|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Recreational Access and Conservation - Alerts and Notices | Short Cuts | ||||
| | Introduction | News | Notices | Activities | | Education | Forums | Columns | Links | Edited by: John Stewart |
|||||
National Federation of Federal Employees Forest Service Council:
Letter to the President
Shelia Dykes, President
Karol Kuhn, Sec-Treasurer
Representing 14.000 Forest Service Employees
The Roadless Area Initiative: Politics Makes Poor Policy
The Forest Service Council is the legal and elected representative of 14,000 Forest Service employees contained in 92 local Forest Service unions across the country. This represents about 50% of Forest Service employees. The Forest Service Council is part of the National Federation of Federal Employees, and we have recently affiliated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
Roadless areas have been important to this agency since the Forest Service began. When the National Forests were originally formed in the early 1900s, the land base was largely unroaded. Administrative, fire access, and recreational roads were gradually added. After WWII, the National Forests started supplying timber to meet consumer demands, and from 1950 to 1993, the National Forests produced 10 to 12 billion board feet of lumber a year to supply industrial and residential needs. Road building was necessary for this timber production -- eventually as many as 2,000 miles per year. In 1964, the conservation movement, the public and Congress modified the multiple use philosophy and set up wilderness areas where there would be no roads; a policy that continues today. Wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, and other natural areas are now an important part of National Forest management as authorized by the Wilderness Act and the National Forest Management Act.
The current Administration’s recent Roadless Area Initiative would preclude any future road planning in areas that have not been previously roaded or managed for timber. Before we comment on this latest proposal we would like to briefly discuss the existing system as it relates to the proposal.
Current and proposed situation
The National Forest system contains 192 million acres. Of this, 42 million acres, or 22%, are currently preserved in wilderness or natural areas where road building and timber management is not allowed. The Roadless Area Initiative, according to the latest figures, will designate another 54 million acres as permanent roadless areas. This is 28% of the land base of the Forest Service. Both these Roadless areas together would comprise 50% of the National Forest land base, and that amount will be withdrawn from multiple use. The impacts would vary greatly, depending on the part of the country involved. Remote areas far removed from population centers, would be impacted the most.
For example:
Other areas, near large population centers - - mainly in the east where there is a larger demand for wilderness areas - - would have minimal, sometimes no, additional roadless areas.
Forest Service employees are very proud of existing Wilderness Areas and the wilderness ethic that we have promoted as part of our multiple use philosophy. But as can be seen by the figures mentioned above, the proposed roadless additions are expansive, more than doubling the amount of area that will no longer be available for multiple use. Such a significant change in policy for our land use deserves more careful consideration, because it will greatly impact the employees and other citizens living on or near Forest Service lands.
As employees, we have concerns about the impacts of such a large and far reaching proposal.
Centralized planning and the removal of science from decision making
We employees are skeptical of Washington bureaucrats’ attitude that they know what is best for the rest of us. We are concerned that the Roadless Area Initiative is not being processed as prescribed in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) or the Wilderness Act. Many of the National Forests are in the process of revising their Forest Plans. This latest initiative has brought some local Forest planning teams to a halt.
It appears that the Roadless Area Initiative is attempting to usurp the authority of the NFMA planning process. NFMA planning is based on the premise that decision making for local areas should be made with site-specific, scientific information for that particular area. But the Roadless Area Initiative is a "one plan fits all" prescription and lumps 54 million acres together that are obviously quite different, both in physical aspects and in social/cultural dimensions.
This initiative has bypassed scientific analysis. Forest Service employees find it ironic the Committee of Scientists just finished making their recommendations, and new planning regulations are out for public comment. Suddenly, out of the blue, the Roadless Area Initiative comes from Washington, negating the hard work that has gone into the Forest Planning process (as ponderous and bureaucratic as it is!).
Consolidation to Washington with a reduction of local Forest Service offices
This Roadless Area Initiative is only one of many massive proposals coming out of Washington -- the Road Planning regulations, Forest Planning regulations, a newfangled bookkeeping system, the Chief’s Natural Resource Agenda, just to name a few. All of these have been unfunded mandates from the Administration that have come at enormous cost to the National Forests. And they have lead to a ballooning of the Forest Service Washington Office.
