Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
May 10, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 4659 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF STEVE HOLMER ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN LANDS
BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT - THE
PROPOSED NFMA PLANNING REGULATIONS: A RECIPE FOR CONTINUED MISMANAGEMENT
BODY:
The stated intent of the
Administration's NFMA planning regulations -- to make ecological sustainability
the top priority of management -- is a very positive and encouraging step
forward. The regulations also include requirements to identify unroaded areas
and review all roadless areas for potential wilderness
designation.
While our comments suggest improvements in these areas, the
Forest Service deserves praise for including these in the proposed
regulations,But the proposed regulations also have serious flaws including a
lack of accountability, the need to improve ecological standards, the need to
define land suitability for grazing, logging, and other uses and the failure to
address critical issues such as grazing, fire management, invasive species and
recreation.
The lack of clear standards and guidelines in the
regulations fail to recognize the severity of ecological degradation that
continues to occur on the National Forests. Logging of rare old growth forests,
logging in roadless areas, logging in municipal watersheds,
logging in sensitive streamside habitats of endangered salmon stocks that we are
spending millions trying to restore are still commonplace. The regulations need
to provide clear direction to stop these abuses.Where this all leads in our view
is best exemplified by the Interior Columbia Ecosystem Management Project EIS
which proposes a 21% increase in logging across the region and completely fails
to address ecological degradation caused by grazing, OKVs and invasive species.
This disastrous plan's lack of firm standards and mushy
feel-good-but-meaningless language is allowing the agency to propose logging 7/8
of the remaining old growth forests. This is in a region that has been
intensively high-graded and is now lacking in old growth ponderosa pines. The
preferred alternative in the EIS is a significant weakening of current standards
and is not likely to pass legal muster. Under the proposed planning regulations,
we are concerned that similar unacceptable plans will be developed.
Ecological Sustainability and Land Suitability Standards Needed
To ensure ecological sustainability, old growth forests,
roadless areas and streamside areas must be protected. The
regulations should direct the agency to exclude these areas when determining the
suitable timber base. Logging for other objectives should be prohibited in these
areas. The agency should also be prohibited from identifying suitable timber in
old growth, Wilderness, roadless areas and areas adjacent to
National Park and Monument lands.The regulations should direct the agency to
inventory all old growth forests and 1,000 acre and larger roadless
areas for their wilderness and ecological values. Interim protection
should be provided for these areas by prohibiting logging, roadbuilding, mining
and ORVs.
The regulations should revise the standards for Wilderness
review to remove bias against favorable Wilderness recommendations.
The
proposal identifies allow "salvage and sanitation logging," even in the areas
unsuited for logging. This is exactly the policy that has allowed the Forest
Service to approve extensive salvage logging in many of the most ecologically
sensitive areas of the National Forest system. It is utterly unacceptable. Areas
unsuited for logging should not be logged.
Under the draft regulations
lands suitable for timber removal are divided into two parts: (1) lands where
timber harvest is objective and (2) lands where harvest is permitted "to
maintain or restore the ecological integrity of the land, to protect other
multiple-use values, or to achieve the desired vegetation condition identified
in planning documents." Category 2 should be abolished. This would make it clear
that commercial logging is being done only on lands where timber harvest is the
objective. In addition, restoration projects should be prohibited from including
commercial logging.
While the draft rule officially eliminates the
requirement for each forest to determine an allowable sale quantity, we are
opposed to the requirement to estimate the "long-term sustained yield capacity."
These estimates have traditionally exceeded Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) levels
because they assumed full funding of pre-commercial thinning, fertilization and
other intensive management practices. These estimates also tend to viewed by the
public and lawmakers as hard targets that the agency must meet. The agency
should not provide an ASQ or other estimate for timber production.
The
regulations requires that lands be classified as not suited for timber
production "where costs of timber production are not justified by the
ecological, social or economic benefits." This is an improvement on the existing
regulations, but it needs to specify what timber production costs to include as
the existing regulations do. Timber costs must be considered in both the
economic and social analyses.
Use Ecological Processes Instead of
Historical Range of Variability
We are concerned about the requirement
for planners to use the "historical range of variability" (HRV) as a principle
benchmark for evaluating and restoring ecological integrity. HRV is a new and
relatively untested ecological concept that has been misused by Forest Service
managers to justify logging of old growth on the Clearwater National Forest and
extensive salvage and commercial thinning in eastern Oregon and Washington. This
provision should be dropped from the regulations in favor of making the
principle benchmark "ecolological processes."
