Letter to USDA Forest Service Regarding the Roadless Area Conservation Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Rule

---

July 14, 2000

USDA Forest Service-CAET
Attention: Roadless Areas Proposed Rule
PO BOX 221090
Salt Lake City, Utah 84122

Dear Chief Dombeck:

The Society of American Foresters (SAF) offers the following comments on the proposed rule published at 65 Federal Register 30276-30288 (May 10, 2000) regarding the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed rule.

Overview

SAF favors the no action alternative and is against any nationwide prohibition on building roads, or other nationwide prohibitions on management activities that could be applied through this rule. SAF believes that all decisions about the status of inventoried and un-inventoried roadless areas should be made through the forest planning process, at the national forest level. A decision that affects all roadless areas through one national decision cannot address the unique forest conditions of each individual roadless area. Therefore, the Society of American Foresters, which represents more than 17,000 foresters throughout the nation, is strongly opposed to any decision other than the no action alternative.

SAF supports wilderness designations, and not building roads in certain roadless areas. There are unique places throughout the National Forest System that should be managed for roadless values. However, the process the Forest Service is using to make this decision is arbitrary. The Agency has developed a nationwide policy that does not reflect the unique nature of individual roadless areas. In fact, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) fails to provide a description of specific roadless areas or a description of anticipated environmental impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA.) There is no doubt that there are roadless areas that should managed for roadless values, however there are also roadless areas that need active forest management to maintain or restore forest health. The DEIS provides no information about specific areas that we would like to see remain unroaded and those that need active management. Management can be completed without building roads, but roads can, and often do reduce the cost of forest management operations. We note that one of the alternatives the Forest Service is considering would prohibit management all together. This could have disastrous consequences on the long-term health and function of roadless areas and adjacent lands. The preferred alternative and the accompanying DEIS are inadequate to make this decision.

The DEIS is poorly developed and offers little in a pursuit of understanding the implications of this rule. We prefer the no action alternative because this proposal is fundamentally flawed, it is not consistent with current law, it is not coordinated with other Forest Service rulemaking or initiatives, it does not rely upon science, it does not present an adequate range of alternatives, it would require amendments to every forest plan, it has imprecise or inadequate definitions, and it does not recognize serious localized forest health issues.

Overstating the Case

In parts of the DEIS, there is an overestimation of future activities. For example, in Chapter 3 page 88, the document claims "projecting future roaded entry using historic levels of road construction, an additional 5% to 10% of inventoried roadless areas are likely to be entered within the next 20 years under the no action alternative, predominantly in areas currently open to road construction. Over the next century, this could equal 50% of inventoried roadless areas being affected by roaded entry." Building roads in roadless areas is controversial and expensive. Forest Supervisors will more than likely not propose entry into these areas without strong and compelling reasons. The DEIS overstates the possibility that roads may be built into these areas. Only 5% of the original inventory is considered roaded since the 1979 RARE II process and much of this stems from mapping errors during RARE II.

The statement that Alternative A (no action) results in the "greatest potential for loss of roadless characteristics and values, since they receive no special consideration" is incorrect. Land managers currently use new information and science during their planning activities, both short- and long-term. This statement shows the lack of confidence the Forest Service has for its own personnel. To say that the procedural no action alternative would result in no analysis for roadless characteristic impacts is wrong and inconsistent with current law. NEPA requires this type of analysis whenever roadless characteristic impacts are raised as an issue. The current planning regulations also have this requirement, as 36 CFR 219.17 requires evaluation of roadless areas and roadless characteristics.

Characterizations of the proposal, both in the document and by Forest Service officials and members of the Administration, as permanent "protection" is true, but the fact is that these areas are protected as they are national forests. These characterizations minimize the direction that forest plans provide, and the personnel who manage them. If a national forest has a plan that is not protecting resources, then we have more problems than conservation of roadless areas.

The DEIS does not adequately acknowledge lands that are permanently unroaded. There are many acres of roadless areas in which new road construction is not allowed in the existing forest plans, not to mention the National Wilderness System. There is also no discussion of the role of Resource Natural Areas (which are permanent), both in terms of their benefits and how this proposal would affect them.

