CAET-USDA, Att. Planning Rule
Forest Service, USDA
200 East Broadway, Room 103
P.O. Box 7669
Missoula, Montana 59807

Subject: Comments on the Proposed Rule to Guide Land and Resource Management Planning for the National Forest System

Dear Sir or Madam:

The following comments on the proposal to revise the National Forest System land and resource management planning regulations are submitted on behalf of the more than half a million members of the National Audubon Society by the Minnesota State Office and Forest Campaign of the National Audubon Society. Thank you for this opportunity.

We commend you for your efforts to improve the management of our national forests through updates and improvements to the regulations for implementing the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Overall, the draft regulations are a positive step toward improving forest planning and management.

The explicit affirmation of ecological sustainability as the first priority of national forest management is a welcome departure from past management practices that prioritized extraction over ecology. Audubon supports the proposed shift in focus of forest management to the long-term well-being of habitats, and social and economic systems – and away from short-term goals that may harm forests. This is a management approach that will secure the use and health of these forests for future generations. The proposed rules have a strong focus on the issues of ecological sustainability and species viability, areas greatly in need of attention. The proposal emphasizes science-based decision-making, and increased involvement of the public in developing forest management plans. The care of our forests will be enhanced from this input. Audubon is pleased that the draft regulations call for the protection of plant and animal communities, in contrast to the current protection for vertebrate animal populations solely. The proposal to identify unroaded areas and review all roadless areas for potential wilderness designation reflects both the ecological importance of these places as well as the public’s overwhelming desire for their protection. The increased focus on restoration is long overdue, and we encourage even more emphasis on restoring our public forests. And, the concept of making forest plans living documents that can incorporate and respond to new information is an excellent one. Add the positive emphasis on restoration, and encourage more emphasis on it.

Despite these elements and the positive intent of these draft regulations, they contain numerous aspects that Audubon finds disconcerting. The proposed regulations are often vague, lacking details and specifics of how concepts would be implemented. When combined with the excessive discretion and control given to individual national forest supervisors over the planning process, it generates concern about the implementation of these ideas. While the concepts and intent of the draft regulations are ones Audubon welcomes, the real measure of their effectiveness is in the details of their implementation. After reading these draft regulations and attending the public meetings held by the Forest Service, Audubon must conclude that they lack enough specificity to ensure their success in achieving their goals, or protect against misuse or misinterpretation in forest planning processes.

The specific concerns and thoughts of the National Audubon Society are described in greater detail below. We look forward to seeing these concerns addressed in your revisions of the proposed regulations.

Omissions

Significant omissions undermine the expressed intent of these proposed regulations to provide ecological sustainability. No specific standards are provided to ensure the maintenance of many of our most threatened ecosystem types, such as old growth, virgin, and roadless forests, and threatened ecosystems such as longleaf pine forests. If the intent of the NFMA and the proposed regulations to sustain ecosystems and native biodiversity is to be met, our most threatened ecosystems need specific protection. These ecosystems have been exploited to the extent that no further losses are acceptable. Protection of these areas will provide a source of genes, species, and ecological interactions and processes that will help ensure the long term ecological and economic sustainability of our forest resources, and guide the natural and managed restoration of impoverished ecosystems. We strongly encourage you to provide explicit, mandatory standards and guidelines that preserve these ecosystems.

The principles of the multi-disciplinary science of conservation biology are allowed for by the regulations but not required. Many of the principles of conservation biology have become well-established tenets of conservation. They are also flexible enough to be adapted to any situation. Regulations that explicitly require the application of conservation biology principles in the pursuit of the sustainability of species and ecosystems are necessary to ensure the achievement of these goals. It is not enough to allow for these principles to be adopted locally – they have been allowed since the enactment of the NFMA yet never enthusiastically embraced. There application has usually arisen through high-profile, national environmental controversies such as over the fate of the northern spotted owl. These principles have been scientifically developed to aid in the long term management of ecosystems and species and must be specifically incorporated into the daily activities of agencies.

