Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
March 02, 2000
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 8307 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY March 02, 2000 MICHAEL ANDERSON SENIOR RESOURCE ANALYST WILDERNESS
SOCIETY HOUSE resources FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH FOREST
SERVICE PLANNING
BODY:
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
STATEMENT OF H. MICHAEL ANDERSON, SENIOR RESOURCE ANALYST FOR THE WILDERNESS
SOCIETY, ON THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE'S DRAFT RULE ON NATIONAL FOREST PLANNING,
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH MARCH 2,2000. The Wilderness Society appreciates this
opportunity to testify on the Forest Service's draft rule on National Forest
land and resource management planning. The Wilderness Society is a national
environmental organization with 200,000 members and eight regional offices.
Since 1935, The Wilderness Society has worked for the protection and sound
management of America's National Forests and other public lands. The Society is
widely respected for its ability to use economic and ecological expertise to
help understand and solve complex natural resource problems. For the past two
decades, The Wilderness Society has been deeply involved in the National Forest
planning process. From the 1985 draft plan for the White Mountain National
Forest in New Hampshire to the 1999 revised plan for the White River National
Forest in Colorado, The Wilderness Society has played a lead role in reviewing
and responding to Forest Service management plans. The Society also has closely
tracked and commented on the Forest Service's proposed changes to the
regulations that guide the planning process, including the 1991 advance
rulemaking notice and the 1995 draft rule. Last year, The Wilderness Society
released a report describing our organization's vision
fortheNationalForestsinthe2l"Century. The vision statement, which was prepared
with the assistance of an expert advisory panel, recommended that National
Forest management be based on the following five general principles: - the
integrity, health, and sustainability of wildland ecosystems should be the goal
of all management; - management should DO NO HARM to the forest environment; -
planning and management should be based on the best available information and
scientific understanding; I - management activities should be economically sound
and foster the growth of natural asset values; and - citizens should have the
opportunity to participate in the decision-making process affecting their public
forests. In reviewing the Forest Service's latest draft rule on forest planning,
The Wilderness Society measured the agency's proposals against the principles in
our forest vision, as well as the requirements of the National Forest Management
Act (NFMA) and other laws. In addition, we compared the draft rule with the
report and recommendations of the Committee of Scientists appointed by USDA
Secretary Glickman in December 1997. The Wilderness Society has conducted a
detailed review of the Forest Service's draft rule and recently submitted 39
pages of comments, which I co-authored along with our western resource economist
Peter Morton. We received advice and assistance from several ecologists and
forest policy experts. Our comments cover more than two dozen topics in the
planning rule, ranging from overall management goals to public participation
opportunities. On some matters we are very supportive of the draft rule, while
on other matters we are strongly opposed. For this testimony, I have highlighted
our views on some of the key issues in the draft rule. Overall, The Wilderness
Society commends the Forest Service for proposing planning regulations that
generally take an ecological and science-based approach toward management of the
National Forests. We do have serious problems with certain elements of the draft
rule, such as the proposed elimination of the administrative appeals process for
forest plans. However, in most respects we believe that the agency is proceeding
on the night track. Goals and Priorities The Wilderness Society strongly
supports the Forest Service's proposal to assign first priority to ecological
sustainability in the forest planning process. The American people value the
National Forests mostly for their pure water, recreational qualities, biological
diversity, and other benefits of naturally functioning ecosystems. Making
ecological sustainability the primary goal of planning will also clarify the
management priorities and role of the National Forests, which has been a problem
frequently cited by the Government Accounting Office and others. We agree with
the Committee of Scientists that the sustainability objective is consistent with
existing laws governing National Forest management, including the 1897 Organic
Act, NFMA, NEPA, and Endangered Species Act. However, we have serious concerns
about the absence of regulatory direction to ensure that various management
activities and uses do not degrade the environment. The Forest Service needs to
supplement the ecological sustainability regulations with requirements to
protect old-growth forests, roadless areas, riparian areas,
water quality, non-motorized recreation opportunities, and other important lands
and values. The planning regulations should also ensure that potentially
damaging activities such as clearcutting, grazing, mining, and off-road vehicle
use are strictly controlled in order to protect and restore environmental
quality. Species Viability and Focal Species The concept of population viability
is at the core of sound wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. The
Wilderness Society strongly supports the requirement in the draft rule that
Forest Service plans and project decisions generally must "provide for
ecological conditions such that there is a high likelihood of maintaining
viability of native and desired non-native species over time." It is very
important that the regulations provide a strong, enforceable standard for
protecting biological diversity and that the acceptable level of viability risk
not be left up to the discretion of local forest plans. We also support the
proposal to broaden the scope of the regulation to encompass all native species,
not just vertebrates as the current regulation does. The Wilderness Society
agrees with the Committee of Scientists that it is unrealistic to expect the
Forest Service to monitor and evaluate the viability of all native species.
