National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
[Federal Register: November 9, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 218)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67513-67581]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09no00-25]
[[Page 67513]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
36 CFR Parts 217 and 219
National Forest System Land Resource Management Planning; Final Rule
[[Page 67514]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Parts 217 and 219
RIN 0596-AB20
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule describes the framework for National Forest
System land and natural resource planning; 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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective November 9, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert S. Cunningham, Assistant
Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, Forest Service, USDA, P.O.
Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 20090-6090, (202) 205-2494.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline displays the contents
of the preamble to this final regulation.
General Background
The 1982 Planning Rule
Summary of Public Comment
Today's Final Rule
Response to General Comments
Section by Section Response to Public Comments
Purpose, Goals, and Principles
Proposed section 219.1 Purpose.
Proposed section 219.2 Goals and principles for planning.
The Framework for Planning
Proposed section 219.3 Overview.
Proposed section 219.4 Topics of general interest or concern.
Proposed section 219.5 Information development and interpretation.
Proposed section 219.6 Proposed actions.
Proposed section 219.7 Plan decisions that guide future actions.
Proposed section 219.8 Amendment.
Proposed section 219.9 Revision.
Proposed section 219.10 Site-specific decisions and authorized uses
of land.
Proposed section 219.11 Monitoring and evaluation.
Collaborative Planning for Sustainability
Proposed section 219.12 Collaboration and cooperatively developed
landscape goals.
Proposed section 219.13 Coordination among federal agencies.
Proposed section 219.14 Involvement of state and local governments.
Proposed section 219.15 Interaction with American Indian tribes and
Alaska Natives.
Proposed section 219.16 Relationships with interested individuals
and organizations.
Proposed section 219.17 Interaction with private landowners.
Proposed section 219.18 Role of advisory groups and committees.
Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability
Proposed section 219.19 Ecological, social, and economic
sustainability.
Proposed section 219.20 Ecological sustainability.
Proposed section 219.21 Social and economic sustainability.
The Contribution of Science
Proposed section 219.22 The role of assessments, analyses, and
monitoring.
Proposed section 219.23 The participation of scientists in
planning.
Proposed section 219.24 Science consistency evaluations.
Proposed section 219.25 Science advisory boards.
Special Considerations
Proposed section 219.26 Identifying and designating suitable uses.
Proposed section 219.27 Special designations.
Proposed section 219.28 Determination of land suitable for timber
removal.
Proposed section 219.29 Limitation on timber removal.
Planning Documentation
Proposed section 219.30 Land and resource management plan
documentation.
Proposed section 219.31 Maintenance of the plan and planning
records.
Objections and Appeals
Proposed section 219.32 Objections to amendments or revisions.
Proposed section 219.33 Appeals of site-specific decisions.
Applicability and Transition
Proposed section 219.34 Applicability.
Proposed section 219.35 Transition.
Definitions
Proposed section 219.36 Definitions.
Regulatory Certification
Regulatory Impact
No Takings Implications
Civil Justice Reform Act
Unfunded Mandates Reform
Environmental Impact
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
Description of the Information Collection
Use of Comments--Federalism
General Background
The Forest Service is responsible for managing the lands and
resources of the National Forest System, which includes 192 million
acres of land in 42 states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The
system is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and
various other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Agriculture (the Secretary).
On October 5, 1999, the Forest Service published a proposed rule
(64 FR 54074) to revise the Land and Resource Management Planning rule
at 36 CFR part 219. The existing planning rule was adopted on September
30, 1982 (47 FR 43026) and amended in part on June 24, 1983, (48 FR
29122), and September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383). The rule is required by
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (88
Stat. 476 et seq.) as amended by the National Forest Management Act of
1976, (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614) (hereafter, NFMA).
This final rule will help the Forest Service improve forest
planning and on-the-ground management and enable the agency to improve
the long-term health of the national forests and grasslands while
better meeting the needs of the American people. Consistent with the
statutory mission of the Forest Service and applicable federal
environmental laws, 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 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) (hereafter, MUSYA). 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
[[Page 67515]]
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.
The final rule is grounded in the laws that guide National Forest
System management. It also provides for the incorporation of
significant new scientific information and other lessons the agency has
learned since it began implementing NFMA planning regulations in 1982.
Indeed, much has been learned in developing, implementing, and
litigating the original national forest and grassland plans and the
numerous plan amendments and revisions that have been completed during
the past two decades.
Congress created the National Forest System ``to improve and
protect'' federal forests (Act of June 4, 1897, ch. 2, 30 Stat. 34-36).
The Forest Service is vested with broad authority to make rules ``to
regulate [the Forests'] occupancy and use and to preserve the forests
therein from destruction'' 16 U.S.C. 551.
Sustainability of these lands and resources is the essence of
Forest Service land and natural resource management from the very
beginnings of the National Forest System. Over a century ago, Congress
authorized the President to reserve ``public land bearing forests * * *
whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations,'' Act of
March 3, 1891, ch. 561, 26 Stat. 1095, 1103, to protect them from
unsustainable uses that had damaged watersheds. Six years later in the
Organic Administration Act of 1897, Congress provided further direction
and management authority for these forest reserves and reaffirmed its
intent to provide for sustainable protection and use of these forest
reserves. That law provided for the establishment of forest reserves
``to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the
purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish
a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens
of the United States * * *'' 16 U.S.C. 475.
In the MUSYA, Congress again affirmed the application of
sustainability to the broad range of resources over which the Forest
Service has responsibility. MUSYA confirms the Forest Service's
authority to manage the national forests and grasslands ``for outdoor
recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes''
(16 U.S.C. Sec. 528), and does so without limiting the Forest Service's
broad discretion in determining the appropriate resource emphasis or
levels of use of the lands of each national forest and grassland.
Shortly after the passage of MUSYA, the public was becoming
increasingly concerned about environmental decline throughout the
United States. Congress responded to this concern by enacting several
laws directed toward protecting or improving the natural environment,
conserving natural resources to meet the needs of the American people
in perpetuity, and providing for greater public involvement in agency
decisionmaking. Specifically regarding forest land and resource
management, Congress enacted the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1660(6)), which
requires the Forest Service to manage the National Forest System lands
according to land and resource management plans that provide for
multiple-uses and sustained-yield in accordance with MUSYA (16 U.S.C.
1604(e) and (g)(1)). In developing and maintaining these plans, NFMA
calls for ``integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic
and other sciences.'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(b)). As Sen. Humphrey stated, in
explaining the significance of the NFMA: ``The days have ended when the
forest may be viewed only as trees and trees viewed only as timber. The
soil and the water, the grasses and the shrubs, the fish and the
wildlife, and the beauty that is the forest must become integral parts
of resource managers' thinking and actions'' (122 Cong Rec. 5618-19
(1976)). Similarly, federal courts have recognized that NFMA and
related statutes represent a congressional delegation of broad
authority that allows the Forest Service to address issues of
sustainability using an integrated ecological and socio-economic
framework. See, e.g., Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp.
1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994) aff'd 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996) * * * ``Given
the current condition of the forests, there is no way the agencies
could comply with the environmental laws without planning on an
ecosystem basis.''
NFMA also requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations ``that
set out the process for the development and revision of the land
management plans'' for units of the National Forest System, and
specifies certain procedures, guidelines and goals that should be
discussed in the regulations (16 U.S.C. 1604). NFMA expanded on MUSYA
and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) authorities by including
in the requirements for land use planning broad discretion to provide
for ``diversity of plant and animal communities'' and ``to preserve the
diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region
controlled by the plan'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). Additionally, in
response to public concerns regarding the sustainability of certain
silvicultural techniques, Congress included several limitations and
analytical requirements for timber harvest (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(D)
through (F), (k), and (m)). NFMA also requires the Secretary to appoint
a ``committee of scientists'' to assist in carrying out the task of
developing and promulgating regulations in accordance with the purposes
of the statute (16 U.S.C. 1604(h)).
Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), ``to promote efforts which will
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and
stimulate the health and welfare of man, [and] enrich the understanding
of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the
Nation'' (42 U.S.C. 4321). Under NEPA, all Forest Service proposals for
major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment must include detailed statements of the environmental
effects and alternatives to proposals (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)).
Environmental effects include ecological effects ``such as the effects
on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning
of affected ecosystems'' (40 CFR 1508.8). NEPA also requires the Forest
Service to ``initiate and utilize ecological information in the
planning and development of resource-oriented projects'' (42 U.S.C.
4332(H)).
In addition to NEPA, the ESA also bounds the otherwise broad
discretion that the Forest Service has over land and resource
management. One of the purposes of the ESA is ``to provide a means
whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened
species depend may be conserved . . .'' (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)). The ESA
requires federal agencies such as the Forest Service to ``utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this [Act] by carrying
out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened
species'' in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)).
The 1982 Planning Rule
In accordance with NFMA's direction to develop regulations
regarding the development, maintenance, and revision of land and
resource management plans for units of the
[[Page 67516]]
National Forest System, the Secretary promulgated a rule for
implementation of the planning requirements on September 30, 1982 (47
FR 43026), as amended (48 FR 29122, June 24, 1983), and (48 FR 40383,
Sep. 7, 1983).\1\ The rule is codified at 36 CFR part 219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Secretary had initially promulgated these rules in 1979,
but no forest plans were ever completed under the 1979 rules. Soon
after a new Administration took office, the USDA Assistant Secretary
for Natural Resources and Environment withdrew these planning rules
and sought to revise them. Such controversy was generated as a
result, that the Committee of Scientists involved in the development
of the 1979 rules was reconvened and enlisted to work on what
eventually became the 1982 planning rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many things have changed since the publication of the 1982 rule.
Ideas and concepts, such as sustainability and ecosystem management
have become more adequately understood and increasingly more important
as human uses of natural resources has grown. The Forest Service has
also gained a great deal of experience developing, implementing,
amending, and revising the existing 127 land and resource management
plans under the rule. The Forest Service is now in the process of
revising many of these plans in accordance with NFMA's requirement that
plans be revised at least once every 15 years. The agency has also
developed innovative new planning tools, such as geographical
information systems and is engaged in increased collaboration with the
public and other federal agencies, tribes, state government, and other
interested groups or persons, and uses independent scientific review
more frequently.
The concept of sustainability has become an internationally
recognized objective for land and resource stewardship. In 1987, the
Brundtland Commission Report (The World Commission on Environment and
Development) articulated in ``Our Common Future'' the need for
intergenerational equity in natural resource management. The Commission
defined sustainability as meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
During the last twenty years, the world has increasingly come to
recognize that the functioning of ecological systems is a necessary
prerequisite for strong productive economies, enduring human
communities, and the values people seek from wildlands.
Similarly, the Forest Service and scientific community have
developed the concepts of ecosystem management and adaptive management.
Scientific advances and improved ecological understanding support an
approach under which forests and grasslands are managed as ecosystems
rather than focusing solely on single species or commodity output.
Indeed, ecosystem management places greater emphasis on assessing and
managing broad landscapes and sustaining ecological processes.
Ecosystem management focuses on the cumulative effects of activities
over time and over larger parts of the landscape. Planning and
management under ecosystem management also acknowledge the dynamic
nature of ecological systems, the significance of natural processes,
and the uncertainty and inherent variability of natural systems.
Ecosystem management calls for more effective monitoring of management
actions and their effects to facilitate adaptive management, which
encourages changes in management emphasis and direction as new,
scientific information is developed. In accord with ecosystem
management, regional ecosystem assessments have become the foundation
for more comprehensive planning, sometimes involving multiple forests
and other public land management units. The Northwest Forest Plan, for
example, affects 17 national forests and 6 BLM districts in a three-
state region. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project encompasses
25 percent of the entire National Forest System and ten percent of the
public lands administered by the BLM nationwide.
In the last 20 years, the number of federal, state and local
agencies, Tribes, members of the public, and interested groups wanting
to be involved in planning decisions and share stewardship
responsibilities has skyrocketed. In many cases, Forest Service
personnel have been able to learn significant information, create new
understanding, build trust, obtain new resources for implementation and
monitoring, and diffuse potential conflicts by engaging these parties
more effectively in the planning process through collaboration. While
collaborative approaches do not end conflict or necessarily result in
consensus, by engaging people and identifying key issues early in the
process, they enable the Forest Service to make better decisions and to
manage conflict more effectively. Similarly, the Forest Service has
learned that independent scientific and public review can greatly
enhance the credibility of planning and validate the soundness of
stewardship decisions and the reality of achievements.
Taken together, ecosystem management, scientific reviews, and
collaboration enable the Forest Service to identify key scientific and
public issues and to target its limited resources on trying to resolve
those issues at the most appropriate time and geographic scale. Based
on these changes in the state of scientific and technical knowledge,
the Forest Service's extensive experience, and a series of systematic
reviews, the Forest Service has concluded that 36 CFR part 219 must be
revised in order to better reflect current knowledge and practices and
to better meet the conservation challenges of the future. Indeed, while
the 1982 planning rule was appropriate for developing the first round
of plans from scratch, it is no longer well suited for implementing the
NFMA or responding to the ecological, social, and economic issues
currently facing the national forests and grasslands.
The Forest Service has undertaken two systematic reviews of the
planning process mandated by the 1982 rules. The first began in 1989,
when it conducted a comprehensive review of its land management
planning process in cooperation with the Conservation Foundation and
Purdue University's Department of Forestry and Natural Resources. The
results of this review are documented in a summary report, Synthesis of
the Critique of Land Management Planning, Volume One and ten
accompanying detailed reports. Based in part on this review, the Forest
Service published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 6508,
Feb. 15, 1991) regarding possible revisions to the 1982 planning rule.
The agency conducted four public meetings to explain and discuss ideas
for revising the planning rule; and received comments from over 600
individuals and groups. These comments were used in the development of
a proposed rule published on April 13, 1995 (60 FR 18886). However, due
to comments received on the 1995 proposed rule and lessons learned from
experiences in developing the Northwest Forest Plan, regional
assessments, and other regional ecosystem management strategies, the
Secretary elected not to proceed with that proposal.
The second systematic review was undertaken in December 1997, when
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
[[Page 67517]]
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.
Following these meetings, the Committee of Scientists issued a
final report on March 15, 1999, entitled Sustaining the People's Lands.
The Committee found that, through careful management, National Forest
System lands can continue to provide many diverse benefits to the
American people in perpetuity. These benefits include clean air and
water, productive soils, biological diversity, a wide variety of
products and services, employment, community development opportunities,
and recreation. The Committee recognized that many Forest Service
managers have developed innovative ways to commingle science and
collaborative public processes to improve land management decisions,
and that these innovative strategies provided a good starting point for
developing a more integrated, long-lasting, and flexible planning
framework. The Committee concluded that the Forest Service can improve
its planning and decisionmaking by relying on the concepts and
principles of sustainable natural resource stewardship; by applying the
best available scientific knowledge to management choices; and by
effectively collaborating with a broad array of citizens, other public
servants, and governmental and private entities. Accordingly, the
Committee recommended a planning framework that would provide
flexibility in dealing with a multitude of resource issues at various
scales across the landscape and would require managers to integrate
public collaboration and science to identify desirable outcomes and
promote sustainable management. It also recommended use of adaptive
practices, monitoring, performance measures, and budgeting strategies.
Based on scientific advances in forestry, forest management and
range science, the 1990 Critique of land and resource management
planning and the Committee of Scientists' findings and recommendations
as contained in its 1999 report, the various laws and regulations that
guide National Forest System planning and management, and over 17 years
of experience in developing and implementing the existing 127 land and
resource management plans, a team of Forest Service employees from
national, regional, and local offices, aided by an interagency steering
committee, prepared the October 5, 1999, proposed rule to
comprehensively revise the land and resource management planning
regulation at 36 CFR part 219 (60 FR 18886 Oct. 5, 1999).
Summary of Public Comment
In addition to the meetings held by the Committee of Scientists,
the Forest Service conducted more than twenty public town meetings to
solicit input on the proposed rule. At many of the locations, the
Forest Service also conducted meetings with representatives from
Tribes, state and local governments, and other federal agencies. The
agency held town meetings in both rural and urban communities across
the country, at the following locations:
St. Louis, MO--Tuesday, October 26, 1999
Hanover, NH--Tuesday, October 26, 1999
Duluth, MN--Thursday, October 28, 1999
Olympia, WA--Tuesday, November 2, 1999
Boise, ID--Monday, November 1, 1999
Juneau, AK--Thursday, November 4, 1999
Salem, OR--Thursday, November 4, 1999
Casper, WY--Tuesday, November 9, 1999
Reno, NV--Wednesday, November 10, 1999
Los Angeles, CA--Saturday, November 13, 1999
Denver, CO--Saturday, November 13, 1999
Little Rock, AR--Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Bozeman, MT--Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Jackson, MS--Thursday, November 18, 1999
Missoula, MT--Thursday, November 18, 1999
Coeur d'Alene, ID--Saturday, November 20, 1999
Montrose, CO--Tuesday, November 30, 1999
Grayling, MI--Wednesday, December 1, 1999
Albuquerque, NM--Thursday, December 2, 1999
Asheville, NC--Saturday, December 4, 1999
Salt Lake, UT--Tuesday, December 7, 1999
Sacramento, CA--Thursday, December 9, 1999
Phoenix, AZ--Thursday, December 9, 1999
Approximately 1339 people attended the public meetings. The public
comment period on the proposed rule closed on January 3, 2000, but was
subsequently extended to February 10, 2000. Some 10,489 persons or
entities submitted written comments on the proposed rule. The
respondents consisted of a wide array of individuals, businesses,
government agencies, and organizations. Most respondents agreed that
the planning regulations needed to be revised and supported the
objectives that the Forest Service proposed, but provided numerous
comments on how to better achieve those objectives.