Under this "ecological
processes" principle the agency would be required to focus more broadly on
restoring water flows by removing roads, resuming natural fire regimes by
lighting fires and allowing natural fires to burn, and reintroducing large
carnivores where they are absent as opposed to logging to leave a certain number
trees based on the HRV. Unless ecological processes are restored, the agency
will not be able to achieve ecological sustainability.
Research Natural
Areas Should be Retained
The proposed rule would eliminate the
requirement, at 36 CFR 219.25, to "provide for the establishment of Research
Natural Areas (RNA's)" during planning. This is unacceptable. The proposed rules
emphasize the role of science and ecological information in forest planning; by
definition, RNAs are areas with high scientific interest and which are to be
used as baselines or reference areas for measuring the effects of human
activities in managed areas. If the USFS had designated a complete spectrum of
RNAs on each unit in the NFS, there would no longer be a need for further RNA
designations. However, on every National Forest and Grassland we know of, the
USFS has yet to designate "examples of important forest, shrubland, grassland,
alpine, aquatic, and geologic types that have special or unique characteristics
of scientific interest and importance that are needed to complete the national
network of RNA's." 36 CFR 219.25.
Determine the Suitability of Livestock
Grazing on National Forests
Pursuant to the National Forest Management
Act of 1976 (NFMA), the U.S. Forest Service shall determine "the suitability of
lands for resource management." 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(2)(A). The regulation
implementing the suitability requirement with respect to livestock grazing in
national forests directs that "(i)n forest planning, the suitability and
potential capability of National Forest System Lands for producing forage for
grazing animals.., shall be determined." 36 CFR 219.20.
Both the
capability of land to support livestock grazing (can the forest be grazed?) and
the suitability of land for grazing (ought the forest be grazed?) must be
determined. The definitions of capability and suitability at 36 CFR 219.3
describe how these determinations are distinct and separate.
Capability:
The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and
services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices
at a given level of management intensity. Capability depends upon current
conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and
geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as
silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease.
Suitability:
The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a
particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and
environmental consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may
be suitable for a variety of individual and combined management practices.
Proposed NFMA Regulations Incorporate Weak Suitability Determinations
for Grazing in National Forests
A comprehensive study by the Sierra Club
found that, over the past two decades, the Forest Service has mostly ignored its
duty to assess the suitability of national forests for livestock grazing. It has
become the agency's practice to determine what areas in a particular forest are
already being grazed ("capability") then automatically deem those areas
"suitable" for grazing as well, without balancing the environmental impacts and
economic consequences of their decision and analyzing the alternative uses
foregone.
While section 219.26 of the proposed planning regulations
prescribes suitability determinations, the provision is weak because it applies
to all forest uses (i.e, timber, grazing, recreation and "other uses") and does
not include basic minimum environmental standards for such determinations. It is
our contention that if minimum standards are not set in the NFMA regulations for
grazing suitability, local and regional Forest Service offices will revert back
to the unacceptable practice of enslaving suitability determinations to
capability determinations.
Lack of Accountability to the Public
The new regulations would expand Forest Service discretion and further
erode the agency's accountability to citizens. For example, the agency has
removed any limitations on clearcut size found in the current regulations.
Enclosed with our comments is a copy of the National Forest Yearbook 1999 that
reveals continued mismanagement in many areas.
The draft regulations
should be modified to:
1) Make Plans and decisions enforceable. The
regulations should require that each forest plan adopt specific, measurable, and
enforceable standards to implement the more general goals of ecological
sustainability. Without enforceable standards the plans are of little value.
2) Retain a process for citizens to appeal bad decisions before having
to go to court. While the draft regulations create a pre-decisional "objection
process," they eliminate the current appeal process, forcing citizens to go
directly to court to challenge decisions. Other shortcomings of the proposal
include inadequate time to prepare an 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. In addition, there would be no opportunity to object or
appeal if the forest supervisor alters the final plan through the Record of
Decision.
