other countries that you have mentioned. But in areas where there is substantial cultivation, I think we are working on those.

Mr. HUGHES. When you say you are working, you are working to commit DEA resources where that is requested by those countries? Mr. MONASTERO. Yes, yes; our principal contribution in those countries would be to identify through various means the production, where it is, how large it is, to make that known to the host country, and then to support them in ways which we can do―― Mr. HUGHES. I wonder if you could supply for the record on a country-by-country basis just what information you have and what your response has been to any request and what initiatives you have underway?

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes; there are, as I say, very substantial-Jamaica would be another example where we requested a NASA overflight of that country and got film which we shared with the Government of Jamaica. That would be an extreme. In the other extreme, there are some countries where we are not doing anything at this point in time.

[The information follows:]

RESPONSE TO QUESTION BY CONGRESSMAN Hughes During Testimony of MR. MONASTERO ON NOVEMBER 17, 1983, RELATIVE TO ILLICIT MARIJUANA CULTIVATION IN SEVERAL COUNTRIES AND DEA'S RESPONSE TO ANY REQUESTS FOR Assistance (RefERENCE PAGE 67 OF DRAFT TESTIMONY)

Belize.-Belize has the potential through climate, location, sparse population and poverty to become a "utopia" type situation for marijuana growers and traffickers. In October 1983, the Belize government conducted an aerial eradication operation utilizing Mexican government aircraft, personnel and equipment. This joint effort which resulted in 1,500 acres of marijuana being eradicated, (estimated 90 percent of the illicit production), was the result of initiatives by DEA and the U.S. Missions in both countries. It appears that the positive attitude of the Belize Government will continue, but considerable monetary assistance will be required. The State Department has proposed conducting a feasibility study in Belize to determine what would be required to have the GOB attain a self sufficient capability.

Brazil.-In 1982 an initial Brazilian eradication effort in the San Francisco River basin was extremely successful. An extensive eradication campaign was carried out in the northeast in 1983. The DEA office is working with the Brazilian authorities to identify the full extent of illicit production and encouraging further eradication efforts. Brazil has not requested any U.S. assistance to date. Tests of Brazilian marijuana have shown it to be low in THC content and there are no known seizures of Brazilian marijuana in the United States.

Panama. In response to Panama's requests, DEA has conducted three surveys in the Las Perlas Islands and identified the extent of the problem (extensive cultivation on one island, moderate cultivation on two other islands). Panamanian officials did conduct a difficult and expensive manual eradication project on the Islands in 1983, however recent overflights showed replanting and additional areas under cultivation. DEA and the U.S. Mission are currently awaiting the arrival of a State Department Thrush aircraft with spray booms for demonstration purposes. This should occur in early 1984.

Indonesia.-There is major marijuana growth in both Java and Sumatra. A recent two month eradication campaign in Northern Sumatra resulted in the destruction of about one-half million plants. The campaign was terminated by the lack of funds. A number of endemic problems plague the effort. An initial production survey with DEA monitoring is to begin in January 1984, which will hopefully result in the formation of an Indonesian marijuana eradication strategy.

Costa Rica.-No serious problem has been identified. DEA and the U.S. Mission are assisting the government in obtaining training for law enforcement units and are conducting liaison with the host country officials to increase their awareness of the potential of the problem.

St. Kitts and Dominica.-DEA, San Juan conducts liaison with the government to heighten awareness and the potential of the problem. An aerial survey is to be conducted in the near future to determine the extent of illicit cultivation.

Dominican Republic.—Upon the request of the President of the Dominican Republic, an aerial survey was conducted which determined that no problem exists at this time. DEA and the U.S. Mission continue liaison to maintain awareness of the potential for problems in the future.

Haiti.—An aerial survey is scheduled for early 1984. There does not appear to be a current problem.

Venezuela.-A limited survey was conducted in the vicinity of the Colombian border which determined that the cultivation problem has not extended into Venezuela from Colombia at this time. Liaison to the GOV by DEA and the U.S. Mission continues relative to the potential problem.

Honduras.-DEA has determined that the marijuana cultivation problem in Honduras is not serious at this time. The Honduran Government is sensitive to the problem and has conducted eradication efforts when illicit cultivation has been located.

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Monastero, we can very easily determine where marijuana is in Jamaica. I suspect that, in a couple days of overflight, you could do a good job of identifying every marijuana field in Jamaica.

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes; we have done that, as I said.