Today's Final Rule
Today's final rule will help the Forest Service improve forest
planning and on-the-ground management and enable the agency to improve
the long-term health of the national forests and grasslands while
better meeting the needs of the American people. The final rule affirms
ecological, social, and economic sustainability as the overall goal for
managing the National Forest System lands and makes the maintenance and
restoration of ecological sustainability a first priority for
management of the national forests and grasslands so these lands can
contribute to economic and social sustainability by providing a
sustainable flow of uses, values, products, and services.
The final rule published here today also is designed to facilitate
greater public collaboration in all phases of the planning process. The
rule expands on existing requirements for collaboration to expand
management choices, create new understanding, build trust, obtain
[[Page 67518]]
new resources for implementation and monitoring, manage conflict more
productively, and more fully informed decisionmaking to ensure the
long-term sustainability of the multiple resources of national forests
and grasslands. The rule encourages land managers to more actively
engage the American people, other federal, state and local agencies,
Tribes, and interested groups in the planning and management of the
national forests and grasslands. In collaborative settings that provide
opportunities for early, open, and frequent public involvement,
responsible Forest Service officials will play many roles, including
serving as process conveners, facilitators, leaders, participants, and
decision makers, as appropriate.
The final rule creates opportunities for people, communities, and
organizations to work together in the identification of key issues,
discussions of opportunities for contributing to sustainability, and
development and promotion of landscape goals. Indeed, under the rule,
improvements to management practices would be made based upon
cooperatively developed landscape goals and other issues which can
emerge from a variety of sources such as collaboration, monitoring,
evaluation, broad-scale assessments, local analyses, new laws and
policies, or simply from discussions among interested persons. The
proposed regulation would encourage the public to be involved in
identifying concerns and problems, considering available information,
assessing current conditions, and identifying potential solutions even
before a proposal for agency action is written. This early public
involvement would make more information available to the public,
enhance its ability to participate in the process, and lead to better
communication about expectations and outcomes. To further enhance the
collaborative process, advisory committees could be used to assist the
responsible official in determining whether there is a reasonable basis
for proposing an action to address an issue.
Additionally, the final rule would replace the post-decision appeal
process with a pre-decisional objection process. The objection process
would only apply to forest and grassland plan revisions and amendments.
Under a pre-decisional objection process, a person could object to a
pending decision before the agency makes a final decision, a process
very similar to the protest procedures now in effect in the Bureau of
Land Management. The intent is to provide the reviewing official with
an opportunity to work more closely with the responsible official and
those filing objections to resolve the objections before a decision is
made. A pre-decisional objection process also will enhance interagency
collaboration by standardizing objection procedures and will provide
incentives to work out substantive differences rather than focus on
procedural errors.
The emphasis on collaboration is consistent with direction provided
in NFMA and other statutes guiding land and resource management and in
concert with the underlying philosophy of national forest management.
As reflected in guidance provided by Gifford Pinchot in the first
Forest Service administrative manual, Uses of the National Forests
(1907), ``National Forests are made for and owned by the people. They
should also be managed by the people * * * If National Forests are
going to accomplish anything worthwhile the people must know all about
them and must take a very active part in their management. What the
people as a whole want, will be done. To do it, it is necessary that
the people carefully consider and plainly state just what they want and
then take a very active part in seeing that they get it.''
Another key element in the final rule is greater emphasis on the
use of science in planning. The final rule requires the use of the best
available science to give the Forest Service and the people,
communities, and organizations involved in the planning process sound
information on which to make recommendations about the resource
conditions and outcomes they desire. The final rule incorporates
science in the planning and decisionmaking process in a number of ways.
First, the rule recognizes the lessons learned in recent years
about developing and analyzing information at the regional ecosystem
level. Regional ecosystem assessments have proven to be an extremely
valuable and efficient means of understanding the scientific,
ecological, social, and economic issues and trends affecting national
forests and grasslands and generating baseline data for use in planning
and decisionmaking.
Second, consistent with the 1990 Critique and the Committee of
Scientists report, the final rule emphasizes monitoring and evaluation
of resource conditions and trends over time so that management can be
adapted as conditions change. Specifically, the required monitoring and
evaluation will assist in determining if desired outcomes are being
achieved and how to adapt if they are not. This emphasis is in keeping
with NFMA's direction to ensure research on evaluation of the effects
of each management system, based on continuous monitoring and
assessment in the field, to the end that it will not produce
substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land
(16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C)). As noted by the Committee of Scientists,
``Monitoring is a key component of planning * * * Monitoring procedures
need to be incorporated into planning procedures and should be designed
to be part of the information used to inform decisions. Adaptive
management and learning are not possible without effective monitoring
of actual consequences from management activities.''
Third, the final rule provides for the establishment of science
advisory boards to improve decision makers' and planners' access to
current scientific information and analysis. It also provides for an
independent scientific review of the effectiveness of land management
plans in meeting the goal of sustainability during the revision
process, and, when appropriate, science consistency evaluations to
determine whether the planning process is consistent with the best
available science. As the Committee of Scientists observed, ``To ensure
public trust and support innovation, scientific and technical review
processes need to become essential elements of management and
stewardship * * * The more that conservation strategies and management
actions are based on scientific findings and analysis, the greater the
need for an ongoing process to ensure that the most current and
complete scientific and technical knowledge is used.''
Fourth, the proposed rule affirms the Forest Service's commitment
to the viability of all species in accordance with the NFMA requirement
to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities and
recognizes the unique contributions national forest and grassland
stewardship can make in maintaining species viability. At the same
time, the rule recognizes the limits of our scientific understanding
and financial and technical capability to conduct viability
assessments. To assess the viability of appropriate species of flora
and fauna, the rule calls for the use of focal species as indicators of
ecological conditions and the best available science and information,
including professional opinion and the principles of conservation
biology.
Finally, the final rule provides a planning framework that
facilitates the identification and responsive resolution to emerging
problems. The final rule simplifies required planning steps to enable
responsible officials to more readily address emerging issues than is
[[Page 67519]]
possible under the 1982 rule. For example, the final rule would clarify
that, where appropriate, multiple planning activities of one or more
national forests or grasslands can be combined along administrative
boundaries. Additionally, current requirements for detailed analyses,
such as those required for benchmark analyses, would be streamlined or
eliminated. Moreover, planning would be done at the most appropriate
scale in order to address key issues, and forest and grassland plans
and projects would use the same planning framework. The final rule also
allows the steps in the planning framework to be coordinated with the
scoping requirements under the Forest Service NEPA procedures when
appropriate. This will reduce duplication in the preparation of
environmental documents associated with management of the National
Forest System.
In summary, the final rule will enable the Forest Service to make
better decisions about the National Forest System and guide Forest
Service planning and management clearly and effectively well into the
21st Century. Grounded in law and experience, the final rule affirms
sustainability as the overall goal for national forest and grassland
management, requires greater cooperation and collaboration with the
public and other private and public entities, and more effectively
integrates science into Forest Service planning and management. At the
same time, the rule also includes the essential features of National
Forest System planning that Chief Gifford Pinchot established almost a
century ago and that the Forest Service has used throughout the history
of the agency. These features include detailed inventories, monitoring
of forest conditions, determination of sustainable levels of uses, and
exclusion of uses, where necessary, to protect watershed and other
resources (1906 Use Book).
Response to General Comments
Many of the comments received did not address specific sections of
the proposed rule, but were more general in nature. These comments and
responses are summarized below.
Comment: Committee of Scientists Report. A common concern involved
the incorporation of the Committee of Scientists' report findings into
the proposed planning rule. Some people felt recommendations in the
Committee of Scientists report should lay the groundwork for management
and guide future management actions. Others, however, believed this
report should be subject to peer review by other qualified science
professionals. Additionally, some people proposed that the Committee of
Scientists' report be open to public scrutiny, requiring public
meetings and a public comment period for review of the report. Other
respondents suggested that the proposed planning rule include the names
and qualifications of the Committee of Scientists' members.
Response: The Committee of Scientists, established by the Secretary
of Agriculture under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, represented a
spectrum of disciplines and views related to planning for the National
Forest System. While formal, scientific peer review of the
recommendations of the Committee was not undertaken, the process used
in the development of the Committee's report provided for external
review and comment. In developing its recommendations, the Committee
utilized a very open, deliberative process which included open public
meetings, an internet web site accessible to the public which contained
its working drafts and related papers, and public meetings. The names
and qualifications of the members of the Committee are listed in the
report and available on the Committee's web site (www.cof.orst.edu/org/
scicomm).
Comment: National Forest Management Act requirements. Many
reviewers said that the proposed rule did not clearly identify how it
complied with NFMA requirements. These reviewers felt that the intent
of NFMA can be realized without revising the current land and resource
management planning process.
Response: The preamble of the proposed rule described how the
planning rule complied with specific sections of NFMA and reasons for
revising the existing planning regulations.
Comment: Need for revising the existing rule. According to several
respondents, the Forest Service should demonstrate the need for
revising the existing planning rule. In particular, some believed that
the length of time the existing rule has been in effect is not
justification for implementing a new rule. Others argued that the
existing system already fulfills NFMA and NEPA requirements and that
some individual forest plans are very effective, and there is no reason
for changing the process. Several people argued that the proposed rule
does not address deficiencies in the existing rule. The Forest Service
should document the inadequacies inherent in the existing planning
process. Some commenters asserted that the existing rule should be
improved before a new planning rule is implemented.
Response: This comment has previously been addressed in the
preamble of the proposed rule and in this final rule document.
Comment: Public trust and credibility. Many respondents expressed
concerns regarding the purpose of the proposed planning rule. Some felt
the primary objective of the planning process was to establish public
trust and credibility. They believed that the trust in Forest Service
structure and management was waning and recommended that the agency
take steps to rectify this. In addition, the Forest Service should
assume the leadership role in the effort to ensure healthy forests.
Response: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is concerned
with the lack of trust expressed about the Forest Service by the
respondents. The revised planning process is designed to encourage
effective communication and cooperation among diverse national forest
and grassland users. The Forest Service will continue to participate
with others indeveloping management strategies to conserve healthy
forests and grasslands.
Comment: Discretionary authority. Some reviewers were concerned
that the proposed regulations would broaden the discretionary power of
Forest Service officials. These individuals asserted that the current
discretionary authority of the Forest Service has resulted in increased
litigation. They were concerned that further increase in authority
could result in additional appeals and lawsuits.
Response: The Department does not agree with the comment that
increased discretion creates increased litigation. Increased
discretionary authority may provide the needed flexibility to craft
appropriate solutions to complex natural resource issues acceptable to
a wide variety of interests. It has been the experience of the Forest
Service and others that inflexible policies are often the genesis of
misunderstandings and eventual litigation. The planning rule is
intended to improve opportunities to collaborate with a wide variety of
people and reach well-reasoned and sustainable solutions to natural
resource issues.
Comment: Statutory authority. Many public comments focused on the
statutory authority for the proposed planning rule stating that the
proposed rule should both recognize and comply with existing laws. Some
people felt that the proposed rule provided improved integration of
environmental laws and regulations; while, others said that the
proposed rule goes beyond legal limitations and that only Congress can
make such changes in national policy.
[[Page 67520]]
Response: The Department agrees that the planning rule improves the
integration of current laws and recognizes it as consistent with the
laws that guide all Forest Service activities. A full discussion
related to this concern is addressed in this preamble under the heading
statutory authority.
Comment: Public Lands Planning and Management Improvement Act. Some
reviewers noted that the Public Lands Planning and Management
Improvement Act (PLPMIA) offered provisions for meeting human and
wildlife needs. They felt that act should be used to help streamline
the management process, resolve contradictory laws, and modernize the
land management laws.
Response: The Congress is considering the proposed legislation, but
it is not law and therefore does not apply. Moreover, the Department
believes human and wildlife needs are adequately represented in the
final planning rule, see sections 219.20 and 219.21, and the management
process is streamlined.
Comment: Conflicts over values. In the words of one respondent,
``Most of the crises that beset the Forest Service since the age of
environmentalism have concerned conflicts over values, not individual
land use decisions.'' Value conflicts can only be resolved through
effective policymaking, this person contended, and the Forest Service's
policymaking efforts are in need of improvement.
Response: The planning framework outlined in the regulation is
intended to provide a flexible mechanism to identify and solve issues
before they mature into intractable problems pitting people against one
another, rather than seeking mutually beneficial results. There is no
intention to diminish the importance of the values people possess with
regard to the use and enjoyment of national forests and grasslands.
Better policies are the result of people working together to solve
common problems.
Comment: Analysis of prior appeals. Some respondents suggested that
the Forest Service address prior appeals against Forest Service
decisions as part of the proposed planning rule. They believed that
interviews with people who filed appeals should be incorporated into
the planning process.
Response: Appeals and the concerns of national forest and grassland
users were considered in development of the planning rule. The team
that developed the proposed regulation and response to public comment
based their work on years of experience in addressing the concerns of
interested citizens. The increased emphasis that the planning rule
places on collaboration is a direct response to improve working
relationships among interested citizens.
Comment: Vested water rights. Some respondents are concerned that
discretionary authority granted to forest planners in the proposed
planning rule may override states' water rights. They asserted that no
law allows ecological needs to surpass vested state water rights.
Response: The planning regulation does not override existing water
rights adjudication procedures.
Comment: Selling the national forests. One person suggested that
the Forest Service sell some of the national forest land back to United
States citizens in order to generate tax revenue.
Response: This rule addresses management of lands in public
ownership. Planning conducted in accordance with this rule may address
land ownership adjustment needs where that is an issue. It is beyond
the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to sell national forests
and grasslands to generate tax revenue.
Comment: Civil rights analysis. One reviewer asked if the proposed
rule would require a civil rights impact analysis, as required by
Departmental Regulation 4300-4, ``since the rule will affect various
publics.''
Response: A civil rights impact analysis has been prepared and is
available upon request from the person listed at the beginning of this
final rulemaking document under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The
analysis describes the increased opportunities many people will have to
become engaged in National Forest System planning under the new rule.
It concludes that ``no adverse civil rights impacts are anticipated on
the delivery of benefits or other program outcomes on an
underrepresented population, to U.S. populations or communities, or
employees of USDA on a national level.''
Comment: General clarity. Many comments reflected a need to
reevaluate the clarity of the language used in the proposed planning
rule. Many contended the general comprehensibility of the language
needed to be improved to allow the public to better understand the
concepts of the rule. Many of the respondents felt that the document
was too verbose and redundant to understand. Further, some people
argued that the proposed rule was too complex for most citizens to
comprehend. In addition, some contended that the format of the proposed
rule inundated the reader with a multitude of long and tedious
subdivisions, which made the document difficult to follow.
Response: The Department has made a genuine effort to simplify the
language of the final rule. The length of the text has been reduced,
and several technical terms (e.g. ecological integrity and watershed
integrity) have been eliminated to improve readability. The text about
sustainability has been rearranged to combine analysis requirements
related to sustainability with other analysis requirements. In
addition, the goals and principles are simplified in the final rule.
Comment: Discretionary versus compulsory direction. Many people
indicated that the language of the proposed planning rule was too
discretionary. Words like ``should'' and ``may,'' many believed, should
be replaced with more definitive wording such as ``shall'' or ``must.''
These respondents asserted that the nebulous nature of the rule would
weaken its enforceability. By contrast, others said that the proposed
regulation had too many ``must'' and ``shall'' statements and would,
therefore, be impossible to implement because of all the restrictions
imposed.
Response: The Department has carefully considered which provisions
of the final planning regulation should be discretionary versus
compulsory direction and the use of this language should not be viewed
as either increasing or decreasing the importance of the planning
procedures in developing sound solutions to natural resource issues.
The final rule does not contain any ``shall'' statements.
Section-by-Section Response to Public Comments
The majority of comments addressed specific sections of the
proposed rule. These comments and responses are summarized below.
Purpose, Goals, and Principles
In the proposed rule this chapter is named ``Purpose, Goals, and
Principles.'' In the final rule, it is shortened to `` Purpose and
Principles.'' Revisions were made to clarify and simplify language in
the final rule.
Proposed Section 219.1--Purpose. This section described the purpose
of the proposed rule. The proposed rule guides planning efforts toward
the overall goal of sustainability. Purposes are to: (1) Guide
stewardship; (2) set forth a process for amending and revising plans
and for monitoring plan implementation; and (3) guide selection and
implementation of site-specific actions. The national forests were set
aside and protected from exploitation to
[[Page 67521]]
embrace, as a matter of national policy, a system of sustainable forest
reserves to protect water resources and ensure a continuous supply of
timber for benefit of the American public. The proposed rule
incorporated language recommended by the Committee of Scientists (see
Chapter 8, ``Sustaining the People's Lands'').
