THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

[Page: S6251]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate this week as the Forest Service has launched a series of meetings in my state and around the country to solicit comments on the Administration's proposed roadless initiative. I want to encourage Oregonians to send in their comments and attend these meetings to make their voices heard.

   I am concerned that so many of my constituents will not take part in this comment period in part because they believe that this roadless policy is a foregone conclusion. Frankly, I don't think the Forest Service did much to change those feelings by including language in its draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which characterized loggers, mill workers, and people in the timber products industry in general as uneducated, opportunistic, and unable to adapt to change. Many Oregonians, not just those in resource industries, were offended by this.

   I understand that the Administration has subsequently apologized, but I am afraid this incident only added to the feeling held by many Oregonians that the decisions about this roadless plan have already been made. So I want to take this opportunity today to outline some of my concerns about this roadless initiative and to encourage other Oregonians to take advantage of the remaining weeks of this public comment period to do the same.

   Mr. President, the management of the roadless areas in our National Forest System has been the subject of debate for many years. We had the RARE I (Roadless Area Review and Evaluation) process in the early 1970s leading

[Page: S6252]  GPO's PDF

   That process was followed by a number of state-specific bills, such as the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984, where roadless areas that were suitable for wilderness protection were so designated and other roadless areas were to be released for multiple uses. Despite the growth of the wilderness system in this country, the management of other roadless areas has remained controversial.

   Now this Administration has proposed a roadless initiative that would permanently ban road construction from some 43 million acres of inventoried roadless areas . In addition, this draft EIS calls for each Forest, upon its periodic Forest Plan revision, to protect additional roadless areas , often referred to as uninventoried roadless areas . No one, not even the Forest Service, seems to know how many millions of acres that may ultimately be. So the President is proposing setting aside an additional 45 to 60 million acres of the National Forest system on top of the 35 million acres that are already designated as wilderness areas . Let me remind my colleagues that the entire National Forest System is 192 million acres and that there are numerous riparian areas and wildlife buffer zones that are also off limits to road construction. So we may well have more than half of our National Forest System permanently set aside and inaccessible to most of the public by the time this Administration is through.

   What is even more alarming to me is the position of the Vice President on this issue. In a speech to the League of Conservation Voters last month, AL GORE said the Administration's preferred alternative does not go far enough. Perhaps Mr. GORE's ``Progress and Prosperity'' tour should make a few stops in rural Oregon so he can see first-hand the results of eight years of passive management of our federal lands--double digit unemployment and four day school weeks. As part of the Administration that is writing this rule and is supposedly keeping an open mind while taking comments from the public this month, it seems a bit premature for the Vice President to speak so favorably of an alternative that is ostensibly still being reviewed. I know the Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and the Chairman of the House Resources Committee have requested the Vice President recuse himself from the rest of this rule-making process. I agree with the Chairmen and hope the Vice President will try to restore the public's confidence that this rule-making is not predetermined and that it is open, as required by law, to the comments and suggestions of the public.

   Mr. President, some of my colleagues may ask why new roads may be needed in the National Forest System. There are many reasons, but perhaps the most urgent purpose is forest health.

   A century of fire suppression followed by years of inactive forest management under this Administration have left our National Forest System overstocked with underbrush and unnaturally dense tree stands that are now at risk of catastrophic wildfire. The GAO recently found that at least 39 million acres of the National Forest System are at high risk for catastrophic fire. According to the Forest Service, 26 million acres are at risk from insects and disease infestations as well. The built up fuel loads in these forests create abnormally hot wildfires that are extremely difficult to control. This year's fires in New Mexico have given us a preview of what is to come throughout our National Forest System if we continue this Administration's policy of passive forest management.

   To prevent catastrophic fire and widespread insect infestation and disease outbreaks, these forests need to be treated. The underbrush needs to be removed. The forests must be thinned to allow the remaining trees to grow more rapidly and more naturally. While some of this work can be done without roads, roads are many times required in order to carry out this necessary work. Yet this Administration apparently wants to make it more difficult to address these problems, more difficult to stop fires like those in New Mexico before they start. And the Vice President wants to go even further than that.

   Why else are roads needed in the National Forest System? Forest roads provide millions of Americans with access to the National Forests for recreational purposes. With the Forest Service predicting tremendous increases in recreational visits to the National Forest System in the coming years, shouldn't there at least be a thorough examination of how this roadless plan will affect the remaining areas of our National Forests, which will apparently have to absorb most of these new visitors? And what about the needs of seniors and disabled visitors? Compounding the problem, this Administration will be decommissioning many roads currently used by recreational visitors. In its rush to complete this sweeping rule, this Administration does not seem to have the time to examine seriously the impacts of steering more and more recreational visitors to a smaller percentage of the Forest System.

   Mr. President, I am also concerned about how this roadless initiative is supposed to interact with the Northwest Forest Plan.

   Last year, I came to the floor of the Senate and I expressed concerns about this Administration's forestry policies and its weak implementation of its own plan that was supposed to lay the groundwork for a cooperative resolution to the timber disputes of the early 1990s. Unfortunately, as our federal agencies scour the forests to survey for mosses, we continue to have gridlock in the Northwest, with none of the promised sustainable and predictable timber harvests in sight. So how much confidence does this Administration have in its own Northwest Forest Plan? By reading its roadless proposal, the answer is ``not much.'' Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan has thorough standards and guidelines for activities in the forests covered by the plan, including roadbuilding. This Administration had previously exempted the Northwest Forest Plan forests from its road building moratoriums because it was still clinging to the notion that its plan was the model for forestry policy in the future. Unlike those temporary moratoria, however, the Administration's roadless initiative makes no exception for the forests covered by the Northwest Forest Plan. To me, this suggests that even this Administration is acknowledging what many in the Northwest have said for some time: The Clinton Forest Plan is a failure. Rural Oregon already knew that. Now with this roadless proposal, this Administration will only make it harder for any future Administration to keep its promises under the Northwest Forest Plan. This fact is most obvious in the town of Klamath Falls in southern Oregon. Like many towns in the Northwest surrounded by federal lands, Klamath Falls was encouraged by this Administration to create jobs and economic growth through recreation and eco-tourism in order to compensate for the loss of the timber jobs. Of course, it is difficult to find substitutes for the family wage jobs that the timber industry once provided for these towns. Nevertheless, rural Oregon has tried to diversify its economy.

   More than three years ago, developers and community leaders in Klamath Falls embarked upon the arduous process of obtaining a special use permit to launch a winter recreation area at Pelican Butte in the nearby Winema National Forest. Millions of dollars were spent and countless hours were invested by everyone from the local forest service, to the developers, to the local government and the community as a whole. A final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision are due next year. Now, due to the fact that Pelican Butte will require three miles of road in a currently inventoried roadless area, the Administration's roadless initiative will effectively kill the plan. In its zeal to complete this plan before leaving office, this Administration apparently does not want to take the time to make reasonable accommodations for proposals that have been in the pipeline for years. Never mind the fact that the Pelican Butte project will result in a net decrease in road mileage on National Forest lands. Never mind the fact that Oregonians were told by this Administration to go and find other means to develop their economy outside of timber. The message to Oregonians is clear: If the roadless plan is to be concluded before President Clinton leaves office, there is

[Page: S6253]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. President, all of this is very discouraging for Oregonians who have a sense this Administration has already made up its mind on this roadless initiative. It is my understanding that many of my constituents have just received copies of this draft EIS in the last few days--with half of the brief comment period already expired. Nevertheless, from the floor of the Senate today, I am pleading with my constituents to get out there during this comment period and make their voices heard. This rulemaking is too significant for Oregonians to be silent.

   Mr. President, I agree with this Administration that we need a long-term resolution to the management of our roadless areas . But common sense tells us that what is needed and appropriate for one area may not be sound stewardship for another. With this roadless initiative, this Administration is talking about setting aside in one broad stroke millions of acres that are supposed to be held in trust for all Americans. Even worse, this plan is being rushed through a truncated public comment process in order to accommodate an artificial political deadline. This isn't the way to manage our precious natural resources and this isn't the way to treat our rural communities. The management of these roadless areas is a complicated question, and it deserves more than the simple answer being force-fed to us by this Administration.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents