40 



Sales that should have been sold were delaj'ed and reviewed to 

 ensure that they would not be appealed. This attempt by the Forest 

 Service to appeal-proof all of their existing sales caused the cost of 

 timber sale preparation to rise and caused the future timber sale 

 program to be decreased, creating the massive gridlock that contin- 

 ues today. 



This type of gridlock is not just a western phenomenon. In the 

 Lake States region, there are also examples of misuse of the appeal 

 process. In 1993, an environmental group in Michigan appealed the 

 West Hyde II Vegetation Management Plan. They maintained that 

 the Forest Service had done an inadequate job on the environ- 

 mental impacts of the plan. The plan was upheld by the forest su- 

 pervisor, and the timber sale was then sold to Nagle Lumber, a 

 small family owned company. 



Hoping to reduce some of the plaintiffs concerns about the plan, 

 the Forest Service went back to the purchaser, Nagle Lumber, and 

 asked them if they would be willing to delay harvest on the sale 

 for one year so that a more in-depth environmental study could be 

 completed. 



Nagle Lumber agreed, and the Forest Service completed a full re- 

 vision of the environmental assessment in addition to a biological 

 evaluation on the issues involved in the complaint. Satisfied that 

 they had met Federal mandates, the Forest Service made plans to 

 continue with the vegetation management plan. 



On May 31, 1996, the plaintiff of the original appeal resubmitted 

 the appeal alleging the same charges in the first appeal, an appeal 

 already overruled by the forest supervisor's office. 



This is just one example of how the Forest Service, through its 

 appeal process, is being forced out of timber sale preparation and 

 into litigation defense preparation. This approach to forest manage- 

 ment has already proven disastrous to both the Forest Service and 

 forest-dependent communities. 



The present appeal process demeans the land manager and 

 forces undue stress onto rural communities that are adjacent to our 

 national forests. The present timber sale appeals process also costs 

 the American taxpayers money, as the Forest Service is forced to 

 reanswer questions that have already been addressed. 



In 1993, I was a speaker on the first round table at the Forest 

 Summit convened by President Clinton. At that summit, President 

 Clinton likened the Federal regulations that governed forest man- 

 agement to a wagon with a team of horses hooked to both ends. He 

 promised that his Administration would be committed to ending 

 that gridlock. The fact that I now live in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, 

 and not my native California, is proof that he has not been success- 

 ful. 



I urge this committee to make the following changes to the ap- 

 peal process: ensure good faith effort to solve problems by requiring 

 all potential appellants to be part of the early planning. People 

 should not be able to appeal timber sales simply because they do 

 not believe in cutting trees. 



Two, limit timber sale appeals to only areas that were not ad- 

 dressed under the forest planning process. Three, shorten the time 

 limit on the appeal process. Four, any emergency decision should 

 be exempt from the appeal process. Five, forest plan appeals can 