Comment: Ecological Sustainability and Compliance with the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the Organic Administration
Act. Many respondents felt that the agency erred in placing ecological
sustainability as the first priority. They felt that the agency was
ignoring its legislative mandates for multiple-use and had slighted the
importance of humans and their needs in the management of National
Forest System lands.
According to some respondents, changing the emphasis of planning to
ecological sustainability would virtually make it impossible to comply
with the MUSYA. They were concerned that the MUSYA requirement, to
ensure a continued supply of products and services in perpetuity, would
be jeopardized. Additional public comments expressed concern that
provisions of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 could not be
achieved with ecological sustainability as the primary objective.
Response: The proposed rule's focus on sustaining ecosystems is
fully compatible with the Forest Service's underlying statutes. In
order to ensure that the multiple-uses can be sustained in perpetuity,
decisions must be made with sustainability as the overall guiding
principle. Ecological sustainability lays a necessary foundation for
national forests and grasslands to contribute to the economic and
social needs of citizens. Without first maintaining, and where
appropriate restoring, ecologically sustainable systems the
productivity of the land for various social and economic uses could be
impaired, therefore, planning for multiple-use, sustained-yield
management of national forest and grasslands must operate within a
baseline level that ensures the sustainability of ecological systems.
Although some respondents perceived a conflict between emphasis on
sustainable ecosystems and legislative mandates, the Department does
not believe this is true. Instead, the Department sees ecological
sustainability not only as a complement to multiple-use, sustained-
yield management, but also as a prerequisite for it.
It is the Department's view that the rule is consistent with the
Forest Service's conservation and legislative mandates. Contrary to
some comments received, the proposed rule did not change the
overarching purpose for planning. Rather, it affirmed the direction in
the MUSYA. As used in the final rule, sustainability embodies the
congressional mandates of multiple-use and sustained-yield without
impairing the productivity of the land. In the final rule,
sustainability is described as comprising three intricately linked
elements that integrate the ecological, social, and economic aspects of
our world. It is virtually impossible to separate one element from the
other.
For example, without a sound social and economic system in place,
people are more likely to over-exploit the natural world to meet basic
human needs. At the same time, ecological resources constitute the
foundation upon which our ability to meet other needs ultimately rests.
Ecological elements are the capital, the investment in our future.
Sustainability provides for meeting needs of the present generation
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs. In response to public comment, language is added at the end of
section 219.1 of the final rule to clarify the relationship among
ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
Under the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the forest reserves
were set aside and protected from exploitation, with the intention to
embrace a system of sustainable forest reserves that would protect
water resources and ensure a continuous supply of timber for the
benefit of the American public. As the U.S. population grows and the
environmental consequences of human activities are better understood,
it is not only logical, but it is imperative that knowledge and skills
are applied to ensure the sustainable, continuous use and enjoyment of
our natural resource legacy as described in the Organic Administration
Act.
Ecological sustainability has always been the linchpin of managing
national forests and grasslands. The final rule provides for
progressively improving the understanding of how to achieve sustainable
use and enjoyment of the National Forest System through monitoring
results and effective engagement of scientific knowledge and the skills
and interests of citizens, elected officials, and others. The increased
use of national forests and grasslands requires increased knowledge and
understanding of sustainable multiple-uses. If the ecological basis of
the national forests and grasslands is compromised in providing
products, services uses, and values, then a ``continuous supply of
products and services'' will not be achieved in ``perpetuity'' as
required by MUSYA.
Proposed Section 219.2--Goals and principles for planning. This
section of the proposed rule identified five major goals for land and
resource management planning, with each goal having a set of supporting
principles. In the final rule, this section has been renamed
``Principles.''
Comment: Quantifiable information. Many believed the proposed
planning rule should include objective and quantifiable information. In
particular, some respondents recommended that the proposed planning
rule provide statistical data to support the need for the plan
revisions. They felt that access to quantifiable information could
allow the public to offer more informed comments. Others suggested that
the proposed rule include measures to assess goal achievement in forest
planning. One respondent contended that beauty and inspiration are too
subjective to use as points of consideration in land resource and
management planning.
Response: A premise of the final rule is science-based
decisionmaking, including use of the best available information.
Sections 219.5, 219.20, and 219.21 in the final rule describe
appropriate assessments and analyses needed prior to proposing a site-
specific action or a plan amendment or revision. The rule also stresses
the development and implementation of monitoring strategies to use in
evaluating plan implementation and achievement of sustainability
(section 219.11). The development of both qualitative and quantitative
information described in the planning rule will improve the overall
understanding and sustainable use of the National Forest System.
Comment: Sampling interested parties to determine resource
objectives. Developing, achieving, and evaluating planning goals and
objectives elicited a number of comments. One recreational organization
recommended that the Forest Service survey a random sample of parties
interested in National Forest System lands when determining specific
resource objectives. They suggested by using a random sampling scheme,
the agency could assure that all interests have an opportunity to
provide input in the planning process.
Response: The final rule does not require specific tools or
analytical approaches to sampling user preferences. The information and
analysis described in section 219.21 may be obtained through sampling
in appropriate circumstances. The rule
[[Page 67522]]
also provides opportunities for interested and affected people to
participate in planning for the use and enjoyment of their national
forests and grasslands. While sampling methods may prove useful for
many tasks, the Department believes it is imperative that people
participate with Forest Service personnel in planning.
Comment: Long-term planning. Several respondents suggested that the
proposed planning rule emphasize long-term planning. These people felt
that long-term forest health should take precedence over short-term
economic gains by resource extraction companies.
Response: While the planning rule does not set forth specific
short-term versus long-term standards, the planning rule is designed to
ensure that short-term uses do not damage or otherwise harm the long-
term sustainability of each national forest and grassland.
Comment: Ecological values. Some respondents believed that
ecological values should be defined as intrinsic goals rather than
constraints. The conservation of ecological values was important for
many who recommended that the proposed planning rule be used as a guide
in preserving national forests. They expressed concern that the
increasing human population will ultimately encroach on the few natural
places left. They asserted preservation of National Forest System lands
to offset this loss is imperative.
Response: The final planning rule states that the first priority
for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands is to maintain
or restore ecological sustainability. If the preservation of a unit of
land is necessary to ensure long-term sustainability, that decision
would be made through the planning process in a plan amendment or
revision receiving full public review and comment within the Forest
Service NEPA procedures.
Comment: Balancing economic and social needs. Several people
expressed the belief that balancing economic and social needs should be
a priority in national forest planning. Specifically, one person
suggested that balancing selective logging practices, road maintenance,
and access to national forest lands is crucial for successful forest
management. Others recommended that the proposed rule's effects on
industries and communities be evaluated prior to implementation.
Response: Balancing the production of multiple values, uses,
products, and services from each national forest and grassland is a
continual process achieved through collaboration and planning. The
planning rule is intended to enhance collaboration and the balancing of
social and economic needs in a sustainable environment. A cost-benefit
analysis was done for the planning rule and is available. Regulatory
implications are discussed later in this preamble.
Comment: Restricting corporate industry. Some respondents felt that
restricting corporate industry use of national forests and grasslands
should be a priority in planning. Respondents contended that,
relatively speaking, large corporations pose greater detrimental
impacts to national forests than do recreational users. The Forest
Service should focus on improving and maintaining forests, rather than,
as one person commented, ``catering to degrading commercial ventures.''
In contrast, others felt that the restoration of ecosystems as a
guiding principle is not a valid, achievable planning goal.
Response: The Department believes that it is appropriate for both
large corporations as well as small companies to have an active role in
the management and stewardship of national forests and grasslands. In
the planning rule, no group is provided an unfair advantage or
disadvantage in securing use or access to natural resources.
Comment: Balancing the world's resource needs. Other respondents
asserted that Forest Service's mission statement should include
balancing the world's resource needs. ``With both balance and
agreement, the Forest Service can once again be the world's leader in
land and natural resource management,'' they contended. Some citizens
feared the scope of the proposed planning effort might make the United
States dependent on other countries for raw materials. ``Since we have
some of the best environmental laws to deal with,'' they write, ``it
makes little sense globally to obtain raw materials from countries who
do not have adequate restrictions.''
Response: As described in the NFMA, the Forest Service * * * ``has
both a responsibility and an opportunity to be a leader in assuring
that the Nation maintains a natural resource conservation posture that
will meet the requirements of our people in perpetuity.'' Regarding the
global nature of today's world, it is certainly appropriate to consider
the resource needs, uses, and practices of our national trading
partners and others. The planning rule sets the stage for the wise,
sustained use of the national forests and grasslands, and provides a
link to national level planning, though which national policy makers
can consider methods to improve the production and use of renewable
natural resources in the United States and elsewhere.
Comment: Limiting planning to smaller areas. Some people felt that
forest plans should be directed toward unit-sized planning efforts.
These respondents believed that keeping planning limited to smaller
areas ensures greater understanding by both the public and forest
managers.
Response: The planning regulations provide for adjusting the
boundaries of planning based on the scope and scale of issues
addressed. In many places, planning and involvement with the public
will take place in areas smaller than a national forest or grassland.
Only in the revision process is it required that the entire national
forest or grassland be considered. Even in that circumstance, decisions
may be made that apply only to geographic areas within or among
administrative units.
Other changes. In the final rule, this section has been reorganized
and restructured for clarity and readability. Goal statements have been
removed from this section in the final rule to prevent confusion with
the term ``goal'' used in other contexts. Much of the text in the
proposed rule provided background information regarding the principles
of planning. The final rule provides more of an outline format to
specifically highlight six planning principles and their key
characteristics.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule provided that ``planning must be
directed toward assuring the ecological sustainability of our
watersheds, forests, and rangelands.'' The final rule has added
language to maintain or restore the ecological sustainability of
national forests and grasslands. This change is made to recognize the
importance of ``restoration'' of national forest and grasslands.
Paragraph (a)(2) in the final rule provides that ``scientifically
based strategies for sustainability'' benefit from independent
scientific review. This change was made to this section from the
proposed rule to acknowledge the importance of independent scientific
review in this new planning structure.
The Framework for Planning
Proposed Section 219.3--Overview. This section of the proposed rule
described the overall framework for planning, the levels of planning
and decisionmaking, and the key elements of the planning framework.
Comment: Clarification of the planning framework. Many respondents
felt that the planning framework needs more specific guidance and
[[Page 67523]]
requirements. Claiming that the framework will not assure consistency
between different units of the National Forest System, some people
recommended that the planning rule include uniform guidance applicable
to each national forest and grassland. Other respondents asserted that
the objectives of the framework are too vague and should include
specific objectives for planning. Many people believed the planning
rule inadequately addresses standards and guidelines that they think
could result in a lack of agency accountability, inability to achieve
planning goals, and inadequate protection of the environment. Some of
these respondents suggested maintaining the minimum management
requirements of the current rule. Others recommended including specific
and enforceable standards and guidelines in the proposed planning rule,
while some asked that these types of standards be established in
individual national forest and grassland plans.
Response: The Department believes that less specific planning
guidance is needed after almost two decades of experience implementing
NFMA. The planning process included in the final rule is essentially
unchanged from the proposed rule, and provides a flexible process that
is responsive to issues associated with current conditions and
experience with implementing the current plan. Standards required in
all plans are addressed in section 219.7. Plan requirements for
ecological sustainability are found in section 219.20(b).
Comment: Decisionmaking authority. Some respondents felt that the
Forest Service is attempting to avoid its responsibility by emphasizing
collaborative processes and recommended that the planning rule should
further emphasize the agency's decisionmaking responsibility. Other
respondents requested clarification on decisionmaking. They suggested
that the planning rule describe national level planning processes as
well as decisionmaking authority on multi-forest or regional projects.
Other respondents expressed general concern regarding the
implementation of the proposed rule and recommended making trial runs
on a few forest plans before implementing the changes system-wide.
Response: It is the responsibility of the Forest Service to
encourage involvement with the public in the management of the public's
lands. The Forest Service is redeeming this responsibility by providing
for early involvement and collaboration through the planning framework.
Instead of working in an isolated environment, the agency will openly
address the issues confronting the national forests and grasslands,
enlisting the assistance of interested and affected parties through
expanded public involvement and collaboration. The intent is to foster
a good faith effort to reach resolution on agreed upon problems before
final decisions are made, and to hopefully reduce the level of costly
lawsuits. However, the definition of ``responsible official'' makes it
clear that this individual and the Forest Service have the authority
and responsibility to oversee the planning process and make decisions
on proposed actions.
Linkage to the national strategic plan has been added or clarified
in several places in the final rule, including section 219.3(b).
Multiple-forest and regional decisions are also addressed in this
section.
Comment: Local-level planning and decisionmaking. Several
respondents felt that the planning rule should emphasize local-level
planning and decisionmaking, while others believed the proposed rule
places too much responsibility at the local level. Some of the people
favored increased focus and responsibility at the local level contended
that the proposed rule's provisions not only are costly and
inefficient, but also allow senior Forest Service authorities to
undermine local decisions and planning efforts. Such actions, they
contended, will alienate the public. These respondents suggested that
the final rule limit national and regional level planning and
decisionmaking. Other people who support a local level focus believed
that local Forest Service officials are more knowledgeable about their
specific forest or grassland than national officials and therefore are
able to make better planning decisions. These respondents recommended
increasing the decisionmaking authority of local agency officials. In
contrast to these views, some respondents believed the proposed rule
would place excessive authority at the local level. These people
primarily felt that either additional requirements or higher levels of
oversight were necessary to ensure consistency in planning among
national forests or grasslands. Several of these respondents
recommended that the proposed rule provide specific rules and
guidelines for Forest Supervisors, while others suggested that the
proposed rule maintain requirements for regional guidance and
oversight.
Response: Fundamental to this rule is the notion that there is a
hierarchy of scale to be considered when addressing resource management
issues, and that it is the nature of the issue that guides the
selection of the appropriate scale and level of the organization to
address it. By not tying decisionmaking authority to a specific
organizational position, the Department is promoting flexibility to do
what makes sense for the issues ripe for consideration. The National
Forest or Grassland Supervisor is the person most familiar with the
resources and publics interested in his or her forest or grassland, and
often the most appropriate to make decisions affecting those lands.
The rule should not be interpreted as excluding higher-level
officials from decisions made at the forest and grassland level. If an
issue warrants higher-level study and decisionmaking, such tasks can be
undertaken. Also, through the objection process (section 219.32) the
higher-level officials actually join the problem-solving process before
an administrative decision is adopted. Advisory committees (section
219.18) provide yet another source of input to local decisionmaking.
Comment: Adequacy of funding. Many respondents felt that the
implementation of the proposed planning process will require
significant additional resources. They asserted that funding, staffing,
and equipment needs will make the proposed planning processes
prohibitively expensive. Several respondents believed that the proposed
rule would restrict needed planning proposals based on inadequate
funding. ``Plans should identify necessary actions even if adequate
funding does not exist,'' wrote one organization. More specifically,
other respondents focused more on funding for particular management
actions. One such person suggested that the proposed rule address
funding to mitigate potential damage from forest management activities.
Response: The Department believes that, rather than requiring
significant additional resources, the planning framework, as adopted in
the final rule, will put more resource earlier in the planning process
and require less at the end of the process. This will shift the
planning process from one of confrontation to collaboration. The scope
of the planning effort will also be more focused on the issues selected
for evaluation.
While funding of planning and projects remains an item under the
prerogative of Congress, the Department hopes that Congress will
support projects built using this collaborative process. In addition,
the revised rule will promote a closer link to the budget process
through requirements for
[[Page 67524]]
ongoing consideration of budgetary information (section 219.30). By
evaluating the alternatives at the current or likely budgets, while
considering other spending levels, as appropriate, the analysis will be
based on realistic expectations and be more useful as strategic
documents.
Other changes. Paragraph (a) in the proposed rule included five
premises of the planning framework. Premise (1) is found in sections
219.5 and 219.12 of the final rule. Premise (2) is included as 219.3(c)
in the final rule. Premise (3) is included in section 219.30 ``Plan
documentation'' of the final rule. Premise (4) is included as
219.3(b)(4) and 219.10 of the final rule. Premise (5) is a general
description of the planning framework and included in sections 219.3-
219.11 of the final rule.
Paragraph (b) in the proposed rule, described the levels at which
planning may occur, and who may be the responsible official. In the
final rule, paragraph (b) is restructured in outline form. Planning
will be conducted at the appropriate level depending on the scope and
scale of the issues. In addition, the final rule specifically
recognizes the role of the Forest Service national strategic plan
required under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA). The GPRA directs government agencies to establish national
long-term goals, outcome measures, and strategies. The final rule
clarifies that these are to be considered in managing the National
Forest System. In particular, it provides for the development of
outcome measures to evaluate ecological, social, and economic impacts,
accountability, and management performance. The development of outcome
measures will be included in the Forest Service directives System.
Paragraph (c) in the proposed rule lists the key elements. The list
in the final rule has been changed slightly to line up with the
subsequent sections of the planning framework and use consistent
terminology. Cooperatively developed landscape goals are no longer
specifically listed, however, they are still included in section 219.12
and may be considered as issues (section 219.4). This change was made
to clarify the key elements of planning.