The analysis surrounding the lynx is misleading and overstated. The Lynx Conservation Strategy did not find strong research that showed forest roads were a major threat to lynx. It found that one of the primary risks to lynx is a lack of snowshoe hare habitat. The roadless analysis overemphasized the negative effects of roads, and ignored the lack of hare habitat caused in part by lack of early seral stage habitat. Early seral stage habitat can be created through vegetative manipulation that will be impossible under some alternatives, and uneconomical under all but the no action alternative.

The DEIS makes assertions that inventoried roadless areas are functioning as critical biodiversity centers. This is assuming facts not in evidence. These assertions would be strengthened by presenting data to illustrate the relative importance of roadless areas versus roaded areas in biodiversity conservation. The existing presentation seems to rely on inferences that roadless areas are functionally important to biodiversity. They very well may be, but the Agency needs to present data to support this claim.

To achieve the most rigorous scientific foundation for decision making, it is important to consider alternative hypotheses and consider the full range of ideas available in the peer-reviewed literature. If the Forest Service were to consider a range of hypotheses, then accept an idea and the body of work supporting it by presenting the rationale behind the acceptance, we could at least understand how the Agency is going about decision making. Whenever possible, the Forest Service should cite studies that provide empirical evidence to support their position rather relying on theoretical ideas. The Agency overstates and relies largely on hypothetical ideas throughout the document. This is most egregious on Summary page 42 where the Forest Service states that conserving roadless areas could lead to a long list of ecological benefits. The Agency offers no peer-reviewed science as proof of these statements and does not adequately backup these assertions throughout the DEIS. In fact, there is nothing in the document to prove these assertions and one could conclude the Forest Service is engaging in speculation about the benefits of roadless area conservation.

Local Decision Making

The basic premise of a nationwide roadless area conservation policy is counter to the existing Forest Service planning process and its current set of proposed planning regulations. Both the current forest planning process and the proposed planning regulations emphasize local decision making. For example the preferred alternative is contrary to the Forest Service's emphasis on collaborative decision making, the Forest Service planning process, and forest management in general. The preferred alternative is a top-down management decision that forces managers to make decisions based on a national policy that does not reflect local conditions. One need look no further than the Forest Service's proposed planning regulations to see how important the Agency finds public involvement and collaborative decision making at the local level. Yet this proposal negates local involvement and seems in no way consistent with the proposed planning regulations, current Forest Service policy, or practical forest management. It is only appropriate to consider changing the status of inventoried roadless areas from multiple use management to some type of restricted use, on a case by case basis. The Forest Service's roadless initiative would change the status of all inventoried roadless areas at once, based on a set of national criteria. Those same vague criteria would eventually be applied to areas that demonstrate roadless characteristics as well, which is an impossible standard to apply since there is not an adequate definition for "other unroaded areas." The concept of land with "other unroaded characteristics" will lead to endless lawsuits. We do not understand the need for this entire effort as Forest Supervisors already have significant authority to prohibit road building.

Another example of a conflict between this rule, the proposed planning rules and other documents' emphasis on collaboration is in regard to a state's request for cooperating agency status with the Forest Service. The Forest Service needs to explain or respond to the Western Governor's Association and the State of Montana's request for cooperating agency status under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The State of Montana was denied this status. The proposal should document the rationale behind this decision. Denying this status is especially confusing considering the Council on Environmental Quality's repeated direction for federal agencies to cooperate with state and local governments.

In addition to being inconsistent with the planning process, this proposal would overturn 124 existing forest plans, some of which have been developed quite recently. This is unreasonable and unacceptable. Citizens from all over the nation have worked to create these forest plans, they cost millions of dollars to develop, and through this possible decision these will be of little utility. In fact the original moratorium did not apply to several national forests that had recently completed forest plan revisions. We note that only the Tongass was exempted from this proposal based on the fact that it had recently completed a forest plan. The rule is unclear regarding whether other forest plans that have recently completed a forest plan revision would need to do a reanalysis of roadlessness, and why those national forests are not treated the same as the Tongass. The Agency should apply the same logic to each national forest unit. The DEIS itself admits that the recreational use decisions made in this national rulemaking are better made at the individual forest plan level: "The appropriate balance between motorized and non-motorized dispersed recreation use is highly variable throughout the country and dependent on distinct social and environmental conditions; and, therefore is best decided at the local level." This same logic should apply to all resource management.

