WASHINGTON — A northern Michigan congressman said today he will use any means available, including legislative action, to block implementation of U.S. Forest Service policies he termed outmoded, unnecessary and harmful to the environment and economy of his largely rural district.

The remarks of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, followed Monday’s public hearings in the Upper Peninsula community of Ewen, at which more than 300 area residents turned out to hear Forest Service officials discuss the proposed 40 million acre national “roadless area initiative.”

Stupak, who had scheduled a town meeting for the same day in another location, sent a strongly-worded statement via a staff member to the hearing, in which he criticized the Forest Service both for its plans to implement a 14-year-old policy, and for its public hearing process itself.

“When the Forest Service says it is preparing a new forest plan, posts signs for a non-motorized zone in the Ottawa National forest, announces a national roadless initiative, and then at the last minute schedules a public hearing, it’s impossible for the public to discern what issue is on the table and where the process stands,” Stupak said today.

Stupak reserved his greatest ire for the policies themselves, targeting first the non-motorized plan for the Ottawa National Forest. 

“This non-motorized zone policy was created during discussions of the present forest plan approved in 1985 and 1986.  I believe the public comment period held 14 years ago is outdated and the process needs to start over.”

“In some circumstances nationwide, a non-motorized area may be ideal to protect overused sensitive areas,” Stupak said. “However, most of the National Forest  land in the Upper Peninsula  is not in danger of being overrun.  In short, this policy is outdated and not applicable to the U.P., and any new attempts to create a non-motorized zone should be discussed with full public input in the new forest plan. 

The new “roadless initiative,” targeting 40 million forested acres nationwide, is also badly flawed, both in its broad application and in the way it has been announced, Stupak said. 

“The Forest Service’s Roadless Initiative was announced in October of 1999, with no warning or notice.  In fact, my office has never been officially notified and no information about the parameters of the plan have been forthcoming.”

Even the local Forest Service supervisors and employees were left in the dark until recently and then were asked to hold public comment periods before January 2000, Stupak said. 

“I think we can start by giving more advanced warning and extending the public comment period to February 29,  2000.”

The economic impact of such a policy could be devastating to heavily-forested northern Michigan, especially at a time when payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT, remains woefully underfunded, hurting county governments, school districts and emergency services.

In addition to PILT, counties with National Forest lands receive payments equaling 25 percent of gross federal timber revenues. “The Forest Service has been reported to have estimated that this new policy could result in the loss of $160 million in revenue--- a conservative estimate at best,” Stupak said. 

In addition to the two federal payment programs, many jobs and businesses are based directly on the National Forest system through sustainable harvesting, tourism and recreation, all of which could be hurt by closing forest roads. “This region cannot afford to lose any more industries,” Stupak said.

There is no need for a non-motorized zone or a roadless area in northern Michigan, and the forests in the U.P. are not in danger of being overrun and overused, Stupak said. “We enjoy a balance of multiple users, a sustainable harvest, and a sound ecosystem.

“I am opposed to the 61,000 acre non-motorized zone and I am opposed to the 40 million acre roadless initiative.” 

Individuals interested in commenting on the national Roadless Initiative policy must postmark  their remarks by Dec. 20. These should be addressed to: CAET United States Forest Service, c/o “Roadless,” PO Box 221090, Salt Lake City, UT 84122. Remarks may also be e-mailed to: roadless/wo_caet-slc@fs.fed.us

Comments on the Ottawa National Forest Non-Motorized zone can be addressed to: Ottawa National Forest, E6248 US 2, Ironwood, MI  49938.

     "First I would like to express my disappointment with the confusing Forest Service policies throughout the past two months.  There have been numerous public hearings and new policies, which has made it hard for many to differentiate one policy from another.  A few weeks ago, the Forest Service had public meetings on the Proposed Rule for the new forest plan.  In another issue,  signs were erected on the Ottawa National Forest explaining that a Non-Motorized zone will be implemented in September 2000 on 61,000 acres.  Now the Forest Service has announced an enormous 40 million acre roadless area initiative, which is what brings us together this evening.  There are now three policies and I believe the process to implement these policies is backwards.  It appears that the Forest Service implements policies then asks for public input. 