Salvage logging must be recognized for the potentially destructive activity that it is. It can be as or more damaging than non-salvage logging, often requiring the same men and machinery on sensitive landscapes. Salvage logging, particularly commercial salvage sales which often involve the cutting of large trees, should not be exempted from any of the limitations on logging in general. The proposed regulations would allow "salvage and sanitation logging" to take place in areas even if they are determined to be unsuitable for logging. This is a loophole that needs to be closed.

The regulations also provide no clear standards for the replenishment of native ecosystems. Conversion of native forests to more economically desirable forests is unacceptable and should be explicitly prohibited. Natural regeneration, supplemented by active planting and encouragement of native species where necessary, should be mandatory.

The regulations should explicitly require the maintenance of the natural diversity of forest communities. For example, the highgrading of high-volume old growth forests in southeastern Alaska has had a significant negative impact on forest diversity and reduced specific habitats for species dependent on those rare forest types. This disproportionate clearcutting of the most productive, low elevation old-growth stands, only four percent of the land base yet providing the highest value fish and wildlife habitats, has eliminated at least half of the best old-growth stands in the Tongass National Forest. This has reduced the diversity of the rainforest and will ultimately have a significant impact on fish and wildlife dependent on these rare forest communities. The regulations should specifically prohibit cutting forest stands out of proportion to their occurrence forestwide.

The references in the proposed regulations to invasive non-native species do not adequately represent the magnitude of this threat to our native biodiversity. The invasion of non-native species should be specifically addressed in the regulations, with guidelines for which species to target for removal or reduction, and how, when, and where this would be carried out. The regulations should prohibit the use of chemicals to kill non-native species except where absolutely necessary.

Finally, the regulations should require fire strategy in forest plans based on the Wildlands Fire Management Policy.

Purpose, Goals, and Principles

Audubon agrees that sustainability should be the guiding star for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands. Further, we agree with the statement that the benefits we seek from the national forests and grasslands depend upon the long-term ecological sustainability of the watersheds, forests, and rangelands. However, we believe that ecological sustainability must be maintained even at the expense of short term economic and social considerations when inevitable conflicts arise. Planning for important economic and social benefits must be done within the context of sustaining ecological systems. Without an emphasis on ecological sustainability it is difficult to see how the goals of watershed protection and biological diversity can be achieved. We realize that ecological sustainability is covered more fully in section 219.19, but the concept is of such overriding importance that it needs to be more clearly identified in this chapter as the primary goal, not simply one of five competing goals.

The Framework For Planning

2. Audubon supports the concept of a broad-scale assessment to facilitate sustainable forest management. This needs to be required, not optional, as proposed in the draft regulations. The elimination of the required regional guide is inconsistent with the move toward broad-scale assessments unless it is replaced with a required ecoregional guide defined by ecological boundaries. For example, 219.3(b) should require Regional Forester(s) and/or the Chief of the Forest Service to undertake ecoregional, multi-forest planning in a wide range of circumstances including but not limited to the example given of endangered or threatened species recovery. It is clearly the intent of the proposed regulations to have forest planning more closely linked with science for the long-term well-being of forest resources. The broad-scale assessment is the foundation of this new approach to management. It cannot be discretionary. Within the draft regulations words such as "may be", "when deemed appropriate", and "as appropriate" should be removed from the discussion relating to broad-scale assessments. We believe that more explicit language such as "will" or "must" will result in more accountability.

• To identify and evaluate current conditions relative to ecological, economic, and social sustainability
• To identify methods and strategies for providing ecological (primary), economic, and social sustainability
• To identify specific actions required to ensure long-term ecological sustainability, species viability and ecosystem integrity.

2. We strongly support the increased emphasis on monitoring and evaluation. These activities will be critical to the long term success and adaptability of national forest management. Although the draft regulations rely heavily on on-going monitoring to improve care of forest resources, the details of how this would be implemented are not provided. Again, the lack of specificity could render these efforts ineffective. The effectiveness and accountability of monitoring can be improved in a variety of ways.

