Via facsimile transmittal to Fax 801/517-1014 (3 pages)
2616 Mtn. Brook Pkwy.
Birmingham, Alabama 35223
August 23, 2004
Content Analysis Team
Att’n: Roadless State Petitions
U. S. Forest Service,
Salt Lake City, Utah
Please accept this letter as our public comments on the roadless area management state petition proposal [Docket Number: 04-16191]. These comments are submitted in behalf of the three organizations listed below with around 10,000 members, so please note they not comments for a single individual. We strongly oppose replacing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule with this state petition policy for the following reasons, which we feel should be controlling in the public interest:
(1) The State Petition Policy is not Cost-Effective.
The 2001 Roadless Area Rule is a balanced policy that was finalized after years of scientific study, 600 public hearings and a record number of over 2 million public comments, the majority of which overwhelmingly in support of protecting roadless areas for future generations of Americans. This is only cost-effective since, if the roadless areas could be logged economically, they would have been logged long ago. Sales in more remote areas are obviously more expensive. Further, that can only be done with great public subsidy, which should not be attempted today. The country, because of the very high budgetary deficit and the war in Iraq (which will cost substantial funds for recovery even if it is successful), badly needs to eliminate and avoid programs that are not cost-effective!
(2) The State Petition Policy is Bad Public Policy.
Please consider that similar state programs have been proposed at least twice in the past and each time rejected. The President has stated that he wishes to be a president of the people. But, replacing a program adopted by an overwhelming number of public comments with one that has been previously rejected will obviously not further that goal! Consider also that opening the roadless areas will hurt the smaller tree farmers (and also the economies of many states) and, therefore, is opposed by them.
(3) The State Petition Policy Has Adverse Biological Consequences.
The Roadless Area Rule is a vital tool for protecting our national forests from harmful and costly road-building and commercial logging, while continuing to allow public access and opportunities for recreational activity including fishing, hiking, hunting, and camping and for scientific study and observation. WatchList species and birds of conservation concern, such as the Cerulean Warbler, Swainson’s Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Brown Creeper, the threatened Northern Spotted Owl (should be endangered) and the endangered Marbled Murrelet will be placed at even greater risk if the Roadless Rule is eliminated. That is not cost-effective since experience shows it costs much, much more to recover a species when its population falls too low.
(4) The State Petition Policy is Unfair to Most Americans and Can Deprive Them of Due Process.
Requiring state petitions in order to continue Roadless Conservation Areas would be unfair to most Americans. In most states, there are few acres of national forests (in some there are none)..Thus, if the residents of those states wish to avail themselves of the benefits of their national forests, they would be dependent on the action of elected officials that they had no voice in electing. Many easterners, where most of the population resides, would, in order to enjoy and use national forests in the Rocky Mountains, be dependent on the actions of the governors or other officials of those less populated states. That is obviously unfair! In fact, it may be said that they have been deprived of due process, because they had no voice in electing those officials whose actions are affecting their well-being! Conversely, many westerners may wish to visit the Great Eastern Deciduous Forest (one of the rarer ecosystems in the world); yet, their enjoyment of that forest would be dependent on officials in whose election they had no voice.
(5) The State Petition Policy will Unlawfully Erode the Mission of the Forest Service to Protect Watersheds and Diversity of Wildlife.
Obviously, it is contemplated that not all states will petition to retain roadless areas within their boundaries; otherwise, there would be no point in having this petition policy. And, many that have significant acreages of national forests may elect not to petition. However, among the purposes of the national forests under the National Forest Management Act are to preserve watersheds and to preserve wildlife. Thus, by allowing greater logging, including destructive clear-cuts -- and many roadless areas are on steep slopes -- the mission of the Forest Service under NFMA and other legislation will be eroded by allowing greater destruction of watersheds and loss of natural wildlife diversity. Consequently, this petition policy may well violate those laws. Further, the Service already has more roads than it can maintain; some report its maintenance backlog is over $10 billion. The noted authority on biodiversity, Dr. E. O. Wilson, has stated, “Loss of biodiversity is the one thing our descendants are least likely to forgive us.” We submit that that is not the legacy this Administration wishes to leave! [1]
(6) The State Petition Policy Will Discriminate Against and Interfere with Interstate Commerce.
As just noted, the national forests are not distributed evenly among the states. A company should not be permitted to cut national forests in one state if, under the same circumstances, it could not cut them in another. Similarly one should not be able to enjoy outdoor recreation in national forests in one state where he could not in another (consider interstate tourism). And, of course, siltation of streams in national forests should not be permitted in one state when it would not in another. Lastly, the neotropical migrant birds that depend on national forests (some of which have lost around 50% of their population over the last 30 years) are in interstate commerce and are not the property of one state but belong to the entire general public in all the states. Those are discriminations and interferences with interstate commerce.
(7) The State Petition Policy Has Adverse Effects on Forest Fire Prevention.
Consideration should also be given to the effect of increased logging on fire protection. Extra logging will create more tinder for forest fires. But, old trees are more fire-resistant than younger ones. On the other hand, controlled burns (mimicking Nature’s previous forest regimes), together with thinning, clearing out tinder and fire-proofing the area up to 200 feet of houses and other structures, have been shown by forest biologists to be more effective in preventing damage from forest fires than cutting large trees removed from those areas. And, at much less cost! Again, this is a cost-effective consideration that should not be ignored.
In addition to all the above, there are significant hidden costs in logging in roadless areas. As analyzed and stated by the leading appellate court decision on this subject:
“Roadless areas contribute to the health of the public because they help preserve watersheds, rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands that are the circulatory systems of ecosystems, and water is the vital fluid for inhabitants of those ecosystems, including people.. . .The unspoiled forest provides not only sheltering shade for the visitor [note tourism] and sustenance for its diverse wildlife but also pure water and fresh oxygen for humankind.”
Destroying those water and forest resources is not cost-effective in many ways. You may cut down some large trees, but you will incur many direct and indirect costs from doing so.
We strongly and sincerely urge the Service to withdraw this misguided proposal and keep intact the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in the Lower 48 states and Alaska, and to reinstate the rule in the Tongass and Chugach National Forests, probably our most productive and diverse national forests.
Because of the cost-effectiveness of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the other factors set forth above, these comments are submitted by the undersigned as an interested citizen and taxpayer and in behalf of the Alabama Audubon Council, Alabama Environmental Council and Alabama Ornithological Society, which have an aggregate of around 10,000 members in Alabama and surrounding states. Each of those organizations is strongly concerned over protection of our natural resources. We shall, therefore, appreciate very much your consideration. On account of the cost-effective issues, a copy is being sent to the Office of Management and Budget.
Sincerely yours,
Robert R. Reid, Jr., for himself and
the above three organizations
cc: Hon. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture (Fax 202/720-2166)
Hon. Mitchell Daniels, Director, OMB (Fax 202/395-3888)
Commenting organizations
[1] It is often contended that a greater “cut” in the national forests is needed to combat unemployment in the forest industry, such as in the Pacific Northwest. However, the reduced employment is actually caused by increased mechanization and the export of raw uncut logs overseas. A 1996 position paper by more than 60 professional economists declared that environmental protection in that region “has helped create and maintain economic health and vitality, not undermine it. . . . Environmental quality in both our social and natural environments has been a powerful force in drawing people, businesses and economic activity to the region.” (See Spring ‘96 Issue of Newsletter of Environment and Natural Resources Section of American Bar Asso.) In addition, 60,000 jobs in the salmon and other fishing industries have been damaged by excessive overcutting.