Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
APRIL 22, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1361 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
ERIC
SORENSON
COLORADO TIMBER INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE
HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
BODY:
Thank you, Chairman
Chenoweth and committee members, for the opportunity to comment on the "Forest
Roads-Community Right-to-Know Act" from the perspective of western Colorado. I
am Eric Sorenson, Vice-President and General Manager of Delta Timber in Delta,
Colorado and I am here today representing the Colorado Timber Industry
Association. I am a graduate forester and I have worked in the forest products
industry in the western United States for the last 23 years. Delta Timber, like
most other members of the Colorado forest products industry, has historically
purchased the majority of its supply of timber from the national forests in
Colorado. Consequently I have been actively involved in a wide range of national
forest related plans and activities.
I cannot understate the importance of
well-planned access to the national forests. A common thread among all national
forest users, whether firewood cutters, hikers, loggers, cowboys, campers, or
hunters and fishermen, is the need for access. Obviously, the Forest Service
itself has access needs for management, including fire suppression, vegetative
management, prescribed burning and all of the other programs necessary to
implement the forest plans.
From my experience, nothing in the management of
the national forests is more controversial than closing roads that have been
used historically. It's very easy to close new roads. However, once a pattern of
use has been started, roads become increasingly hard to close. I have heard the
horror stories about road closures on the Targhee National Forest and I am
appalled. To be honest, however, I have not seen that kind of abuse of the
public trust here in western Colorado.
The development of the Forest
Service's new roads policy, the requirements for a new roads analysis process,
and the moratorium on road construction in roadless areas are
having a significant effect on the management of the Grand
Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest. The way the Interim Rule is
written, many projects on the GMUG NF have been deferred as a result of
gerrymandered "unroaded" areas. Many of our RARE II areas have existing roads;
one recent timber sale on the GMUG NF even required obliteration of several
miles of road inside a "roadless" area.
Additionally, part
of the justification for new road closures is the maintenance backlog. While
there may be a maintenance backlog, based on what I've seen in western Colorado,
the magnitude has been wildly exaggerated, and the maintenance backlog gives the
impression of being a surrogate issue to justify more road closures. The primary
intent of these roads-related issues appears to be additional restrictions on
the use of the Forests and obstruction of forest plan implementation.
The
GMUG NF has spent the last ten years developing Travel Management Plans for the
Grand Mesa and Uncompahgre portions of the Forest. This process has been quite
contentious at times. The planning has included detailed public and community
involvement, including public meetings with a road-by-road and trail-by-trail
discussion. Part of this process has also included mediated meetings sponsored
by the Delta- Montrose Public Lands Partnership, an extraordinary group
representing a broad cross-section of public land interests. The process isn't
completed, because the Forest Service hasn't yet made a final decision, but the
GMUG NF's process provides a stark contrast to the Targhee NF. The downside is
that the process has taken ten years, but the benefits are much more likely to
include long-term public acceptance and support for the final decision.
I am
puzzled as to how two different national forests, the Targhee NF and the GMUG
NF, part ofthe same federal agency, can take such different approaches to road
and travel management. Implementing travel management on the GMUG NF using the
same tactics as used on the Targhee NF would have resulted in an outcry in
western Colorado similar to what occurred in southern Idaho. While Chief Dombeck
appears to advocate decisions made by local managers working with local
communities, the reality appears to be increasing micro- management from
Washington, D.C. In his March 29, 1999 speech, the Chief announced his intention
to increase the miles of road decommissioned in FY 2000 by 50%. This raises
several concerns, but in particular, his apparent decision undermines
development of the Forest Service's long-term road management plan. That plan,
and decisions to close specific roads, were supposed to include public
participation. Since it is obvious that the Chief has already made his decision,
why should the public bother participating? This is the reason that the Forest
Roads- Community Right-to-Know Act is necessary.
One of the objectives of
the Travel Management Planning on the GMUG NF is to reduce the number of roads.
I don't disagree that in some parts of the national forest we have too many
roads, we have unnecessary roads, we have overbuilt roads, we have roads in poor
locations, and we have poorly maintained roads. Sometimes the best solution to
poorly located roads is to build a new road and decommission the old one, but
that should be determined locally and not in Washington, D.C. The Forest Service
has proposed a Roads Analysis process that will be required prior to decisions
to build new roads. We must also ensure that the process to decommission or
close roads is at least as rigorous as the process to build new roads and
includes local public review and comment.
The GMUG NF completed a
significant amendment to the forest plan in 1991 that reexamined the suitable
land base, including roadless areas. Yet, even though the GMUG
NF has taken a serious relook at roadless areas, and there have
been wilderness areas designated on the GMUG NF in three different wilderness
bills, and the GMUG NF has spent ten years working on travel and road
management, they get slapped with the moratorium on new road construction just
like most other national forests.
After talking to local Forest Service
officials, my impression is that the Washington Office's plans to develop a new
roads policy, to implement a new roads analysis process and to implement the
interim moratorium on road building in roadless areas simply
complicate matters. Clearly, the moratorium on road building in roadless
areas didn't come from the bottom up. It's a top-down, politically
driven directive that frankly undermines many years of planning and public
involvement on the GMUG NF.
The bottom-line is that decisions about the
management of the national forests should give the highest level of
consideration to the people who live work and play on the national forests
instead of a political appointee in Washington, D.C.
There would be three
important outcomes from your proposed legislation. First, the agencies would be
required to meet with State and local government officials once each fiscal year
to discuss all plans or proposals that would result in road closures. Frankly,
the Forest Service should be doing a far better job of meeting with State and
local government officials on all types of projects as part of ensuring that the
needs and desires of those entities are incorporated into the planning
anddecisionmaking process. Second, the bill would allay fears that local
residents have about future road closures after an effort like the GMUG NF's
Travel Management Plan is put into place. Third, our local county commissioners
are concerned about their role in road closures resulting from their County's
statutory rights relative to roads which existed prior to the creation of the
national forests. This bill defines that role.
In summary, I don't like to
advocate for new Congressional legislation, but I am very concerned about the
increase in top-down directives from Washington, D.C. and the de-emphasis on
decisions made by local managers working with local communities. I encourage you
to move forward with your proposed legislation to ensure that the Forest Service
listens to the voice of local publics as an integral part of their
decision-making processes regarding road and travel management.
END
LOAD-DATE: April 28, 1999
