Contents
Topic
Background
Text of proposed rule
Comments
filed by the Ornithological Council
Final Rule announced: Dated
9 November 2000
Topic: U.S. Forest Service proposes major revision to forest management planning regulations.
Nearly 10 years ago, the USDA Forest Service set out to revise the regulations that chart the management planning process for the 192 million acres it manages. First published in 1979, these regulations guide regional Forest Service managers who decide how much logging, mining, grazing, recreation, and natural resource protection will take place in each of 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands. If the new regulations, finally proposed in October 1999, are implemented, science may take center stage in public forest management.
The development of the proposed regulations was delayed when conservation organizations criticized an earlier Forest Service proposal to revise its planning process as unscientific and lacking adequate provisions for biological inventory and monitoring. The agency went back to the drawing board. In December 1997, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman convened a 13-member Committee of Scientists (click here for Committee of Scientists Report) to review the forest management planning process and to recommend improvements. Glickman asked COS how issues such as biological diversity, spatial and temporal scales, sustainable forestry, and interdisciplinary analysis should be reflected in the planning process.
Fifteen months later, COS issued a blueprint for forest management planning that calls long-term sustainability the overarching objective of national forest stewardship. The COS report served as the basis for the proposed regulations, whose goal is to define the conditions that characterize the ecological integrity of a forest or grassland and to determine how to restore or maintain those conditions. Harv Forsgren, Director of the agency's Fish, Wildlife and Rare Plants staff says that unlike the existing regulations, which describe how to write a forest management plan, the proposed regulations specify what should be considered in developing those plans. Where the existing regulations included as one of 14 guiding principles the "recognition that the National Forests are ecosystems and their management for goods and services requires an awareness and consideration of the interrelationships among plants, animals, soil, water, air, and other environmental factors within ecosystems," the touchstone of the proposed regulations is ecological sustainability. And whereas the existing rule focuses on what we take from the land, he says, the new rule focuses on what we leave behind.
Science will inform each step in the proposed forest management planning process, starting with independent peer review of the findings and conclusions of the broad-scale assessments of ecological conditions at each site. The proposed regulations require that monitoring and inventory protocols be designed and evaluated by scientists, and that independent peer review of the monitoring program must occur at least biennially. Outside scientists will form regional science advisory boards and a national board will provide guidance on issues of national significance.
Nevertheless, both conservation and forestry groups say that forest plans could be short on science. Mary Munson of Defenders of Wildlife points out that scientific input would be mandatory only for the design and evaluation of monitoring and inventory strategies and protocols. Agency managers could choose to consult scientists during the planning process, but are not required to do so.
Forestry industry groups, who charge that the new regulations will turn forests into national parks by shutting down logging on public lands, have also questioned the scientific underpinnings of the regulations. Mary Coulombe, of the American Forest and Paper Association, says that the COS did not represent a full range of views and that the COS report should have been peer reviewed. Jim Woehr, senior scientist for the Wildlife Management Institute, a conservation and wildlife management organization, agrees that the panel was heavily weighted with academics and short on scientists with forest or wildlife management experience, but, like most other conservation professionals, he views the regulations as basically sound but in need of fine-tuning.
Both Munson and Woehr doubt that the Forest Service will be able to conduct the monitoring needed to achieve sustainability. Woehr worries that the seemingly-sensible requirement that forest management plans be based on reasonably anticipated funding levels could result in projects that never get beyond the planning documents. For instance, according to the proposed regulations, timber-cutting goals must be based a timber yield that can be removed without jeopardizing the desired conditions identified in the management plan. Without money to monitor the effects of timber removal, the forest manager cannot know if timber removal is causing soil erosion or threatening wildlife management goals. Therefore, at least in theory, the logging plan could not be implemented if sufficient funds are not available.
Whether these and other concerns will be sufficient to derail the implementation of the regulations in their proposed form remains to be seen. (The public comment period closed on 4 January). In the end, it may be the persistence of scientists, demanding to be included in every phase of the forest management planning process, that lets the Forest Service reach its goal of sustainability.
