ANALYSIS

The environmental community held its breath this fall as it awaited the outcome of the disputed results from Florida. As Forest Magazine went to press in early December, the identity of the next president remained unknown, although it appeared that Texas Governor George W. Bush was more likely than Al Gore to succeed Bill Clinton.

This uncertainty made it difficult to gauge the prospects for public lands policies in the next administration. But at least one element of the national political landscape was clear: whoever emerges as the forty-third president will have to swim in waters sharply and almost evenly divided along party lines.

Democrats made inroads in both chambers of Congress in the November election, but not enough to gain a majority in either the House or the Senate. Before the election, Republicans held a thirteen-seat lead in the House, a margin that is now down to nine.

The Senate is another matter. With the defeat of Washington Senator Slade Gorton, Republicans fell into a fifty-fifty split with Democrats—if Bush gains the White House. If Gore wins the presidency, Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman would surrender his seat to become vice president. Connecticut Governor John Rowland, a Republican, has said he would replace Lieberman with a GOP appointee, a move that would restore the Republican majority.

Conservationists had a bit to cheer about. Among the defeated Republican senators were three who received zero ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. They included Gorton of Washington state, who, in one of many moves that riled environmentalists, used a legislative rider to try to push through a proposed open-pit gold mine (July/August 2000); Spencer Abraham of Michigan, who was accused of blocking efforts to improve water quality in his state; and Rod Grams of Minnesota, who tried to slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget.

Still, even if the Senate was split evenly among Republicans and Democrats, the GOP would maintain the upper hand. Under a Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney would cast the deciding vote to break ties.

Less clear is whether Democrats would be able to wrest at least partial control of Senate committee chair appointments in the event of a fifty-fifty split. That could be critical, as environmental policies are increasingly set during the appropriations process and through the use of legislative amendments rather than in open debate. Both avenues are controlled at the committee level.

Some conservationists have posited a gloomy scenario in which anti-environmental Republicans control key committees in both chambers of Congress and Bush occupies the White House. In that event, they fear, much environmental damage could be done because the Democrats would be unable to stop anti-environmental appropriations bills and legislative riders. (Through his veto power, Clinton has stopped many such efforts since Republicans gained control of Congress six years ago.)

Whatever happens, battle lines over the environment will certainly be drawn early in the administration. Here are ten forest issues that insiders say bear close watch during the coming administration:

1. Clinton’s Roadless Plan. Considered a key component of Clinton’s quest for an environmental legacy, a final version of the plan was due shortly before Christmas. The latest version of the plan, released in November (see page 9), calls for protecting 59 million acres of roadless national forests—nearly a third of all national forest acreage. Bush and other Republicans have criticized the plan, saying they’d like to see it rolled back. Although it appears unlikely that a Bush administration would be able to overturn the plan entirely, it is quite possible that Bush officials could weaken it substantially by cutting deals with timber industry sympathizers who file lawsuits against the plan.

2. Appropriations Process. No matter who gains the White House, it seems unlikely that he will have the clout or the political stomach to take on a major environmental initiative—at least not early in his administration—due to the closeness of the election and the split in Congress. With that avenue closed, lawmakers and administration officials will likely try to achieve their environmental goals through the appropriations process or by attaching legislative riders to bills. The final numbers in the U.S. Forest Service’s timber budget will speak volumes about the direction the agency is headed in the new political landscape.

3. Administrative Appointments. The next president—whoever he is—will quickly show his true colors by the choices he makes in filling key environmental posts within the administration. Gore would likely seek to follow Clinton’s example of choosing environmentally friendly candidates. Bush’s short list of possible appointees, however, is alarming to environmentalists. The two names most frequently heard for the secretary of interior position are Slade Gorton and Montana Governor Mark Racicot, who made a name for himself last summer by blaming Clinton forest policies for the wildfires that swept through his state. Lesser appointments could be equally telling. Insiders say two former timber industry lobbyists—Mark Rey and Doug Crandall—who now work for powerful anti-environment legislators, could fill key posts. Sources say Rey covets the position of director of the Council on Environmental Quality, which sets White House policy on environmental matters. Crandall could land the powerful position of undersecretary of agriculture, giving him direct oversight of Forest Service operations. If that happens, conservationists can expect four years of hostile relations with the Bush administration.