Proposed Section 219.4--Topics of general interest or concern. This
section of the proposed rule established a process for identifying,
discussing, and, if appropriate, acting on topics of general interest
or concern that might emerge from a variety of sources. The process for
identifying these topics was to be used for both plan amendments and
revisions as well as for site-specific plans. In the final rule, this
section has been renamed ``Identification and consideration of
issues.''
Comment: Identification of issues. Many respondents believed that
the proposed rule should provide additional details about how issues
will be identified. Specifically, some people felt that current Forest
Service public involvement methods do not provide an accurate
representation of the interested public. They recommended that the
Forest Service conduct unbiased sampling to determine public opinion
about forest plans.
Response: The proposed rule established a collaborative process
that will be used in addition to current public involvement methods.
This approach is retained in the final rule. This process will improve
the identification of issues. Also, the flexibility in approaches is
very important to the collaborative process. Sampling is addressed in
section 219.1 of the preamble.
Comment: Evaluation of topics. Many respondents expressed concern
about the evaluation of topics of concern. Most of these people felt
that the proposed rule gives the responsible official too much
discretion in considering whether action will be taken on these topics.
Many of these respondents felt the discretion in the rule could allow
responsible officials to ignore important concerns.
Response: The regulation actually increases the accountability of
the responsible official for addressing issues that are ``ripe'' for
resolution. As now, the decision to move an issue forward for
resolution is an agency prerogative. Accountability is increased
however through the more open and collaborative process for identifying
issues.
Comment: Limiting discretion. Several people advocated limiting
discretion and suggested a number of remedies to this perceived problem
such as establishing requirements for reasonableness and timeliness in
the evaluation of topics of general concern, creating guidelines for
the consideration and documentation of topics of general concern and
requiring that the responsible official's decisions on topics of
concern should be subject to administrative appeal or judicial review.
Response: The Department does not agree. It is imperative that the
responsible officials maintain sole responsibility to review the
circumstances surrounding an issue before investing time and agency
resources in addressing one or more aspects of the issue. Each day,
each responsible official has a host of possible issues pressed
forward. It is through experience and collaboration with others that
the issues that should be addressed are addressed. As described in the
planning rule, there are several ways that a host of people, including
higher-level officials, can become engaged in the identification and
potential resolution of issues important in the plan area.
Other changes. The most noticeable change in this section, as
adopted in the final rule, is replacement of ``topics of general
interest or concern'' with the term ``issues.'' Although some members
of the Committee of Scientists found ``issues'' to have a negative
connotation, and to imply that some action must be taken, many found
the terminology of the proposed rule to be vague and verbose.
Therefore, the final rule refers to ``issues.'' This is consistent with
the current planning regulations and more familiar with the public and
within the agency.
Editorial changes were made to the proposed rule, including changes
in terminology, to remain consistent with other parts of the rule (for
example, ``ecological sustainability'' and ``range of expected
variability''). The words ``consistent'' and ``consistency'' in the
proposed rule are changed to avoid confusion with the use of that
terminology in NFMA and section 219.10.
Proposed Section 219.5--Information development and interpretation.
This section of the proposed rule described information needed to
further consider a topic of general interest or concern. It provided
direction on conducting broad-scale assessments and local analyses.
Comment: Discretion of responsible official. Some respondents felt
that the discretionary authority given to the responsible official in
the proposed rule may conflict with provisions for the use of
scientific and collaborative input. These people recommended that the
proposed rule limit the discretion of the responsible official in
determining whether the available information is sufficient or
additional data collection is needed.
Response: Implementation of the planning process of this rule
promotes collaborative problem solving. The responsible official has
access to a wide variety of information from staff specialists and a
knowledgeable and often active national forest or grassland user
community. A decision to initiate collection of additional data is a
managerial choice that may be assisted by scientific review and science
advisory boards, as appropriate. As many years of experience have
[[Page 67525]]
demonstrated for many issues, when authorities closely match
responsibilities, the quality of decisions and overall public service
improves.
Comment: Development of information. Some people recommended
restricting large-scale planning to non-decisional, data collection
efforts. Still others believed accurate data are essential for the
Forest Service to assess the need for actions and to measure the
effectiveness of its actions in planning. These people suggested that
the proposed rule emphasized collecting and maintaining sufficient
natural resource data. Some citizens asserted that the proposed rule
should specify appropriate analysis tools and models to ensure
consistency between national forests and grasslands.
Response: The Department agrees with the importance of applying the
best available data, and has emphasized that need in the final rule. It
encourages multi-scale assessments and analyses prior to proposing any
actions. The final rule also promotes monitoring to obtain data, and
scientific review of its use. In order to be able to respond promptly
to scientific advances, the Department has avoided including specific
analysis tools or models in a regulation. The Department believes that
large-scale decisions may be necessary to respond to some issues;
however, it does not expect every broad-scale assessment to lead to
broad-scale decisions.
Comment: Public Involvement. Public involvement in information
development and interpretation was a significant concern for many
people. These people contended that the proposed rule's provisions on
information development and interpretation do not provide sufficient
opportunities for public input or review. Some of these people
suggested that the proposed rule include provisions requiring
collaboration in information development and interpretation, while
others requested that the proposed rule comply with NEPA requirements.
Another respondent believed that the final planning regulations should
incorporate the guidelines for interdisciplinary planning teams from
the 1982 planning regulations.
Response: The planning rule has several provisions for encouraging
the public to participate in the identification and resolution of
natural resource management issues. As described in sections 219.12 to
219.18, it is the intent of the rule that the Forest Service
participate with others in building stewardship capacity--the ability
to develop ideas, take action, and solve problems (section 219.2). The
planning framework is characterized by an interdisciplinary
collaborative approach (section 219.3). In addition, the NEPA process
applied to planning must be interdisciplinary. The final rule also
provides that each broad scale assessment should be designed and
conducted with the assistance of scientists, resource professionals,
government entities, and other individuals and organizations
knowledgeable of the assessment area (section 219.5(a)(2)).
Comment: Interest group involvement. Some respondents expressed
concerns regarding what groups will be involved in information
development and interpretation. Some of these people felt that the
Forest Service does not recognize or respect the knowledge and past
stewardship of private property holders and lessees. These individuals
recommended that the proposed rule emphasize the role of lessees and
private property holders in information development and interpretation.
Other respondents specifically suggested that the Forest Service engage
environmental groups in conducting ecological assessments.
Response: As described in the planning rule, it is the intent of
the Department and the Forest Service that a wide variety of people,
including property holders and lessees and environmental groups engage
in the consideration of their natural resources and in the stewardship
of their national forests and grasslands (see sections 219.16 and
219.17). The final rule also provides that each broad scale assessment
be designed and conducted with the assistance of scientists, resource
professionals, government entities, and other individuals and
organizations knowledgeable of the assessment area (section
219.5(a)(2)).
Comment: Consideration of activities outside of national forest
boundaries. Believing that the failure to address national supply and
demand trends could lead to an oversupply of specific resources, one
respondent recommended that the proposed rule require the consideration
of these trends in decisions specifically regarding grazing permits.
Another person felt that consideration of activities outside National
Forest System unit boundaries in planning could restrict resource
extraction. This person suggested that the Forest Service be prohibited
from restricting resource use on such a basis. Other respondents
believed that the proposed rule fails to address the effects of agency
planning on lands outside of National Forest System lands. These people
recommended that the proposed rule should explicitly recognize these
impacts.
Response: The planning process is designed to enable the Forest
Service to address each of the above comments at the appropriate time
and place. For example, if the supply and demand of a particular
natural resource is relevant at a national scale, the Chief of the
Forest Service, working with others, may address the concern. Likewise,
if the supply of a local resource use is of concern to one or more
communities, that may very well be an issue that is addressed in the
revision or amendment to a plan. Planning is tailored to fit the needs
of people in the use and enjoyment of their national forests and
grasslands. Section 219.17(c) of the final rule was changed to include
consideration of the effects of managing National Forest System lands
on adjacent lands.
Comment: Use of broad-scale assessments. Many respondents expressed
preferences about the use of broad-scale assessments in national forest
planning. Some people opposed the use of broad-scale assessments,
feeling that these efforts will be excessively expensive and that this
expense will hinder the implementation of project proposals. Some
respondents supported the use of broad-scale assessments in planning,
and they believe private lands adjacent to national forests and
grasslands should be included in such assessments. Focusing more on who
should oversee the development of assessment processes, other
respondents recommended that the final rule require the Forest Service
to lead broad-scale assessments. These people felt that the proposed
rule allows unacceptable influence by nongovernmental entities and that
this could lead to decisions that are not in the best public interest.
Response: The amount and level of data collection and synthesis
needed varies with the issue and the nature of the decision to be made.
The responsible official is to determine if the information on hand is
sufficient, or if additional information is desirable and can be
obtained at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. Where the issue
is broad in scale, a broad-scale assessment is often needed. Where the
issue is more limited in scale, local analyses are more appropriate.
The final planning rule provides a flexible process that yields the
data appropriate to address an issue, rather than mandating one
approach. Information and data may be solicited and accepted from a
variety of sources, including broad-scale assessments prepared or led
by others. Managers must use their professional judgment to gauge the
usefulness, reliability, and value of the information received.
[[Page 67526]]
Comment: Broad-scale assessments and NEPA public involvement
requirements. Some respondents' comments focused on the proposed rule's
relationship with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public input
requirements. These respondents felt that the provisions of the
proposed rule allow the development of large-scale or national planning
parameters outside the scope of public scrutiny. These people suggested
that broad-scale assessments should not be used in place of the NEPA
scoping process.
Response: Broad-scale assessments do not constitute a decision
point--they are a source of data and information that may be used in
later decisionmaking by the agency or others. The preparation of broad-
scale assessments is intended to be an open and collaborative process,
one that encourages participation by interested and affected parties.
Involvement in broad-scale assessments in no way supplants or
eliminates the requirement for scoping under NEPA or other public
involvement in other aspects of the planning framework. The text of the
regulation in section 219.6, Proposed actions, emphasizes that NEPA
requirements must be met for every proposed action, and activities
associated with broad-scale assessments are intended to complement,
rather than replace the scoping process of NEPA for subsequent
decisionmaking.
Comment: Adequacy of data in broad-scale assessments. Many
respondents expressed concern regarding the adequacy of data used in
broad-scale assessments. Some of these people felt that the proposed
rule would allow the use of inadequate or out-dated data. According to
one person, the use of this data ``leads to erroneous conclusions;
these erroneous conclusions lead to poorly thought-out
recommendations.'' Other respondents asserted that the proposed rule
weakens existing requirements for the use of current data. One
respondent specifically requested that the agency seek additional funds
to perform broad-scale assessments to avoid impacting Forest Service
research station budgets.
Response: The planning rule has several provisions for the
inclusion of the best available science in all activities associated
with planning as described in sections 219.22 to 219.25. Through
science advisory boards and the use of science consistency evaluations,
the best available science is sought for each key step in the planning
process.
Comment: Local analyses. A few respondents suggested that the
proposed rule emphasize local analyses, while others requested that the
rule include clarification on what local analyses entail. One person,
claiming that the Forest Service lacks the information necessary to
make informed planning decisions, recommended that the proposed rule
require landscape assessments be conducted on all national forests and
grasslands.
Response: The planning process is designed to ensure that the
appropriate information is gathered and evaluated before decisions are
made. The extensive collaboration among interested and affected people
as well as the increased involvement of science in the planning process
are intended to highlight information needs and ensure appropriate
consideration of all elements affecting sustainable use of national
forests and grasslands. The rule encourages the use of local analyses
as a basis for proposals at a comparable scale.
Comment: Terminology to describe spatial scales. One respondent
questioned the use of ``broad'' and ``local'' to describe the scale of
analysis in the proposed planning regulations. ``Coarse'' and ``fine
filters'' are the technical terms most often used in Forest Service
management plans and this person felt these widely used and clearly
defined terms should replace ``broad'' and ``local'' in the final rule.
Response: Even though the terms ``coarse'' and ``fine'' filters are
used frequently among some natural resource professionals, they are not
identical to scale descriptors. We do refer to these terms in our
response to comments for section 219.20. We believe that the use of the
terms ``broad'' and ``local'' in the final rule describe the extent of
assessments and analyses to a larger number of national forest and
grassland users.
Comment: Scope of spatial and temporal scales. Several respondents
supported the collection and analysis of ecological data on a variety
of spatial and temporal scales. One respondent suggested that the final
rule expand the scale of analysis to include cumulative effects of
global magnitude. Conversely, some individuals questioned the use of a
variety of spatial and temporal scales. Such a mandate requires funding
and staffing beyond the means of the current Forest Service structure,
according to these respondents. One citizen questioned the utility of
using varying scales, asserting that such a hierarchical approach would
lead to specific project plans containing forgiving, default language
that lacks serious standards and thresholds.
Response: The variable scale planning process envisioned by the
planning rule is intended to enable planners, managers, and the public
to identify and act upon important issues at the appropriate scale for
their resolution. Through the identification of issues that may cross
many political boundaries, interested and affected people can work
together to reach common solutions among many landowners and natural
resource users. Cumulative impacts will also be addressed through
agency NEPA procedures. Appropriate analyses and monitoring of results
are used to ensure that the cumulative effects of small actions do not
result in unwanted or unanticipated impacts. The responsible official
has the authority to determine the appropriate scope and scale of
analysis and data collection. In making this determination, the
responsible official appropriately applies collaborative processes and
uses the best available science.
Other changes. The proposed rule stated that the Regional Forester
is responsible for National Forest System participation in broad-scale
assessments. The final rule requires Station Directors and Regional
Foresters to have joint responsibility for Forest Service participation
in broad-scale assessments. It no longer addresses Forest Service
participation in broad-scale assessments led by others. The Department
believes it is not necessary to address the possible actions of others
in this rule.
The requirement to use the best available scientific information
and analysis is moved to sections 219.22 and 219.23 in the final rule.
Examples of possible uses of assessment information in the proposed
rule are generalized to ``other purposes'' in the final rule, and the
language made consistent with the description of uses of local
analysis. The final rule clarifies that assessments be used to evaluate
the factors that contribute to the conditions and trends observed and
is important in gaining understanding of issues.
The proposed rule stated that the purpose of local analyses was to
provide information to aid in the identification of possible actions or
projects to achieve desired conditions. The final rule expands the use
of local analyses so that an analysis could be tailored to the scope of
issues rather than potential actions. Similarly, the final rule
provides for the use of social or economic analysis units for local
analyses if warranted by the scope and context of the issues under
consideration.
The components of both broad-scale assessments and local analyses
were described as mandatory in the proposed rule. The amount and level
of data
[[Page 67527]]
collection and synthesis needed varied with the issue and the nature of
the decision to be made. The responsible official was to determine if
the information on hand was sufficient, or if additional information
was desirable and could be obtained at a reasonable cost and in a
timely manner. Where the issue was broad in scale, a broad-scale
assessment was often needed. Where the issue was more limited in scale,
local analyses were more appropriate. The final rule provides for a
flexible process that yields the data appropriate to address an issue,
eliminating unnecessary analysis requirements. Information and data can
be solicited and accepted from a variety of sources, including broad-
scale assessments prepared or led by others. Managers must use their
professional judgment to gauge the usefulness, reliability, and value
of the information received.
Proposed Section 219.6--Proposed actions. This section identifies
the point at which a responsible official initiates a decisionmaking
process to resolve an issue, based on the information that has been
developed and interpreted. No public concerns explicitly related to
this section were identified in the analysis of public comment.
Paragraph (b) was redrafted in the final rule to make it clear that
public involvement and collaborative activities, related to issue
identification and analyses of information, can be used as part of the
scoping process required in the Forest Service NEPA procedures.
Proposed Section 219.7--Plan decisions that guide future actions.
This section of the proposed rule described categories of decisions in
land and resource management plans that would guide future agency
actions. The title was changed in the final rule to ``Plan decisions.''
Comment: Consistency of plan decisions among plan areas. Some
people question how the Forest Service will maintain consistency
between national forests if regional guides are eliminated as indicated
in the proposed rule
Response: The proposed rule allowed the scope of decisions to be
tailored to the scope of the issues relevant to the plan area.
Decisions may be made simultaneously for multiple administrative units,
in a manner similar to what has occurred with regional guide amendments
under the current rule. Section 219.3 of the final rule authorizes and
encourages joint planning on multiple administrative units. In
addition, the objection process (section 219.32), the addition of
science consistency evaluations (section 219.24), and the requirement
to incorporate regional guide direction into agency procedures or plan
decisions (section 219.35) ensure consistency among national forests
and grasslands.
Comment: Desired conditions. Many people commented on the proposed
planning rule's emphasis on desired conditions. Some contended that the
emphasis on desired conditions was an improvement over the Forest
Service's perceived current focus on products and services. One
respondent recommended that specific requirements for detailed
descriptions of desired future conditions be included in plans. Some
respondents believed that the proposed rule did not clearly define how
``desired future conditions'' would be developed.