Copyright 2000 by the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Thanks to the American Institute of Biological Sciences for permission to reprint this article, which appeared in the February 2000 issue of BioScience (50 BioScience 99).
Text of proposed rule:
The proposed rule exceeds 75 pages in length. Rather than reproducing
that text here, we are providing a link to a Forest Service webpage that
includes the full text, explanatory material, and links to the Committee
of Scientists website. Click
here to go to the Forest Service website.
Comments filed by the Ornithological Council
31 January 2000
CAET-USDA
Attn: Planning Rule
Forest Service, USDA
200 East Broadway, Room 103
P.O.Box 7669
Missoula, Montana 59807
Dear Sir or Madam,
The Ornithological Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Forest Service's proposed revision to the forest management planning regulations (64 FR 54073; 5 October 1999). The Ornithological Council consists of ten leading scientific ornithological societies in North America that together have a membership of nearly 6,500 ornithologists. It is our mission to provide scientific information about birds to legislators, regulatory agencies, industry decision makers, conservation organizations and others, and to promote the use of scientific information in the making of policies that affect birds. Many of these ornithologists comprising our member societies, including those responsible for reviewing the proposed regulation and drafting these comments, have decades of research experience involving birds that rely on forest or grassland habitat.
We would like to begin by stating that the proposed regulations are a substantial improvement over the existing rule. The explicit acknowledgment that ecological sustainability is a necessary condition for sustainability in all other uses is especially worthy of mention. Without this foundation, sustainable forest management is unlikely to succeed.
We have several specific comments related to the role of science in the forest management planning process.
The role of science in the planning process
The role of scientists in the design and implementation
of forest plans should be prescribed more precisely and definitely. The
proposed regulation does not require a scientific review of a forest plan,
but recommends that planners "consult with scientific experts and other
knowledgeable persons, as appropriate and necessary [§219.16(d)].
Similarly, Section 219.23 says that "scientists may participate in planning."
The responsible office may use a science advisory board to determine whether
planning decisions are consistent with the best available science (§219.24).
We contend that the measures needed to achieve ecological sustainability
necessarily involve complex, scientific data and analysis. Forest Service
scientists are of the highest caliber, but they alone will not be able
to review the plans for 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands.
Furthermore, the hallmark of peer review is independence. Review by scientists
external to the Forest Service is needed to assure credibility. If possible,
scientists external to the planning area should also be included, as those
who work in the region may have strong views that they cannot set aside
in conducting the review.
Although mandatory peer review can lengthen what is already likely to be a slow and cumbersome planning process, it is extremely important and should be made mandatory. The reviews should be conducted by the regional science advisory boards, which should include not only scientists representing a broad range of natural resource disciplines, but should also include scientists from a diversity of institutions and agencies. Scientists from state agencies, universities, conservation organizations, professional scientific societies, and forestry management organizations (both nonprofit and commercial) should be invited to participate. The science advisory boards should be allowed to create temporary positions to address issues that the members of the standing board may not have the expertise to address.
Appropriate planning scale
For conservation of migratory birds and many large
mammals, the critical issue is planning at an appropriate spatial scale.
Section 219.2(c)(1) discusses the need for planning to be "outward-looking"
and to consider the geographic context of each forest and grassland. If
planning is carried out in a manner consistent with the guiding principles,
it will "recognize the regional, national, and global implications of management."
[Section 219 (c)(2)(v)]. Furthermore, if planning is to be based on science,
including the use of scientifically-based strategies for sustainability
[Section 219.2(A)(ii)] it must be conducted on what the proposed regulation
describes as a bioregional scale. Planning for bird conservation needs
to be regional in order to provide adequate habitat - both in terms of
size and location across a region - for stopover habitat and breeding bird
populations. Therefore, all supervisors in a bioregion should be required
to work together in planning management of their forests. Although this
approach is closer to the top-down management that the regulations seek
to avoid, it is a necessary element of ecological sustainability. Ecological
sustainability requires the maintenance of all components of the ecosystem.
Birds play a critical role in maintaining forest health by consuming enormous
numbers of insects and acting as pollinators and seed dispersers. In order
to avoid forests empty of birds, it is necessary to address the habitat
needs of the flora and fauna across entire ranges.