4. National Monuments. Clinton has made wide use of his powers under the Antiquities Act, establishing a host of new national monuments across the West. Dick Cheney, Bush’s running mate, said on the campaign trail that a Bush administration would try to roll back some of those designations. Any attempt to do so would spark a major fight. Also important will be the details that are included in management plans that must be developed for the newly minted monuments. Those plans will govern which activities will, or will not, be allowed within their boundaries.

5. Canada-U.S. Lumber Agreement. Few Americans are aware that a five-year agreement dictates how much softwood lumber the United States can import from Canada tariff-free. Currently, the total stands at 14.7 billion board feet each year, a tally that has been a key factor in the decimation of old-growth forests in British Columbia. The agreement is up for renewal in 2001, and negotiations over a new deal are likely to be heated. The position taken by U.S. negotiators will say much about the fate of Canada’s remaining wild forests—and about the degree to which free trade will be encouraged, even if it means environmental degradation.

6. Fate of Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck. The easy-mannered Dombeck, a former fisheries biologist, has emerged over the past four years as perhaps the most environmentally friendly chief in the history of the Forest Service. His fate—and if he leaves the post, the identity of his successor—will be a key element in setting the agency’s agenda over the next four years. Technically, Dombeck is a civil servant, meaning he cannot be kicked out of government by an administration hostile to his views. He can, however, be transferred out of his current position. Chris Wood, one of his top advisers, said in an interview in early December that Dombeck hopes to stay chief no matter who the next president is. But if it’s Bush, look for a move to oust Dombeck and replace him with a less environmentally inclined chief, perhaps one drawn from the ranks of old-guard Forest Service administrators who have been less than enthusiastic about Dombeck’s reforms.

7. Wilderness Bills. With the national forest roadless policy in place, the next logical step for conservationists will be to push for permanent protection of some of those roadless areas under the Wilderness Act. The fate of wilderness bills has historically hinged not on who’s president, but on whether a particular state’s congressional delegation can unite behind a wilderness effort. Look for strong wilderness pushes in Washington, Oregon and perhaps California.

8. Endangered Species Act. Conservationists have been disappointed by the Clinton administration’s ESA policies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—the agency charged with administering the act—has, under the Clinton administration, refused to establish critical habitat designations for imperiled species, as the act requires, and just recently placed a moratorium on all new listings. Through the use of habitat conservation plans, the administration has tried to ease restrictions on owners of private property that includes threatened and endangered species habitat. Although it appears unlikely that the act will be overturned in the next four years, it could be seriously undermined.

9. Wildfire Policy.The Clinton administration has proposed a fifteen-year, $12 billion effort to reduce the threat of wildfires on 20 million acres of national forest,a plan endorsed by western governors and congressional leaders. A total of $3 billion would be spent in 2001 alone, a threefold increase over 2000 funding levels. How those funds are spent—particularly whether prescribed burning or widespread logging will be emphasized—will have a major impact on national forests. Much will depend on which managers the new administration chooses to implement a wildfire strategy.

10. Pelican Butte. Across the national forest system, dozens of projects large and small await administrative decisions on their fate. One example is the Pelican Butte ski area, planned for the slopes of an extinct volcano in southern Oregon. The project, proposed by a private company that hopes the ski area will be the lynchpin for a large residential development, would be located on a portion of the Winema National Forest that includes important wildlife habitat and old-growth groves. The new administration’s decision on Pelican Butte will be a litmus test, indicating how it may rule on many other projects on federal lands.