Since 1991, the Washington Office budget has increased 149%, from $121 million to $302 million, or a $180 million increase. In this same period, nearly all Forests’ budgets have decreased, many of them more than 50%. Not only have budgets decreased, but many District Offices have been downsized, consolidated, and some have been virtually eliminated. With its increased budget, the Washington Office has increased its employees by 150%, while at the same time more than 5,000 jobs have been eliminated at the Forest and District levels.
Threats of reprisals against employees that voice opinions.
The Union is very concerned about recent threats of reprisal from the Administration toward Forest Service employees who have voiced their concerns about the Roadless Area initiative. It is totally unacceptable for any employee to be threatened by the Administration with retirement if they voice questions about the Roadless Area Initiative. Nor should they be told that that they cannot be talking to certain people. Forest Service employees take pride in their public service and professionalism. Forest Service employees should be treated respectfully -- most certainly by Forest Service leadership. All employees should be encouraged to have diverse opinions and to use all their skills to solve problems and facilitate public relationships and debates.
Impact on timber production
The Forest Service’s non-wilderness areas currently contain about 50% of the country’s softwood timber. The impact of the Roadless Area Initiative has yet to be determined, but its impact on timber production will certainly be significant, because it will lock up another 54 million acres. Thirty-six percent of the remaining non-wilderness areas will be removed from multiple use and possible timber production. This will either lower timber production, or it will force more intensive harvesting in areas that are presently being cut. If cutting back or eliminating timber production is what the Administration is really trying to achieve, it should be honest about its intentions, and that should be the focus of this debate. If it is trying to force more intensive harvesting in areas presently being cut, which may be contrary to sustainable forestry practices, increased opposition to timber harvesting would certainly result. Neither of these two avenues is a sound one.
Impact on Employees
The Forest Service Council represents employees from all branches and levels of this agency - - from wilderness rangers, to timber markers, to economists. The Forest Service Council is proud to be working in Partnership Councils where working conditions and employment impacts are discussed with the Administration. Unfortunately, the Forest Service Council was not informed of, nor were we part of, any discussion on this large, percussive issue. We did not know about it until we read about it in the newspapers. We have still not been approached by the Administration to discuss the potential impacts of this proposal on our lives.
Downsizing has already devastated Forest Service employees. Reduction in force (RIFs) occurred as a result of the Spotted Owl shutdowns in Oregon and Washington, and the downsizing hasn’t stopped there. Forests around the country continue to have their work force ransacked. This is particularly frustrating when we see the enormous growth in size and power of the Washington Office. We do not know the full impact this latest proposal will have on our remaining work force. But certainly hundreds, and possibly thousands, of jobs could be eliminated, and another RIF could possibly result.
We certainly expect that any government employees whose jobs might be eliminated as a result of this political proposal would be given complete job re-training.
Damage to Forest Service public relations
Obviously, the Roadless Area Initiative is very controversial, both inside and outside the Forest Service. It has greatly magnified the conflict between the urban environmental community and other National Forest users. The battle lines are drawn. On one side is the Administration and every environmental organization; on the other, every rural state and its governor, every county board, hunters, ORVers, libertarians, and logging and mining associations.
While Forest issues have often been steeped in controversy, the Roadless Area issue festers like an open sore on the Forest Service horizon. Why did this come about? Largely because of the Administration’s manipulative political maneuverings, the issue is lopsided, raw, and offensive. The decisions that lead to this initiative were not open and transparent. Only one group of Forest users was consulted, and the other side was clearly and intentionally locked out of the process. There was no effort by the Administration to gather consensus or agreement. There was no effort to consult with the Union. This is an example of politics at its worst.
We Forest Service employees are caught in the middle. We are here to carry out government policy the best that we can. But we also live in rural communities affected by the Roadless Area Initiative. Because of the way this initiative was handled by the Administration, the level of distrust toward the Forest Service and its employees has reached an unprecedented level. This is very sad, because a little bit of consideration by the Administration for our diverse populations could have gone a long way toward diffusing the heated situation. As it now stands, the damage that has been done to our public relations and our community support may take years to repair and rebuild.
We are asking that a moratorium be placed on this initiative and that all sides initiate honest communication to diffuse this unpleasant situation.
| Contacts: | Related Links: |
|
Art Johnston, Legislative Committee Chairperson Forest Service Council |
| Please support 4x4Wire by visiting our featured sponsors | ||||||
|
||||||
|
| 4X4Wire Portal | About 4x4Wire | Search 4x4Wire | TrailTalk Forums | Advertiser's Guide | |