Mr. HUGHES. They know exactly where the clandestine airstrips

are.

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes.

Mr. HUGHES. The cultivation in Jamaica is as tidy as I have ever

seen.

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes.

Mr. HUGHES. They have little tracts. They actually irrigate it.
Mr. MONASTERO. Yes.

Mr. HUGHES. You can fly over and, if Jamaica were determined to do something about the marijuana problem, they could do it tomorrow. But unfortunately, we have a series of problems with Jamaica at this point. First of all, the economy is in desperate straits, and marijuana is a major contributor to their foreign exchange. Mr. MONASTERO. Yes.

Mr. HUGHES. We have a social problem, in that traditionally marijuana has been used by a sizable portion of the Jamaican population.

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes; but they have-

Mr. HUGHES. Unfortunately, the traffickers or the people who grow are fairly powerful apparently in Jamaica.

But insofar as identifying what is the size of the crop in Jamaica, we can get a pretty good projection on what the crop is going to be just by overflying the island.

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes; and as I say, they have cooperated in permitting that high-altitude photography to give us such data.

Mr. HUGHES. What are we doing about the illegal cultivation? We have two DEA agents there.

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes.

Mr. HUGHES. And given the circumstances, it is not a very productive assignment, is it?

Mr. MONASTERO. Those agents are not principally there for that purpose, because, as you say, the resources that are needed to deal with that particular problem are not forthcoming in any substantial amounts.

Mr. HUGHES. Yet, we have a government like Colombia where we have 14 DEA agents and we could use probably 10 more tomorrow.

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes; but I don't think that they would have been effective last year. I think that they will be effective this year. As a matter of fact, we are seeing the changes that we need to see now to put additional resources in there.

Mr. HUGHES. I see a determination on the part of the Colombian Government that is perhaps of recent origin, but I think it is sin

cere.

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes; I agree.

Mr. HUGHES. This is my last question. What are we going to do to respond to the requests of Colombia to provide additional support personnel in that country?

Mr. MONASTERO. As I indicated, we do intend to do that and we do have the resources to do it. I could give you an off-the-top-of-myhead number, so to speak, now. I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of eight, but I think I might go down there and be more impressed and might increase that.

Mr. HUGHES. Eight additional agents?

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUGHES. Are you giving consideration to putting more agents in the field offices like Medellin and Barranquilla?

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes, definitely.

Mr. HUGHES. It has been my perception over the years that one additional agent in a two-man office makes a big difference. It is usually a difference which is more than just one additional agent. Mr. MONASTERO. Yes.

Mr. HUGHES. Is that your belief?

Mr. MONASTERO. Yes; as you pointed out, there are certain requirements that come up where, if one agent is the only agent in the office, of course, the office is closed virtually when that agent can't be there. If he is testifying in court, and sometimes he has to come back to the United States frequently to do that, that takes him out of pocket for 2 to 3 weeks.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much.

Mr. MONASTERO. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HUGHES. We appreciate your testimony.

Mr. Miles, welcome.

Mr. MILES. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee this morning to provide information regarding the cultivation of marijuana on the national forests.

If I may, I will summarize my statement.

Mr. HUGHES. We would appreciate that. I have read your statement, Mr. Miles, and it is excellent. It is very comprehensive. If you could summarize, we would be indebted to you.

Mr. MILES. The Forest Service is responsible for managing over 190 million acres of Federal lands. During the past 5 years, an increasing number of reports have been received of marijuana being cultivated on these lands. This unauthorized use of land for growing marijuana constitutes trespass and conflicts with the land manager's ability to accomplish the objectives for which the Federal lands were established.

We have become increasingly concerned for these reasons: First of all, because of the adverse impact on the safety of visitors, contractors and our own employees; second, because of the adverse en

30-995 0-84--11

vironmental effects of the uncontrolled introduction of pesticides and fertilizers into the forest; and third, because of the adverse impact on our ability to manage the national forests for the purposes for which they were created.

In 1981 and 1982, we made an analysis of the impact of marijuana cultivation on national forest lands, and the response indicated that some cultivation occurred on most forests during the 1982. growing season. The number of reported operations range from minor activity to more than 50 on a few national forests in California and Oregon and in the Southeast.

Our best estimate of the scope of the problem is that there were about 6,000 illicit marijuana cultivation operations on national forest system lands during 1982. This represents about a 5-percent increase over 1981. Our preliminary data, we don't have final data yet for 1983, indicates that it is about at the same level as it was in 1982. The smallest operation was about 14 plants and the largest was over 4,400.

