Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
May 16, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1467 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 16, 2000 LARRY CRAIG SENATE ENERGY & NATURAL
RESOURCES FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT FOREST SERVICE TRANSPORTATION
POLICY
BODY:
Opening Statement for Senator Larry
Craig May 16, 2000 Good afternoon. It seems impossible for a week to go by
without another Forest Service regulatory initiative. Today, the Subcommittee
will receive testimony on the Agency's proposed National forest System Road
Management and Transportation System rule. This is one of seven, major proposals
that the Forest Service currently has before the public for review. The Forest
Service has so many rule-makings underway that even its own media spokespersons
are forgetting some of them. For instance, in responding to critics of the
roadless proposal in a news story over the weekend, an Agency spokesperson
dismissed concerns over limiting access to national forests as "a blatant red
herring because what we are working on will not close a single road - not a
single mile of road." The overtaxed spokesperson likely forgot about the
rule-making which we will discuss today, which would make decommissioning of
certain roads an Agency priority. The Forest Service is spitting out so many
rules that the Agency's NEPA analysis is going to have to assess the
environmental affects from the deforestation caused by the need to supply extra
pages for the Federal Register. It is no joke, however, that the good ideas and
thoughtful policies sprinkled through some of these initiatives are being lost
in the public confusion and growing skepticism that the Forest Service is trying
to move as many rules as possible before next January. The draft environmental
assessment accompanying the transportation rule acknowledges that, although
these regulatory initiatives were released separately, all of them are -- in
some way -- directly or indirectly related to each other, and to the rule we
will discuss today. However, neither the proposed forest planning regulations,
the draft roadless area protection rule, the proposed GPRA
strategic plan, nor this rule-making proposal, contains a coherent explanation
of their interaction or integration into an organized management framework. To
the contrary, these proposals seem to envision separate and distinct
decision-making processes. I am especially concerned that the public's
opportunity to comment meaningfully on some of these rules is negatively
affected by the pendency of one or more of the other proposals. For example, the
proposed forest planning regulations contain definitions necessary to implement
the direction contained in the roads rule. However, the planning rules are not
yet final, so the public comments on the roads rule will have to be made with
incomplete information. That is why I and other Committee members have written
to the Chief requesting him to extend the comment period on the roads rule for
60 days after the publication of the final planning regulations this fall. I
have stated several times publicly, as well as in private meetings with the
Chief, that I am eager to cooperate with the Forest Service to address the road
maintenance backlog. However, this rule-making proposal raises several concerns.
First, there is an alarming bias against roads in the tone of the proposal. For
instance, the first paragraph of the "Supplementary Information" states that
"few marks on the land are more lasting than roads." In light of what is
happening in New Mexico right now, this statement is little more that fatuous.
This bias continues in the proposal to adopt the term "Forest Service roads."
The roads in our national forests are fundamentally not "Forest Service" roads.
Rather, they are National Forest System roads that are: (I)authorized by
Congress; (2) financed with public funds; and (3) managed for the benefit of the
American people. The Agency's failure to appreciate this distinction is at the
heart of the current controversy over road closures. Third, I am going to have
to be convinced that -- rather than improving transportation system maintenance
-- these rules will not have the opposite affect. It appears likely that money
that could be spent on the road themselves will be spent instead on additional
planning and environmental analysis. Finally, we need to get beyond vague and
unsubstantiated statements on the maintenance backlog. We need to see
empirically- supported maintenance estimates that are included in Administration
budget requests. The notion that the 380,000 mile road system has an $8.4
billion backlog requires us to accept an average backlog cost of $22,000 per
mile. That is more than it cost to actually construct the vast majority of these
road miles. In addition to trying to do too many things at once, the Forest
Service is failing to put first things first. You have irrevocably prejudiced
the reaction of many to this rule-making by preceding it with the uncontrolled
bum of public opinion generated by the roadless rule. The Forest Service is now
going to have to convince people that you are serious about maintaining your
transportation system. If you are as serious about addressing the maintenance
backlog as I am, we need the data and the funding requests sooner rather than
later. And we do not need a large number of new planning and analytical
procedures to get started. I look forward to the Agency's testimony today.
LOAD-DATE: May 24, 2000, Wednesday
