LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint

Document 52 of 151.

View Related Topics

April 4, 2000, Tuesday

SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 2697 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF EDWARD W. MORELAND WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

SUBJECT - RECREATION AND REGULATION IN NATIONAL FORESTS

BODY:
Chairman Chenoweth and members of the subcommittee, my name is Edward Moreland. I am the Washington Representative for the American Motorcyclist Association. As you may know, many of our members enjoy off highway motorcycles (OHM) and all terrain vehicles (ATVs).

Public lands continue to play a prominent role in providing adequate areas for participation in this recreational activity. On behalf of the AMA and our over 260,000 motorcycle enthusiast members I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and to provide comments on Recreation and Regulation in National Forests.

Members of the AMA are dismayed and offended by the continued use of the word "environmentalists," when making reference to groups who would more accurately be named "Anti-Access" groups. For well over 20 years these organizations have fostered an atmosphere of misinformation and deceit, labeling all those who disagree with their mandate for Anti-Recreation as "anti-environment." The time has come to put an end to the perverse use of the word "environmentalists" by such groups. Indeed, the AMA and its members are "environmentalists" in every sense of the word; from volunteering time to maintain trails to advancing the philosophies of responsible recreation through educational programs at the local level.

The AMA nor its members are opposed to the Forest Service reviewing their policies from tune to time to determine what is best for our national forests within the primary mission of the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act. However, recently the Forest Service has undergone a philosophical metamorphosis that no longer focuses on the Congressionally mandated tenets of Multiple Use, but instead focuses entirely on an agency driven philosophy for ecological sustainability.

Moreover, recent Forest Service policy proposals have displayed complete disdain for any organization that is not interested solely in banning all forms of recreation activity from our national forests. So much so in fact, that they consulted only a select cadre of Anti- Access groups when writing their initial proposals for the Roadless Initiative. Evidence of the Agency's collusion with the Anti-Access establishment was borne out in this subcommittee only a few weeks ago. The AMA commends this subcommittee and its staff for their role in exposing these actions by the Forest Service.

I am confident that representatives from the Forest Service and members of the Anti-Access community will argue that the total decimation of off highway vehicle recreation is not their plan. However, I am here to tell you that if each of the myriad of proposed rules is implemented, we are looking at the last of motorized recreational access on our public lands as we know it. With this in mind I would like to draw your attention to a few of the items we feel will significantly impact all recreation.

Overlapping Proposed Regulations

As you know, the Forest Service has recently bombarded the public with a series of overlapping and intertwined proposals designed to surreptitiously change the direction of the Forest Service without benefit of Congressional approval. Many of the proposals had overlapping comment deadlines while simultaneously making reference to other proposed documents. (Chart 1)

It is unfortunate that the Forest Service has put forth so many proposed rules and policy initiatives in such a short period of time for public comment. While we certainly appreciated the opportunity to provide input to any Forest Service planning process, we must insist that the Forest Service's recent mass deployment of regulations (NOI, Roadless, Planning regulations, Special Use Permits, Strategic Plan, and Watershed Policy) has certainly placed an unnecessary burden upon the public to fully understand the interdependence of these documents and to provide meaningful comment with regard to how each of these proposals will effect one another.

While some might argue that no single proposed rule would spell disaster for OHV recreation, when taken in totality it is hard to ignore the significant impact the promulgation of all these rulemakings will have on the destiny of recreation in our national forests.

Strategic Plan

Let me begin with the Strategic Plan set forth by the Forest Service as revised and issued for public comment in November of 1999. The Forest Service lists in Section One its mission as:

"The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forest and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations."

This statement is counter to the Forest Service's Congressional mandate of multiple use and sustained yield. Indeed, while words like "Conservation" and "Protection" appear numerously throughout the document, at no time in the entirety of the 55 page document do the words Multiple Use appear. The purposeful omission of this term can only lead us to conclude that there has indeed been an internal shift of philosophy within the Forest Service to phase out or lessen the ability of the public to recreate on off highway vehicles (OHV), mountain bikes, snowmobiles, horseback, etc., on our public lands.