Collaboration is a common theme throughout the proposed regulations. Please accept these concerns about collaboration as comments on Section 219.12 and all other sections in the proposed regulations that promote collaboration.

Audubon is a strong supporter of citizen involvement in decisions affecting public lands. We embrace the intent of the proposed regulations to increase public participation in public land management. Collaborative processes, however, are not without flaws and may not be the best means of facilitating public involvement. Most importantly, collaborative processes can not be relied on as a substitute for existing avenues for public involvement, such as laws, appeals, and regulations. At most, collaborative processes can be used to supplement but not replace the existing framework for public input.

Unfortunately, collaborative processes as envisioned in the proposed regulations could subvert broad public participation. We are specifically concerned about the emphasis in the proposed rules on formal local advisory groups and committees. While we understand that local interests have much at stake in the management of National Forest lands, their priorities cannot be allowed to drive the planning process for a particular national forest. National forests have a national, as well as a local, constituency. Local committees not only may have or appear to have undue influence in revision efforts, but their very existence may actually discourage wider public participation.

Local and national citizen input would more effectively and fairly be obtained through public dialogue at every step of the plan revision process. In Minnesota, the Superior and Chippewa National Forests have made enormous progress in increasing public involvement at many stages in the revision process. This has been a process that has been inclusive of both local and dispersed members of the public. This is the kind of model the draft planning regulations should seek to emulate. Audubon urges the Forest Service to drop local advisory groups and committees from the regulations.

Ecological, Social, And Economic Sustainability

Audubon supports the emphasis on sustainability in the draft rules. Specific ways to measure success or failure in achieving this goal are noticeably lacking, however. It is vital that there be accountability about whether our public forests and grasslands are being managed sustainably. Accountability requires ways of measuring results against plans. Regional Foresters must have a way to evaluate on-the-ground outcomes.

We suggest that a set of baseline measurement standards be established and clearly defined in the regulations for ecological, social, and economic sustainability goals. Audubon suggests that at a minimum they include ways of measuring species diversity and viability, soil condition, air and water quality, stream channel morphology, and the prevalence of invasive or noxious species, and short and long-term economic contributions.

As mentioned in the Section-by-Section Description of the Proposed Rule, Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability, the NFMA "mandates use of a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic and other sciences (16 U.S.C. 1604(b))." This section of the regulations provides an ideal opportunity for the specific inclusion of established principles of conservation biology that will foster the maintenance of species and ecosystems. Specific reference should be made to the need for core reserve areas connected by corridors that allow for the transfer of genes and individuals. The regulatory direction to maintain and restore ecosystem integrity, including ecosystem processes and species viability, is excellent but needs to be supported by more specific regulatory direction on how to accomplish this applying established principles of conservation biology.

The concept of historic range of variability can be a useful approach to resource management if applied properly. Instances of this concept being abused for economic gain have occurred, however. If the regulations are to rely heavily on this concept, they must provide land managers with more specific guidelines designed to help them apply it and eliminate the potential for it to be misapplied.

While we support the increased emphasis on ecological sustainability and ecosystem integrity, we strongly object to the elimination of any enforceable standards for maintaining species viability. The proposed approaches are wrongly "presumed to . . . provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities as required in NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B))." Maintaining viable populations of native species should be a bare minimum requirement of public land management. If we can not expect this out of our public land managers, it is hard to see how we will achieve the goal of ecosystem sustainability. Every effort should be made to maintain native species in viable populations. A hard standard requiring this goal to be achieved will encourage all possible steps to be taken on behalf of native species. Where our best efforts are insufficient to maintain such a population, the Forest Service will not be penalized if they made every effort, but anything less than our best effort is not good enough. An unenforceable standard such as the "high likelihood" standard envisioned by the proposed regulations is insufficient to encourage the necessary actions to ensure species survival and is not an adequate replacement for the existing rule requiring that "[f]ish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species." (36 C.F.R. 219.19). In support of this position we reference the April 30, 1997, letter to Chief Dombeck from 60 scientists supporting the viability requirement. We can provide a copy of this letter upon request.

