37 



STATEMENT OF JIM MATSON, VERMILLION SERVICES 



Mr. Matson. Thank you. Members of the Subcommittee and Mr. 

 Chairman, greetings from Utah. Good to be here. I am Jim Matson. 

 I am currently a consultant from Kanab, Utah. Prior to that, I was 

 with a forest products company headquartered in northern Arizona 

 and southern Utah. 



My clients today are the communities of Fredonia, Arizona; 

 Kanab, Utah; and Kane County. We are all very dependent upon 

 administered public lands, whether it is under the BLM, the Forest 

 Service, or the Park Service. I would like to report to you that for 

 the most part that the effects to date are mostly benign or bene- 

 ficial, but that certainly is not the case. 



Leading the list of the adverse impacts on our communities are 

 the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service administrative ap- 

 peals procedures. Appeals have provided the opponents of human- 

 managed forests the means to breach a forestry system, which, 

 until recently, was of significant value to the American people and 

 public forest lands. 



And the people in the communities that I represent have suffered 

 greatly because of administrative appeals. Kaibab Forest Products 

 Company, formerly the area's largest employer of people and their 

 families, was forced out of business by the constant barrage of ap- 

 peals, and then subsequent lawsuits, and then the acquiescence of 

 the Forest Service in the process. 



Administrative appeals continues to be the thin edge of the 

 wedge utilized for purposes of paralyzing public forest lands en- 

 hancements and investments. Imagine an appeal system of this 

 sort being applied to the post office. It would take months to get 

 letters instead of days. 



Our democratic system of governance usually reacts slowly to 

 correcting excesses that are being enjoyed by a few at the expense 

 of the majority. Clearly, the current and existing appeals proce- 

 dures are excessive and have benefited a very vocal and aggressive 

 minority in our society. 



The fact is the Forest Service appeals rules are little more than 

 a government give-away program. These give-aways allow a very 

 small number, who care little for rural human communities, much 

 less a forest, a free ticket to dismantle months of work and weeks 

 of work and effort. Just grab the appeals rules and let it fly. The 

 Forest Service usually caves in, and the plan or projects are de- 

 layed, changed, or canceled. Losses accrue to us all by allowing this 

 kind of appeals procedure to be continually one sided. 



The magnitude of laws, rules, guidelines, and procedures that 

 project designers must navigate to implement a successful forest 

 plan or associated project are simply overwhelming. An administra- 

 tive appeal that stops a program has exploited the soft belly of the 

 Forest Service's administrative processes. 



I have noted and been involved with many projects that on one 

 hand were procedurally correct, but not a very good project on the 

 ground but were allowed to proceed. On the other hand, I have re- 

 viewed projects that were well conceived for benefiting forest re- 

 sources but were procedurally flawed and subsequently dropped. 



The point is procedurally correct or incorrect implementation of 

 plans and projects are time consuming and costly. And we are 