Response: The Department agrees that emphasis on the desired
conditions, rather than an estimate of what may or may not be produced
from a unit of land, provides a more meaningful basis for people to
discuss suitable and unsuitable uses of specific areas within national
forests and grasslands. The planning rule uses the term ``desired
condition'' rather than ``desired future condition'' to stress the
point that there are many areas of national forests and grasslands that
are now in a ``desired condition'' and that use of the term ``future''
was not necessary. In addition, the term ``goal'' was removed as a
planning decision. A clear explanation of a desired condition for all
or a part of a plan area included statements that describe the
conditions sought or the ``goals'' of the area. Therefore, it is not
necessary to have a category of plan decisions that are called
``goals.'' The Department believes that the responsible official should
evaluate and address conditions relevant to the issues and the scope of
the decision being made, and does not feel it is appropriate to include
in the rule more specific requirements for how to develop desired
conditions.
Comment: Standards and guidelines. Some respondents asserted that
the existing rule is unclear about the difference between standards and
guidelines and that this has ``caused a lot of confusion, false
expectations, and conflict.'' These people recommended clarifying the
difference between guidelines and standards in the proposed rule.
Others believed that the proposed planning regulations should establish
enforceable criteria for the development of objectives, standards, and
guidelines in forest planning rather than relegating such criteria to
the Forest Service Manual.
Response: This concern is addressed in the final rule by modifying
the definition for standards (section 219.7) and by removing the term
``guidelines.'' This was done because the use of both terms, standards
and guidelines, was confusing. In the proposed rule, the mandatory or
discretionary nature of a provision was contained in the description of
that provision, not by whether it was labeled a standard or a
guideline. In the final rule, a provision that is labeled as a standard
in a plan can be either mandatory or discretionary depending upon the
language of the standard and the scope of its requirements.
Comment: Range of management alternatives. Of those respondents who
address requirements for forest plans in the proposed rule, many felt
that ``consideration of a full range of management alternatives'' will
``allow planners to identify important management options, thresholds,
and trade-offs.'' These people suggested the proposed rule include
provisions requiring the Forest Service to develop a full range of
management alternatives in its forest plans. One organization contended
that the proposed planning regulations should retain programmatic
consultation as a means to challenge land and resource management
plans.
Response: The Department believes that the collaboration emphasized
by this rule will lead to a thorough examination of the options and
tradeoffs relevant to the issues that have been identified. A full
range of management alternatives that meets the purpose and need for
changes in the proposed plan is required in accordance with Forest
Service NEPA procedures. Neither the proposed nor final rule directly
addressed Endangered Species Act consultation procedures, which are
described in 50 CFR part 402. The final rule does require the
incorporation of non-discretionary terms of biological opinions into
plans (section 219.20(b)(3)).
Comment: Preservation of ecological diversity. Several respondents
cited the current rule's requirements for the prevention of ``large-
scale conversions of national forest lands to a single-tree species''
as an example of the imperative language they would like to see
retained in the final rule.
Response: The final rule provides for ecological diversity in
section 219.20, wherein plan decisions must provide for ecosystem
composition and structure similar to that which would be expected under
natural disturbance regimes. The Department believes that large-scale
type conversions would not meet this requirement and that more
imperative language is not necessary.
Comment: Preservation of scenic beauty. One person requested that
the proposed rule require specific
[[Page 67528]]
guidelines for the preservation of scenic beauty. Asserting that one of
the primary values of national forests mentioned by the public is
scenic beauty, this respondent feels the Forest Service should address
this concern in the final rule.
Response: The final rule requires that standards be developed for
each plan that includes methods of achieving aesthetic objectives.
Comment: Watershed restoration. Several individuals felt the
proposed rule needed to include specific guidelines for restoring and
protecting water resources. Some suggested that the criteria for
watershed restoration and protection be expanded. Several individuals
believed the proper functioning of all the physical components of
watersheds is an essential prerequisite to attaining ecological
sustainability.
Response: The Department believes that it has given high priority
to watershed restoration by including aquatic and riparian systems as a
component of ecological sustainability (section 219.20(a)(1)(i)(B)),
and focusing on ecological sustainability. In addition, watershed
condition is one of the factors in section 219.28 used for the
identification of lands were timber may not be harvested.
Comment: Restorative employment. One individual believed that the
Forest Service should shift emphasis from fostering an extractive
economy to championing restorative employment on national forests.
Response: This rule establishes ecological sustainability as the
first priority for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands
(section 219.19). It also requires the Forest Service to consider
opportunities to provide social and economic benefits to communities
through natural resource restoration strategies (section 219.21).
Comment: Invasive species. Believing that invasive species disrupt
expected ecosystem functions, several citizens felt that the failure to
sufficiently address this concern was a major flaw in the proposed
rule. One respondent asserted that roads are the major vectors for the
spread of noxious weeds throughout national forests. Road construction
and off-road vehicle use need to be restricted, this individual
asserted, if the spread of noxious weeds is to be slowed. Conversely,
another individual believed the proposed planning regulations should
qualify the mandate to control the spread of non-native species.
Although this person stated that the Forest Service should not
knowingly spread invasive species, this individual believed that there
are situations where these processes occur naturally and therefore it
would be ``extremely expensive if not impossible for the agency to
prevent the phenomena.'' Another respondent requested that the proposed
planning regulations address the ecological and human health impacts of
chemical applications to control invasive species.
Response: The final rule includes invasive or noxious plant or
animal species as factors to consider in evaluating and providing for
ecosystem diversity (section 219.20). Where such factors are
contributing to loss of ecological sustainability, the Department
expects invasive species to be an issue that is sufficiently addressed.
Use of chemicals or other kinds of treatments would not normally be
determined as part of a plan decision, as described by this rule.
Separate national road management and roadless area policy initiatives
are addressing road construction and management. Off-road vehicle use
would be addressed through the planning process at a local level.
Comment: Fire management strategies. Some respondents felt that the
Forest Service should suppress fires. Allowing forests to burn was seen
as a waste of resources to these people. Others asserted that the
Forest Service should allow fires to burn, proposing that restoring
fire disturbance regimes will, in turn, help restore ecological
sustainability. One respondent questioned how the Forest Service would
prescribe fire to restore ecosystems while maintaining the air resource
value of visibility. This individual felt that the proposed planning
regulations should clarify how this conflict will be resolved.
Response: The Department does not believe that this rule is the
appropriate place to resolve questions of fire management policy.
However, the planning framework provided by this rule will facilitate
resolving them at the appropriate scale. Fire may be an issue handled
at the national or regional scale. For example, the Forest Service has
recently developed new information about the risk of catastrophic fires
that may be useful for planning at a national or regional level.
Planning could also happen at the forest plan or landscape level if
scientific information or a local community suggested that fire was an
issue that should be addressed through a specific project or series of
projects and the responsible official determined that the issue should
be considered and sufficient information existed to address it. The
collaborative and flexible planning process outlined in this final rule
is fully consistent with ongoing efforts at the Forest Service to
address fire risks to communities and the environment.
Comment: Wildlife on grazing allotments. Believing that hunting has
greater economic potential than that of grazing, another person
suggested that game species be given priority over cattle in management
area allocations. Elk and bison are not only endemic, but they would
also provide hunting revenues according to this individual.
Response: The Department does not believe that this rule is the
appropriate place to resolve questions of livestock and big game
conflicts. However, the planning framework provided by this rule will
facilitate resolving conflicts at the appropriate scale.
Other changes. The introductory paragraph in the final rule differs
in two ways from the proposed rule. The paragraph clarifies that
decisions may apply to all or parts of a plan area and must reflect the
ongoing and anticipated actions of landowners adjacent and within
national forest and grassland boundaries. It acknowledges the
possibility that plan decisions may commit resources to site-specific
uses in some cases.
The proposed rule described four categories of decisions. The final
rule lists five and shortens the descriptions of each. Standards are
separated from objectives because these are considered to be different
types of decisions. Objectives describe intended results over a
projected period of time. Standards describe the limitations necessary
to achieve objectives. Standards are adopted, when needed, to achieve
objectives and desired conditions.
In paragraph (c) of the final rule, standards have been defined
more specifically than in the proposed rule to emphasize that they are
requirements, rather than statements of intent, and that they apply to
land uses and management actions rather than outcomes. The proposed
rule included three standards required by NFMA. The final rule adds a
fourth general category of standards that must be included to ensure
achievement of sustained multiple-use of national forests and
grasslands.
Paragraph (d) in the final rule was paragraph (c) in the proposed
rule and addresses suitable land uses. Livestock grazing is added to
the list of suitable land uses within the National Forest System based
on comments received for section 219.26. Paragraph (e) in the final
rule was paragraph (d) in the proposed rule. This section requires an
identifiable monitoring and evaluation
[[Page 67529]]
strategy that is required by each plan in section 219.11.
Proposed Section 219.8--Amendment. This section of the proposed
rule addressed amendments to plans as an addition to or the
modification or deletion of one or more of the decisions listed in
section 219.7. An amendment to a plan was defined as a plan decision.
It also addressed the process through which amendments must be made.
There were no additional requirements beyond those presented in the
rest of the planning framework and Forest Service NEPA procedures.
Comment: Timeframes. Many respondents expressed concerns regarding
the time period of Forest Service planning efforts. Some of these
people felt that the proposed rule's provisions allow for various
parties to delay amendment and revision processes. Some of these
respondents recommended that the proposed rule include specific time
limitations on revisions and amendments, while one person suggested
that the proposed rule include provisions allowing ongoing activities
to continue during plan amendments. Some believed the proposed planning
regulations should require consideration of impacts to the entire
planning area during amendment, revision, and objection procedures.
Response: The Department envisions that proposed amendments and
revisions be completed in a timely manner considering the complexity of
the issues and public interest in pending proposals. Ongoing activities
may continue while an existing plan is being amended or revised (40 CFR
1506.1(c)). Impacts must be considered in accordance with NEPA
procedures.
Comment: Significant plan amendments. One person felt that the
proposed rule circumvents the criteria for determining ``significant
amendments'' described in the NFMA. In the proposed and final rule, a
proposed plan amendment that may create significant environmental
impact is deemed to be a significant amendment as described in NFMA.
This person suggested that the proposed rule does not comply with the
NFMA requirements in that a plan amendment that may create large social
or economic effects should require a significant plan amendment.
However, a plan amendment that would create only social or economic
effects would not necessarily require preparation of an environmental
impact statement. A change in the projected level of timber production
was cited as an example of such a situation.
Response: The Department believes that any plan amendment that may
create significant environmental effects should be considered as a
significant amendment as described in the NFMA. It is unreasonable to
conclude that a plan amendment may create only social or economic
effects apart from physical or biological effects. The proposed
amendment that may create significant environmental effects would
require preparation of an environmental impact statement and a 90-day
public review period for the draft environmental impact statement. Such
an amendment would be a significant amendment to a plan.
Comment: Provisions related to amendments and revisions need
additional requirements. A few people recommended the proposed rule
include specific criteria for initiating amendments and revisions.
Another respondent recommended that the proposed rule include specific
provisions for the review of environmental impact statements generated
by other federal agencies for actions impacting national forest plans.
Response: The Department expects that amendments will occur
frequently in response to new information and newly identified issues.
If conditions have changed significantly throughout the plan area, the
responsible official may revise the plan. In the final rule, the
decision to propose an amendment or a revision, if under the legal time
limit, remains discretionary, as in both the current and proposed
rules. This enables the responsible official to consider resource and
administrative factors, and other applicable information prior to
proposing to amend a plan. While not specifically mentioned in the
rule, the Department expects the Forest Service to consider
environmental impact statements prepared by other agencies as potential
sources of issues to be addressed.
Other changes. The final rule references other applicable sections
of the rule for additional requirements to consider in making an
amendment. The final rule changes the focus of paragraph (b) from
addressing ``Plan amendments in conjunction with site-specific
decisions'' to ``Environmental review of a proposed plan amendment.''
Proposed Section 219.9--Revision. This section of the proposed rule
described the process to be used periodically to review the plan.
Paragraph (a) of this section of the rule describes revision as a
process that is required in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5).
Comment: Adaptability. Contending that the current planning process
is so slow that it produces obsolete plans, some respondents supported
the proposed rule's emphasis on adaptability. One person even asserted
that, given ongoing updates, the requirement for revisions every
fifteen years is unnecessary and should be eliminated.
Response: The fifteen-year timeframe for revisions is a statutory
requirement. The final rule has been changed, however, so that it does
not incorporate a specific timeframe. Rather, it allows the timeframe
to be governed by applicable law. Under the rule, the scope of revision
is not open-ended, but focuses on the identified issues. If there are
few issues, the process should be focused and simplified accordingly.
Comment: Relationship to the proposed Roadless Area Conservation
Rule. Some individuals explicitly requested that the Forest Service
clarify the relationship between the proposed Roadless Area
Conservation Rule (proposed roadless rule) and the planning rule and
how the planning rule will account for the proposed roadless rule
through the planning process. In addition, some respondents suggested
that the local planning process is better suited to determine future
management direction than national rulemaking for roadless areas,
particularly for those roadless areas not yet identified.
Response: The final rule clarifies the relationship of the planning
rule with the proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule (proposed
roadless rule) described in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation,
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated May, 2000 and 65
FR 30276, May 10, 2000. The terms ``inventoried roadless areas'' and
``unroaded areas'' are described in the planning rule to clarify the
relationship of the final planning rule to the proposed roadless rule
and the Forest Service's recently proposed road management policy. The
proposed road management policy describes analysis methods and
procedures that would complement the planning-related activities of
national forests and grasslands. The proposed rule regarding roadless
areas would prohibit road construction and reconstruction in
inventoried roadless areas. It would also require land managers to
consider certain roadless area characteristics during plan revision and
to then decide in the context of overall multiple-use objectives
whether additional protections should be afforded inventoried roadless
areas or other unroaded areas. Similarly, the proposed planning rule
would require the responsible official to consider designating roadless
areas during plan
[[Page 67530]]
revision along with any needed plan decisions related to such areas.
The final planning rule clarifies that analyses and decisions regarding
inventoried roadless areas and other unroaded areas, other than the
national prohibitions that may be established in the final Roadless
Area Conservation Rule, will be made through the planning process
articulated in this final rule. Under this final rule, the responsible
official is required to evaluate inventoried roadless areas and
unroaded areas and identify areas that warrant protection and the level
of protection to be afforded.
Public comments suggested, and the Department agrees, that the
procedures described in the proposed roadless rule were very similar to
those outlined in the proposed planning rule. Moreover, comments
suggested that appropriate roadless area protections could be best
considered using the explicit collaboration, science, sustainability,
and planning requirements of the planning rule.
The Department has determined that the review of the roadless
characteristics contemplated by the proposed roadless rule is an
explicit function of land management planning and should be addressed
through this rule. Moreover, most of the roadless area characteristics
identified in section 294.13 of the proposed roadless rule are
characteristics otherwise required to be analyzed during plan revision
or at other times as deemed appropriate by the responsible official. In
the final planning rule, the requirements for identifying roadless
areas and additional roadless area protections are an explicit part of
the plan revision process as described in section 219.9(b)(8). The
analysis and treatment of characteristics of roadless areas as
identified in the proposed roadless rule are listed below as they
compare to the requirements of the final planning rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed roadless rule Final planning rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
294.13(a) At the time of plan Section 219.9(b)(8) requires the
revision, the quality and responsible official to consider
importance of nine inventoried roadless areas and unroaded
characteristics of areas in all plan revisions and at other
inventoried roadless areas times as appropriate through the
and unroaded areas must be criteria in section 219.20(a) and
evaluated. 219.21(a). Those sections require
development and analysis of information
at a variety of spatial and temporal
scales.
294.13(a)(1) Soil, water, and 219.20(a)(1)(i)(B) Water resources: the
air; and. diversity, abundance, and distribution
294.13(a)(2) Sources of of aquatic and riparian systems
public drinking water. including streams, stream banks, coastal
waters, estuaries, groundwater, lakes,
wetlands, shorelines, riparian areas,
and floodplains; stream channel
morphology and condition, and flow
regimes.
219.20(a)(1)(i)(C) Soil resources: soil
productivity; physical, chemical, and
biological properties; soil loss; and
compaction.
219.20(a)(1)(i)(D) Air resources: air
quality, visibility, and other air
resource values.
219.20(a)(2)(i)(F) An evaluation of the
effects of air quality on ecological
systems including water.
219.20(a)(2)(i)(G) An estimation of
current and foreseeable future Forest
Service consumptive and non-consumptive
water uses and the quantity and quality
of water needed to support those uses
and contribute to ecological
sustainability.
294.13(a)(3) Diversity of 219.20(a)(2)(ii) Evaluations of species
plant and animal communities. diversity must include, as appropriate,
assessments of the risks to species
viability and the identification of
ecological conditions needed to maintain
species viability over time.
219.36 Ecological conditions: Components
of the biological and physical
environment that can affect the
diversity of plant and animal
communities, including species
viability, and the productive capacity
of ecological systems. These could
include the abundance and distribution
of aquatic and terrestrial habitats,
roads and other structural developments,
human uses, and invasive and exotic
species.