We support the requirement in section 219.20(a)(8) to explicitly analyze the cumulative effects of human and natural disturbances. Categorical exclusions from NEPA analysis for activities below a randomly assigned threshold, as exist for some timber sales and salvage logging operations, should also be eliminated or at least substantially reduced, thereby recognizing their potentially substantial combined impact.

In section 219.20(a)(8)(I), managers are given discretion to decide whether to collect new information to analyze risks to species viability prior to a decision. This should be required, not optional.

In Section 219.21 on Social and Economic Sustainability, we recommend the addition of an analysis of non-market economic factors that will account for the economic benefits of ecosystem services provided by national forests, such as water and air filtration, carbon sequestration, and much more. The Forest Service is required under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA, Public Law No. 86-517 Stat. 215) to take forest values beyond commodity production into consideration when doing economic analysis of management.

The Contribution Of Science

Scientific advisory boards are needed to ensure that plan decisions are based on the best available scientific information and analysis. These advisory boards should be required, not optional as described in the draft regulations. Scientific credibility is the foundation of the draft rule’s proposed revisions. The regulations should also specify that these boards should be limited to independent scientists without vested economic interests in commodity extraction.
 
 

Special Considerations

1. Section 219.27 in the draft regulations would eliminate the four categories of lands for wilderness and the five evaluation criteria for evaluating lands for wilderness designation found in the existing rule. Audubon was informed at one of the public meetings we attended that these criteria would now be established at the local national forest level. We find this to be highly problematic, and another example of critical decisions and policies being handed to the individual forest. Wilderness designations can be controversial, especially at local levels. It is possible that strong emotions, and not sound science, could thereby influence wilderness designations. Criteria for wilderness designation should be established at a national level, should be based on the lands’ ecological significance as well as recreational value, and should be clearly described in the planning regulations.
2. We recommend keeping section 219.27(a) of the existing regulations, which requires that "[a]ll management prescriptions shall (1) Conserve soil and water resources, and not allow significant or permanent impairment of the productivity of the land."
3. The expansion of special designations in 219.27 is an excellent proposal. We suggest further expansion to include designations for old growth forests and specific threatened ecosystems like the longleaf pine ecosystem. Enforceable protections for specially designated areas should be added, specifically for roadless, unroaded, old growth, and specific threatened ecosystems. The lack of specific protections for roadless areas is inconsistent with President Clinton’s proposal to maintain the roadless characteristics of these lands.
4. The planning regulations describe a classification of timber suitability that includes lands designated suitable for timber harvesting to achieve goals other than timber production. Audubon is concerned by the lack of any regulatory ceiling on the amount of logging that could occur on these lands. The regulations should clearly set limits to eliminate a loophole for commercial logging to occur under the guise of restoring forest health.

1. Audubon agrees with the attention given to below-cost sales in the draft regulations. However, the proposed rule needs to specify what timber production costs to include in the financial analysis. Ecological, social, and economic considerations should be factored into the costs as well as the benefits of logging. These should include the costs of road construction and maintenance, forest and watershed restoration, environmental damage mitigation, monitoring, slash removal, relevant overhead, and fish and wildlife restoration, particularly for endangered and threatened species. It would illogical, for example, to count new logging roads as a social benefit due to greater recreation access, but not take into account the ecological damage the roads would cause.

