Letter to Chairman Young

December 17, 1999

The Honorable Don Young
Chairman
Committee on Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Young:

I am writing to request your assistance in interpreting provisions of the California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425). It appears that the Administration's proposed rulemaking process to designate additional roadless areas is in direct violation of the explicit statutory language of this Act. It also appears that the Forest Service did not provide for adequate public comment during the scoping period.

The Administration seems to be violating the terms of the 1984 Wilderness law by directing further review of RARE II roadless areas and by seeking to create de-facto wilderness areas through its recently released roadless directive. Section 111 (b)(6) of the Wilderness Act states, "unless expressly authorized by Congress, the Department of Agriculture shall not conduct any further statewide roadless area review and evaluation . . . for the purpose of determining their suitability in the National Wilderness Preservation System." The Administration is directing the Forest Service to embark on a review of unroaded areas for which there has been no Congressional authorization. This action appears to be expressly prohibited under Section 111(b)(6). 

Section 111(a)(4) also states that those areas not designated as "Wilderness" or "further planning" areas under the Act "shall be managed for multiple use in accordance with land management plans." The Administration seems to be circumventing this explicit direction by creating a de-facto wilderness in the release areas without following the forest planning process. The Forest Service has argued, however, that its intent is to protect "unique roadless areas," not create de-facto wilderness. Frankly, this is a distinction without a difference. The spirit and direction of the Act seem to require a forest plan revision process in any further federal designation of roadless areas.

In addition, the scoping process the Forest Service has undertaken appears to violate the terms and spirit of both Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and guidance. The public was not provided with enough information to adequately review and comment upon the proposal. In addition, the Forest Service is also soliciting comments on the draft planning regulations. This has been a source of confusion for many individuals seeking to contribute to this process. The Forest Service has denied repeated extension requests, both from Members of Congress and the concerned public, citing the need for additional time to adequately review this proposal.

The social, economic and ecological effects of this short-sighted and politically motivated proposal could have widespread negative implications for communities and forests throughout the Northern California District I represent, which is home to all or part of 11 National Forests. I respectfully request the Committee's assistance in clarifying the meaning of the above-referenced statutory and regulatory language and in holding the Administration accountable for any violations of these provisions.


                                                                                         Sincerely,



                                                                                           WALLY HERGER
                                                                                            Member of Congress

---

| Press Materials |