Lack of Coordination: Inconsistency between the road related proposals

There is no consistency between the roadless area policy and the long-term transportation policy. We believe the proposed rule for a long-term transportation policy eliminates any need for a separate policy on roadless areas. Again, forest managers already have the authority to not build roads. The transportation policy adequately covers road and roadless-related issues, and inclusion of the procedural alternatives in this rule are redundant and confusing. The transportation policy directs the Forest Service to analyze a wide variety of issues regarding roads, including plant and animal effects, threatened and endangered species, dispersed recreation, the utility of roadless areas for research, etc. While we disagree with many aspects of the long-term transportation policy, it does provide appropriate direction for natural resource professionals to consider roadless values as they contemplate building new roads. Philosophically, this seems like a sensible policy for every acre of national forest land, not just roadless areas. Before a land manager makes a decision about building a road, they should ensure that they are making the right decision that most benefits the resource and the users of the national forests. We hope the transportation policy will be modified based on our comments, however, giving the local manager guidance, and letting that manager make the best decision for that unique area is appropriate. We also hope that the Forest Service ensures that the transportation policy will take precedence over all road-related initiatives. The philosophy, if not the substance, behind the transportation policy makes sense.

We believe that if the transportation policy is improved, roadless area values would be protected, and local managers would have the needed flexibility to build roads when necessary. The problem with these roads policies is that roadless values should not be the only factor considered in the roads analysis process. Land managers must also consider firefighting, access to inholdings, future recreation potential, forest health concerns, access for the disabled, and a variety of other factors. Language in the roadless area policy and the transportation policy allowing entry into roadless areas for a "compelling need" should include restoration efforts. For example, economic salvage coupled with fuel reduction and other restoration activities could be a "compelling need" but does not appear to be one under these proposals. We understand and support a policy to prioritize road needs. However, we do not support the Agency's possible adoption of a policy of never entering roadless areas. We believe that in some instances critical forest management priorities will require that the Agency enter roadless areas and that managers should have that flexibility under a comprehensive set of environmental laws; laws that already exist.

Another problem with these road proposals is how they integrate with other entities conducting forest management. In some mixed-ownership watersheds, private landowners and other governmental entities are interested at minimum, in an efficient road system for the entire watershed, not just Forest Service land. The Forest Service's policy should create such a road system in partnership with private and other public landowners. There are private landowners that have built unneeded duplicate roads on their lands to avoid the onerous process of obtaining a right-of-way permit across existing roads on Forest Service land. These permits sometimes come with an unacceptable set of conditions on private land management. Duplicate roads can lead to adverse ecological impacts. The proposed policy should foster cooperative road development.

Adequacy of Alternatives

We do not believe the Forest Service has abided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires coordination with state and local governments in a proposal such as this roadless area conservation proposal. This proposal violates NEPA because it does not have an adequate range of alternatives, has a complete lack of site specific analysis of individual roadless areas, and fails to provide even the most basic information on such matters as the specific location of threatened and endangered species, the amount and location of commercial and non-commercial timber volumes and the current recreational use of roadless areas. The information the Forest Service has provided in this DEIS is inadequate.

The range of alternatives could be improved by the addition of an alternative that looks at management and potential need for roads in high-risk fire and insect prone areas and areas needing management for threatened and endangered species. The Forest Service has identified these areas in Chapter 3, page 107 for insects, page 98 for fuels, and page 92 for threatened and endangered species. There should have been an alternative that included analysis of road building in these areas to address the affects of active management for these issues.

The relative value of roadless areas varies widely, with vast differences in climate, topography, flora, fauna, size and configuration of roadless areas, proximity to wilderness or other similar public lands, variations in commercial timber values and recreational opportunities. Even the most cursory ranking system would derive a wide range of roadless values, and the Forest Service fails to provide such analysis.

Unfortunately we are given an all or nothing option without an explanation or basis for choosing to "protect" so much as an acre less than the total 43 million acre package. The Agency evidently proposes to make a decision regarding the status of more than 43 million acres of public land with less site-specific information than it would require to build a five mile road segment or a new trail.

