> Senator Larry Craig's Response to the Chief Mike
> Dombeck's
> letter to all USFS Employees
>
> July 17, 2000
>
> Mr. Mike Dombeck
> Chief
> U.S. Forest Service
> Department of Agriculture
> 14th & Independence Ave, SW
> Washington, DC 20090-6090
> Dear Mike:
>
Given the number of Forest Service employees who were
> kind enough to send me a copy. I could not help reading your
> June 30th letter to all employees. I suppose that it is
> appropriate for you to send such a letter immediately before the
> Independence Day holiday, because you seem to be
> declaring the Forest Service's independence from the balance of the
> federal government, the laws governing federal agency
> activities, and the utilization of simple common sense.
>
> Under the Provisions of the Administration Procedures
> Act, The National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest
> Management Act, we have allowed you to propose
> regulations, but required you to accept public comments
> thereon, and to use those comments to evaluate how and
> whether to best proceed. The public comment period is supposed
> to provide agencies with necessary information to modify
>the direction and substance of rule-making.
>
> To be sure, over the years some elements of the public
> have become jaded about the sincerity of one or another agencies'
> effort to hear their reviews. But agency heads have, at
> a minimum, at least tried to give the pretense that the public's views
> are important. You do not.
>
> Your statement in the letter that "collaboration,
> however, does not alleviate our responsibility to make decisions that we
> believe in the best long-term interest of the land or
> the people who depend on and enjoy it,"represents the height of
> arrogance. Such a clearly decisional pronouncement
> during the middle of the comment period on the roadless area rule
> emphatically demonstrates that your mind is closed.
> Combined with previous pre-decisional statements by the
> President, the Vice President, the Secretary, and
yourself, your actions are fatally tainting both this rule-making, and the
> Forest Service's reputation for integrity for years to come.
>
> Worse yet, this statement strongly indicates that you
> are either unwilling, or perhaps unable, to appreciate what is required
> to successfully practice collaborative stewardship.
That is especially distressing, because it calls into direct question your
> sincerity on a number of other matters that we have
> previously discussed. The-we're willing to chat, but we know best-tone
> of your June 30 letter is both unhelpful and a
> throw-back to pre-NEPA agency behavior.
>
> I also fear that the hubris evident in phrases such as
> "we have changed the tenor of the debate;" has left you at least slightly
> delusional. I can find no other explanation for the
> statement immediately following that "no longer is our agenda dictated by
> litigation, lawsuits, and controversial appropriations'
> [sic] riders."
>
> In case you have not been following closely, your
> proposed roadless area rule is the subject of three pending lawsuits
> already. Your Northwest Forest Plan is mired in
> litigation and dead in the water. As a consequence of recent litigation,
you have lost the ability to conduct de-minimis timber sales
> using a Finding of No Significant Impact under NEPA. Last month,
> you lost a lawsuit over your cancellation of the Alaska
> Pulp Corporation's timber sale contract that exposes you to $1.4
> billion in liability - an amount that represents 50% of
> the total budget appropriated to the Forest Service last year. Last week,
> environmental litigants filed suit to try to stop timber
> harvesting completely in the Forest Service's southern region. I suggest
> you spend some quality time with your Office of General
> Counsel in the very near future.
>
> As to appropriations riders, I will be going to the
> Senate floor later today to defend your forest management budget once
> again from the annual raid attempted by national
> environmental groups and their allies. Nothing has changed on this front.
> With respect to my interest in an amendment to assure
> that you comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
> you should understand that I have decided to forebear
> from acting for the time being. I have not foresworn from
> congressional action indefinitely. For now, I am content
> to await court proceedings scheduled in August. Depending upon
> the outcome of those proceedings, Congress may not be
> required to act to correct these FACA violations, or I may take this
> matter up again when the Interior Appropriations bill
> reaches Conference later this year. It may well be that you are, as your
> letter boastfully suggests, "at the forefront of the
> public lands debate." Only time will tell whether the political front lines
> are the best place to secure scientifically sound, balanced
> and stable, long-term resource management goals.
>
> Mike, I found your letter both arrogant and offensive.
I look forward to discussing this with you at our oversight hearing
later this week.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Larry E. Craig
>
> Chairman,
> Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management