We emphasize this point because guiding principles are easily overlooked amid the political and social challenges of planning. The collaborative planning process is laudable, but it is important to know where t0 start and to define parameters for the discussion. The guiding principles deal mostly with cooperation with local and state governments and federal agencies in the local area. Decision-making is delegated to individual forest supervisors, who are encouraged, but not required, to work with regional foresters or national Forest Service management. Instead we suggest that the regulation direct that assessments be done on a bioregional basis and that planning be done on a regional level unless there is a biological reason to do otherwise. To accomplish this goal, forest supervisors within a bioregion should be required to meet at least annually, together with the participation of regional supervisors in those Forest Service regions that comprise the bioregion, to coordinate their planning and management efforts.
The Committee of Scientists report addresses this issue
in its discussion of bioregional assessments (Section 4B). Table 4-3 (p.96)
proposes that ecological sustainability and ecosystem integrity be evaluated
at the bioregional level. If the regional assessment covers a very large
and heterogeneous land area, there may be a need to disaggregate the information
to a sub-regional level. The COS cites as an example the Interior Columbia
Basin Ecosystem Management Plan.
The bioregional assessment, according to the COS,
is the source of the critical information used for planning, including
the definition of focal species, measures of ecological integrity, development
of conservation strategies, and the analysis of the range of historical
variability. Application of this information is made at a smaller ("watershed")
scale, but it is made in accordance with bioregional assessments to define
desired future conditions. The COS report gives as further examples
management for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker based on management needs for
the species across its entire range and management for the Northern Goshawk
and Mexican Spotted Owl across the Southwestern Region.
Partners in Flight, a cooperative effort involving partnerships among federal, state and local government agencies (including the Forest Service, which sits on the PIF Federal Agency Committee), philanthropic foundations, scientific and professional organizations, conservation groups, industry, the academic community, and private individuals, has developed a set of physiographic regions for bird conservation planning. Recently, these physiographic regions have been redrawn slightly to make them consistent with the planning regions to be used by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), a trilateral effort created under the aegis of the Commission on Environmental Cooperation pursuant to the environmental side agreement to NAFTA. The 34 regions that are entirely within the United States (plus another in Hawaii) are based primarily on vegetation analysis and habitat relationships of birds to plant communities. They provide for migration stopover habitat and large, uninterrupted areas suitable for source populations (breeding populations that increase in size; when these populations "outgrow" available habitat, some individuals leave to join other populations or colonize new areas).. As such, they are suitable for the bioregional assessments suggested by the COS, although there may be a need for modifications to provide more connectivity of habitats for some large mammals.
There are certainly management decisions that can be made at the local forest unit level. So, for instance, if more intensive logging is needed to reduce fire loads in a certain forest, the forest supervisor should not be prevented from taking appropriate action by virtue of a bioregional assessment or plan. However, to use the example of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker, provision of an adequate amount of suitable habitat throughout the range is reflected in the length of timber rotations in designated Habitat Management Areas, which were selected in a bioregional planning process that covered the entire range of the species. If monitoring data suggest that adjustments are needed in order to achieve desired conditions, then certainly individual forest plans can and should be adjusted. However, those desired conditions should be guided by the bioregional assessments.
Consideration of existing conservation plans
The planning process should take into consideration
existing conservation plans, such as those prepared by Partners in Flight
and the North American Waterfowl Management joint ventures. The PIF bird
conservation plans are based on a species prioritization scheme that has
been peer-reviewed under the aegis of the American Ornithologists' Union
(AOU). The individual bird conservation plans, which are intended to be
updated as new information becomes available, will be peer-reviewed. Under
the aegis of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, additional
joint ventures will be created to cover the entire United States (eight
have been created already). These joint ventures, which will draw from
the PIF conservation plans, should be included in the forest planning process.
The Forest Service should require local and regional foresters to obtain
the plans for the relevant planning area from PIF when the planning or
revision process begins.
