U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C. 20515-6201
February 10, 2000
Mr. Mike Dombeck, Chief
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, D.C. 20090-6090
Dear Chief Dombeck:
We are greatly disappointed that you have not provided sufficient time for public comment on the proposed rule for land management planning. Your comment period for this vitally important issue coincided with the public comment periods for your roadless area rule, your draft strategic plan, and numerous other rulemakings, as well as the Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Christmas and New Years holidays. As we explained in our letter of February 3, 2000, the 30-day extension you announced in December is woefully inadequate. The complexity of the rule and the multitude of other concurrent rulemakings and significant policy initiatives certainly warrant more time for the public to respond. Nonetheless, as you have chosen to end the comment period on February 10, we wish to provide the following observations for inclusion in the comment record.
First, we are extremely disappointed and disturbed by the manner in which these many rulemakings and initiatives have been announced in rapid succession. While the proposed planning rule has been a long time coming, other new rules and initiatives were released at nearly the same time, leaving both the public and Forest Service personnel unprepared to address each policy with the attention it deserves. Above all, we are quite troubled by the fact that many local Forest Service offices have expressed their own concern about the lack of information available to them for responding to the public's many questions. With regard to the planning rule revision, many public meetings were held around the country during the same time that the agency scheduled meetings on the sweeping roadless area initiative, leading to a great deal of public confusion and frustration. We cannot fault the local Forest Service units for this situation, for the schedule and availability of information have clearly been controlled by the Chief's office or others in Washington, D.C. It appears that this is a deliberate strategy to sow confusion among those who may disagree with agency intentions.
Second, the Forest Service has completely failed to provide any useful information on how the many current rulemakings are related. In particular, this planning rule is moving forward in the absence of a completed agency strategic plan; at the same time a new, overriding roadless area policy is under development; and while multiple regional and local forest plan amendments and revisions are underway, which may be significantly altered by the eventual decisions on your national initiatives. Taken in this context, it is quite clear that insufficient information is available for the public to provide informed comment on the proposed land management planning rule.
Third, the agency has thus far failed to provide any information on the environmental effects of the proposed planning rule. Regulations at 40 CFR Part 1501 and 7 CFR Subtitle A, Part 1B requires agencies to integrate the NEPA process at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, avoid delays later in the process, and head off potential conflicts. Despite this direction, the proposed rule states that: "An environmental review will be completed before adoption of a final rule." 64 Fed. Reg. 54094. We understand a draft environmental assessment (EA) has been completed, yet it has not been made available to the public to aid in their understanding of the effects of the proposed rule. The failure to provide any such analysis until after the close of the public comment period, or even later ("before adoption of a final rule"), is in complete violation of the spirit and intent of this requirement. Furthermore, the current planning regulations were accompanied by an environmental impact statement (EIS). Because of the wholesale change in agency goals, objectives and procedures, represented by the proposed rule, we firmly believe an EA is inadequate in this case and an EIS must be prepared.
Fourth, numerous concerns about the substance of the proposed rule have been brought to our attention by individuals and organizations in the public as well as agency personnel. One of the most disturbing criticisms is that much of the proposed direction will result in more cumbersome and more costly planning procedures, while agency decisions will be more subject to litigation and more difficult for the Forest Service to defend than under the current procedures. This result is in complete contradiction to your stated goal: "The intended effects are to simplify, clarify and otherwise improve the planning process; to reduce burdensome and costly procedural requirements; and to strengthen collaborative relationships with the public and other government entities." 64 Fed. Reg. 54074.
Specific areas of concern, to mention just a few, include:
Your multiple initiatives, rulemakings and planning efforts have placed a heavy burden upon Congress and the public to respond in a meaningful way. In addition, you have repeatedly failed to provide answers to our timely questions about your various initiatives. This poor performance will alienate the public, Congress and the professionals within your own agency.
We urge you to practice the "collaborative stewardship" of which you so frequently preach and begin anew to develop meaningful and productive changes to the current regulations on forest planning. Your first step must be to listen to your own experts, state and tribal governments, and local communities - those who will be impacted most - and develop new draft regulations that will achieve your stated goals.
Sincerely,
| /S/ Don Young Don Young, Chairman Committee on Resources | /S/ Helen Chenoweth-Hage Helen Chenoweth-Hage, Chairman Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health |
cc: CAET-USDA, Att. Planning Rule