We note specifically the lack of objectively determined overall impacts of road restrictions on forest management activities such as fire protection, insect and disease control, forest health, and multiple use activities in general, most of which are directly related to road access. The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations require that the environmental impact statement "succinctly describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration" (40 CFR 1502.15.) The DEIS provides no information particular to any individual roadless area. Instead, the reader is offered only state maps and summaries of very limited data on a state or Forest Service Region basis. We have absolutely no understanding of the unique nature of each of these individual roadless areas, and find it impossible to form an informed opinion on each of the roadless areas without this analysis.

There is no description of the "area(s) to be affected" as required by regulation. Neither the public nor Congress can ascertain from the DEIS what volumes of commercial timber may be located in any roadless area or what effect a roadless restriction would have on the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of existing forest plans. In fact, the DEIS uses a misleading unit of measure of the timber opportunities foregone. The constrained five-year sale schedule, instead of an ASQ based on productive capacity further confuses the reader about the consequences of the decision.

The analysis does not address suitable acres and ASQ. Changes in where road building is allowed will make some lands currently classified as suitable for timber harvest unsuitable. Under 36 CFR 219.14 the Forest Service has to make this determination. The change in the suitable land base will affect the ASQ. For example, if the ASQ was 25 mmbf from the entire national forest including areas that are currently roadless, it will likely be impossible to meet that ASQ for two reasons. First, much of the timber that was in the roadless area will largely not be accessible or economical, not to mention if the Forest Service chooses an alternative that bans timber harvest. Secondly, the Forest Service will probably not be able to make up the missing timber from roaded lands either due to environmental or other reasons. A decision to ban road construction in roadless areas necessitates a forest plan amendment at a minimum to adjust ASQ. This is not discussed in the DEIS.

The Forest Service needs to conduct an analysis of the standing inventory of timber. The analysis in the DEIS is based on "planned" volume. The two are dramatically different. Also, the DEIS uses a five-year time frame to describe the effects of the road ban, this should be a longer analysis to coincide with current forest planning horizons. The basis for comparing alternatives to the no action alternative must be the legally approved forest plans for each national forest, not projects and programs projected for the next five years.

The Forest Service's assertion on page 35 of the Summary document that "the Forest Service used the most recent inventory available" is inaccurate. Some of the most recent inventories are not included in the analysis. The public and the Forest Service cannot make decisions when the data presented is not consistent or even current. In addition, even the RARE II maps are not particularly accurate. Using the Medicine Bow National Forest as an example, the data is extremely inaccurate. It was digitized from a 1:5,000,000 scale paper map. The data produced from this process is barely sufficient for map-making purposes and is insufficient for use in forest-level analysis, yet this is the data that the Forest Service will be required to use and apply in the field.

The Proposal would Require an Amendment to Forest Plans

We believe the Forest Service will have to make amendments to every forest plan if they choose any alternative but the no action alternative. We have already discussed the need to rewrite forest plans due to changes in ASQ, but the final rules would constitute de facto amendments to forest plans becauseplans, since they alter the multiple use allocation of currently roadless areas. Our interpretation of the NFMA and its implementing regulations leads us to believe that multiple use decisions are to be made through a public forest planning process at the individual national forest level, and do not allow the publicly-prepared forest plans to be altered through national rulemaking. See 16 U.S.C. 1604(d)-(k); 36 C.F.R. 219.4. The only national-level planning that Congress has authorized is the RPA Program that only applies at the forest level to the extent specifically incorporated into an individual forest plan. See 16 U.S.C. 1602, 1606; 36 C.F.R. 219.4. Even if the Forest Service has the authority to amend forest plans by national-level rulemaking, 36 C.F.R. 219.6(g) requires a 60-day scoping period prior to proposing to amend a regional plan. The scoping period should extend for 60 days from the time the Forest Service provided all the relevant information (e.g., 60 days from identification of the specific areas within each national forest that the Forest Service considers to be covered by the proposed rule. Something the Agency has not yet adequately accomplished.)

Definitions are Inconsistent or Inadequate

We are also concerned that some definitions are inconsistent or inadequate. For example, the Forest Service must be careful with statements such as "potential positive effects are expected for fire management, insect and disease management, noxious weed control, water and air quality, wildlife and fish values, and passive use values" when referring to not entering roadless areas. There are significant tradeoffs for all of these categories between roaded areas and unroaded areas. While human-caused fire ignitions may decrease with fewer roads, lack of access to wildfires will hamper suppression efforts. While fewer roads may slow the spread of noxious weeds, forest health and insect and disease infestations may not be treated due to lack of road access. Fish habitat may benefit from fewer roads, but some fish habitat in dire need of active restoration may not occur with the lack of management access. The Agency should not use value-laden statements without a thorough analysis of tradeoffs—an analysis not found in DEIS. A proposal as sweeping as the roadless area proposal will limit future management options. There is little evidence that the Forest Service has truly done any analysis to consider the long-term implications of such a proposal.