Species at risk
Section 219.20(a)(7)(ii) defines species at risk as
endangered, threatened, candidate, proposed, and sensitive species, and
species for which significant local reductions in distribution or density
are concerns. Sensitive species are defined as those identified in the
Forest Service's Sensitive Species Program, Section 2670 as those identified
by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern,
as evidenced by either a significant current or predicted downward trends
in population numbers or density or a significant current or predicted
downward trends in
habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing
distribution. This definition is consistent with the List of Nongame Birds
of Management Concern published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Office of Migratory Bird Management. This list " identifies those species
of migratory nongame birds that are considered to be of concern in the
United States because of (1) documented or apparent population declines,
(2) small or restricted populations, or (3) dependence on restricted or
vulnerable habitats." We suggest that the Forest Service expressly include
in these regulations all birds included on the USFWS List of Nongame Birds
of Management Concern (which is expected to be updated in 2000 and every
five years thereafter).
Reliance on historical conditions and evidence of disturbance
processes
We support the provision in §219.20(a)(4) and
210.20(b)(3) that incorporate estimates of the historical range of variability
of ecological conditions and an assessment of natural disturbance regimes
as information that is to be included in the restoration and maintenance
of ecosystem integrity. We caution against using this information to justify
timber harvest without conducting a region-wide assessment of current conditions.
It is true that in some regions, such as the Northeast, the proportion
of early successional habitat has fallen below the levels for the presettlement
landscape and many species associated with shrublands and young forest
are declining as a result. Similar concerns have been raised in the Southeast.
There is a need to maintain a balance, but that balance may not approximate
historical conditions. Forests should be managed for ecosystems within
the historic range of variability, including both early successional and
old growth forests. This would mitigate against converting rare old growth
forest to early successional vegetation even if the latter is also rare.
It is also important to consider public forests in the context of the full
complement of forested lands in a region. Private forests generally are
younger and have less diversity than public forests. Public forests should
not be converted to early successional habitats when these conditions are
already provided by private or state forests.
Monitoring and evaluation
We are concerned about the use of habitat monitoring
in lieu of direct population monitoring for species at high risk of extirpation
[(Section 219.11(e)(2)(iii)]. Some direct population monitoring will always
be necessary for such species. Even if the habitat requirements of a species
are well-understood, the monitoring of habitat is not a suitable alternative
to actual estimates of population status via population sampling and studies.
First, the habitat indicator is imprecise or incorrect. Scientists are
not always able to determine which of the many aspects of habitat are critical
to a species. Second, populations maybe affected by factors outside the
planning area, so populations could decline even when habitat quality and
quantity within the planning area do not change. This is especially true
for birds. Finally, there are few instances in which habitat is not a primary
factor influencing species populations dynamics. Habitat implies "suitable"
habitat and that in turn implies habitat where wildlife finds adequate
food and breeding sites. By definition, habitat is not suitable if it is
contaminated by toxic substances that lead to direct mortality or prevent
successful breeding. So, determining that there are sufficient acres of
grassland for a certain species of bird is not an adequate substitute for
conducting a census, because the vegetation and soil may be contaminated
with heavy metals from mine runoff. In fact, a declining trend in the bird
population may be the first indication of such instances of habitat degradation.
We are also concerned with the language in Section 219.11(c) stating that, "monitoring and evaluation, if required in conjunction with a site specific project, must be described in the project decision document." [emphasis added]. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which monitoring and evaluation will not be needed. Using data from similar projects conducted in similar conditions, the effects of a proposed site-specific project can be projected. However nature is not so precise that the assumed results will always match those projections. Myriad conditions can vary, including species composition and relative abundance, soil surface and substrate, and climatological and hydrological conditions. The extent of visitor use may be estimated at a certain number, but actual use may be much higher, resulting in a substantially greater impact on an area. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation are always needed. This is especially true because if multiple site-specific projects go unevaluated, the cumulative impact of the projects will not be forecast and understood.
Salvage logging
Section 219.28(d) provides that salvage logging is
permitted except where prohibited by law. This restriction is too narrow.
Salvage logging should also be prohibited in areas where management plans
call for permitting natural disturbance to create some of the habitat conditions
of the presettlement landscape. Standing and fallen dead trees are needed
by many species that specialize on recently disturbed sites. These species
will decline if salvage logging proceeds after every fire, storm, and insect
outbreak.
