Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
May 23, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 3080 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 23, 2000 MATT BENNETTT SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN MULTIPLE-USE COUNCIL
HOUSE resources ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES AND FEDERAL LAND
POLICY
BODY:
MAY 23, 2000 TESTIMONY OF MATT BENNETT
FUNDING OF ENVIRONMETAL INITIATIVES AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON FEDERAL LANDS
POLICIES BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES Introduction Mr. Chairman
and Members of the Committee, my name is Matt Bennett and I am testifying today
on behalf of the Southern Appalachian Multiple-Use Council (Council). The
Council is a not- for-profit trade and conservation association made up of a
diverse group of forest users and landowners located in the southern Appalachian
mountains of North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Thank you for this
opportunity to share my concerns regarding the impact that foundation funding is
having on decision making on Federal public lands. Founded in 1975, the Council
promotes the principle of multiple- use as defined by the Multiple- Use and
Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and seeks to promote balanced utilization and
protection of the public forestlands of the southern Appalachians. Executive
Director Steve Henson is the Council's only full-time staff, and the majority of
the Council's members are small to medium-sized forestry businesses, many of
them in their second and third generation of family ownership and operation.
Until recently there existed a dynamic, though certainly competitive, parity
among the various National Forest special interest groups in our area. However,
due to the influx of foundation grant monies to environmental groups, that
parity no longer exists. I believe that the amount of financial resources
provide by foundations is resulting in an inequity in other stakeholders'
abilities to participate in Forest Service planning and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Out-manned, out- organized, and
out-spent by environmental organizations, small businesses in rural communities
feel their voices are no longer being heard. Based on the Administration's
recent actions ranging from roadless areas, to national
monuments, experience would seem to support that conclusion.' Organizations like
the Council do their best to represent the interest of small businesses. My
greater concern is that many local citizens and community groups are under
represented or absent all together from the planning process. Therefore, I would
like to direct the majority of my testimony toward describing the hurdles that
they must overcome to participate in the planning process. From my personal
conversations with many of them, I know that they would like to tell you this
themselves if they had the time or the resources to appear before the Committee.
That their input is missing is especially unfortunate, as it is they that are
most likely to be affected by the decision making process. Their absence in this
process is part of a systemic inequity that has developed in Forest Service
decision-making, which is only exacerbated by foundation funding. In my
testimony I cite three examples of this inequity, and how I believe it
contributes to a violation of the environmental justice due rural communities.
Background In early 1995, an article published in the Asheville Citizen Times,
announced the formation of a new coalition of local and regional environmental
groups, the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition Critical Differences in Public
Participation Due to Foundation Funding 1.Representation and Participation With
at least six full-time paid employees itself, plus the staffs of its coalition
members, SAFC has a decided manpower advantage when it comes to attending Forest
Service meetings. One observer wryly commented that Forest Service planning
meetings often resemble SAFC reunions. It is common for six to ten SAFC
representatives to attend Forest Service meetings at which there might be only
one or two timber industry representatives and no representatives from other
stakeholders such as recreationalists and local communities. (See Attachment #
3) Before foundation involvement, stakeholders were all on roughly the same
non-professional level. My concern is the level of disparity that has arisen
between the paid professionals and the non-professional stakeholders who often
do not have sufficient time or resources to participate fully in the decision
making process. Forest Service planning meetings often conflict with working
hours. Add to that the language barrier. For someone who does not attend
meetings regularly, the use of government jargon and acronyms make it sound as
though the meeting is being conducted in a foreign language. I don't intend to
imply that there is anything improper with SAFC's level of involvement in Forest
Service planning. But clearly, foundation funding has given a decided advantage
to organizations like SAFC who can afford to send multiple representatives to
meetings, and whose only job is to attend those meetings. It is naive to expect
that part-time, non- professionals can be as effective in the planning process
as their professional counterparts. IL Technical Another area where foundation
support has created a disparity between professional forest activists and local
citizens are in the technologies of the Internet, electronic communications, and
geographic information systems (GIS) software and data. Organizations such as
ONE/Northwest supported by the Brainerd and the Bullitt Foundations have
provided over $300,000 worth of equipment and training to over 70
organizations.' Meanwhile, Internet service is only slowly coming to many rural
communities, and they lack access to the educational services of anything
resembling ONE/Northwest. Desktop Assistance, also deriving a significant
portion of its operating funds from foundations, researches cutting-edge
information and communications technologies, adapts them for use by nonprofits,
and helps nonprofits use these technologies creatively."9 They have developed
conservation databases that were recently used to solicit support for the
Administration's roadless policy. They were also instrumental in the creation of
the Conservation GIS Consortium which funds the Conservation Technology Support
Program (CTSP), "a national grant-making program which each year supports
conservation GIS efforts with $1 million of in-kind grants of Hewlett-Packard
hardware and software from Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)."10
Early in 1998, SAFC conservation planner Hugh Irwin received a $48,000
technology grant from CTSP.11
SAFCappliedthatknowledgeto"drawupdetailedmapsofdie'biologicalgeog raphy'ofthe
southern Blue Ridge Mountains," using an $113,000 grant from the Moriah Fund.