1. The draft regulations should adopt both of the Committee of Scientists’ recommendations with regards to clearcutting. The COS report recommended that clearcutting be used only where "clearly justified," and that the size limits of openings be determined through analysis of natural disturbance regimes in regional assessments. The draft rule adopts neither of these excellent recommendations. Instead, the rules propose having the individual forest plans provide standards and guidelines. This again gives undue discretion to local forest supervisors who may be influenced by considerable local pressure. These standards and guidelines should emerge out of the regional broad-scale assessment. The elimination of any baseline acreage limits on clearcuts and other even-age logging practices is a particularly troubling example of too much deference to local forest managers. While even-aged management, carefully applied, could be used as an ecological restoration tool in certain circumstances, the potential for abuse is too great. Past abuses of even-aged management under the existing regulations, which create size limits in Section 219.27(d)(2) but allow for many ways around them, have proven this. Strong, clear, scientifically developed standards and guidelines for the ecological application of even-aged management are necessary. Size limits on clearcuts for commercial purposes are appropriate and should be smaller than the existing limitations.
2. Under section 219.29 we believe that paragraph (b) needs to say in addition that any departure from the sustained-yield principle will occur only under exceptional ecological circumstances and only when it can be clearly established that such additional harvest is required to achieve a desired ecological condition identified in the land and resource management plan. Paragraph (c) seems to imply that there could be a substantial departure from sustained yield. The regulations should not create a loophole for unrestrained commercial logging conducted under the guise of restoring forest health. We recommend that paragraph (c) be deleted.
3. The definition of "lands not suited for timber production" in section 219.28 should be expanded to include old growth and roadless forests and specifically defined sensitive ecosystems. Also, 219.28(c )(1) is unnecessary and redundant. It states that "lands where timber production is an objective" must be identified, yet these areas are encompassed by 2.19.28(c )(2), "[l]ands where timber harvest is permitted to maintain or restore ecological integrity . . .," because all timber sales should be expected to contribute to desired future ecological conditions under the proposed regulations.
4. The draft rule’s testament of roads areas needs to be viewed in light of President Clinton’s October 13 directive to the secretary of Agriculture to initiate administrative proceedings that will result in "strong and lasting protection" for most or all national forest roadless areas. Accordingly, section 219.27 should be rewritten. Regarding potential wilderness designations, individual forest plan revisions should be preceded by a comprehensive inventory of all unroaded and minimally roaded areas in the forest. Alternately, this analysis could be conducted prior to each site-specific project to make sure it would not occur in a roadless or unroaded area, even one that is previously unidentified.

In general, we have few objections to the attempt to streamline and simplify the forest planning process. We do object, however, to the elimination of administrative appeals. Taking away the right to appeal a forest plan would force citizens to proceed directly to court, effectively eliminating the right of citizen protest in the majority of cases. Decisions are made in forest plans that have direct, on-the-ground, irreversible impacts requiring an irretrievable commitment of resources. These decisions are unlikely to be reachable through appeals or litigation of site-specific projects, particularly given case history. The Forest Service’s move to eliminate plan appeals sends a clear message to courts that the agency does not see an immediate impact from forest plans. This leaves certain decisions – broad decisions in particular – that may directly determine the fate of a large or small tract of land effectively insulated from any challenge. An example might be a designation of an area as suitable for timber production, or suitable for wilderness designation, or unsuitable for roadless designation. The impacts of these decisions may be directly felt at the site specific planning level, and will give a presumption of acceptability to any projects conducted in accordance with these designations. A citizen who feels the designation itself was inappropriate will not have an opportunity to challenge it.

The proposed objection process is clearly an inadequate opportunity for citizens to challenge forest plans. Shortcomings include inadequate time to prepare the objections, 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 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. Rather than eliminate the appeals process for plan revisions, we urge you to monitor forest plan appeals under the new planning framework as recommended by the Committee of Scientists.

Conclusion

While Audubon applauds the Forest Service for seeking to improve management of our national forests and grasslands, we are very concerned that the proposed planning regulations are too vague and give far too much discretion to forest planners to ensure the goals will be reached. We urge the Forest Service to add clarifying and accountability language to these draft rules.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
 
 

Betsy C. Daub                                                   Michael T. Leahy
Forest Program Director                                    Forest Campaign Director
Minnesota Audubon                                           National Audubon Society