The rule does not specify what constitutes a "roaded" roadless area, and there is no doubt that the loose definitions applied through this document will lead to confusion, litigation, and bad management decisions. Not including specific definitions for "roaded" roadless areas will be extremely problematic if managers attempt to make management decisions in these areas, particularly if an alternative is selected that bans timber harvest or other active management in roadless areas.

The Agency needs to define "other unroaded areas" and further explain how they want those areas managed. Theses "other unroaded areas" should not be part of the proposal. There are no specific criteria regarding configuration, minimum acreage, or size limits, so all lands not physically covered with a road could be interpreted as "unroaded areas." This will lead to years of litigation.

Lack of Coordination: ICBEMP and the roadless proposal

Another example of inconsistent initiatives involves the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which pointed out that western white pine (Pinus montícola) and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaùlis) have decreased by 95 percent of their range within the project area. The way to recover the white pine cover type is through a disturbance process that allows managers to plant blister rust resistant white pine. If we want to bring back the white pine cover type within roadless areas this will be difficult if not impossible. Without access to these areas through a road network, even if the Agency wanted to use mechanical treatment it would likely be cost prohibitive. This is not considered within the roadless evaluation.

The ICBEMP project states that eight percent of stream miles within the project area are water quality limited as defined by the Clean Water Act. And yet, the roadless proposal map on page 3-30 of the DEIS describes a much different water quality situation. Most of the ICBEMP area is shown as having 11 to 25 or greater percent impairment. Of course, all of this seems inconsistent with a recent report we have produced with the National Association of State Foresters, which demonstrates that water quality impairments due to forestry are drastically overestimated. Again, these initiatives suffer from a general lack of coordination and inconsistent data, and we really do not know which data we should believe at this point without commissioning studies of our own.

Political Influence

We question the sincerity of this effort when the Vice-President makes public statements about changing the outcome of the proposal if he were to become President. The Vice-President's comments (made at a League of Conservation Voters meeting in Wisconsin) that he would prohibit logging in roadless areas and extend a ban on development in roadless areas in the Tongass National Forest circumvent the process the Forest Service has designed for getting meaningful public comments. Our members and other partners have told us that they have little faith in the process due to the Vice-President's remarks. We have heard that same sentiment from Forest Service personnel who are conducting what some see as meaningless public meetings.

The problem with political involvement has to do with the time horizons of forest management. Election cycles are rather short relative to forest management cycles. Forest management requires a long-term consistent management vision. Using the Forest Service as a political tool serves those running for office well, but does not serve the forest well.

Comments from the Vice-President and other political motivations, as appropriate or inappropriate as they may be, thwart the public collaboration process envisioned by the GPRA and National Forest Management Act. For example, the GPRA strategic plan should be a blue print for the Agency to operate under, and politicians should be able to work within that framework, but not outside of it. The roadless area policy is clearly outside the strategic planning process of the Forest Service.

Time Constraints

Recently, we received a letter denying our request for an extension of the comment period on the Roadless Environmental Impact Statement. This letter stated "Agriculture Secretary Glickman and Forest Service Chief Dombeck believe sufficient opportunity to comment on this effort is essential to its success, but decided that an extension of the formal scoping period would not have been necessary or useful." The Forest Service and Agriculture Secretary Glickman claim that they believe significant public comment is essential to the roadless area proposal's success. In fact, the Agency has planned a series of public meetings both to explain the proposal, and to hear public comments. This is important, however, we cannot effectively comment on a 700-page proposal in 90 days. We are concerned that the same time constraints placed on the public have also hindered internal Forest Service analytical work. The document is riddled with errors and inconsistencies both in grammar and in substance. The Forest Service would benefit from additional time to examine this 700-page document as well.