3) Eliminate the advisory groups that would be created by the
regulations to define forest management policy. In our experience these
collaborative groups, like the Quincy Library Group, have been stacked with
local commodity interests and have advocated damaging land management practices
rather than scientifically based decisions. Because the regulations give local
Forest Service officials complete authority to name the participants on the
Committee, local activists could be excluded from the process.
The NFMA
regulations state that in the planning process "the information from the forest
level flows up to the national level where in turn information in the RPA
Program flows back to the forest level". However since 1995 no final draft of
the RPA report has been completed. We question how information can flow up or
down from the RPA report when no final RPA currently exists. We advocate that
the Forest Service complete a final RPA report and use this as a guide for
forest planning.
Authority over Land and Resource Plans should remain
with the Regional Forester. Regional Offices have the key role of assuring
consistency among forests. Many Forests are going through plan revisions in a
multi-plan forest process, such as the Southern Appalachians with the Jefferson,
Cherokee, Chattahoochee/Oconee, Sumter and Alabama, and therefore authority
should reside at the regional level. Additionally, if ecosystem management is to
be put into practice, plans need to be conducted on a landscape level looking at
the whole forest ecosystem not just on a forest by forest basis.
Broad
scale assessments should be mandatory decision documents for all regions. In the
draft it is not clear when a broad scale assessment should be done. Our concerns
are whether these assessments should occur prior to the identification of topics
of general concern or are a result of a determination by a responsible official.
Further, we are not clear who would determine that more information is needed on
a topic of general concern and/or that the appropriate means to gather that
information is through a broad-scale assessment. Essentially who determines
whether a broad-scale assessment is needed for forest planning? As broad scale
assessments often go outside of forest boundaries we believe the Regional
Forester should be the official responsible for assuring that broad scale
assessments are conducted.
Considering the volume of information to be
reviewed during the Forest Plan revision process, we would like to see the
comment period be 60 days instead of 45 days.
Monitoring of Species
Population Status Must be Done
While the proposed regulations establish
a process for defining ecological sustainability and species viability for
National Forests, the lack specifics could render them ineffective. Most
importantly, the regulations should require population sampling and studies to
accurately determine the status and assure viability of "at-risk" species. We
also support the "high likelihood standard" for species viability.
The
regulations require the development of a monitoring program "to evaluate the
effectiveness of maintaining or restoring ecosystem integrity and preserving
future management options." The Proposed rule states that the program must be
designed to "determine the status and trend of focal species and species at
risk," but Section 219.1 l(e)(2)(iii), which directs species
information-gathering when there is a high risk of local or broader extirpation,
or a high uncertainty about the habitats and conditions needed to maintain
viability, states that monitoring"should include a combination of sufficient and
reliable population sampling and studies." We urge you to change this to
mandatory language, substituting "must," to require data collection.
The
regulations state: "In cases where the ongoing monitoring efforts result in a
thorough understanding of the relationships of habitat to species distribution,
abundance, and demographics, and where habitat is a primary factor influencing
species population dynamics, monitoring may shift such that species status is
inferred primarily from habitat monitoring rather than being solely based on
direct population measures" (Section 219.1 l(e)(2)(iii)). We view this language
as a possible backdoor attempt to impose the "habitat capability" approach,
which was proposed by the Forest Service in 1985. We urge you to remove this
clause.
A similar level of discretion is allowed when gathering
information to analyze risks to species viability prior to a decision. Again,
the managers have complete discretion to decide whether to gather new
information. Only "if risks to viability are considered to be high, collection
and analysis of additional information...may be necessary" (Section
219.20(a)(8)(i)). We recommend that the discretionary "may" be changed to
"must."
Role of Science and Scientific Review
We are concerned
that some of the science steps are optional rather than required. For example,
when the responsible official is evaluating whether planning steps are
consistent with the best available scientific information and analysis, he or
she "may use" a science advisory board (Section 219.24(a)). We feel this should
be replaced by "must use."
The Committee stated that planning
institutions and procedures "must be established to evaluate, on a regular
basis, the use of scientific thought in planning and implementation" (COS p.
128), and that plan review and field checks should take place (COS p. 128, 108).
These reviews must be done by independent scientists.
The science
consistency evaluation is not the only discretionary step which should be
reviewed independently by scientists. The broad-scale and local assessments are
clearly other projects which should be reviewed independently. For these
assessments, Section 219.22(a) and (b) (broad-scale and local) are discretionary
(although reviews for broad-scale assessments must be done "when appropriate and
practicable"). We urge you to substitute mandatory language in those subsections
as well.
