Senator BYRD. The budget we are now considering has an increase of $435,000 for Forest Survey. How important is this research?

Dr. ARNOLD. We consider Forest Survey to be most important. It provides information on the forest situation that is basic to decisions and programs of every organization that manages, protects, and uses forest land, and every industry that uses wood as a raw material. Sound decisions on plant locations and wood procurement require information on inventories of timber supplies, current rates of timber harvesting in relation to timber growth, the condition of our timber resources, and the ownership of forest land.

Senator BYRD. Could you describe how you plan to use the increased funding?

Dr. ARNOLD. The added funding would permit us to speed up and intensify surveys, and provide a complete up-dated national appraisal of timber supplies, demand projections, and alternative management goals the first since 1962.

Senator BYRD. One of the major problems confronting our forests today is the research and control of gypsy moth. Officials in my State have voiced concern over this problem, and it is one in which I am most interested. I know that the budget request for controlling gypsy moth was handled by the Subcommittee for Department of Agriculture Appropriations; but I think it would be valuable if you could tell us something about the problem and how serious the Forest Service considers the threat posed by gypsy moth?

Dr. ARNOLD. Gypsy moth caterpillars are voracious insects that can completely strip leaves from trees as they feed upon them. Their diet includes over 500 species of forest, shade, ornamental and fruit trees.

The insect seems to be on the march, spreading southward and westward. For example, pockets of infestation were found for the first time last year in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

At its meeting in November 1969, the National Gypsy Moth Council as well as the Forest Service recognized the extremely critical nature of this problem and recommended strengthening of Forest Service and Agricultural Research Service research programs on control of the insect. Research already has discovered several promising new leads for gypsy moth control that could hold in check this biological threat to our environment which requires additional research effort to fully test and evaluate for widespread application.

CLEARCUTTING PRACTICES ON MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST

Senator BYRD. All right. Now I would like to go to another subject, Chief Cliff. I am very concerned about the clearcutting practices that are being carried out in the Monongahela National Forest. As you know, I have discussed this with you heretofore.

I have transmitted correspondence from complaining constituents to the Forest Service and you, Mr. Cliff, and only a few days ago I discussed this matter with you and suggested that there be a moratorium on the clear cutting, and at that time, I believe, you indicated that you did not feel that there should be any cessation of clearcutting practices.

I wish you would elaborate a bit further on your reasons for opposing the moratorium.

Mr. CLIFF. Well, Senator Byrd, I share your concern about the public criticism that we are getting over the even-age management practices on the Monongahela Forest. We are working very hard to try to get better public understanding and better public acceptance of these timber forest management practices.

The Monongahela is not an area by itself, the same kinds of problems and the same kinds of timber management practices are being met in other places in the East. A moratorium on the Monongahela, I am sure, would not remain confined to the Monongahela National Forest. It can be very disruptive of our program of supplying wood to support local industry all up and down the Appalachian Mountains. There is considerable misunderstanding about the practices that we are following. We feel that they are based on sound ecological principles, on research that has been conducted for many years, and that what we are doing is sound resource management. We have not been able to convince some of the critics that this is so. Our research shows that this practice can be carried on without accelerated soil erosion and we are convinced that this is so.

I am reluctant to repudiate the scientific basis that has been developed over many years of careful research in the Monongahela area or any other area where the practice is being carried out.

I am as anxious as you are to get this problem, which is a public relations problem, settled down. We are willing and able and are moving in the direction of trying to get a better understanding. I had hoped that we would accomplish that rather than close the door on the harvest of timber which is essential for the continuation of the local industry, the support of local payrolls, and the support of local government in this area.

Those things are very important. We could not have a moratorium without causing a very serious hiatus in the even flow or the regular flow of timber from the forest to the markets.

All of the preparatory work that has been done for months and months would have to be set aside and we would have to start all over on some other kind of a system. It would be very disruptive, more disruptive than most people seem to realize.

