94 



the same time, many sales outside ottiie appeal process were also changed 

 without public comment to address issues that might be included in future 

 litigation. Sales that should have been sold were delayed and reviewed to insure 

 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. This created the 

 massive gridlock, that continues today. 



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

 there are also increasing examples of the misuse of the appeal process. In 1993, a 

 small 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 environmental impacts of the plan. The plan was upheld by 

 the forest supervisor. The timber sales were 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 study could be completed. Nagle Lumber agreed, and the Forest Service 

 completed a full revision of the environmental assessment in addition to a 

 biological evaluation on 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 supervisors office. 



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

 process, is being force out of timber sale preparation and into a litigation defense. 

 This approach to forest management has already proven to be a disastrous to both 

 the Forest Service and forest dependant communities. 



I want to assure the members of this committee that it is not our intention or desire 

 to circumvent public process or cause harm to any eco-system, but there has to be 

 some reason brought back to the appeal process. The present process demeans the 

 land manager and forces undo stress on the rural communities that are adjacent to 

 our national forests. The present timber sale appeals process also costs the 

 American tax payer money, as the Forest Service is forced to answer questions 

 that have already been addressed . 