We again thank the Forest Service for giving us the opportunity to comment on these proposed regulations, and we hope that our comments prove useful to the Forest Service in finalizing the regulations.
Sincerely,
Ellen Paul
Executive Director
FINAL RULE ANNOUNCED - LONG-AWAITED FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATION ANNOUNCED – On 9 November 2000, the USDA Forest Service announced its final National Forest System Land Resource Management Planning rule. This rule, which takes effect November 9, 2000 replaces the 1982 regulations that were designed to implement the mandates of the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (among others). Over the years, the Forest Service realized that the 1982 regulations described the process of forest planning, but failed to address the substantive issues involved in deciding how to manage the 192 million acres of land in 42 states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico that the Forest Service manages. These lands include 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and various other lands.
The regulation (and the explanatory comments) are quite lengthy. It is posted at http://www.fs.fed.us/forum/nepa/rule/
The Forest Service efforts to improve the planning regulations actually began in 1989 with a comprehensive review of its land management planning process. Based in part on this review, the Forest Service published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 1991 regarding possible revisions to the 1982 planning rule. An actual proposed rule was developed and published for comment in 1995. However, the Forest Service abandoned that proposed rule after receiving substantial negative comment. In 1997, the Forest Service tried again. The Secretary of Agriculture convened a 13-member Committee of Scientists to review the Forest Service planning process and offer recommendations for improvements within the statutory mission of the Forest Service and the established framework of environmental laws. The members of this Committee of Scientists represented a diversity of views, backgrounds, and academic expertise. The Committee's charter was to ``provide scientific and technical advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service on improvements that can be made in the National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Process and to address such topics as how to consider the following in land and resource management plans: biological diversity, use of ecosystem assessments in land and resource management planning, spatial and temporal scales for planning, public participation processes, sustainable forestry, interdisciplinary analysis, and any other issues that the Committee identifies that should be addressed in revised planning regulations.'' The Committee was also asked to recommend improvements in Forest Service coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies, and tribal governments while recognizing the unique roles and responsibilities of each agency in the planning process. The Committee held more than 20 publicly noticed meetings and teleconferences across the country and heard from Forest Service employees, representatives of tribes, state and local governments and other federal agencies, members of the public, former Chiefs of the Forest Service, and members of the original Committee of Scientists regarding their concerns and ideas about the current planning process and the current management of national forests and grasslands.
The Committee of Scientists homepage can be found at:http://www.cof.orst.edu/org/scicomm/index.htm.
Following these meetings, the Committee of Scientists issued a final report on March 15, 1999, entitled Sustaining the People's Lands. That report is online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/news/science/
The Forest Service then issued a proposed rule in October
1999 incorporating the recommendations of the Committee of Scientists along
with its own experiences in forest management. After considering 10,489
written comments and holding 23 public hearings at which 1,339 people offered
comments, the Forest Service completed the final rule. It reaffirms sustainability
as the overall goal for National Forest System planning and management;
establishes requirements for the implementation, monitoring, evaluation,
amendment, and revision of land and resource management plans; and guides
the selection and implementation of site-specific actions. The intended
effects are to simplify, clarify, and otherwise improve the planning process;
to reduce burdensome and costly procedural requirements; to strengthen
and clarify the role of science in planning, and to strengthen collaborative
relationships with the public and other government entities. The final
rule emphasizes four key concepts. First, it affirms sustainability as
the overall goal for national forest and grassland management in accordance
with the Multiple-Use-Sustained-Yield Act of. Second, it requires extensive
cooperation and collaboration with the public and other private and public
entities. Third, it integrates science more effectively into the planning
and management of national forests and grasslands. Finally, the rule eliminates
burdensome analytical requirements that were designed to govern the initial
development of land and resource management plans and puts into place a
new planning framework that addresses problems, issues, and opportunities
identified through collaboration with the public, through monitoring or
other scientific analyses, or by other means.
Return to Expert Help Page
Return to BIRDNET
Home Page