LETTER FROM GERALD L. CHAFIN, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE

Senator BYRD. Chief Cliff, I have a letter dated March 5, 1970, addressed to me by Gerald L. Chafin, Delbarton, W. Va., who represents the Izaak Walton League, and in this letter he writes as follows:

In answer to the suggestion that they call a short moratorium on clear-cutting, they have let bids on a 900 acre tract of timber located within the "Backcountry," 232 acres (my understanding) to be clearcut. This is contrary to what they informed us in December at a meeting held in Elkins, that there was no need for a moratorium as there would be no further contracts let before May 1970 and that they didn't think that it would concern the Back country because they were going to draw up special plans for the Back country.

Now what do you have to say in response to that charge that the Forest Service has proceeded contrary to what these people were informed at Elkins?

Mr. CLIFF. I have not had the chance to review that letter but I think the charge is unfounded. It is not in accord with the facts.

The forest supervisor has withdrawn a proposed sale in Cranberry back country for reanalysis and redesign and I think that is the proposed sale that the gentleman had reference to. It has been withdrawn.

LETTER FROM RICHWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Senator BYRD. I referred the correspondence to the Secretary of Agriculture on March 10.

Now in a letter to me dated February 27, 1970, Mr. Howard Dietz, who represents the Richwood Chamber of Commerce, writes about the clearcutting controversy. He says:

The Forest Service has imposed a rigid one-system policy of timber cutting on the General Forest Zone of the Monongahela National Forest. This comprises about three-fourths of the area of the Forest.

Now what do you have to say about that?

Mr. CLIFF. Well, I could not verify that it covers three-fourths of the area of the forest. As I understand it, the commercial timber zone on the Monongahela Forest covers something like 700,000 acres. This is not all planned for even-age management. We do have setbacks from the roads, from the major streams, and the major recreation and scenic areas where modified systems of management will be practiced in order to protect the scenic values, so it is not all planned for even-age management. When you get back away from these zones the plan does call for even-age management of the commercial timberland.

VIOLATION OF MULTIPLE-USE CONCEPTS

Senator BYRD. Mr. Dietz goes on to say that so far the Forest Service in their opinion is violating multiple-use concepts on this vast area and is thus not discharging their multiple-use responsibilities in a responsible manner. He speaks of the need for a moratorium, and he says:

The Forest Service has stated that they will not deviate from their policy. Repeated requests for suspension or modification of clearcutting policy until an investigation could be made, responsible groups and from the West Virginia Legislature have been ignored.

We believe that this attitude violates the spirit and intent of Section 3 of the Multiple-Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 which states:

Section 3-In the effectuation of this act the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with interested State and Local Government Agencies and others in the development and management of the national forests.

Now what do you have to say in response to his expression of viewpoint that the Multiple Use Act of 1960 and the laws giving the local groups a voice is being violated?

Mr. CLIFF. I don't agree at all that the Multiple Use Act or the Weeks Act are being violated, or that people are not being listened to. I know the Forest Service officers spend a great deal of time discussing these items with local groups. We are willing to have on-the-ground discussion with anybody who wants to come and see our areas and to let us show the research on which our timber management systems are based. We are willing to go see any areas that they want to show us where they disagree with the practices.

The Multiple Use Act is not being violated. The system of management that is in practice is not detrimental; in fact, in many respects it is beneficial to wildlife. The watershed values are being protected.

The major problem is with sedimentation from roads, but you get this under a selective system of management even more than you do on clearcutting because you have more roads opened up at one time, since more area must be covered.

The charge that we have been unwilling to modify our methods I think is not entirely correct. The forest supervisor has made changes in the way in which even-age management is being applied. He has reduced the size of the areas that are subject to regeneration cutting and he has enlarged the areas that would be managed under other systems. He has modified his plans quite significantly since he has been in charge of that forest.

