FRD –0638 Attributes Comments - Content Analysis Group, LLC

FRD –0638
Attributes
Response Type: 1 - Letter
Delivery Type: W - Web-based submission
IP Address: 72.166.158.122
Form Letter:
Comments
May 10, 2011
www.govcomments.com
Forest Service Planning DEIS
c/o Bear West Company
132 E. 500 S
Bountiful, UT 84010
Re: USDA Forest Service 2011 Draft Planning Rule Comments
Dear Sir or Madam:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Forest Service's Proposed Forest Planning Rule published in the Federal
Register February 14, 2011.
I am making these comments as a federal timber purchaser and I have a number of concerns about the policy direction these
proposed rules take, especially the impact on traditional multiple uses, such as timber production, recreation and grazing. The
Proposed Planning Rule will make forest planning more expensive, more time consuming, and more difficult to implement, all
in a time of reduced federal budgets resulting in less management on the ground. Our forests across the country are
deteriorating at an alarming rate, whether it is due to lack of industry infrastructure remaining, wildfires, insect and diseases,
and invasive species each of which produce a less than desired future condition. The Proposed Planning Rule will add to the
already burdensome process that is overwhelming the Forest Service, creating endless paperwork leaving the Forest Service
ultimately vulnerable to endless litigation that will halt forest management activities. I urge you to revise the Proposed Rule
by eliminating everything that goes beyond the statutory planning requirements contained in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield
Act and the National Forest Management Act. The contents of Alternative C, contained in Appendix E of the DEIS, would be a
good way to do this as noted below.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Species Viability. There is no requirement in the NFMA to "maintain viable populations"; therefore this should not be included
in the Planning Rule. It is only required to "provide for diversity of plant and animal communities" and "preserve the diversity
of tree species". "Species Viability" was the appeal issue on which Chief Dombeck reversed forest plan decisions in late 1999
and early 2000 halting several national forests. Measuring and proving that a forest plan will "maintain" or is "maintaining" a
viable population is nearly impossible, leaving the Forest Service highly vulnerable to lawsuits. This is one of the most
litigated issues in the federal court systems today and will continue if the unnecessary requirement is not withdrawn. To make
this more difficult, the proposed rule expands "maintaining viable populations" to include invertebrates and other species such
as insects, fungi, bacteria, molds, etc. There is a long on-going history of litigation regarding the language surrounding
"vertebrates". The probability to successfully defend "invertebrates" is slim to none. This inclusion will cost the taxpayers a lot
more money and the national forest lands will suffer from the litigation that will take place. I strongly suggest we get back to
what is required in the NFMA." Remove "maintain viable populations" and replace with "provide for diversity".
Another requirement identified in Sec 219.9(b)(3) to "maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern within
the plan area" is another guarantee the Forest Service will have a legal battle fulfilling. This creates a new obligation to create
recovery plans for candidate species that is unnecessary and not required by law. The Planning Rule needs to include what
NFMA currently requires, "provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the
specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives". See Alternative C.

