 1 pro-
,gr n1 r~e u1 in r~educ i ~o11 of . · 2 . 0 . Th For t ~8 rvic ~ hould mi11imiz h anlOUJl of ro d COJ'l rue io11 in old growth
a.nd roadl ~e ar as, .an~d con.c n r I in .alr ad ro ded areas - o h gr at ex en po ibl . Th ~ n1mi ·. und r an.ds as
n1uch a ' .0 BBF ~of h~ 1., I : program as origin ~all.Y propo ed might
l1ave in ol ed old gro'" h.
Th · Committ e i conc~ern. d wi h th lack of i11£ormation pro-
vided for in th road ~con true i.on budg , h large t single item in
the Fore t Ser,,ic budget. Sueh bru ic inforn1~a ion a the kind of
road 1 o be buil1 h · oo t p r mil ~e b yp of ro d, comparison of
c
-
91
school authorities to provide for cash equalization of certain land exchanges can be appropriated to acquire similar lands suitable for National Forest System purposes
inthe sa1ne State as
th~enational forest lands conveyed
inthe exchanges.
RANGE BETTERMENT FUND
-
(SPECIAL FUND, INDEFINITE)
Appropriation, 1982 ... , ... , ... . Budget estimate, 1983 ., ... . Recommended, 1983 ... , ... . Comparison:
Appropriation, 1982 ... , ... , ... , ... ,., ... , ... . Budget estimate, 1983 ... , ... .
$6,580,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 -780,000
•••••••••••••••••
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,800,000, the budget estimate, to be derived from grazing receipts from the na- tional forests (Public Law 95-579 as amended) and to be used for range rehabilitation, protection and improvements including, but not limited to, seeding, reseeding, fence construction, weed control, water development and fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in
16 Western States.
MISCEI,J .. ANEOUS TRUST FUNDS
Appropriation, 1982 ... . Budget estimate, 1983 ... . Recommended, 1983 ... . Comparison:
Appropriation, 1982 ... . Budget estimate, 1983 ... .
$84,000 90,000 90,000 +6,000
. ... , ... .
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,000, the budget estimate, to make available to the Forest Service deposits in the form of gifts, donations, and bequests for forest and rangeland
research. Authority for the program is contained in Public Law 95- 307 (16 U.S.C. 1643, Section 4(b)). Amounts appropriated and not needed for current operations may be invested in public debt secu- tities. Both the principal and earnings from the receipts are availa- ble to the Forest Service.
The funds will be used to present the annual Heritage Workshop, which is designed to acquaint academic instructors with the latest technology relating to wood utilization and engineering .
•