LETTER FROM HENRY K. HAUSER, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE

Senator BYRD. In a letter addressed to me on February 23, 1970, Mr. Henry K. Hauser, president of the West Virginia Division of the Izaak Walton League, writes as follows, and I quote:

The West Virginia Division of the Izaak Walton League of America believes that an immediate moratorium on clear-cutting in the Monongahela National Forest is absolutely essential in that the future of this great natural resource is at stake. We further believe that the United States Forest Service is grossly violating the Multiple Use Act of 1960 by yielding to commercial timber interests in the management of our National Forests.

Up to this point the U.S. Forest Service has not acted in good faith in that they have not only ignored our pleas for an investigation but have also ignored a resolution unanimously passed by the 1970 session of the West Virginia Legislature which called for a moratorium and investigation of clear-cutting. This is an irresponsible attitude for the Forest Service as holders in trust of public lands to take and serves to point out the unyielding position they have taken. What is your reaction to that statement?

Mr. CLIFF. Well, this statement I think reflects an individual's reaction to what he has seen. I don't think the charges are entirely justified. As I say, we have made modifications in the way this has been applied. The critics give us no credit for that. We have made offers to take these people to our sale areas and show them what the situation is after several years and also to show them our experimental areas. Most of them have been unwilling to accept this opportunity.

I again say that I don't believe that we are violating the Multiple Use Act in any respect. The gentleman is entitled to his own opinion but I disagree with him.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE PROPOSED

As for investigation, as you will recall, Senator, I told you that I intended to establish a committee of scientists, professional people, to make a detailed analysis of this and to advise me if any changes should be made. We are in the process now of appointing that group which will include ecologists, soil scientists, wildlife experts, silviculturists and other scientists that can give a technical, scientific appraisal of this problem. We intend to move forward with that promptly. We have continuously evaluated complaints we have heard as shown by the supervisor's action in the modifications. It will continue to be under scrutiny from now on.

INVESTIGATION IN 1964

There was a complete investigation of this question of even-age management in about 1964 with the State forester, the scientists from the West Virginia University and others. They recommended that the system was sound and they indicated they thought there might be some improvements. The modifications have been made since then. So this has not been without very intensive investigation.

LETTER FROM DAVID H. M'GINNIS, FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

COMMISSION

Senator BYRD. Well, I appreciate your indication that it was your plan to establish a multidisciplinary group of scientists who would be assembled as a group to consists of experts in various fields for the purpose of having them evaluate the manner in which certain principles of clear cutting are being applied. However, I am wondering what reaction you would have to the question which was put to me by David H. McGinnis, member of the Forest Management Practices Commission, in a letter dated March 12, 1970. He said:

I question your request for a "complete scientific study" of clear cutting practices in the Monongahela National Forest where scientists are assembled by the United States Forest Service. Would this not be similar to having the accused select his own jury?

What is your reaction to that?

Mr. CLIFF. Well, I would anticipate that those kinds of questions would be raised but I would have to defend the integrity of the scientists that we have in our organization. They are professional men, they have high professional reputations and I don't think they would do anything which would be contrary to their high professional ethics regardless of whom they are hired by or selected by. I think it is a little bit unfair to try to judge in this case until they see the kind of personnel that we put on this, the kind of reputation, the kind of work which they have done. You can't select any kind of committee that will please everybody unless you put their own partisans on the committee, which would be biased.

UNIVERSITY OF WEST VIRGINIA INVESTIGATION

Senator BYRD. Could the University of West Virginia do an investigation?

Mr. CLIFF. I would be glad to have the University of West Virginia participate in this with us.

Senator BYRD. How about an independent investigation conducted by the University of West Virginia?

Mr. CLIFF. I would not object to an independent investigation by the University of West Virginia. I can't transfer all of my responsibilities to the University of West Virginia. I think I have a responsibility here too that has to be fulfilled.

IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator BYRD. What about an impartial investigation?

Mr. CLIFF. This is another possibility, Senator, and my experience with that is that it is very difficult to appoint an investigating team