WASHINGTON — Seeking clarification of what he is calling an untimely and confusing process, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, has pressed the U.S. Forest Service to provide written answers to 12 questions about its policies to reduce roads and motorized access within national forests.

Stupak demanded that the Forest Service explain details of its proposed plans, account for its policy of inviting public input only after a policy has been formulated, and detail the exact location where and how its roadless policies would be implemented.

Stupak made his request for information at a Tuesday hearing of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health of the House Committee on Resources, to which he was invited because of his position as a knowledgeable leader on forestry issues and his position as co-chairman of Forestry 2000.

“The Forest Service has announced at least four major policy initiatives over the past few month,” Stupak said. He told the subcommittee he was concerned that the Roadless Initiative, the Road Management Plan, new planning regulations and a strategic plan may each or in combination stifle recreation, forestry and the enjoyment of national forests.

The economy of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula now depends mainly on the forest industry for timber and recreational opportunities, Stupak said. “I am concerned that the roadless initiative and road management plan will further reduce hunting and access to timber supply in the Ottawa and Hiawatha National Forest.” 

Stupak in his testimony criticized the Forest Service for the process used in preparing and announcing the new policies. The proposals were released in “a disjointed fashion,” he said, were formulated as part of a “top-down approach to road issues,” and were announced in a manner he termed untimely.

Stupak also criticized the plans because they are not site-specific. “It does not seem reasonable to make such broad decisions at a national scale,” he said. “I do not see a particular need for more large roadless areas on the Ottawa and Hiawatha National Forests.”

The Forest Service should have confidence that the people of northern Michigan want to protect this resource, Stupak said. “People in northern Michigan do not want to overrun and abuse their environment. They love the forest and support the Forest Service mission to protect and sustain forest resources.”

In an exchange of comments, a Forest Service spokesman explained that the new definition of a “road”  is a cleared trail at least 50 inches wide. The old definition spelled out that the cleared path had to be capable of supporting vehicular traffic.

The Forest Service was asked to provide its written answers to both Stupak and the subcommittee.
 

 Madame Chairwoman;  Thank you for providing the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee today.  I appreciate your willingness to allow me to discuss several issues that are very important to the people of my district and this great nation!

 Forestry, hunting and fishing are important to the rural lifestyle of Northern Michigan.  I am concerned that the new roadless designations and procedures will affect sound forestry practices and reduce public hunting and fishing opportunities.  

 We have a great forest resource in the Ottawa and Hiawatha National Forests.  With closure of many copper and iron mines, the economy of the Upper Peninsula now depends mainly on the forest industry.  Some of the wood supply for industry must come from National Forests.  I am concerned that the roadless initiative and road management plan will further reduce timber supply from the Ottawa and Hiawatha National Forest.  

 The Forest Service has announced at least four major policy initiatives over the past few months: the Roadless Initiative, the Road Management Plan, the new Planning regulations and a Strategic Plan.  I am concerned about the economic effects of these proposals, especially the impact the two road proposals will have on my district.  In addition, I am concerned that the Forest Service has unnecessarily confused the Congress and the public by releasing these proposals in a disjointed fashion.

 These proposals represent a significant and abrupt policy change.  While I appreciate Forest Service goals for healthy watersheds and sustainable forest management, I am surprised
that the Forest Service has taken a top-down approach to road issues.  Local Land Management Plans have successfully resolved many public use conflicts and can resolve road issues as well.

 I am also concerned that these proposals are not site-specific.  It does not seem reasonable to make such broad decisions at a national scale.  I do not see a particular need for more large roadless areas on the Ottawa and Hiawatha National Forests.   Are Threatened or Endangered Species at risk?  Is water quality impaired?  Is there a specific purpose for more roadless areas in the Upper Peninsula, or is the roadless initiative part of a national agenda?

 I am concerned that the public process was untimely.  Public meetings have been few and far between.  When will public meetings be held at the local community level, and how does the Forest Service propose to distinguish the morass of proposals from one another?

 Finally, I am concerned about the cumulative effect of all these new proposals.  

The relationship between the various proposed policies and regulations has not been explained well to the Congress or the public.  The Forest Service has confused the public, making it very difficult for meaningful public involvement.  I question how the cumulative effect of these conservation proposals is being disclosed to the public and I urge the Forest Service to proceed with greater caution, so the Forest Service does not loose the community support they have enjoyed in the past.  

 People in Northern Michigan do not want to over-run and abuse their environment.  They love the forest and support the Forest Service mission to protect and sustain forest resources. 

But the Forest Service should trust the people of the Upper Peninsula and Northern Michigan and have more confidence in  NEPA to implement reasonable public involvement processes for collaborative management of forest resources.

 I have questions for Mr. Dombeck.  I will submit these questions for the record and ask Mr. Dombeck to provide written answers to this committee and me.  
 

Questions for Forest Service:

1. How is the cumulative effect and relationship of all these new proposals being explained to the public? 

2. When will public meetings be held at the local community level?

3. Why is the Forest Service taking a top-down approach to road issues (similar to EPA’s much maligned approach to water quality in its proposed TMDL regulations)?

4. How will new roadless designations and new procedures governing unroaded areas affect public hunting and fishing use? 

5. Will targets be set for road closures on each Forest?

6. How much additional road maintenance work do you expect as a result of this policy?

7. Can’t road maintenance concerns be alleviate by additional funding without closures ?

8. How much of the additional road work can be contracted?

9. How is the national Roadless EIS addressing site-specific concerns on each Forest?  

10. Is there a specific purpose for each new roadless area?

11. Is access to public lands not permissive?  (Are people not allowed onto the public lands unless told otherwise?)

12. Why is the thrust of the new road policies to deny public access?