294.13(a)(4) Habitat for 219.20(a)(2)(ii)(A) The viability of each
threatened, endangered, species listed under the Endangered
proposed, candidate, and Species Act as threatened, endangered,
sensitive species and for candidate, and proposed species must be
those species dependent on assessed. Individual species assessments
large, undisturbed areas of must be used for these species.
land.
219.20(a)(2)(ii)(B) For all other
species, including other species-at-risk
and those species for which there is
little information, a variety of
approaches may be used, including
individual species assessments and
assessments of focal species or other
indicators used as surrogates in the
evaluation of ecological conditions
needed to maintain species viability.
219.36 Species-at-risk: Federally listed
endangered, threatened, candidate, and
proposed species and other species for
which loss of viability, including
reduction in distribution or abundance,
is a concern within the plan area. Other
species-at-risk may include sensitive
species and state listed species. A
species-at-risk also may be selected as
a focal species.
294.13(a)(5) Primitive, semi- Section 219.27(c) The consideration of
primitive non-motorized, and recreation-related uses of land is
semi-primitive motorized addressed in the planning framework and
classes of dispersed within administratively designated areas
recreation. that may include inventoried roadless
areas and unroaded areas as well as
motorized and non-motorized public use
areas.
294.13(a)(6) Reference 219.20(a)(2)(i)(H) An identification of
landscapes. reference landscapes to provide for
evaluation of the effects of actions.
294.13(a)(7) Landscape The consideration of landscapes and
character and scenic scenic integrity is within the
integrity. development of landscape goals (section
219.12(b)) and consideration of issues.
294.13(a)(8) Traditional 219.21(a) For plan revisions, and to the
cultural properties and extent the responsible official
sacred sites. considers to be appropriate for plan
amendments or site-specific decisions,
the responsible official must develop or
supplement the information and analyses
related to the following:
219.21(a)(1) Describe and analyze, as
appropriate.
219.21(a)(1)(i) Demographic trends; * * *
cultural and American Indian tribe land
settlement patterns; social and cultural
history; * * * and other appropriate
social and cultural information.
[[Page 67531]]
294.13(a)(9) Other locally 219.5 The responsible official, in his or
identified unique her discretion, may choose the methods
characteristics. and determine the scope of information
development and interpretation for an
issue under consideration. A broad-scale
assessment or a local analysis may be
developed or supplemented if appropriate
to the scope and scale of an issue.
219.5(b) Local analyses. Local analyses
provide ecological, social, or economic
information as deemed appropriate by the
responsible official. Local analyses may
cover watersheds, ecological units, and
social and economic units, and may tier
to or provide information to update a
broad-scale assessment. Local analyses
should provide the following, as
appropriate.
219.5(b)(6) Recommendations for proposals
(Sec. 219.6(a)) or identification of
other issues (Sec. 219.4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other changes. The final rule clarifies that the revision process
is completed when the responsible official signs a record of decision
for a plan revision. Language to this effect was in paragraph (a) of
the proposed rule and is found in the final rule in paragraph (e).
Paragraph (b) lists steps to be taken to initiate the revision process.
A number of clarifying changes were made in these steps. In paragraph
(b)(2), issues were added to the list of information sources to be
summarized. Paragraph (b)(2) in the proposed rule was separated into
two parts, (b)(3) and (b)(4). Between them, they make it clear that the
evaluations of sustainability presented in sections 219.20 and 219.21
must be performed on the current plan prior to revision, in order to
assess the plan's contribution to sustainability.
Paragraph (b)(3) of the proposed rule is renumbered (b)(5) in the
final rule. Based on response to public comments the text in (b)(3) of
the proposed rule is moved to (b)(8) and revised to include the
identification and evaluation of inventoried roadless areas and
unroaded areas. A sentence requiring the determination of warranted
protections of these areas during the revision process or at other
appropriate times is added to this section to ensure that plan
decisions address these areas. Paragraph (b)(4) of the proposed rule is
renumbered (b)(6) in the final rule and the term ``priority'' is
deleted to avoid the appearance of decisions being made at this early
stage of the process. Regarding paragraph (b)(9) in the final rule,
outcomes are to be projected for the 15-year the life of the plan,
rather than 10 years, which is consistent with section 219.30.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) in the proposed rule are reorganized. As
mentioned above, the meaning of revision is clarified. The only
substantive change is the removal of specific requirements for the
content of the Notice of Intent to revise plan decisions, and the
requirement for a 45-day review period that were included in the
proposed rule, paragraph (d). Because paragraph (e) in the final rule
requires each plan revision to have an environmental impact statement
that in turn requires an accompanying Notice of Intent, the content of
the Notice of Intent would be governed by Forest Service NEPA
procedures.
Paragraph (e) of the final rule was changed to be consistent with
the intent of section 219.32, which prohibits the responsible official
from approving a plan amendment until the conclusion of the objection
process.
Paragraph (h) of the proposed rule required establishment of a
revision schedule. This requirement is moved to section 219.35, as part
of the transition process.
Proposed Section 219.10--Site-specific decisions and authorized
uses of land. This section of the proposed rule described the basic
steps and requirements that apply to planning for site-specific
decisions. It also addressed the statutory requirement between permits,
contracts, and other instruments be considered with the applicable land
and resource management plan. In the final rule, this section has been
renamed ``Site-specific decisions.''
Comment: Site-specific amendments. Many respondents felt that the
proposed planning rule should clarify how amendments to approve site-
specific decisions will apply to national forest and grassland plans.
They asserted that inconsistencies between site-specific plans and
national forest plans be clarified in the final rule. One organization
recommended that the Forest Service develop and include specific
criteria and guidelines pursuant to determining the appropriate action
regarding site-specific decisions.
Response: Detailed guidance for addressing potential
inconsistencies with the plan has been provided by Forest Service
directives. The Department intends to streamline the planning process,
and therefore does not believe there is a need to add more detailed
information to the final planning regulation to address this concern.
Comment: Appropriateness of including site-specific decisions. Some
respondents believed that the proposed planning rule should emphasize
site-specific planning actions on national forests. Specifically,
unique ecosystems contained within broad-scale analysis areas, they
contended, needed to be addressed independently in forest planning
efforts. Conversely, others believed the proposed planning rule should
not address project-level planning. ``Requiring that project planning
follow the same process as set forth for forest plans,'' one person
asserted, ``will essentially mean an end to project planning, as it
will be entirely too cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive.''
Response: The Department believes that joining site-specific
planning and forest planning into one shared planning framework will
result in better project integration and an increased measure of
efficiency, both in terms of the planning process and in achieving
resource objectives. One framework will make it easier for the public
to understand and participate in Forest Service planning at all levels.
Sections of the framework applicable to site-specific planning have
been specifically identified in the final rule to ensure that project
planning will be conducted efficiently. The Department believes that
this approach will encourage appropriate treatment of unique ecosystems
through planning at an appropriate scale.
Comment: Exemptions. Some respondents felt that the proposed
planning rule should provide specific criteria for granting exemptions
to forest plans. An appeals process for exemption decisions, they
asserted, should also be included. The proposed planning rule should
include reasonable and negotiated schedules for compliance for non-
exempted authorized uses, some contended.
Response: The NFMA requires that authorized uses be consistent with
applicable plans. It provides for amendment of plans, but not for
exemptions from them. The proposed
[[Page 67532]]
rule provided for an exemption process. The Department now believes
that the same purposes can be achieved through an amendment or revision
process that addresses issues related to ongoing authorized uses.
Other changes. Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule required the
application of the planning requirements of the entire subpart to site-
specific decisions. The final rule clarifies which sections are
relevant to project decisions. Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule
describes the options available to a responsible official if a proposed
site-specific decision is not consistent with an applicable land and
resource management plan. Similar guidance is currently found in the
Forest Service directive system and is not included in the final rule.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule contained extensive directions
on what to do with existing permits, contracts, and other instruments
authorizing the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands when
a plan is amended or revised, including an exemption process. Many
people are distrustful of exemptions from plan decisions. NFMA
explicitly provides for amendment of plans, but not for exemptions from
them. The same purposes can be achieved through an amendment or
revision process that addresses issues related to ongoing authorized
uses. The paragraph is not included in the final rule. For such
authorizations, paragraph (b) also requires consistency with existing
plans at the time of their issuance. In the final rule, authorized uses
of land are included as site-specific decisions. The title of this
section was changed to reflect the relationship of authorizations and
site-specific decisions.
Proposed Section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation. This section of
the proposed rule described the monitoring and evaluation requirements
for site-specific actions and land and resource management plans. To
more accurately reflect the use of monitoring information in developing
appropriate adjustments to ongoing and planned actions, this section of
the final rule is renamed ``Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive
management''.
Comment: Monitoring for site-specific decisions. Many respondents
felt that monitoring and evaluation is essential to assess the
effectiveness of management activities. They recommended that the
planning rule emphasize monitoring and evaluation, especially for site-
specific decisions.
Response: The proposed rule emphasized the importance of monitoring
in achieving sustainability. The final rule retains this emphasis.
Monitoring and evaluation is a key component of adaptive management and
dealing with uncertainty and risk in managing complex natural systems.
Comment: Monitoring and evaluation requirements. Many people were
concerned with the flexibility of the monitoring and evaluation
requirements, and some respondents believed that the proposed rule
should include criteria for developing monitoring strategies.
Others felt that the proposed rule's requirements are too
restrictive. ``Research demonstrates that determining sample size,
sampling frequency, and even sampling methods is an adaptive process,''
one person wrote, ``therefore, including details on frequency of
sampling and sampling protocols in the land and resource management
plan will constrain the monitoring system such that effective
monitoring will be less likely.''
Response: The Department does not believe there was unwarranted
flexibility in the requirements for monitoring and evaluation in the
proposed rule. There was a lack of clear descriptions of monitoring
requirements in this section of the proposed rule. This section is
revised to improve its clarity and readability.
For ecological sustainability, the final rule requires the
monitoring strategy to include an assessment of the status and trend of
selected physical and biological characteristics of ecosystem diversity
(section 219.20(a)(1)). It must also assess the status and trends of
ecological conditions known or suspected to support focal species and
selected species-at-risk including population monitoring for some
species. For social and economic sustainability, the final rule
requires the monitoring strategy to include periodic review of
national, regional, and local supply and demand for products, services,
and values, with special consideration given to those uses, values,
products, and services that the Forest Service is uniquely poised to
provide.
The proposed rule required the monitoring strategy to include the
frequency of measurement and sampling protocols. In the final rule, the
selection of monitoring methods, as well as reasons for selection of
the methodologies, must be documented as part of the monitoring
strategy. In addition, the final rule provides that, unless required by
the monitoring strategy, monitoring methods may be changed to reflect
new information without plan amendment or revision. The Department does
not believe that including details on frequency of sampling and
sampling protocols in the monitoring strategy will constrain the
monitoring system.
Comment: Specific monitoring requirements. One person contended,
``No level of monitoring, linked with current understanding of
ecological systems, can provide the information necessary to determine,
unequivocally, long-term sustainability.'' This person recommended the
elimination of monitoring requirements for different management
practices. Others suggested that the planning rule specifically address
water quality monitoring methods in the proposed rule.
Response: The proposed rule does not provide for the information
necessary to determine, unequivocally, long-term sustainability.
Rather, it views monitoring and evaluation as a key component of
adaptive management, enabling the Forest Service to deal with
uncertainty and risk in managing complex natural systems. The final
rule retains this emphasis on monitoring and evaluation.
The proposed rule did not specifically address methods for
monitoring for water quality. The final rule requires assessment of the
status and trend of selected physical and biological characteristics of
ecosystem diversity (section 219.20(a)(1)). These include the
diversity, abundance, and distribution of aquatic and riparian systems
including streams, stream banks, coastal waters, estuaries,
groundwater, lakes, wetlands, shorelines, riparian areas, and
floodplains; stream channel morphology and condition, and flow regimes.
The Department believes that methods for water resource monitoring are
best documented in the monitoring strategy for a plan rather than
included in the planning rule.
Comment: Quality and type of data collected. Some people felt that
poor quality data will continue to impact the agency's ability to
conduct adequate assessments. They recommended that the proposed rule
require the collection of adequate monitoring data. Other respondents
addressed concerns regarding the use of models as tools for monitoring.
One person asserted that ``all models are inherently wrong and
similarly the assumptions of models are always violated.'' Several
people suggested that the planning rule recognize the limitations of
planning models and emphasize proven monitoring methods, especially
field monitoring.
Response: The primary focus of monitoring and evaluation is based
upon on-the-ground results and measures of how well activities provide
for sustainability and fulfill desired
[[Page 67533]]
conditions and objectives. In the final rule, each plan must contain a
practicable, effective, and efficient monitoring strategy. Data and
models used to address the monitoring requirements are to use the best
science available. Under the adaptive approach to management described
by the planning framework, many management activities are continually
tested against planned and actual results. Appropriate adjustments can
be made as new information becomes available.
Comment: Coordination among interested groups. Some recommended
that the proposed rule be strengthened to ensure that monitoring
efforts are coordinated with appropriate and interested parties. Some
respondents specifically suggested that state and local government
representatives be involved in monitoring activities. Various
respondents expressed preferences about who should conduct or assist
with monitoring efforts. Some people felt that monitoring activities
should be restricted to qualified parties, while others recommended the
inclusion of diverse interests in these activities.
Response: In the proposed rule, monitoring and evaluation is
coordinated and, to the extent practicable, conducted jointly with
other federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments,
scientific and academic communities, or other interested parties. In
addition, the proposed rule required the responsible official to
provide appropriate opportunities for the public to be involved in
monitoring and evaluation. The final rule retains only the former
provision as the latter provision was viewed as redundant.
The Department believes that monitoring is an important opportunity
for the public to become directly involved with the conservation and
stewardship of their national forests and grasslands. As in other steps
of the planning framework, the expectation is that responsible
officials will ensure opportunities are provided for appropriate
collaboration.
Comment: Adequacy of funding to support the monitoring and
evaluation requirements. Some respondents did not favor the requirement
that the responsible official shall ensure that adequate funding is
available for monitoring specifically required in project-level
decision documents. Many people feared that inadequate funding could
hinder the implementation of necessary projects. The Congressional
budget process, they asserted, needs to be considered in developing the
proposed rule. Other respondents, concerned about the adequacy of
funding for monitoring, believed that the proposed rule's monitoring
requirements will be excessively expensive and suggested that the rule
emphasize that monitoring should not require significant additional
costs.
Response: The Department believes that it is reasonable to expect
the responsible official to make a fairly accurate prediction of future
funding. First, the responsible official has the budget history of the
unit and should be able to make a reasonable estimate on funding
availability. Second, the responsible official has the flexibility to
adjust the size and complexity of projects to reduce funding. Finally,
the responsible official sets the stage for monitoring by documenting
what is needed for specific projects in preliminary budget proposals.
As noted by the Committee of Scientists, monitoring is an indispensable
part of land and resource stewardship. To date, it has not been
integrated into the planning and implementation process. Yet, including
monitoring within the planning process may be the single most important
shift that can happen in forest stewardship. The monitoring process
creates the information necessary for future decisions, reduces the
cost of future inventory analysis, and lessens the likelihood of
management mistakes.
Comment: Linkage of project approval to monitoring funding. Many
people voiced general support for the proposed rule's provisions
requiring adequate funding for monitoring as a condition for project
approval. Conversely, several other respondents felt that project
approval should not be connected to funding for monitoring. These
people asserted that this condition will hinder project implementation
and conflicts with congressional budgetary authority. Focusing more on
accountability, a few respondents suggested that the proposed rule
require that responsible officials include their rationale for
supporting expectations of adequate funding for monitoring in decision
documents.
Response: The Department has retained language in the final rule
concerning adequate funds for monitoring and evaluation of site-
specific decisions. It is important to clarify that monitoring is not
required for all site-specific projects. Where it is identified as
important to understanding and ensuring sustainability, monitoring is
considered as part of the project in the decision process.
Comment: Mechanisms for funding monitoring. Several respondents
felt that it is unfair to require industrial interests to fund
monitoring for projects that these interests propose. These people
asserted that the proposed rule should not include such provisions.
Other respondents recommended that the Forest Service seek legislative
approval to establish a fund specifically for monitoring.
Response: The Department has retained language in the final rule
concerning adequate funds for monitoring and evaluation of site-
specific decisions. References were not made to industrial or non-
industrial interests funding monitoring in the proposed or final rule.
Monitoring is considered as part of the cost of doing the project where
it is required.
Comments: Monitoring and evaluation of social and economic
sustainability. Some respondents believed that the proposed rule has
inadequate requirements for the evaluation of economic and social
sustainability and recommended an expansion of the evaluation criteria
in the final rule. Other respondents requested clarification of the
requirements for review of national, regional, and local supply and
demand for products, services, and values. One organization believed
that the proposed rule should emphasize monitoring and evaluation
processes that focus on the products, services, and values that both
the Forest Service and local governments specifically provide. One
person explicitly suggested that the Forest Service remove the term
``values'' from the proposed rule's items for consideration when
monitoring for economic and social sustainability because it ``will
allow a manager to use a variety of undefined and arbitrary `values' to
counteract a demand for products or services.'' Another person asked
the Forest Service to require inventories of timber resources.