FRD –0638
Sustainability. The Proposed Rule does not properly address the various multiple uses the Forest Service is required to
manage for under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act. Under Sec. 219.8 (b) Social and economic sustainability it states,
"The plan must include plan components to guide the unit's contribution to social and economic sustainability…" , effectively
placing ecological sustainability above the social and economic components. The language "contribution" renders the social
and economic sustainability as secondary status and delivers the wrong message to the Forest Service about what they need
to be doing managing natural resources such as timber, mining, and grazing. The Proposed Rule needs to recognize this and
include language for plan components that maintain or restore all three elements of sustainability; ecological, social, and
economical. Alternative C is the right approach.
Role of Science. "Best available science" is identified throughout the Proposed Rules. Sec 219.3 "The responsible official shall
take into account the best available scientific information throughout the planning process" seems relatively harmless. Having
accurate, reliable and relevant information is crucial in Forest Service decision making and implementation, however, proving
what science is "best" is likely to be time consuming and of little value, but will undoubtedly lead to lawsuits. Replace
proposed Sec. 219.3 with the language in Alternative C.
Public Participation. The public participation involvement process (Sec 219.4) is quite detailed and cumbersome and
downplays the current requirement to coordinate with local government. NEPA requires that the analysis conducted be
coordinated with local governments. The call for greater "public input" weakens the existing requirement to coordinate forest
planning with local governments and their plans. Public involvement from all walks of life should be encouraged, but the local
citizens and forest users that are most directly affected by the plan should have a greater influence on the future
management decisions since they are the ones who live, work, play, and enjoy their adjacent federal lands each and every
day. Too much emphasis is placed on using "contemporary tools" to engage the public and not enough emphasis given to the
people who have to live with management decisions (or lack of) that may have great economic, social, and ecological
impacts. Public outreach should be left to the discretion of the responsible official. See Alternative C.
Process and Planning. The Proposed Rule places too much focus on planning, monitoring and assessing and not enough on
objectives and desired future conditions (Sec. 219.5, 219.6, 219.7). These planning requirements are too time consuming
and costly to implement considering the scarce resources and personnel availability. The goal of forest planning should be
timely and efficient completion and implementation of plans, not endless planning. The process is not likely to improve our
forests or make them easier to manage. We need to develop a strategy to make planning faster, simpler, less expensive as
well as staying out of the court systems. Forest plans should be completed within three years of initiation, though the average
10 year plan has taken 7-10 years to implement. The Proposed Rule adds additional levels of process that can only cause
continued damage to our national forests. Only those processes required by Congress in the NFMA should be included in the
Planning Rule.
Assessments. The establishment of a new layer of planning identified in Sec 219.6 which would be prepared apart from the
Forest Plan without NEPA analysis is a violation of the current law. This is another unnecessary process in the planning phase.
I recommend eliminating Sec 219.6 and its requirements.
Monitoring. The monitoring requirements proposed in Sec 219.12 are too complex, time consuming, and expensive; for
instance, the regulation requires biennial monitoring evaluation reports and monitoring of "measurable changes related to
climate change." Instead of focusing on "climate change and other stressors" and "carbon stored above ground" (Sec 219.1
(a) 5 (v) & (vi), the Forest Service should place emphasis on other measurable items like timber outputs, AMU's, recreational
visitor days, etc. identified in Sec 219.12(a)5. Monitoring should not be a Forest Plan requirement as it diverts more money
and people from getting management done on the ground. The biennial evaluation discussed above should be eliminated. The
language in Alternative C should be the Final Rule.
Levels of Planning. I am extremely uncomfortable with the requirement in Sec 219.2(b) that "A plan reflects the unit's
expected distinctive roles and contributions to the local area, region, and Nation, and the roles for which the unit is best
suited, considering the Agency mission, unique capabilities, and the resources and management of other lands in the vicinity."
Each forest plan produces a different mix of multiple use objectives and outputs. Identifying specific "niches", a term
commonly used today, or "distinctive roles and contributions" for each forest to fill a void in the region or national picture will
divert more attention than the tangible outputs, products, and services traditionally provided. The dynamics of each national
forest change so frequently; whether it comes from a new listed endangered species, changes due to wildfire, insect and
disease outbreaks, and mill closures, that the concept of having a distinctive role is unnecessary and quite honestly a
distraction. Having a healthy forest addressing the multiple users' interest should be the direction each forest plan takes into
account. Having a "distinctive role or contribution" assigned should not become required content of the plan. Each national
forest needs to provide the resources and services that are desired at the local level. I believe that 219.2(b), 219.6(b)(3),
and 219.7(e)(ii) requirements should be removed from the proposed rule in its entirety.
Timber Requirements based on NFMA. The Proposed Rule needs to address and re-emphasize timber harvest on suitable
lands providing forest products industry with dependable, predictable, sustained volumes. Timber harvest is the most cost
effective tool to move or maintain the desired future conditions set out in the objectives of a forest plan. Timber harvest
typically has been used to achieve other ecological benefits and multiple use benefits for purposes other than timber

FRD –0638
production. The Forest Service is required by NFMA to remove timber annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis.
Perpetuity? Sustained? Accomplishments in most areas currently in the west are measured in road miles cleared, miles of
power-lines cleared, sanitation, and salvage (after a wildfire or insect infestation), etc. How can we expect to maintain or
sustain a healthy productive forest when the Forest Service is reactive instead of proactive? It appears all other needs take
precedence over timber production. More emphasis needs to be given to timber production and be given equal consideration
as to the important role it plays in providing for various multiple use benefits. A vibrant, healthy forest products industry
needs to be a top priority to help restore/maintain healthy forest conditions, create jobs, and provide commodities our nation
demands.
COMMENDATIONS
Pre-Decisional Administrative Review Process. I fully support the use of the pre-decisional objection process. Requiring
objections before the final plan is released allows the Forest Service to consider changes before their final decision. Under the
current appeals process, those who just want to stop a project don't have to participate in trying to resolve the issue before
the decision is made. This process has worked well for Healthy Forest Restoration Act projects. The requirements of Sec.
219.50—219.62 should be included in the final Planning Rule.
Responsible official. I agree that the Forest Supervisor should be the Responsible Official who approves land management
plans. (Sec. 219.2).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Dan Buehler
Resource Manager
Neiman Timber Company L.C.
P.O. Box 218
Hulett, WY 82720
Individual(s)
Organization Type
Organization
Email Address
Title
Name
Business (Affected Owner/CEO, Chamber of Commerce)
NEIMAN TIMBER COMPANY L.C.
danb@rapidnet.com
RESOURCE MANAGER
DAN BUEHLER
Address 1 P.O. BOX 218
Address 2
City
State
HULETT
WYOMING
Zip 82720
Country
Created On
UNITED STATES
5/11/2011 9:17:00 AM