For example, how could language like the following make it into the proposal: "Many people enter the wood products industry because it provides opportunities to earn high wages without having a high level of education. For these people, what is at stake is not a traditional lifestyle and occupational culture, but rather an accessible route to a middle class lifestyle. If equivalent jobs were readily available, these individuals would be happy to take advantage of them." Forest Service officials have publicly apologized for that statement, but it is clear that the Agency did not carefully scrutinize this document before it was released.

Unfortunately, we suspect the Forest Service will have a great deal more to apologize for as people continue to analyze this document. For example, in Chapter 3 on page 103 the Agency states that 10 million acres of inventoried roadless area in the West are at moderate or high risk of catastrophic wildfire based on Table 3-20 in Chapter 3 on page 104. When one examines Table 3-20 the figure is actually 21,224,000. The narrative is completely inconsistent with the table, so one is left to wonder which data is correct and where it came from. In Chapter 3 on page 101 the Forest Service claims that eight million acres are at high risk from catastrophic wildfire, yet on page 103 they claim that seven million acres are at high risk due to wildfire. This might be because the seven million figure is for western lands at high risk and the eight million figure is for the whole country, but the Agency claims there are only 776,000 acres at moderate to high risk in the East. In order to conduct a proper analysis, these numbers must be reevaluated.

Yet another oddity is that the Forest Service claims that 100 percent of the roadless areas in South Dakota are in need of treatment to reduce wildfire threats, and that 71 percent of those acres are at high risk from wildfire. They claim that only five percent of the acres in Montana need to be treated, and that 67 percent are at risk from wildfire. This analysis is extremely confusing. We do not understand how they generated these numbers. It is impossible to provide complete comments on this document in its present form.

Forest Health

Active forest management is important to maintain the health of forests and provide the benefits our society wants from them. We believe that forest roads, properly constructed and maintained, are a crucial part of forest management, emergency response, recreation use, and are an increasingly important part of the rural transportation system. With the exception of Congressionally designated Wilderness Areas, building roads should be an option available to decision makers when analysis indicates it is the best way to meet management objectives.

The Chief of the Forest Service claims there are 114 million of acres of National Forest lands at moderate or high risk of catastrophic wildfire and insect and disease outbreak, and the DEIS states that some of these high-risk areas are in inventoried roadless areas. This proposal will prevent land managers from cost effectively treating these areas. Stewardship activities like thinning forests through the timber sale and other programs can return the forest to a more natural condition and reduce fire, insect and disease hazards. Stewardship of our national forests requires mechanical treatments like thinning, and thinning requires access to the forest through a network of roads. The kinds of mechanical treatments needed to reduce fire danger are extremely expensive already, and prohibiting road building has a potential to increase that problem. Insects, diseases, and fires do not recognize the artificial boundaries the Forest Service places on management units. There is no doubt that pest and fire problems will spread to other areas of the national forests, and even private land. The DEIS fails to adequately address the forest health status of currently inventoried roadless areas, and the effects this proposal might have on the forest health of roadless areas, the rest of the National Forest System, and adjacent private or other public lands.

There has been minimal activity in roadless areas in the past decade. This is largely due to existing forest planning procedures recognizing the importance and sensitivity of these roadless areas. Activity has been undertaken only after careful review on the ground. The need for further constraints in the roadless areas is unwarranted.

Timeliness is a critical factor in dealing with many forest health issues. The Forest Service should avoid any road policy that limits the ability for forestland managers to make timely decisions in the field. Furthermore, it is important that road policy consider the impacts on known forest health problems, fuel load problems, fire suppression, and recreation activities. It is essential the policy is appropriate to deal with site specific forest health and management issues that are present today as well as in the future.

Mission

We believe many of the problems associated with the National Forest System stem from the fact that the Forest Service is an agency without a clear mission or purpose. The National Forest System was successful in the past because Forest Service managers, Administrations, Congress and the American people agreed upon the purposes of these lands. Currently, there is no consensus amongst Congress, the Administration, the American people, or even within the Agency itself. This lack of consensus is one of the fundamental reasons the Forest Service is the target of an unprecedented level of criticism; criticism that comes from all sides of the issues. There is little purpose in developing a new set of planning regulations, forest plans, road policies, strategic plans, or watershed plans when there is no clear mission that guides Forest Service management.