Inventories of areas not suited for timber production, this person
contended, are essential to gauge economic sustainability.
Response: The requirements for evaluating economic and social
sustainability are identified in sections 219.5 and 219.21.
Coordination of monitoring with partners is encouraged in section
219.11(e). The requirements for evaluating ecological, economic, and
social sustainability have been increased in the final rule. The plan
monitoring strategy must provide periodic reviews of national,
regional, and local supply and demand for products, services, and
values. It requires the responsible official to evaluate the
effectiveness of information and analyses described in 219.21 (a) in
providing reliable information regarding social and economic
sustainability. This
[[Page 67534]]
provides an adaptive approach to address many of the concerns made by
the respondents, including inventories of areas not suited for timber
production and assessing supply and demand for products, services, and
values.
Other changes. The monitoring and evaluation section of the final
rule is reorganized to more clearly describe the strategy of monitoring
plan decisions and characteristics of sustainability required by each
plan. Each plan will contain a practicable, effective, and efficient
monitoring strategy to evaluate sustainability by monitoring
appropriate plan decisions and characteristics of sustainability.
Section 219.5 provides that this type of information will be prepared
within ``reasonable costs and in a timely manner.''
In the proposed rule paragraph (a), ``Monitoring and evaluation
requirements,'' is reorganized and renamed ``Plan monitoring strategy''
to more accurately describe requirements. To simplify the presentation
of required information, specific requirements for the use of
monitoring information listed in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule are
moved to paragraph (d), ``use of monitoring information,'' in the final
rule. Monitoring methods described in paragraph (a) of the proposed
rule are moved to paragraph (c) of the final rule to distinguish these
requirements from the monitoring strategy, thus ensuring that
appropriate adjustments in sampling frequencies and technical methods
are implemented as monitoring progresses. The final rule clarifies that
changes in monitoring methods are not plan decisions unless they are
specifically required within the monitoring strategies described in a
plan.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule, ``Coordination,'' described the
need for collaboration and coordination in the development and
implementation of monitoring programs. This paragraph is renumbered as
paragraph (e) of the final rule, simplified, and renamed,
``Coordination of monitoring and evaluation.''
Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule, ``Project monitoring,'' is
renamed ``Monitoring of site-specific actions'' and renumbered
paragraph (b) in the final rule. The text of the paragraph is modified
to specify that the responsible official must determine funding will be
adequate to complete specifically described monitoring and evaluation
before authorizing a site-specific action. The proposed rule is not
specific regarding who is responsible for a determination of the
appropriate funding prior to authorization of an action.
Paragraph (d) in the proposed rule, ``Monitoring and evaluation
report,'' is moved to paragraph (f) in the final rule, ``A summary of
the results of monitoring.'' Two items required for ``Identification of
topics of general interest or concern,'' and ``A list of amendments,
revisions and summaries of outcomes,'' are removed from this section in
the final rule. These items are required by section 219.30, ``Plan
documentation,'' and not necessary to repeat as a requirement in the
monitoring and evaluation report.
Paragraphs (e) and (f), ``Monitoring of ecological, social, and
economic sustainability'' in the proposed rule, are redrafted to follow
the content of sections 219.20 and 219.21 of the final rule. They are
incorporated into paragraph (a), ``Plan monitoring strategy,'' in the
final rule. Because sustainability is the foundation for providing
multiple uses of national forest and grasslands and monitoring
activities are directed toward effective and efficient strategies to
evaluate sustainability, it is appropriate that the characteristics of
sustainability are described in conjunction with development of the
plan monitoring strategy.
Collaborative Planning for Sustainability
In the proposed rule, sections 219.12 to 219.18 outlined the
opportunities for the public and others to be actively engaged in the
Forest Service's land management planning process. Collaboration with
the public is one of the overriding themes of this rule. The agency
recognizes that these are the ``people's lands'' and the public should
be actively involved in their planning and management. These sections
identify multiple opportunities for early and continuous involvement by
the public.
Proposed Section 219.12--Collaboration and cooperatively developed
landscape goals. This section detailed opportunities for the public to
become involved in the development of landscape goals for national
forests and grasslands. This section also detailed the role the
responsible official will play in fostering an understanding of the
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Comment: Resolving conflicts. Some people suggested that the
proposed rule include guidelines regarding what should be involved in
collaboration and how potential conflicts among different parties will
be handled. The responsible official, one business contended, needs to
ensure that the parties involved in collaboration are all interested in
problem solving. ``The collaborative approach only works when you have
a group that is interested in the solutions to the problems,'' wrote
this business representative. ``It is a disaster when only part of the
group wants to find solutions.'' One person addressed a different
perceived shortcoming of collaboration. ``When the outcome of
collaboration is different from what participants want,'' this person
wrote, ``they often distrust the Forest Service and choose not to
participate in future collaborate efforts.''
Response: Based on comments, section 219.12(a) of the final rule
has been strengthened to provide that the ``responsible official'' must
seek to ``actively engage'' the public and others in stewardship and
planning of National Forest System lands. This change was made to
emphasize the importance of actively working with the public and other
agencies in forest planning. As noted in the Committee of Scientists
Report, collaboration is about working together on issues of mutual
concern in a manner that best fits the needs of people, place, and
issues of concern.
In response to the comment on the commitment of parties to resolve
problems, the final rule does not list any specific criteria for
participation in the collaborative process. It is incumbent on the
responsible official to identify the parties that will be ``actively
engaged'' in the planning process. Section 219.12(a) of the final rule
states that ``the responsible official shall consider the distinct
roles, jurisdictions, and relationships of interested and affected
governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.''
In regard to the comment on the Forest Service's role in the
outcome of collaboration, the final rule provides that the
``responsible official shall provide early and frequent opportunities
for people to participate openly and meaningfully in planning and has
discretion to determine how to provide these opportunities.'' The
overall intent of this rule is to have the Forest Service working
together with others to cooperatively resolve natural resource issues.
Collaborative planning is not a stop-and-start activity but rather
an ongoing effort, with varying levels of intensity. Its purpose is to
reach out to communities and other stakeholders and build stewardship
relationships needed to achieve an integrated landscape for planning to
achieve goals of sustainability.
Comment: Discretionary authority. The discretionary authority of
the Forest Service was another source of concern for many respondents.
Specifically, the
[[Page 67535]]
proposed provision stating that, ``The responsible official has full
discretion to determine how and to what extent to use the collaborative
process'' evoked fears that the decision maker will be able to, in the
words of one respondent, ``manipulate the process to achieve a
predetermined target under the collaborative decisions label.'' To
prevent this perceived abuse of discretionary power, several people
recommended that the proposed planning rule require the responsible
official to adhere to certain procedures such as documenting the
rationale for choosing a given collaborative process and specifying
when and how public input will be solicited. Others suggested that the
proposed planning regulations retain current requirements for
collaboration because they believe existing guidelines are more
stringent in requiring opportunities for involvement with the public.
Response: The proposed rule provided that the responsible official
has ``full discretion * * * to determine how and to what extent'' to
use the collaborative processes outlined in certain sections of the
proposed rule. Based on comments, this provision in the final rule has
been changed in section 219.12(a) to provide the responsible official
``has discretion to determine how to provide these opportunities.'' The
language ``to what extent'' has been removed from the final rule. The
Department made this change to emphasize that the agency would use
collaborative techniques in planning and stewardship of national
forests and grasslands. Section 219.12(a) of the final rule recognizes
that the responsible official may play several roles, such as leader,
organizer, facilitator, or participant, in achieving collaboration.
In addition, discretion of the agency to consider ``cooperatively
developed landscape goals'' has been modified in the final rule.
Section 219.12(b)(3) provides that the responsible official ``shall
consider'' (emphasis added) the cooperatively developed landscape goals
as an issue for planning.
In regard to the comment on involvement with the public
requirements, the rule does not conflict with any other public
involvement processes the agency currently uses. In fact, the rule
complements the existing public involvement requirements and increases
opportunities for collaboration with the public throughout the planning
process.
Comment: Implementation. The proposed planning rule, several
believed, should clarify how collaborative planning goals relate to
NEPA requirements and other goals proposed in the planning rule. In
particular, the Forest Service must not substitute proposed
collaborative processes for NEPA analysis, according to one
organization. Clarification is also needed, one person wrote, regarding
how the proposed collaborative planning process is different from the
scoping process under NEPA. Other people suggested that the planning
rule include recognition of the fact that collaboratively developed
goals may not be consistent with other proposed goals such as
ecological sustainability or emphasis on science. Some respondents
agreed that collaborative planning is a laudable goal but, doubt that
it will be realized. Citing a variety of past examples in which the
Forest Service perceivably discounted local interests, several
respondents wondered whether the Forest Service will actually adopt
management directions developed through collaborative efforts. The
Forest Service, others suggested, should disclose how public comments
are used in forest planning.
Response: The proposed rule provided that the responsible official
should use collaboration to develop landscape goals for ``ecological
units'' that may be associated with National Forest System lands. In
the final rule, this provision has been changed to using collaborative
efforts ``to develop or propose landscape goals for areas that include
National Forest System lands.'' The Department made this change to
broaden the use of collaboratively developed landscape goals, not just
to ecological units, but to all lands associated with the National
Forest System. With respect to the comment on consistency of
collaboratively developed landscape goals and ecological
sustainability, Section 219.4 of the final rule provides that the
responsible official should consider the extent to which addressing the
issues relates to or provides an opportunity to contribute to the
``restoration or maintenance of ecological sustainability.''
In regard to landscape goals and NEPA, the language in section
219.12(b)(2) in the proposed rule has been retained in the final rule
that recognized the importance and understanding of collaborative
efforts and the National Environmental Policy Act. Section 219.12(b)(2)
of the final rule explicitly recognizes the link between NEPA and
collaborative planning. In section 219.5 of the final rule, the
Department has clarified that ``the results from broad-scale
assessments, local analyses, monitoring activities, and other studies
that are not plan or site-specific decisions or proposals . . . are not
subject to Forest Service NEPA procedures.'' The Department made this
change to clarify that these landscape goals are broad landscape goals
and not decisions requiring NEPA analysis. With respect to public
comments during the planning process, all public comments are available
for review. In regard to scoping and collaborative planning, the
Department views collaborative planning as complementary to the NEPA
scoping process. This is one more avenue for the agency to actively
engage the public in land and resource planning.
In regard to the comments about the Forest Service adopting
management directions developed in collaborative efforts, the overall
intent and emphasis in the rule is for the Forest Service, along with
other parties, to ``actively engage'' in a collaborative planning
process to problem solve and identify mutual goals and interests. The
collaborative process does not ensure what decision will be made by the
responsible official.
Comment: Efficiency. Other people worried that the involvement of
``uninformed'' parties, single-issue organizations, or individuals or
groups that cannot demonstrate a ``relevant relationship to the subject
matter of a proposed plan'' results in an inefficient and laborious
collaborative process. Similarly, some respondents asserted that if the
Forest Service were required to consider all landscape goals initiated
by various individuals and groups, decisionmaking would be slowed
considerably. One organization cautioned, ``Decisions not incorporating
all the conflicting goals will end up in litigation and further waste
of taxpayer resources.''
Response: The proposed rule provided that collaboration in land and
resource management planning ``enhances the ability of people to work
together, build their capacity for stewardship, and achieve ecological,
economic, and social sustainability.'' In section 219.12(a) of the
final rule, the Department has strengthened this provision by stating
``to promote sustainability, the responsible official, must seek to
actively engage the American public, interested organizations, private
landowners, state, local, and Tribal governments, and other federal
agencies in the stewardship of National Forest System Lands by
providing early and frequent opportunities for people to participate
openly and meaningfully in planning.'' The Department continues to
believe that meaningful collaboration by the agency with all interested
parties is the
[[Page 67536]]
best way to manage the national forest and grasslands. With respect to
potential litigation and collaboratively developed landscape goals,
section 219.4(b) of the final rule provides that the responsible
official has the discretion to determine ``whether and to what extent
an issue is appropriate for consideration.'' Litigation risks cannot be
determined at this time. Collaboratively developed landscape goals are
not subject to Forest Service NEPA procedures. Section 219.12(b)(3) of
the final rule provides that cooperatively developed landscape goals
are considered as an issue within the framework of planning. Section
219.12 of the final rule encourages an efficient and effective approach
among interests to utilize limited human and financial resources that
enable use of the latest technology and adoption of creative approaches
to collaboration. It positions the agency in a leadership role and
commits, as appropriate and practical, the responsible official to use
creative collaborative approaches to supplement traditional NEPA
processes.
Comment: Local Groups. Some people worried that Forest Supervisors
may interpret the guidance in the proposed rule encouraging responsible
officials to ``initiate or seek to join ongoing collaborative efforts
to develop or propose landscape goals'' as a mandate to rely on local
groups such as the Quincy Library Group. These people did not want the
Forest Service to give special consideration to local collaborative
groups and recommended that the proposed rule explicitly state that
input from collaborative groups will be considered equally with input
from other sources.
Response: The proposed rule provided that the responsible official
and those involved in planning should invite and encourage others to
engage in the collaborative development of landscape goals. Section
219.12(b)(1) of the final rule retains this language. The Department
believes that this language is broad enough to ensure that one group
does not have special consideration during the planning process. The
intent of this section is to provide opportunities for all parties
interested in forest planning to have an active role in the development
of landscape goals and the collaborative process. As noted in the
Committee of Scientists Report, collaborative planning is a shared
process within which agencies cooperate with one another, work with
other public and private organizations, and engage communities and
citizens in envisioning and working toward a sustainable future of the
national forests and grasslands.
Proposed Section 219.13--Coordination among federal agencies. This
section of the proposed rule addressed coordination with other federal
agencies in national forest and grassland planning and decisionmaking.
Comment: Sentiments were mixed among those respondents who
specifically addressed coordination among federal agencies in national
forest planning. While some supported the proposed planning rule's
emphasis on participation and coordination of various federal agencies
in forest planning, others were concerned that this focus on
coordination might unduly influence other agencies' management actions.
Response: Section 219.13 of the proposed rule provided that the
responsible official must provide ``early and continuous coordination''
for other interested or affected federal agencies to participate in
identification of issues and formulation of proposed actions that may
affect their programs. Section 219.13 of the final rule changed the
language from ``continuous coordination'' to ``frequent coordination''
for working with other federal agencies. This change was made to
clarify that there would be multiple opportunities for other federal
agencies to participate in planning. Agencies are also urged to
contribute to streamlined coordination of federal agency policies,
resource management plans, or programs. Other federal agencies may
further engage in a variety of tasks throughout the NEPA process,
examples include: assist the agency in EA and EIS development,
participate in public scoping, develop information and analyses in
which they have special expertise, contribute staff and resource
support, participate on interdisciplinary planning teams, and share
information and data. These actions strengthen the final outcome for
sound management of public resources.
In regard to the comment on the influence of the Forest Service to
other agency management actions, section 219.12 of the final rule
recognizes the distinct jurisdictions, policies and legislative
mandates of the other federal agencies. This language was retained from
the proposed regulations.
Proposed Section 219.14--Involvement of state and local
governments. This section of the proposed rule described the
involvement of state and local governments in the land and resource
management planning and decisionmaking.
Comment: Suggestions for creating a useful collaboration process.
Many people who responded to the proposed planning regulations support
the idea that the Forest Service should actively collaborate with state
and local governments. Forest Service officials, several respondents
claimed, often require state and local governments to participate in
planning in the same manner as members of the public rather than create
specific outreach mechanisms for these governmental entities. These
people offered a variety of suggestions for creating a useful
collaboration process designed for state and local governments. These
included requiring early and continuous coordination with state and
local governments, consulting with state and local government
officials, establishing state and local agencies as cooperating
agencies under NEPA, obtaining the consensus of local governments
before establishing topics of concern, providing documented rationale
for the acceptance or rejection of local governmental concerns and
suggestions, and establishing a process for intergovernmental
information exchange.
Response: Section 219.14 of the proposed rule stated that the
responsible official must provide opportunities for involvement of
state and local governments in the planning process, including
opportunities to participate in identification of topics of interest or
concern related to the planning area. Based on comments, the Department
has strengthened section 219.14 of the final rule to provide ``early
and frequent'' opportunities for state and local governments to be
actively involved in the planning process. In addition, the Department
has also included language in section 219.14(b) of the final rule that
acknowledges the need to coordinate resource management plans and
programs with state and local governments. The final rule directs the
continued building and fostering of these relationships.
Comment: Resolving conflict. Some respondents expressed
reservations regarding the potential success of collaborative efforts
with local and state governments. ``Local governments,'' one
organization claims, ``may exercise their rights to maintain roads and
trails counter to the desires of other interests within the
`collaborative' decisionmaking process--leading to additional conflict,
litigation, and wasted resources.''
Response: Section 219.12(a) of the final rule provides that the
responsible official should recognize the ``distinct roles,
jurisdictions, and relationships of interested and affected
governments, organizations, groups and individuals.'' The Forest
Service will conduct
[[Page 67537]]
collaborative planning consistent with all applicable federal laws and
regulations. This rule does not abrogate any federal responsibility to
state government.