Special Use Permits

Additionally, The AMA has identified a number of serious issues regarding this proposed rule regarding Special Use Permits. Three primary concerns are the inability to appeal discretionary decisions made by one "authorizing officer" on each forest, the lack of a grievance or appeals process for agency decisions, and the absence of a "cap" or limit on the amount of processing and monitoring fees.

The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (RFDP) has enabled the Forest Service to set and retain fees for entering and/or using certain facilities on individual forests. This program is intended to assist with long-term sustainability of agency facilities and general public benefits, such as trailheads, rest rooms, etc. However, the cost recovery provisions for special use processing and monitoring fees, are much higher, one-time payments by distinct groups or individuals for specific agency actions.

Without any reporting requirements for Forest Service staff to document the actual time spent processing and monitoring, and all decisions left to one "authorizing officer," we are fearful that such an approach may lead to making access to permits more difficult to obtain and allow arbitrarily pricing such events out of existence.

The AMA expects and demands there to be a fair review of all applications throughout the entirety of the application process, including any discussions prior to an application submission. For example, if a member of an OHM club approaches the authorizing officer to find out about submitting a special use application for an event, the AMA would expect the officer to be supportive of that use and explain the application process.

Perhaps, the officer might suggest an alternative route in one section of the proposed event which might expedite the processing time. What we would not expect is for that officer to discourage or have a negative response to the member and the proposed event, or to be unwilling to give him/her the necessary information and application materials.

As currently worded, the Agency official could refuse an application for any reason and offer no recourse for appeal. This type of regulatory action by the Forest Service discourages applications in the first place and then allows the Forest Service official to arbitrarily deny any applications it does receive. This clearly provides a disincentive for special events and promotes an anti- recreation bias.

Furthermore, in an informal survey of several Ranger districts on different forests, an AMA member from California found that some Districts issue an entirely new permit each year, while others issue them for five years at a time. Even more alarming was the fact that with some Forests issuing a five year permit with annual review, one District said they could issue the annual permit in less than eight hours, while two others said it would take in excess of 50 hours each year. This type of inconsistency will only prove to increase the public's distrust of our public land agencies and further call into question the veracity of the agency's self proclaimed recreation agenda.

For instance, if an OHM club, (typically a small group comprised of volunteers with limited resources) wanted to have a recreational event in a Forest where it would take 36 to 50 hours to process the special- use permit, it would cost the club $750, which is required to be paid in advance, before the Forest Service can initiate processing the application. This is an incredibly expensive application, especially when there is no guarantee the permit will be approved and no ability to appeal agency decisions.

The AMA strongly urges the members of this subcommittee to compel the Forest Service to include a definition of "authorizing officer" in the proposed rule. As currently written, it is unclear who determines who will be designated as the authorizing officer. We can only assume that a number of procedures to address this issue are being considered. Will the authorizing officer be appointed or approved through a nomination process? Will there be public involvement in the process? How will such information be disseminated to the public? What experience will candidates be expected to possess?

As currently worded, the new regulations provide for charging a fee to participants on an hourly rate with no ceiling, thereby costing organizations additional funds if not done in an efficient manner by an experienced individual. For this reason, the AMA suggests that the Forest Service clearly delineate a process by which any authorizing officer be selected, in concert with the public, from a field of qualified Forest Service candidates (with particular attention paid to experience with special use permits, application processing, multiple- use activities on public lands, and monitoring of events).

Among our chief concerns are specific provisions with the Special Use proposed rule that appear to clearly discourage certain recreational use of our public lands.

Section 251.58 (a), p. 66349

This section states;

"These fees are separate from any fees charged for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands."

This additional layer of fees will prove to be overly burdensome to a nonprofit organization if an event is to be held on a forest that is participating in the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (RFDP). Participants will be required to pay a fee to enter the forest, in addition to possible state registration programs and income and fuel taxes they have already paid (of which a portion goes to fund public lands and trails). This layering of fees is unfair and excessive to an off-highway vehicle (OHV) community that volunteers heavily to maintain these areas and already pays more than many others who recreate on public land.Currently no limit exists to the amount of fees that may be charged to applicants for processing and/or monitoring that may require in excess of 50 hours. Indeed, any time commitment greater than 50 hours will be determined on a case-by-case basis, without an established cap as a maximum fee.

