IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TESTIMONY OF ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION

       Chairman Chenoweth and Subcommittee members, my name is Jack Phelps. I am the Executive Director of the Alaska Forest Association (AFA). AFA is a private, non-profit organization. The association consists of more than 100 member companies which are directly involved in the forest products industry in Alaska and account for more than 1,400 direct year-round job equivalent employees. AFA also represents an additional 200 associate member companies that provide goods and services to Alaska’s timber industry. The livelihoods of many of AFA’s members, their workers, their families, and the timber dependent communities in which they live depend upon the availability of timber from the Tongass and Chugach National Forests and are affected by Forest Service decisions pertaining to these forests.

       I am here today not only on behalf of the AFA, but also the forest products industry nationwide. The actions that Chief Dombeck and the Forest Service are now taking or proposing to take regarding roadless areas on the national forests are, quite simply, in violation of the federal laws and regulations which govern the responsibilities of the agency and its management of these forests. The unilateral moratorium imposed by the Forest Service on the majority of our national forests would suspend road construction on millions of acres of roadless areas and significantly affect pending and future access to those areas for a multitude of uses. For example, Regional Foresters will be given broad authority to, in effect, enlarge existing wilderness areas by locking up roadless areas of 1,000 acres or more which are contiguous to existing Congressionally-designated wilderness areas or which are contiguous to roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more of federal land. Such actions will allow the Clinton Administration to override existing forest plans that have been developed through the National Forest Management Act planning process. The unilateral nature of this policy unlawfully excludes the public from informed decision making and debate about how the forests will be managed.

        The National Forest Management Act (16 USC § 1604) requires that any change to the management of a national forest for which a plan exists must go through the forest planning amendment process. If the amendment is a significant change to the existing plan’s management of a particular forest, as is the case in implementing the moratorium, then the agency must undertake meticulous review of its actions in accordance with the National Forest Management Act, the agency must prepare an environmental impact statement and consider a broad array of alternatives to the proposed amendment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC § 4321 et seq.), and the agency must provide for public participation in the development and review of such amendments.

       These requirements are completely ignored by the imposition of the new moratorium:

• 16 USC § 1604(f)(4) provides that amendment of forest plans in any manner whatsoever resulting in significant change be made in the same manner as the plan itself was developed. A plan is developed by the Forest Supervisors using the NEPA process as the decision making process for meeting the NFMA planning requirements (36 CFR 219.1 et seq.) Hence, a proposed amendment must follow the same process as the original plan.
• 16 USC § 1604(d) and 36 CFR § 219.6 require the agency to provide for meaningful public participation in the development, review, and revision of a forest plan, including plan amendments. (16 USC § 1604(d); 36 CFR § 219.6.)
• The above description of the process for amending a forest plan is corroborated by the agency’s regulatory requirements and the Forest Service Handbook and Manual (see, e.g., 36 CFR § 219.10(f) and FSH 5.32.5 (both of which require preparation of an EIS for a significant plan amendment). If a proposed change to an existing plan is significant, then the plan must be amended in accordance with the forest planning process, including full public participation.

        Although the Tongass National Forest in Alaska is allegedly "exempted" from the nationwide moratorium, we are very concerned about a backdoor imposition of the moratorium on the Tongass. The agency proposes to deal with Tongass roadless areas "when appropriate" during its review of appeals filed on the recently revised Tongass Land Management Plan. We are concerned that the Forest Service will impose the moratorium by characterizing its action as ameliorating or addressing appeal points raised by environmental groups. The Forest Service can only correct legal errors which occurred during the forest planning process. It cannot make new policy.

        Again, changes to policy which significantly affect an existing forest plan such as the Tongass Land Management Plan can only be made by meeting the full planning process requirements, including public participation and preparation of an environmental impact statement which thoroughly documents the need for and impacts of the proposed amendment. And any action the Forest Service will take during the Tongass appeal process regarding management and treatment of roadless areas will indeed be significant.

        With respect to the Chugach National Forest, similar concerns arise. The Forest Service has just begun the process of revising the Chugach Land Management Plan. The scoping period ended on December 31, 1997, and a draft revised plan and its accompanying draft environmental impact statement are expected later this year. For the Forest Service to unilaterally foreclose by implementation of the moratorium the multiple use options which would otherwise be available for consideration during the public planning process is unacceptable under our democratic system. The problem is especially acute on the Chugach where more than 98 percent of the forest is currently inventoried roadless.

        In addition to the above, the Forest Service is expressly prohibited by federal law from even studying federal lands within Alaska for purposes of establishing additional wilderness, conservation units, recreational units or similar areas. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act is clear -- only Congress can approve the establishment of such areas or the study of forest lands for such purposes in Alaska. (16 USC § 3201 et seq.) The attached briefing paper sets forth these important provisions controlling agency action on federal lands in Alaska.

        In conclusion, Madam Chairman, the proposed rulemaking on roadless issues, both in its interim form via a moratorium, and in its more permanent form, runs contrary to all the laws by which public lands, particularly National Forest System lands, are to be managed. Because of the paucity of roads in our state, Alaska will be disproportionately harmed by this administrative policy. But the rest of the country will be adversely and unjustly punished as well. It is not only the industries that work in the forests who will suffer harm, but every American who wants to be able to drive into the national forests which belong to all of us. Congress must do all in its power to stop implementation of this unacceptable policy, and to insist that the Clinton Administration follow the law when it proposes to make changes to the management of National Forest System lands.