Therefore, we support the draft rule's requirement to identify and analyze the
viability of "focal species" and "species at risk." Focusing forest plan
evaluations on focal species and species at risk should resolve at least some of
the problems resulting from the use of "management indicator species" (MIS)
under the current regulations. Many forest plans include common game species
like deer and grouse in their MIS lists, providing little if any meaningful
information about the viability of native species or ecosystem integrity. The
draft rule addresses this problem appropriately by limiting focal species to
indicators of ecological integrity, while game species would be dealt with
separately as "demand species." Monitoring Inadequate funding for monitoring and
data analysis continues to be a significant problem in National Forest
management. The draft rule addresses this issue head on by stipulating that
projects can only be authorized if there is a reasonable expectation that
adequate funds for monitoring and evaluation will be available. The Wilderness
Society supports mandatory monitoring and urges the agency to broaden the
requirement to include research. We are concerned, however, that the draft rule
gives the agency too much discretion in selecting wildlife monitoring methods.
Species monitoring could be conducted through a variety of methods, ranging from
population sampling to inferring population status from habitat conditions. In
contrast, current regulations and court decisions require the Forest Service to
collect population data for all management indicator species (36 CFR
219.19(a)(6); see Sierra Club i,. Martin (168 F.3d I(11th Cir. 1999). The
Committee of Scientists stressed that habitat monitoring alone was insufficient;
populations of species must also be assessed and continually monitored. We
recommend that periodic population counts or surveys be required for all species
at risk and focal species. Ecosystem integrity and Historical Range of
Variability The Wilderness Society strongly supports the draft rule's mandate to
maintain or restore ecosystem integrity, but we believe the rule relies too much
on the concept of "historical range of variability" (HRV) to achieve ecosystem
integrity. HRV is still a relatively new and largely untested ecological concept
that has sometimes been misused by Forest Service managers. Scientifically
credible use of the HRV approach will require substantial research to determine
pre-settlement conditions for a range of key ecological indicators. In the long
run, the HRV concept holds a good deal of promise for orienting management in a
way that maintains and restores ecosystem integrity, once sufficient historical
data are available at appropriate scales. For the upcoming round of forest plan
revisions, we recommend that HRV be used as a supplemental tool for evaluating
ecosystem integrity and determining restoration needs. The principal means of
protecting ecosystem integrity should be the reliable, time-tested approach of
identifying and protecting areas that are known to possess high ecological
integrity, such as roadless areas, old-growth forests, and
relatively undisturbed watersheds and riparian areas. Roadless
Areas and Wilderness Reviews Regardless of the outcome of the Clinton
Administration's current National Forest roadless area
initiative, the forest planning process should continue to be an important way
for citizens to participate in identifying areas for potential wilderness
designation by Congress. The Wilderness Society supports the requirements in the
draft rule for consideration of roadless areas and Wilderness
proposals early in the planning process. We are concerned, however, that the
definitions of roadless and unroaded areas in the draft rule could be
interpreted to disqualify many essentially wild areas from management protection
or wilderness review because of the presence of primitive jeep trails. We urge
the Forest Service to continue using its existing definition of roadless
areas, except to lower the minimum acreage standard from 5,000 acres to
1,000 acres. Recent forest plan revisions have recommended virtually no
additional wilderness designations, despite public sentiment and new scientific
evidence in favor of wilderness. The Forest Service appears to be applying
excessively strict suitability criteria to avoid wilderness recommendations,
such as nearby sights and sounds of civilization. We believe the planning
regulations should tackle this problem by spelling out the criteria that must or
must not be factored into wilderness reviews. Scientific Analysis and Oversight
The Wilderness Society strongly supports the draft rule's requirement that
forest plans must be consistent with the best available scientific information
and analysis. The initial forest plans generally failed to take advantage of the
scientific expertise available within and outside the Forest Service.
Consequently, the plans often were seriously deficient in their analysis of
ecological consequences, such as the cumulative impacts of logging and road
construction on forest and stream ecosystems. We also support the proposed
requirements to provide independent scientific input throughout the planning
process, from the plan initiation phase to monitoring of plan implementation.
The establishment of regional and national science advisory boards should help
to ensure that Forest Service plans and management decisions are scientifically
sound. To that end, we recommend that the regulations require science
consistency reviews of all proposed plan revisions. Economic Efficiency Analysis
and Non-Market Benefits An important change in the draft rule is to make
sustainability the central goal of the planning process, rather than maximizing
net public benefits (NPB). The current planning regulations provide an explicit
management objective for the National Forests to maximize (NPB) in an
environmentally sound manner (36 CFR 219.1(a)). Net public benefits are defined
as "the overall long-term value to the nation of all outputs and positive
effects (benefits) less all associated inputs and negative effects (costs)
whether they can be quantitatively valued or not" (36 CFR 219.3). The draft rule
retains NPB as a component of economic analysis. The Wilderness Society supports
the substitution of sustainability for NPB as the primary goal of forest plans
and recommends that the Forest Service make a greater effort to factor
non-market values into the analysis of NPB. The majority of benefits from
managing the National Forests are non-market benefits -- goods and services such
as stable watersheds, scenic landscapes, and wildlife habitat. The Wilderness
Society believes that the principal economic role of the National Forests should
be to conserve those non-market goods and services, which are typically
underproduced by private market forces. Unfortunately, the agency has rarely if
ever completed an economic efficiency analysis that fully accounts for
non-market benefits and costs associated with National Forest management. For
example, the sedimentation of reservoirs decreases holding capacity, increases
water treatment costs, and increases frequency and costs of dredging. These
off-site impacts represent real costs to downstream communities and water
conservancy districts -- costs that should be internalized into an economic
analysis of forest management activities. We recommend that the Forest Service
strive to quantify and take into account the total economic value of National
Forests, including ecosystem services and passive use benefits, when it
evaluates management options. Economic Impact Analysis We are concerned that the
draft rule places too much emphasis on local employment impacts. The National
Forests are publicly owned by all Americans and held in trust for future
generations. As such, the scope of the economic analysis should look beyond the
employment and income impacts on local communities to include all Americans. By
taking a narrow local or regional "accounting stance" that only examines
employment and income impacts, planners will ignore the benefits and costs that
accrue to Americans outside the region from management of public land. Agency
economists should also consider the indirect role of wildlands in attracting a
talented workforce, non-recreational businesses, and retirees when completing
the economic impact analysis (jobs, income, etc.) of management alternatives.
This can be accomplished by combining survey work with trend analysis of total
personal income (including retirement and investment income) and employment to
provide a historical perspective on job and income growth or decline in various
industries. The draft rule should specify that economic analyses must include
the significant contribution provided by non-labor income, which typically
accounts for 25-50 percent of total personal income. In the past, agency
economists have not included non- labor income, rather focusing mainly on
employment. Timberland Categories The draft rule would divide all lands into one
of three categories: (1) lands that are not suited for timber production, (2)
lands where timber production is an objective, and (3) lands where timber
harvest is permitted to accomplish objectives other than timber production.
Permissible objectives for cutting on lands in the third category (such as the
late-successional reserves in the Northwest Forest Plan) would be "to maintain
or restore the ecological integrity of the land, to protect other multiple use
values, or to achieve the desired vegetation conditions identified in planning
documents." In contrast, the current regulations have only two categories of
land - suitable and unsuitable. We generally support the proposed three-part
categorization, provided that the regulations make it absolutely clear that
lands in the third category are not considered part of the "suitable" timber
base. The plan documentation section of the draft rule adds a new term - "land
classified suitable for timber removal" - which implies that the category three
lands are part of the suitable timber base. The term "suitable for timber
removal" should be removed from the regulations in order to avoid serious and
inevitable confusion about which lands are in the suitable timber base.
Allowable Sale Quantity The draft rule would officially eliminate the
requirement for each forest plan to specify an allowable timber sale quantity
("ASQ-) for the full 10-15 year planning cycle. Instead, planners would be
required to estimate the "long-term sustained yield capacity" of the forest for
timber production, which would establish a ceiling for timber sale volume. The
calculation of sustainable yield would be based only on lands where timber
production is a management objective. Lands where timber harvest is permitted to
meet non-timber objectives would be omitted from the calculation. We are
concerned about the potential exaggeration of potential timber sales levels
through the calculation and display of long-term sustained yield capacity.
Estimates of long-term sustained yield capacity have traditionally exceeded ASQ
levels because they assumed full funding of pre-commercial thinning,
fertilization, and other intensive management practices that theoretically speed
the re-growth of trees. The regulations should ensure that projected timber
capacity is based on economically realistic and ecologically sound assumptions
and constraints. In addition, we recommend that the Forest Service impose a
ceiling on the amount of logging that could occur on the lands where logging is
permitted to achieve non-timber objectives. Below-cost Sales The draft rule
appropriately addresses the issue of money-losing timber sales by requiring that
lands be classified as not suited for timber production "where the costs of
timber production are not justified by the ecological, social, or economic
benefits." This responds to the Committee of Scientists' recommendation that
below-cost sales "should not be undertaken unless justified by the achievement
of some other end of sufficient value to justify the revenue losses." The draft
rule improves upon the existing regulations, which allowed uneconomic lands to
be included in the suitable timber base if they were needed to achieve timber
sale objectives. However, there are at least two problems with the Forest
Service's proposal. First, the regulations need to specify what timber
production costs (e.g. road construction and maintenance, reforestation, and
environmental mitigation) to include in the financial analysis, as the existing
regulations do. Second, ecological, social, and economic considerations should
also be factored into the costs as well as the benefits of logging. It would be
absurd, for example, to count a new logging road as a social benefit due to
greater recreation access but not take into account the ecological damage that
the road would cause. Salvage Logging We strongly oppose language in the draft
rule that appears to create a huge loophole for salvage logging. The draft rule
states, "To achieve the desired conditions described in applicable land and
resource management plan decisions, the salvage or sanitation harvest of timber
is permitted on all National Forest System lands except on those lands where
timber harvest is prohibited by law." This provision seems to provide blanket
authority to allow salvage logging anywhere except in designated wilderness
areas and similar statutory designations. Moreover, it could be interpreted as
overriding any existing administrative protection, such as recommended
wilderness areas, old-growth forest reserves, backcountry recreation areas, and
research natural areas. While Section 6(k) of the NFMA does give the Forest
Service some discretion to conduct salvage logging on unsuitable timberlands, it
does not mean that salvage logging can necessarily occur on all non-wilderness
forest lands. The existing regulations do not exempt salvage logging from
administrative controls (see 36 CFR 219.27(c)(1)). We recommend that the
regulations specify that salvage is only appropriate when dead trees can be
removed in a way that protects the integrity of the ecosystem. The Forest
Service should require more stringent environmental standards for salvage
logging than for other timber sales, due to the sensitivity of the post-
disturbance environment. For example, bare soils created by intense forest fires
may be more subject to erosion. Otherwise, salvage sales should be conducted
under the same standards as other timber sales. Collaborative-Groups and
Advisory Committees We are concerned about the draft rule's major emphasis on
collaborative efforts and advisory committees. The draft rule encourages
formation of collaborative groups to help develop the landscape goals and key
issues that drive the planning process. Our concern is that forest supervisors
will interpret this regulation as a mandate to rely on local "partnership"
groups like the Quincy Library Group to help guide the planning process. The
Committee of Scientists emphasized that collaborative processes should strive to
be inclusive, open, representative, and based on sound science. The regulations
should make it clear that the views of collaborative groups will be taken under
advisement along with all other public input and will not receive preferential
consideration in the planning process. The draft rule also calls for the
establishment and use of advisory committees. The NFMA authorized the Forest
Service to establish advisory committees that represent a broad cross section of
interest groups and comply with the procedural safeguards of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, but the agency has never before utilized that authority.
We recommend that advisory committees be introduced on a limited, trial basis,
rather than immediately required to cover all National Forests. The Forest
Service should assess the performance and usefulness of the initial committees
before deciding whether to establish advisory committees system-wide.
Administrative Appeals The Wilderness Society strongly opposes the proposed
elimination of citizens' ability to appeal forest plans. The draft rule would
replace the existing administrative appeals process with a perfunctory
"pre-decisional objection" process similar to one used by the Bureau of Land
Management. Objections to a proposed plan would be considered by the regional
forester after a final EIS for the plan was released but before the forest
supervisor issued a Record of Decision. The proposed objection process is
clearly an inadequate opportunity to challenge forest plans. Shortcomings of the
proposal include inadequate time to prepare the objection, no opportunity to
intervene, no time deadlines for the agency to respond, no opportunity to
request stays of activities pending an appeal decision, and no opportunity for
review by the Forest Service Chief Furthermore, in the event that the forest
supervisor alters the final plan through the Record of Decision, there would be
no opportunity to object or appeal. In addition, requiring the regional
foresters to review plan objections would necessarily prevent them from engaging
effectively in the early development of forest plans. We believe it is premature
and ill-advised for the Forest Service to propose overhauling the forest plan
appeals process. We strongly recommend that the Chief of the Forest Service
continue to have responsibility for reviewing administrative appeals of forest
plan revisions.
LOAD-DATE: March 7, 2000