Additionally, "Paragraph (h)(1) of this section (p. 66352) states,

"A decision to assess a processing or monitoring fee to determine the fee category or amount is not subject to administrative appeal."

Applicants are left with no recourse. There clearly needs to be an opportunity and a process for applicants to air their grievances and to appeal any agency decisions that are viewed to be biased, unfair or inconsistent with past or similar uses.

At the very least, it is incumbent upon the FS to create and maintain reporting requirements for Forest Service staff to document the actual time spent on processing or monitoring each activity. In the absence of such a mandate, the proposed rule will appear to serve as an incentive program to maximize fees.

New Land Acquisitions

Next year the Forest Service is likely to receive additional money through the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) to purchase more public land. We fear that more land will be followed by more closures. We request that this subcommittee seek to have Congress allocate money specifically for recreational road and trail maintenance in lieu of simply giving the agency a blank check for additional land acquisitions. Giving an agency more land to manage when it has clearly demonstrated that it can't manage what it has, flies in the face of logic.

Planning Rule

As we have commented to this Subcommittee and to the Forest Service in the past, the proposed planing rule's attempt to rewrite the existing planning regulation to make ecological sustainability the primary goal of the National Forest System land management is contrary to the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, and a circumvention of Congress. Any attempt by the Forest Service to change its mandate without Congressional approval is illegal, and should not be considered part of any proposed rule. If the Forest Service insists upon changing its mandate from multiple use to ecological sustainability, then it is incumbent upon the agency to seek a Congressionally approved remedy; something the Agency has not yet done.

In response to the many recent Congressional inquiries regarding the activities of the Forest Service and its collusion with Anti-Access groups, the Agency has finally established a series of meetings around the country to seek input on its recreation agenda from the public. This attempt to regain credibility by inviting members of public is being highly criticized by those who it is seeking comment from, and for good reason. (Chart 2) As you can see in the chart, the Forest Service has established a series of meetings to be held in a limited number of locations throughout the country.

If you look closely at the chart, you will see that nearly every meeting is scheduled during the work week and to further limit participation, during the work day. What the chart does not reveal is that each meeting has a different agenda to discuss different topics. In summary, the Forest Service is seeking for a limited amount of time to obtain a limited amount of information from a limited number of people who will be able to attend. One can only assume that the Forest Service only wants a limited amount of information from anyone other than the Anti-Access groups with which they have been hard at work to please. Why couldn't the Forest Service hold these meetings on the weekend or in the evening? Why are all of the agendas different for each of the meetings? The process of proposed rulemaking is supposed to be open and public, not limited and behind closed doors. Americans deserve better than limited access to their Government.

Let me conclude by offering a Top Ten list for why Recreation is in Trouble on public lands managed by the Forest Service.

10. Volunteer hours are not recognized by the Forest Service

9. Fees continue to grow with fewer identifiable benefits

8. Recreational Roads and Trails are scheduled to decrease by as much as 80%

7. F.S. is likely to gain more land through CARA with no allocation to specific recreation purposes

6. F.S. can deny permits for activity on public lands with no appeal

5. F.S. can charge whatever it wants for applications with no appeal

4. F.S. hold limited meetings with limited information, with limited attendance for a limited time, no where near a place near you

3. The F.S. Strategic Plan doesn't even mention "Multiple-Use" in 55 pages

2. The F.S. met only with Anti-Access groups for 9 months prior to issuing its intent for Forest Planning

And, the number one reason that recreation is in trouble on public lands managed by the Forest Service is ....

1. The 2001 F.S. budget has removed Recreation as a line item ....

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with these comments. It has been a privilege to be here today. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

END

LOAD-DATE: April 12, 2000

Document 52 of 151.


Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: