Administration's Forest Management Decision
Process
Precludes Fair Opportunity For Public Comment
Washington, D.C. - Several major U.S. Forest Service rulemaking initiatives on forest management were strongly criticized by recreationists, union workers, foresters and scientists today at a hearing held by the U.S. Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
In recent months, President Clinton and the Forest Service have announced numerous major rulemaking initiatives and large scale plan amendments, including:
(2) development of a national road management policy;
(3) development of rules for restricting management in roadless areas;
(4) a new policy on watershed approaches to land management; and
(5) regional planning efforts for the Interior Columbia Basin and the Sierra Nevadas.
Rulemaking Initiatives Will Lead To End Of Multiple-Use In National Forests
"Each one of these new initiatives is, in itself, damaging to the successful management of our national forests and to the economic health of rural communities, but applied together, the cumulative effects will result in the demise of the national forests as lands of multiple-uses," said U.S. Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-ID), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. "Even worse, the Clinton-Gore team has twice recently announced their decision to exclude both roads and timber harvest from national forest roadless areas. How can this Administration be so arrogant to ask for comments on a supposedly 'proposed' policy, when in the middle of the process it is painfully clear that the decision is already made?"
"Ecological Superiority" Philosophy Found In Forest Service's Draft Regulations
Thomas Crimmins, a Trails Consultant representing Blue Ribbon Coalition - a nationwide organization representing motorized recreationists, equestrians and resource users - said, "The planning rule, which will set the overriding guidance for management of the National Forests, supports a philosophy of Ecological Superiority, where ecology takes precedents over man and everything else. All decisions made will first consider the ecological situation and then, if possible, consider the effects of mankind. The direction to return the forests to 'pre-European' conditions clearly illustrates this principle. The rule establishes the concept of 'ecological sustainability' rather than the principle of sustainable production of goods and services with the context of a healthy environment . . ."
Crimmins said that when you look at the combined effect of the rulemaking processes, "it is obvious that the public's ability to access and use the national forests for recreational activities will be significantly reduced."
Union Official Testifies That Rulemakings Will Spell Economic Disaster
Paula Littles, representing the Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee - which includes Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Workers - said, "Taken one at a time, the potential impacts from each of these rulemakings will spell economic disaster for forest products workers, and even more alarming are the cumulative impacts.
"Our ultimate concern lies in the fact that as the rules were crafted, the livelihoods of thousands of American workers were ignored."
Progress Toward Restoring Forest Health Unlikely
Dr. Ronald Stewart, Assistant Director of George Mason University's Graduate Program in Environmental Science and Public Policy, said, "It is apparent that the Forest Service has simultaneously undertaken an unprecedented number of very large interrelated and complex rulemaking and planning efforts without displaying for public comment the combined and cumulative effects of implementing any combination of them.
"The combined effects of reduced access, removal of lower valued wood products, and high prescribed fire costs would be an increase in cost for fuels reduction, and, in the absence of significant increases in appropriated funding, could preclude reasonable progress toward restoring forest health," said Stewart.
Forest Service Lacks Clear Mission
Fred Ebel, President of the Society of American Foresters, said, "We believe many of the problems associated with the lack of coordination among these various initiatives stem from the fact that the Forest Service is an agency without a clear mission or purpose.
"The purposes of the national forests and public lands are no longer clear. In the last 20 years, changing public values, federal environmental laws, court decisions, executive orders and regulations have increasingly emphasized the importance of protecting ecological processes on the public lands and national forests," said Ebel. "These incremental changes have come without a corresponding change in the basic land management statutes. Congress has the constitutional responsibility to set policy for the national forests and public lands and should act decisively to establish clear priorities for their management."
For more information, please check the House Committee on Resources Home Page at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/
# # #