We are also concerned about the makeup of the scientific
committees. The Committees should be limited to independent biologists,
ecologists, hydrodrologists etc. and should exclude practicing foresters or any
others that have a vested economic interest in commodity extraction.
Planning Regulations Must Address the Growing Threat of Invasive Species
The proposed regulations should be amended to clarify that forest planning
documents must describe and evaluate as a "cost" facilitation of the
establishment or spread of invasive exotic/alien plants, insects, or diseases
resulting -- directly or indirectly -- from the proposed management action --
including the "no action" alternative. This action is required by Section 2 (3)
of Executive Order 13112, which states that an agency must not authorize, fund
or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the
introduction or spread of invasive species ... unless, pursuant to guidelines
that it has prescribed the agency has determined and made public its
determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential
harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to
minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.
This prescription would apply to at least:
* Section 219.12 --
forest planning process; especially
(c), Planning criteria (5)
Ecological factors (d) Inventory data and information collection (e) Analysis of
the management situation (f) Formulation of alternatives (g) Estimated effects
of alternatives (h) Evaluation of alternatives (j)(1) describing any alternative
which is environmentally preferable to the selected alternative (k) monitoring
and evaluation
* Section 219.14, determinations that areas are or are
not suitable for timber harvest
* Sections 219.15 and 219.27(b),
vegetation management practices
* Invasive species concerns should also
be included in the missing section on vegetation management practices for
grazing
* Section 219.17 Evaluation of roadless areas
* Section 219.20 determinations that areas are or are not suitable for
grazing;
* Section 219.21 determinations that areas are or are not
suitable for recreation.
It is extremely important that the plans
consider all species of exotic/alien plants that are invasive in the affected
region, not just those species that have been designated as "noxious weeds" by
federal or state governments. This policy is necessary to comply with the spirit
of the Executive Order.
Forest Service planners need to consider any
potential facilitation of the establishment or spread or the impacts of such
establishment or spread of invasive exotic/alien plants, insects, or diseases
when evaluating the current status of natural resources including fish and
wildlife resources and threatened and endangered species (pursuant to Section
219.19), water quality, aesthetic values, etc., the desired future condition of
these resources, and the potential direct or indirect impact of any proposed
action or inaction.
Those sections of the regulations governing planning
for mitigation, management, and control of invasive exotic/alien species must
specify "plants" as well as "insects or diseases" or "pests". They should also
require that "Integrated pest management" include consideration of measures to
prevent or slow the establishment or spread of these organisms by, for example,
restricting access by people, livestock, pack stock, or vehicles; avoiding the
use of invasive plant species for wildlife habitat "enhancement", revegetation
after soil disturbances, including fires; working with federal and state
officials and through voluntary programs with landowners and commercial
establishments to reduce the deliberate planting of invasive plant species in
nearby areas from which propagules could enter National Forest lands; as well as
through education of people using the forests and requirements for weed-free
hay, cleaning of vehicles and equipment, etc.
The regulation should be
amendment to require specifically that the RPA plan (section 219.4(b)(i) and
regional and forest plans (Section 219.112) developed under this umbrella assess
1) the current status of invasion by exotic/alien plants, insects, and
diseases;
2) the impact of those biopollutants (including noting
historic impacts of past invasions such as chestnut blight);
3)
likelihood of such invasions worsening during the planning period;
4)
likelihood of invasion by exotic organisms not now present in the planning area
but found relatively nearby and likely to spread due to either inherent
biological attributes or human activities;
5) cost of mitigating impacts
of these biopollutants, including, where feasible, containment and/or control.
In cases where the biopollutants belong to widespread invasive species,
the plan should discuss the relative merits of working with a broader network of
federal, state, and other entities to fund efforts to find and deploy "systemic"
control methods, such as, where appropriate, biological control.
If data
are insufficient to provide the required information, the plan should specify
research and monitoring programs to obtain the missing information.
The
regulations should be amended to require all plans to outline responses to
current and impending invasions, in collaboration with appropriate colleagues in
other federal agencies, state, tribal, and local agencies, existing state or
regional invasive species councils (or similar), nongovernmental organizations
with expertise and involvement, etc. This will require that the
interdisciplinary teams (Section 219.5) include personnel with appropriate
experience.
Definitions of Unroaded Areas and Roadless
Areas
The Forest Service's draft rule on forest planning needs
to clarify the definitions of unroaded areas and roadless
areas to avoid the inappropriate exclusion of wild,
undeveloped land from the inventories. The draft rule defines unroaded area as
"any area without the presence of a classified road" and large enough to
"protect the inherent values associated with the unroaded condition" (219.36).
However, it does not explain what constitutes a classified road, other than to
state parenthetically that a classified road is "a road at least 50 inches wide
and constructed or maintained for vehicle use." The same definitions appeared in
the final interim rule suspending road development in roadless
areas (36 CFR 212.13(a)(1-2)).
We are concerned that the
proposed definition could be interpreted to disqualify many essentially wild
areas from unroaded area status because of the presence of primitive travelways
that might fit within the definition of a "classified road." The existing
definition of roadless areas in the Forest Service Handbook
(FSH 1909.12,7) includes undeveloped lands that "do not contain improved roads
maintained for travel by standard passenger-type vehicles." In the eastern
national forests, roadless areas can contain up to 1/4 mile of
such roads per 1000 acres. The definitions of unroaded area and classified road
in the draft planning rule, on the other hand, could be interpreted to exclude
all areas that contain unimproved "jeep trails," even though they have no
improved roads suitable for passenger cars.
We are also concerned that
the Forest Service could use the classified road definition to de-classify
existing inventoried roadless areas during the forest plan
revision process. The draft rule defines roadless areas as
"undeveloped areas that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration
under the Wilderness Act - Areas typically exceeding 5,000 acres that were
inventoried during (RARE II) and remain in a roadless condition through forest
planning decisions" (219.36). However, it does not explain the meaning of
"minimum criteria for wilderness consideration" or "roadless condition,"
apparently leaving forest planners with considerable discretion to add or drop
lands from the roadless area inventory.
That appears to
have happened in the recent draft plan revision for the White River National
Forest (WRNF) in Colorado. WRNF planners identified a total of 298,000 acres of
roadless areas (WRNF DEIS, p. 3-379). However, based on the
RARE II inventory, the WRNF actually contains approximately 644,000 acres of
roadless areas. Thus, more than one-half of the WRNF's RARE II
inventoried roadless land has been dropped from the revised inventory. One of
the criteria the Forest Service used in the WRNF's new roadless
area inventory was the absence of "facilities for purposes of travel by
vehicles greater than 50 inches in width" (WRNF DEIS, p. C-l). The similarity
between the 50- inch vehicle width criterion in the WRNF draft plan and the
50-inch road width criterion in the draft rule raises a serious concern that the
draft rule could result in the same sort of massive reductions in inventoried
roadless areas as has occurred in the WRNF.
We strongly
urge the Forest Service to clear up the confusion over the relationship between
inventoried roadless areas, unroaded areas, and classified
roads. We further recommend that the Forest Service define roadless
areas to include (1) all the previously inventoried roadless
areas except those that have subsequently been deliberately roaded by
the Forest Service, and (2) similarly undeveloped lands (including small areas
adjacent to designated wilderness and inventoried roadless
areas) that were passed over in prior inventories or have subsequently
been added to the National Forest System. Additionally, unroaded areas should be
defined as tracts with more than 1,000 acres of contiguous land that is
generally free of roads suitable for standard (2-wheel- drive) highway vehicles.
Consistent with current Forest Service roadless area inventory
policy, both categories should provide greater leeway for roads and other
development features in eastern national forests.
Other Issues That Need
to be Addressed
Other issues such as fire suppression policy and
recreation management also need to be addressed if the proposed regulations are
going to lead to ecological sustainability.
The regulations should
require the agency to reference the Wildlands Fire Management Policy when
amending Plans to ensure that its recommendations are adopted.
In
addition to the "roads policy" now under development, the planning regulations
should include measures to ensure that travel management and off road vehicles
are addressed. Forest Plans should not sanction the illegal creation and use of
ORV trails. Construction of new or temporary roads should be prohibited unless
adequate funding for maintenance and monitoring as assured.
END
LOAD-DATE: May 12, 2000 
