100 



THE MULTIPLE-USE COUNCIL 



June 19, 1996 



fOREST MANAGEMENT 



Comments of Steve Benson, Executive Director of the Southern 

 Appalachian Multiple-Use Council, regarding U.S. Forest Service 

 Administrative Appeals Process. 



Submitted to U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on 

 National Parks, Forests and Lands. 



Cjfl B Powell. Ir 



The Southern Appalachian Multiple Use Council is a nonprofit 

 organization committed to promoting the principles of multiple 

 use on public lands as defined by the MULTIPLE-USE SUSTAINED 

 YIELD ACT OF I960, that all forest lands should be managed for 

 the multiple uses of sustained yield harvest, fish and wildlife 

 habitat, rangelands and recreation. We actively participate in 

 the decision making processes on National Forest Lands in the 

 Southern Appalachian region to promote these concepts. 



Our organization recognizes the Import 

 participation in decision making proce 

 National Forests in our area and acros 

 also recognize that this participation 

 organizations and individuals with rad 

 who wish to stop all timber harvesting 

 abuses have created an environment whl 

 for the wise management of our valuabl 

 these lands. For this reason, our org 

 significant restructuring or eliminatl 

 appeals process after a project decisl 



Charles D, Woodare) 



5v'«», NC 



Stacv Howell 

 Brnon City. ^C 



ance of public 



sses associated with 



s the Nation. However, we 



has been abused by 

 ioal environmental agendas 



on public lands. These 

 ch is counter productive 

 e natural resources on 

 anization supports the 

 on of the administrative 

 on is rendered. 



The current appeals process has no negative consequences for 

 those abusing the process with frivolous appeals; therefore, 

 making it attractive for some to appeal any activity they deem 

 objectionable to their private agendas. These superfluous 

 appeals are used to punish decision makers through expenditure of 

 time and monies to further justify and document decisions. It is 

 our opinion that sufficient opportunity exists to address project 

 concerns prior to decisions under the current NEPA process. When 

 a decision is rendered it should be accepted by participants in 

 the process. In the event some organization or individual Is not 

 satisfied with the decision, they have the opportunity to pursue 

 it through the courts system. We feel a public participation 

 process structured in this manner will create a situation where 

 any objections will be of some reasonable nature requiring 

 appellant's expenditure of time and monies and place the burden 

 of proof where it belongs. 



