Bureaucracy !

by Leonard B. Netzorg

This excerpt from a speech by Portland attornqt Leonard B. Netzorg entitled "The National Enuironmental Policy Act," was originally presented at the third annual Cunent .Issues Conference organized by Dr. Stuart U. Rich, Uniuersity of Oregon, in the interest of the timber industry.

The basic thrust of the speech deals with the requirement of the National Enuironmental Policy Act (NEPA) that gouernment agencies must thoroughly consider and proue they haue thought through uarious courses of action before issuing draft NEPA statements that put forward their uiew of how to handle a giuen situation. As you will see, Netzorg takes apart the Forest Seruice in no uncertain terms for what he sees os their failure to perform to euen an adequate standard.

million board feet. Three hundred thousand acres burned will reduce the annual allowable cut by 90 million board feet.

And what is the economic impact of destroying this timber? Well, that question is rigorously explored and objectively evaluated by the bland assertion that economic data are not available. In this connection, there is now mention of the fact that the Forest Service employs about 100 full-time economists and that NEPA has now been with us for about 4Vt years. In any event, from one ofthe skeikdoms that make up the Forest Service, such is the response to the law's requirement that the analysis of alternatives must be sufficiently detailed and rigorous to permit independent and comparative evaluation of the costs and benefits of the proposed action and each alternative.

versities was assembled. The team interviewed the supervisor and his staff, studied the forest's records and examined the forest itself. They spent a lot of time at it. Then they issued a lengthy and detailed report. A prime reason for the sudden slash in the timber sale program, they said, was the staff conclusion that in the interest of hydrologic stability, the conversion period should be increased from 15 to 35 years. To this issue these recognized experts addressed a major part of their analytical report. They concluded that except on a nominal part of the forest, conversion period should be set at 15 vears.

Story at a Glance

(Second of two parts

See Ma.y, p. 16 for part one)

Now there is a new NEPA draft statement issued. It alludes to, and in three or four lines rejects, the small clear-cut alternatives. Nowhere does the NEPA statement say what the hopeful decisionmaker has written elsewhere, namely, that for each 100,000 acres so burned in this program, the annual allowable cut will fall by 30

The complex example involves a forest on which the timber sale program was suddenly slashed, regardless of timber management programs, analytical studies or anything else that stood in the way. The slash was so drastic as to bring the dependent community into action. Recreationists, timber interests, fishermen, hunters, hikers - all got together. Out of their efforts a multidiscipline team of natural scientists and economists from several uni-

A fierce criticism of the Forest Service for their ineptitude in managing our nation's forests at a time when we desperately need all the wood products we can get.

Three or four months later the supervisor issued a draft NEPA statement in support of a newly proposed timber management plan. How did he respond to the requirement that analysis of alter- natives must be sufficientlv detailed and rigorous to permit independent and comparative evaluation of the benefits. costs and environmental risks of the proposed action and each alternative? He elected to treat the entire, complex problem with a single sentence stating that the conversion period is fixed at 50 years in the interest of hydrologic recovery. And that, my friends, is the beginning, the middle and the end of his entire rigorous exploration and objective analysis of the alternatives of a 15 year, a 35 year and a 50 year conversion period. How a regional forester or the chief could make from that NEPA statement an independent evaluation of the matter of conversion period and thus of the timber sales program is beyond me. Yet, that NEPA statement was cleared bv both on its way to CEQ.

That brings us to the final question - why all the delay? Is NEPA responsible for delays? Is the Forest Service? Is it the mix of new statute with old line agency?

NEPA is a few days short of being4Yr yearsold. Inthe 4t/ryearc,I know of only two National Forests that have issued final NEPA statements on their timber management plans. A top officer of the Forest Service tells me he thinks there may be one or two more. He may be right. That leaves us, after 4Ya years, with only about 1b0 forests to go.

I perceive no pattern. But that is to be expected because I perceive no Forest Service. I see a hundred and fifty some national forests attached to the chief s office for rations and quarters. I don't have even a guess as to the number of ranger districts, too many of which operate as what the international lawyers would term dependent sovereignties.

Perhaps some enterprising Ph.D. candidate in governmental administration will one day produce a study on whether the Forest Service has pushed decentralization into chaos.