36 



plan was appealed to advance a national agenda by special interest 

 environmental groups. The groups were attempting to bypass the 

 legislative process and effect change through the agencies or court- 

 ordered action. 



In 1991, the Wilderness Society decided to litigate these issues. 

 Happily, the litigation is finally over. On May 22, 1996, 10 years 

 after the original appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismis- 

 sal of the challenge to the plan. Ironically, work had already begun 

 on the next forest plan before this one was approved. 



Did the appeals process adversely affect the operations of the 

 Cherokee? I believe so. It may have significantly reduced the vol- 

 ume of timber for sale. In 1989, the Cherokee sold 36.2 million 

 board feet. By 1995, the amount had fallen to 12.1 million board 

 feet. And in response to Mr. Unger's comments about the decline 

 in appeals, I would point out that the number of timber sales to 

 appeal has also declined. 



When looking at project level appeals, two things quickly become 

 evident. The majority are often brought by one appellant, and they 

 mostly pertain to timber sales. In the most flagrant example, 52 of 

 57 timber sales have been appealed by one person on the Ouachita 

 National Forest in Arkansas. 



Project appeals may be successful delaying tactics, but they rare- 

 ly contribute little new insight. The overwhelming majority are ei- 

 ther dismissed or decided in favor of the original opinion. Environ- 

 mental groups have now begun litigation against timber sales on 

 both the Ozark and the Chattahoochee National Forest. We are 

 concerned that the Cherokee will not be far behind. 



If these two forests are any indication, then the litigation will 

 claim violations of three laws: the Clean Water Act, the Migratory 

 Bird Treaty Act, and the National Forest Management Act. 



If the violation of the MBTA is upheld by the court, this could 

 well become the spotted owl issue of the South. Its impact would 

 not be confined to public land, as private landowners would also be 

 subject to the conditions of the Act. 



We have a saying in Tennessee that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

 Unfortunately, the appeals process is broke, and it does need fix- 

 ing. I am unaware of any other government agency that goes 

 through so torturous a process to arrive at a decision and spend so 

 much money to get there. 



The end result is an uncertain future for forest dependent small 

 communities and businesses, and taxpayer dollars wasted on litiga- 

 tion that could be spent to ensure healthy, more productive forests 

 for future generations. I believe the process can be fixed. Sensible 

 limits need to be placed on who can appeal and what can be ap- 

 pealed. Mechanisms should be in place to discourage frivolous ap- 

 peals. 



And, finally, forest plans and project level decisions are not the 

 appropriate place to pursue the agendas of special interest environ- 

 mental organizations. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, 

 and I would be happy to respond to any questions. 



[Statement of Mr. Bennett may be found at end of hearing.] 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Matson. 