With GIS capabilities, SAFC is able to develop detailed maps (See Attachment #
4) of the southern Appalachian National Forests that gives them a tremendous
advantage in forest planning. As planners discuss the fate of individual
National Forest compartments, SAFC members have knowledge that is largely
unavailable to other users who lack access to the same GIS and computer
technology. The problem is not that environmental groups have this technology.
The problem is the technological disadvantage many rural communities experience
without the same technology. Compared to organizations that use advanced
technology, these forest users participate at a distinct advantage. planning
process, This support has enabled environmental organizations to hire full-time
professional staff, gain access to the latest Internet, computer and GIS
technologies, and to obtain free legal support and representation from
environmental law firms. These same advantages are unavailable to citizens
living in rural communities throughout the southern Appalachians. This seriously
limits their abilities to participate in Forest Service planning. As Congressman
Richard Pombo noted, "Tax exempt foundation funding of environmental advocacy
groups unfairly tilts the playing field against the views and input of those
most affected by the policies advocated. The average citizen's voice and input
in the government decision-making process is often drowned out by advocacy
groups largely funded by foundations, making our government seem even more
remote and less responsive to the needs of the average citizen. , Therefore, I
maintain this violates the intent of the President's Executive Order 12898,
"Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, @922 and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ)
guidance document, Environmental Justice, Guidance Under the National
Environmental Policy Act. Executive Order 12898 directs "that each Federal
agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission,"2' and
calls for an analysis of the effects of Federal agency actions on low- income
communities. As explained in Appendix A of the CEQ guidelines, "Guidance For
Federal Agencies On Key Terms In Executive Order 12898," low-income populations
should be identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the
Bureau of Census. As previously noted, both Census Bureau and Department of
Labor statistics indicate higher unemployment and higher levels of poverty than
the national average in most of the rural counties containing Forest Service
land. In the accompanying memorandum to heads of departments and agencies "the
President specifically recognized the importance of procedures under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The President's memorandum emphasizes
NEPA's public participation process, and directs that "each Federal agency shall
provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process. Furthermore,
agencies are directed to "identify potential effects and mitigation measures in
consultation with affected communities, and improve the accessibility of
meetings, crucial documents, and notices., Language contained in the Executive
Order is very specific in requiring agencies to work to ensure effective public
participation and access to information. In addition, CEQ's guidance document
directs agencies to "develop effective public participation strategies," and to
seek to overcome "barriers to meaningful participation," and to "incorporate
active outreach to affected groups. arrange from agency failure to provide
translation of documents to the scheduling of meetings at times and places that
are not convenient to working families. Agencies are further directed to "assure
meaningful community representation in the process. In the final analysis, it
seems very clear to me that the intent of Executive Order 12898 and the CEQ's
guidance document is to guarantee a level playing field for participants engaged
in the public planning process. It seems just as clear to me that a level
playing field currently does not exist due to the advantages garnered by those
organizations receiving foundation funding. Indeed, I believe those individuals
and communities attempting to participate in the NEPA process without similar
resources of staff, technology and legal advice are at a decided disadvantage in
the NEPA process and are, in fact, being denied their environmental justice.
THANK YOU
LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2000, Wednesday