     "How does the Forest Service expect to receive accurate public opinion on each separate issue?  I believe it was poor planning by the Forest Service to have these issues converge on the public at the same time.  The Forest Service wants to have this proposal open to, and in part planned by, the public, but notice of the public hearings came so late that I was unable to attend due to a previously scheduled townhall meeting in Grand Marais.  I would have liked to have participated in person.

     "Before I address my concerns with the Roadless Initiative, I would like to put in the record that I am opposed to the Ottawa National Forest’s plan to implement the Non-Motorized zone in September 2000.  This Non-Motorized zone policy was created during discussions of the present forest plan approved in 1985 and 1986.  I believe the public comment period held 14 years ago is outdated and the process needs to start over.  If the Ottawa National Forest is holding hearings on a new forest plan, then include this Non-Motorized zone in the new plan, not 14 years later.  I am troubled by the fact that it has taken 14 years for the Ottawa to institute this policy and believe that after this much time the policy should expire.  I understand that this policy does not effect hunting or access to camps and private property, but it troubles me that some forest users will be prohibited from utilizing the effected  areas.  In some circumstances nation wide, a non-motorized area may be ideal to protect overused sensitive areas.  However,  most of the National Forest  land in the Upper Peninsula  is not endanger of being overrun.  In short, this policy is outdated and not applicable to the U.P.  Any new attempts to create a non-motorized zone should be discussed with full public input in the new forest plan.

     "The Forest Service’s Roadless Initiative was announced in October of 1999, with no warning or notice.  In fact, my office has never been officially notified and no information about the paratmeters of the plan have been forthcoming .  Even the local Forest Service supervisors and employees were left in the dark until recently and then were asked to hold public comment periods before January 2000.  All of this has simply added to the confusion.   On November 3, 1999, Mike Dombeck, Chief of the National Forest system, testified before the Committee on Resources and said that “they have no proposal yet and have no preferred alternative” and that the Forest Service wants this to be an ”open public process”.  I think we can start by giving more advanced warning and extending the public comment period to February 29,  2000. 

     "The small communities in my district rely on the National Forest system for their economic vitality.  Jobs and businesses are produced through sustainable harvesting,  tourism and recreation.   The logging industry is one of my district’s top employers and I am very concerned that the Roadless Initiative will negatively impact the hard working constituents in my district.  This region cannot stand to lose any more industries.   While the rest of the state and the nation have prospered in the last decade, the Upper Peninsula has seen major employers close their doors.

     "This initiative could also have a drastic effect on our local communities. By law, counties with National Forest lands receive payments equaling 25 percent of gross federal timber revenues.  These payments are used by county governments,  school districts  for education programs and road maintenance.  The Forest Service has been reported to have estimated that this policy could result in the loss of $160 million in revenue--- a conservative estimate at best.  At a time when the PILT program remains woefully underfunded, local communities may be the hardest hit by this roadless policy.

     "Is there a need for a non-motorized zone or a roadless area?  Are our forests in the U.P. in danger of being overrun and overused?  NO!  We enjoy a balance of multiple users, a sustainable harvest, and a sound ecosystem.  If forests in other parts of the country are experiencing specific environmental problems, you should address those problems individually, not with a “one size fits all” nation-wide policy.  Our forests in Northern Michigan and the respect given to them by our local  residents is very different than forests in other parts of the country like California or Oregon.

     "While attempts to prohibit road construction which will cut forestry programs in our National Forest may be made in the name of environmental protection or aimed at large corporations, this is not where their impact is felt the most.   Not only do these policies negatively impact forest health, but they also hurt our counties, our schools, our emergency services, and our working families.  We , and our forests, can ill afford to continue down this path.

    " I am opposed to the 61,000 acre non-motorized zone and I am opposed to the 40 million acre roadless initiative."