The purposes of the national forests and public lands are no longer clear. In the last 20 years, changing public values, federal environmental laws, court decisions, executive orders, and regulations have increasingly emphasized the importance of protecting ecological processes on the public lands and national forests. These incremental changes have come without a corresponding change in the basic land management statutes. Congress has the constitutional responsibility to set policy for the national forests and public lands and should act decisively to establish clear priorities for their management. Although the legislative intent and organizational goals must be clear, there is also a need for flexible, local implementation that meets local and regional needs. This was the original management philosophy of the Forest Service. We believe it is still an appropriate goal.

Additional Thoughts

The DEIS has many errors and we find it difficult to make meaningful comments. For example, in Chapter 3, page 144 the document presents the Rio Grande and San Juan National Forests as administratively combined. They are two separate national forests and are not combined administratively. The document is full of errors like this. When the Agency makes errors like this, it is difficult to trust the overall analysis.

The analysis needs to verify and document the "eight billion dollar" road backlog.

The Agency needs to identify and quantify the unroaded portions of inventoried roadless areas.

The Agency needs to clearly define "unroaded characteristics."

The Agency needs to define "other unroaded areas" and further explain how they want those areas managed. Theses "other unroaded areas" should not be part of the proposal.

In Chapter 3 page 11, the percentage of clear cutting is misleading, since volume harvested has been greatly reduced. A more meaningful comparison would be acres harvested.

On Summary page 45, the Forest Service acknowledges that there may be cumulative impacts between this and other rulemakings and the Agency might choose to integrate the proposals. It would be helpful to know if the Agency was going to do that, and why it was not done in the first place.

On page 41 of the summary the Forest Service assumes that payments to states will not be affected by the proposal because the Administration is working with the Congress to provide permanent stable payments to counties. This assumes the Administration and Congress will be able to develop such a mechanism. However, since permanent stable payments are not yet available for the counties, the Forest Service should do the analysis on how this proposal will affect the counties under current law.

The proposal may violate NEPA because the DEIS was issued before consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service was completed. NEPA requires full disclosure of potential impacts. Without full consultation and acceptance from the regulatory agencies, there is no assurance that the DEIS or Proposed Rule will be acceptable to these agencies or if additional requirements will need to be added. In order for the public to understand the impacts of the different alternatives and their potential impact to the future management of our National Forests, the results of this consultation must then be incorporated into the DEIS.

In Chapter 3, page 11, the Forest Service needs to define "irreversible loss of roadless character." It is unclear why temporary roads would have this effect. This problem (misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the effects of temporary roads) occurs elsewhere in the DEIS. At a minimum the DEIS needs to discuss what a temporary road is, and how the term "temporary" means it is planned for closure/obliteration after project activities are completed.

In Chapter 3, page 58, clear cutting may affect biodiversity (both positively and negatively), but in some ecosystems, notably lodgepole pine, clear cutting is necessary for stand regeneration.

The proposal does not address the role of roads in fire management and fire risk.

The proposal does not assess how prohibiting road building would prevent access to other areas throughout the National Forest System.

The Forest Service needs to complete a legal analysis of why the prefered alternative is not in violation of several statewide wilderness acts.

The Forest Service needs to explain why they do not have to conduct a Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. We believe the lack of such an analysis is in violation of the law.

Closing

SAF favors the no action alternative and is against any nationwide prohibition on building roads, or other nationwide prohibitions on management activities that could be applied through this rule. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

Sincerely,

William H. Banzhaf
Executive Vice President

ABOUT THE SOCIETY The Society of American Foresters, with about 18,000 members, is the national organization that represents all segments of the forestry profession in the United States. It includes public and private practitioners, researchers, administrators, educators, and forestry students. The Society was established in 1900 by Gifford Pinchot and six other pioneer foresters. The mission of the Society of American Foresters is to advance the science, education, technology, and practice of forestry; to enhance the competency of its members; to establish professional excellence; and to use the knowledge, skills, and conservation ethic of the profession to ensure the continued health and use of forest ecosystems and the present and future availability of forest resources to benefit society. The Society is the accreditation authority for professional forestry education in the United States. The Society publishes the Journal of Forestry; the quarterlies, Forest Science, Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, and Western Journal of Applied Forestry; The Forestry Source and the annual Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters national convention.

POLICY STATEMENT INDEX