While cultivation techniques vary widely, some of the more sophisticated growers use rodenticides to control rodents, fertilizers to improve growth, alarm systems to alert them when people are near the operation and, in some cases, the operations are thoroughly camouflaged and guarded by armed personnel.

During 1982, the States, counties, and the Forest Service received reports of over 250 incidents where users of the national forests were threatened by persons believed to be associated with the growing of marijuana. We also received reports of approximately 175 situations where Forest Service employees were threatened by persons suspected of protecting marijuana crops.

Some very serious confrontations occurred between the growers and users or employees of the national forests. A trip wire was discovered which was set to release an armed hand grenade a few feet from a recreation trail.

In Arkansas, a Forest Service employee was threatened by a masked individual in camouflaged clothing armed with a shotgun. This summer, a Forest Service employee was shot and wounded while assisting the Drug Enforcement Administration in their investigation of a marijuana operation in the national forests in Arkansas. A Forest Service fishery biologist was shot at five times while collecting water samples.

We have also found that public resistance to intensive forest management activities is frequently high in and adjacent to the areas where the cultivation of marijuana is known to exist. We suspect that some of this opposition is based on the marijuana growers' desire to maintain an area's remoteness and to protect their crops from activities that may be harmful.

We have situations where the presence of cultivated marijuana and associated activities represent such a risk to visitors that we have to cooperate with State and local authorities and provide them cooperative law enforcement grants to assist them in increasing the surveillance activities that they can provide to the national forests. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the national forests are under proprietorial jurisdiction, and the basic law enforcement responsibilities for the national forests rest with the State and local authorities.

The Drug Enforcement Administration is another organization with whom we cooperate. They are currently developing operational plans to provide for a coordinated approach to locating, investigating, and eradicating domestically grown marijuana. We have cooperated with them and with the other land management agencies in these activities, particularly for the last 2 years.

The Forest Service continues to believe that the issue of cultivation of marijuana is serious and demands action. We cannot tolerate the possible injury to users of the national forests or to our own employees, and it is essential that we resolve the conflicts between marijuana production and the ability of our land managers to meet the renewable resource objectives which we have established for our forests.

The role of the Forest Service is to cooperate with those State and Federal agencies who have primary responsibility for drug law enforcement, and our role is to identify and report cultivation sites and related activities on national forest lands and, under the leadership of these law enforcement agencies, to assist in the eradication of illicit marijuana plants.

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to try to answer any questions you have.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Miles.

[The statement of Mr. Miles follows:]

PREPARED STAtement of Jerome A. MILES, DEPUTY CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee to provide information regarding the cultivation of marijuana on National Forest System lands.

The Forest Service is a professional land managing agency charged with the responsibility of caring for over 190 million acres of Federal lands. These lands produce a variety of renewable natural resources, vital to our Nation's economy and quality of life.

During the past 5 years, an increasing number of reports have been received of marijuana being cultivated on the Federal lands including National Forest System lands. This unauthorized use of land for growing marijuana constitutes trespass and conflicts with the land manager's ability to accomplish the objectives for which the Federal lands were established. The Forest Service has become increasingly concerned with the cultivation of marijuana on National Forest System lands because of:

(1) The adverse impact on the safety of visitors, contractors, and our employees. (2) The uncontrolled introduction of pesticides and fertilizers into the environment.

(3) The adverse impact on our ability to accomplish management objectives for the National Forests.

In 1981 and 1982, the Forest Service made an analysis to determine the relative impact of marijuana cultivation on National Forest system lands. The response from the National Forests indicated that some marijuana cultivation had occurred on most National Forests during the 1982 growing season. The number of reported operations on individual Forests ranged from minor activity to more than 50 on a few National Forests in California, Oregon, and the Southeast. Most activity was generally located in the areas with the longest growing season. Growers also were attracted to areas with low to moderate road density and low public visitation. We are currently engaged in data collection for 1983. We anticipate this information will be available in late December.

Our best estimate of the scope of the problem is there were about 6,000 illicit marijuana cultivation operations on National Forest System lands during 1982. This represents about a 5 percent increase over the number of operations estimated for 1981. Preliminary data for 1983 indicates no change in the number of operations since 1982. These estimates are based on actual ground and aerial surveillance in several areas and a projection of this information to other areas where topography