|
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Washington, D.C. 20510-5150
January 7, 1998
The Honorable Dan Glickman
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We are pleased that at least one member of Congress had the opportunity to discuss your ongoing deliberations with the President on national forest roadless area policy yesterday. We hope that Senator Craig made it clear that a new approach to roadless areas need not be a source of partisan strife with the Administration in the next session of Congress.
Together with many others, we hope to find a way to end the annual debate over the Forest Service road construction budget to purse more productive areas of inquiry with respect to public lands policy. From discussions with other Members on both sides of the aisle, we believe that there is an opportunity for a bipartisan approach to this issue - with both the Congress and the Administration collaborating on a solution - if you and the President are interested in such cooperation.
Let us offer a few suggestions to this end.
A good place to start is the defacto Forest Service position on roadless areas developed (but never published) in early 1994. Under this approach, developed by Jack Ward Thomas, the Agency has committed that it "will use ecosystem management in the newt round of planning to develop management direction for currently roadless areas. They may not remain roadless because access may be needed as part of ecosystem management goals. In areas being managed to retain their roadless character, vegetation management activities may occur, and entry for management or enhance ecosystem health will be allowed." In practice, this policy has allowed roadless area entries that advanced, and did not detract from, ecosystem management goals. We can endorse this statement of policy, and working together we may be able to improve upon it.
One amplification of this policy would be to formalize a general requirement that roadless area entry involving new road construction must be supported by an Environmental Impact Statement. Additionally, we would be willing to collaborate on interim criteria for prioritizing any needed roadless area entries that would occur prior to the roadless area review that will be part of the upcoming round of forest plan revisions. This has already been an element of roadless area policy in the few second round plans.
In addition, you have recently appointed a distinguished group of scientists to advise you on the development of regulations to govern the upcoming round of forest plan revisions. You will recall that Senator Craig and Congressman Chenoweth wrote to you on August 26, 1997 indicating that "a committee of scientific advisors may be helpful," advising that "such an effort would be most fruitful if it can enjoy bipartisan support," and offering to collaborate with you "to discuss your plans and goals for the Committee and its charter." Regrettably, there has been no response to this offer. Nevertheless, this committee could be charged with providing you with some recommendations on roadless area review and management to be included in the upcoming regulations for public review. Given its charter, it would seem odd not to involve it in this issue before any new initiatives are proposed. Again, we offer to work with you to develop bipartisan support for such an approach.
We will also support funding for an inventory of the Forest Service’s existing road system and future rehabilitation, obliteration, and new construction needs. As you know, no such data base currently exists. It would be most helpful if the Agency were funded to conduct an inventory that identifies: (1) the access requirements needed to carry out the currently-approved resource management plans; (2) roads that are no longer needed, and can be obliterated; (3) roads that need to be rehabilitated or relocated to provide more environmentally benign access; (4) roads that are not needed for the near future and can best be managed by closure and stabilization of the road surface, maintaining the road prism for future use; and (5) new road construction needs (with a recognition of county rights-of-way under R.S. 2477). These simple -- but presently unavailable -- facts would make any subsequent debate over the Forest Service road construction program less "factually challenged" than past discussions. And this would represent the first step in securing the funding needed to come to grips with the multi-billion dollar rehabilitation and maintenance backlog, and in moving to a policy of a net decrease in road mileage.
As we hope you can see, there are some meaningful areas of potential agreement. Now let us offer you some cautions.
We cannot agree with any directive, interim or otherwise, which circumvents or short-circuits the public participation and environmental documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act or the National Forest Management Act. Under existing case law, any policy (even interim in nature) that revises the land allocations in approved forest plans would fail this test, and likely be found wanting by the courts.
Second, we cannot not agree -- and we believe there would be widespread congressional opposition -- to a flat moratorium on roadless area entry, a redefinition of roadless areas, the designation of any new land use categories, or any other unilateral Administration initiative that vitiates the release language agreements that were forged in a bipartisan fashion in the last generation of state wilderness bills, and that are embodied in the first round of forest plans. As your data show, many such areas are priority candidates for forest health treatment. You should assume that any precipitous and unilateral administrative action will be at least as controversial as the Carter Administration’s ill-fated RARE II debacle.
Third, inasmuch as the roadless area controversy is most intense in the Intermountain States, we suggest you be very cautious about the immediate application of any policy in this region. Such an approach would undermine the scientific analysis that is part of, and preempt the current public comment period associated with, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan.
Fourth, the application of such an initiative to second round plans would be viewed as a denigration of the NEPA/ NFMA public involvement process. It would also seriously call into question the Clinton Administration’s claims of having developed these recent plans on the basis of the best available science.
Fifth, we suggest you be even more cautious about canceling existing timber sale contracts or suspending work on prepared or newly-completed FY 1998 and FY 1999 timber sales. As for existing contracts, we hope there will not be a repeat of the unpleasantness in the last Congress concerning the government’s contractual liability in this area. Taking prepared or nearly completed timber sales out of the program for FY 1998 and FY 1999 will assure two more money-losing years for the program. This cannot be supported by anyone concerned about the fiscal soundness of government programs and the efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Finally, we suspect that there are those in the Administration who believe that a new roadless area policy represents a battleground to draw a contrast between the Administration and the Congress, rather than an opportunity to collaborate in a bipartisan fashion to develop the parameters of a solution that would enjoy widespread support. We hope you agree, given the deep resonance of this issue throughout the rural West, that the citizens who depend upon the national forests for livelihoods and recreation opportunities deserve better.
For our part, we will pledge to work with you in good faith to build support for administrative and/or legislative efforts to find a scientifically-based and environmentally-balanced solution to this vexing problem - provided there is good-faith consultation with Congress before (not after) the Clinton Administration moves any proposed policy changes forward. We stand ready to work with you.
CC: Mike Dombeck |