Comment: Discretionary authority. Although many respondents like
the proposed planning rule's general emphasis on collaboration with
state and local governments, several argued that the rule does not
provide adequate assurance that these governments will be meaningfully
involved in collaborative efforts. These people suggested that the
Forest Service clarify how local and state governments will be engaged
in forest planning by eliminating discretionary language and providing
more specific direction in the proposed planning regulations. In
particular, the proposed rule, one person suggested, should specify
that municipalities and special districts would be consulted in forest
planning. This respondent asserted that national forest management
often affects water and sewage districts; thus, the Forest Service
should involve these affected parties.
Response: Section 219.14 of the final rule identifies some of the
key steps where state and local governments will be engaged in
planning. State and local governments will be involved in the
identification of issues as described in section 219.4(a) of the final
rule. Further, section 219.14 in the final rule provides that the
responsible official must provide early and frequent opportunities for
state and local governments to participate in the planning process.
This language strengthens the intent of the rule to have the agency
work with state and local governments in planning. In addition the rule
recognizes the need for the Forest Service and state and local
governments to coordinate plans and programs.
Comment: Coordination. Several people suggested this is a critical
component of effective collaboration procedures. Whether they want the
Forest Service to retain existing requirements for coordination and
review procedures or adopt the Bureau of Land Management's coordination
requirements, these people generally believed that the rule must be
explicit in requiring the Forest Service to strive for consistency
among various plans and policies.
Response: Based on comments, the Department has added section
219.14(b) that recognizes the need for the Forest Service to coordinate
resource management plans and programs with state and local
governments. In addition, section 219.13 of the final rule describes
the process for the Forest Service to coordinate their plans and
programs with other federal agencies.
Proposed Section 219.15--Interaction with American Indian Tribes
and Alaska Natives. This section of the proposed rule described the
interaction with American Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives in National
Forest System planning and decisionmaking.
Comment: Several people believed that the proposed planning rule
should more explicitly recognize the Forest Service's responsibility to
consult with American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives in forest
planning. The proposed rule, one respondent asserted, must require that
Forest Service decisions that may potentially impact tribal trust
resources be specifically analyzed for compliance with fiduciary
obligations of the United States. According to this respondent, ``More
emphasis needs to be placed on the recommendations and desires of
American Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives through the planning process
because much of these lands involve aboriginal and ancestral lands of
American Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives.'' The involvement of tribes
and natives in forest planning was important for several respondents
who do not think tribes should be treated in the same manner as members
of the public or state agencies are treated. American Indian Tribes and
Alaska Natives, these people asserted, must be partners in the initial,
pre-scoping stages of Forest Service planning. Another respondent
recommended that formal agreements be developed with tribal governments
regarding planning priorities and joint management in areas where
common boundaries exist.
Response: Section 219.15 of the final rule retains language from
the proposed rule declaring that the Forest Service shares in the
federal government's overall trust responsibilities and recognizes the
government-to-government relationships with American Indian Tribes and
Alaska Natives. It also retains language calling for collaboration in
the early identification of treaty rights, treaty-protected resources,
tribal trust resources, and other tribal consultation and
participation. Section 219.3(c) of the final rule provides that
American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives are to be engaged in an
``interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to planning.'' The
Department believes that section 219.15(c) of the proposed rule, which
is retained in the final rule, provides explicit language for the
Forest Service to consult with American Indian tribes. There is no
discretionary language in this section of the rule.
Comment: Tribal treaty requirements. In order to exercise their
rights, one tribal organization asserted that the Forest Service must
acknowledge the significant treaty requirements for protection of fish,
wildlife, and plants. This organization claimed that national forest
lands must be managed for a productive yield to allow tribes to
exercise their preexisting legal rights.
Response: Section 219.15 of the final rule emphasizes
identification of treaty rights and treaty and trust resources. The
planning regulations provide for early and frequent communication among
Forest Service personnel and American Indians and Alaska Natives. The
planning rule does not modify tribal treaty requirements.
Proposed Section 219.16--Relationships with interested individuals
and organizations. This section of the proposed rule addressed
relationships with interested individuals and organizations in national
forest and grassland planning and decisionmaking.
Comment: Encouraging public involvement. Many people who commented
on the proposed planning rule agreed that public involvement should be
an integral part of forest planning. However, respondents' perceptions
varied as to whether the proposed planning regulations will, in effect,
increase or decrease public involvement opportunities. Nevertheless,
the Forest Service, they contended, should encourage more public
involvement throughout the entire forest planning process to account
for the needs and wants of different forest users. Some further
suggested that the Forest Service clarify what incentives will be
offered to encourage people to become involved early in the planning
process.
Response: Section 219.16 of the proposed rule, which is retained in
the final rule, described a process for the responsible official to
involve the public in the planning process. Based on comments, the
Department has strengthened this section in the final rule by
describing specific steps where interested individuals and
organizations will be ``actively'' engaged in planning. As noted in the
Committee of Scientists Report, multiple mechanisms of public dialogue
need to be devised to enhance the capacity of the American people to
effectively engage in the planning process. The Committee of Scientists
also wrote that planning must provide mechanisms for broad-based,
vigorous, and ongoing opportunities for open public dialogue. These
dialogues must
[[Page 67538]]
be open to any person, conducted in non-technical terms, and structured
to accommodate differing schedules, capabilities, and interests. The
Department continues to support a comprehensive public involvement
process that has multiple opportunities for diverse interests to
participate in the forest planning process. It recognizes that the
planning process must be fair, meaningful, and open to persons with
diverse opinions and values. Through this process, the responsible
official must provide early and frequent opportunities for interested
parties to participate, work together, and collaborate to improve
understanding. A central function of the planning process aims at
facilitating community building by providing opportunities for people
to come together. There are not explicit incentives to participate in
the collaborative planning process in the rule; however, the rule does
ensure the opportunity for the agency and interested parties to
collaboratively develop plans for our national forests and grasslands.
Comment: Reducing bias in decisionmaking. Many people asserted that
when the Forest Service develops public outreach strategies, it must
both engage a broad range of constituents in the collaborative process
and equally consider the diverse interests of these constituents.
Whether they believe the Forest Service may give undue preference to
the views of local residents, logging companies, or environmentalists,
many respondents strongly insisted that the proposed planning rule
should reduce bias in decisionmaking by requiring equal outreach and
consideration processes for different stakeholders. The Forest Service,
some contended, must clarify how collaborative processes will weigh the
input from different interests. Offering a specific suggestion for
reducing bias in forest planning, one person proposed ``each national
forest be governed by a set of elected officials who would be
responsible to the public for the management of the national forests.''
By electing designated representatives, the Forest Service, this person
contended, would be able to balance non-local interests and local
interests as well as the interests of those who have the time and
resources to participate and those that do not.
Response: The final rule retains the language in section 219.16 of
the proposed regulations that recognized the need for engaging diverse
interests in collaborative planning. As noted in the Committee of
Scientists Report, collaborative planning must recognize the
inevitability of legitimate, yet competing, values in National Forest
System management. It must encourage divergent interests to
collectively deal with their differences while pursuing shared goals
for the national forests and grasslands. With respect to the comments
on bias of planning, this rule provides a framework for developing
plans that provides equal opportunities for all interested parties to
participate in a meaningful and open collaborative planning process.
Comment: Involvement in collaborative planning. Some respondents
offered specific ideas regarding who should or should not be involved
in collaborative efforts. Several people argued that the Forest Service
must focus collaboration at the local level and give priority
consideration to local concerns. In the words of one person, the Forest
Service should ``listen to the local people who use the forests.''
Others did not want corporate interests involved in collaboration;
these ``faceless corporate giants,'' they perceived, used money and
well-spoken representatives to unjustly influence the decisionmaking
process. Similarly, some people suggested that paid lobbyists be
excluded from the collaborative process as well. Some town meeting
attendees felt that the Forest Service should clarify the difference
between interested and affected parties in the collaboration process.
Response: The proposed rule provided language that would
``encourage participants to work collaboratively and directly with one
another to improve understanding.'' In the final rule, the Department
has expanded the language to ``encourage interested individuals and
organizations to work collaboratively and directly with one another to
improve understanding.'' In addition, section 219.16(b) of the final
rule includes language that directs the responsible official to
initiate a planning process that is ``fair, meaningful, and open to
persons with diverse opinions.'' The Department believes that this
language encompasses not only local citizens and interest groups, but a
national constituency as well. The Department recognizes that all
Americans own the national forests. The language in the final rule
provides a framework for all interested parties to actively participate
in the planning process. Section 219.12 of the final rule provides that
the responsible official has the authority to consider the distinct
roles, jurisdictions, and relationships in identifying participants in
the collaborative process.
Comment: Outreach methods for soliciting public comment. Some
respondents asserted that the Forest Service does not currently do
enough to encourage involvement of all interested parties and should
explore more creative ways of informing people about public involvement
opportunities. Several people offered a variety of different
suggestions for improving Forest Service outreach efforts. These
included using different media to disseminate information such as the
telephone, internet sites, industry-specific newsletters, radio
programs, and bulletin boards, providing adequate notice and time for
public comment opportunities, holding meetings within local communities
and at convenient times, using neutral group facilitators and a small
group format for public meetings, incorporating funding for outreach
efforts in the annual Forest Service budget, maintaining databases of
people who have expressed interest in forest planning, establishing
partnerships with interested groups and individuals, and training
Forest Service personnel in collaboration procedures. Regardless of
which specific outreach method the Forest Service uses in planning,
some respondents asked that the proposed rule include the NFMA mandate
that requires the Forest Service to ``hold public meetings or
comparable processes at locations that foster public participation in
the review of such plans and revisions.''
Response: The proposed rule provided a framework to actively engage
the public in a meaningful collaborative planning process. The
Department continues to support that framework in the final rule. The
Department acknowledges that the agency has multiple roles in the
collaborative process including leader, organizer, facilitator, or
participant. As noted in the Committee of Scientists Report,
information is a key element in building an accessible planning process
and an honest relationship between the agency and communities. The
Committee further noted that where key information about the resources
and management of national forests and grasslands is readily available
in a range of locations and formats, open information policies could
provide any interested individual the ability to understand, critique,
and participate in planning processes. The Department agrees with the
respondents about using different media and requires alternative
formats for persons with disabilities when disseminating information to
the public. The planning framework outlined in the final rule requires
the Forest Service to use a variety of media to engage the public and
tribal
[[Page 67539]]
governments in planning. The overall intent of the rule is to
``actively engage'' the public in collaborative planning. The rule
emphasizes the need to utilize multiple methods to disseminate planning
information.
In regard to the comment about holding public meetings on changes
in the plans, the agency will continue to have public involvement in
accordance with Forest Service NEPA procedures. There is no intent to
eliminate these requirements from Forest Service planning.
Comment: Role as an educator. The Forest Service's role as an
educator evoked comments from several respondents. These people
believed the Forest Service should establish educational programs that
provide the public with both environmental and forest management
planning information. These people contended that informed stakeholders
will help expedite the planning process and contribute to improved
forest plans.
Response: The proposed rule acknowledged the multiple roles the
agency has in the collaborative planning process. The final rule
retains the multiple roles for the agency in the collaborative planning
process. The Department acknowledges that the agency will not only be a
convener, facilitator, leader, or participant, but will also be an
educator. The principles in the final rule provide that ``planning
meaningfully engages the American people in the stewardship of their
national forests and grasslands.'' The Department believes that the
agency will be learning along with the public in a collaborative
planning process. One of the themes of the rule is to inform and
educate the public about the Forest Service's planning process. Section
219.16(e) of the final rule provides for the Forest Service to work
with parties to identify information needs for planning. The rule
provides a framework for the Forest Service to be an educator as well
as a participant in the planning process.
Proposed Section 219.17--Interaction with private landowners. This
section of the proposed rule described the interaction with private
landowners in National Forest System planning and decisionmaking.
Comment: Few people specifically addressed this section. One
individual believed that the language of the proposed rule is too
discretionary about requirements for engaging private landowners in
forest planning.
Response: Section 219.17 of the final rule describes the process
for the responsible official to engage private landowners in the
planning process. The final rule provides that the Forest Service will
work with adjacent landowners on issues of mutual concern that may
affect them or management of National Forest System lands.
The final rule retains the requirement that the responsible
official seek to engage private landowners. The information to be
requested is expanded by the Department to include local knowledge,
potential actions and partnerships, potential conditions and activities
on National Forest System lands that may affect adjacent private lands,
and issues relating to the plan area. The Department added these
provisions to more clearly identify the types of information that were
being sought from private landowners.
The Department has removed the phrase in the proposed regulations
``consideration of the pattern and distribution of land ownership in
assessment and plan areas is critical'' in the final rule. The
Department is confident that the language in the final rule adequately
recognizes the interrelationships between private landowners and the
Forest Service. The Department has added a new item (b) in the final
rule that recognizes opportunities for partnerships between Forest
Service and private landowners.
Proposed Section 219.18--Role of advisory groups and committees.
This section of the proposed rule described the role of advisory
committees and groups in land and resource management and
decisionmaking. This section has been renamed in the final rule to
``Role of advisory committees.''
Comment: Influence of local interests. Many who wanted the proposed
provision for advisory groups eliminated from the planning regulations
claim that local commodity or economic interests will dominate these
groups. Advisory groups composed of mostly local interests, these
people argued, will likely advocate damaging land management practices
rather than emphasizing the needs and desires of a broad spectrum of
interests. In contrast, some respondents believed that local advisory
groups are long overdue in national forest planning. They contended
that these groups are needed to provide a means for rural communities
to voice concerns about Forest Service projects that may have local
impacts. In formalizing the concept of the proposed advisory groups,
several people suggested that the Forest Service establish the groups
as permanent committees accountable to the Forest Service leadership
team.
Response: Because the Forest Service cannot carry out the mission
of sustainability alone, the Committee of Scientists recommended that
it develop both formal and informal collaborative structures that
engage the broader community of interests and responsible governments
to work together. Mechanisms for ensuring ongoing, long-term, broadly
inclusive public relationships that build the capacity for creating
effective collaborative stewardship are necessary for effective
planning. It is the obligation of every line officer to build and
maintain strong relationships with members of the public, interested
organizations, other governments, and appropriate federal agencies. In
some areas, especially when communities are spread over a large area,
multiple, informal, localized networks can be a useful approach to
maintaining these relationships. In other cases, especially when large
landscape plans cross multiple social communities and other political
boundaries, formal advisory boards may be the appropriate mechanism for
ensuring full and representative participation. Section 219.18 of the
final rule describes the roles and responsibilities of advisory
committees in the planning process. The Department believes that Forest
or Grassland Supervisors must have access to an advisory committee.
These groups can raise issues and communicate other information vital
to the planning process. They should not be construed to only allow
local participation. Effective committees will respect all of those
interested in or affected by national forest system management. The
Department believes these groups will provide important information for
planning and decisionmaking.
Comment: Composition of advisory groups. Whether they explicitly
expressed support of or opposition to the proposed advisory groups,
many respondents asked that the groups represent diverse interests.
Fearing that these advisory groups may be biased toward one particular
interest group, these people requested that specific guidance be
included in the planning regulations directing the Forest Service to
create well-balanced committees. Several respondents offered
suggestions for the specific guidance they wanted included in the
regulations. These included criteria for selection of committee
members, requirements to ensure that groups represent diverse values,
and clarification regarding the relationship between proposed advisory
groups and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. In addition, some people
made specific requests for the composition of these groups such as
excluding vested financial interests
[[Page 67540]]
from participating and ensuring American Indian and Alaska Native
representation.
Response: As noted by the Committee of Scientists, formal advisory
boards, chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, can provide an immediate,
legitimate, representative, and predictable structure within which
public dialogue can occur so that Forest Service relationships with a
broad and dispersed community of interests can be efficiently
maintained. The NFMA authorizes the formation of such advisory
committees. These committees should contain representatives of the
diversity of interested institutions and individuals, as currently
required in the law. Thus, when they are the appropriate mechanism, the
Forest Service should not hesitate to formally charter advisory boards
at the individual national forest level or at the large landscape
level, whichever provides the greatest opportunity to gain
representative, structured, and focused public interactions through
which the key issues can be most effectively and meaningfully
addressed. Section 219.18 also provides for the Forest Service to
utilize groups already established by other governmental agencies. In
addition, the Department has added a new subparagraph (c) that provides
for the responsible official to emphasize the importance of Forest
Service participation in community based groups such as local watershed
councils. With respect to the concern about providing specific guidance
in the planning regulations, the rule provides only the framework for
establishing advisory committees. It does not include specific language
for representation on these advisory committees. This will be
determined by the specific circumstances and needs for an advisory
committee.
Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability
Section 219.19--Ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
This section of the proposed rule described goals and priorities for
sustainable management of National Forest System lands.
Comment: Definition of sustainability. The definition of
sustainability evoked numerous concerns from the people responding to
the proposed planning regulation. Some believed that the ambiguity of
the term needed to be addressed. Because there are many different
meanings of sustainability, its use created confusion throughout the
proposed rule, according to one respondent. Many felt that the term
should be used consistently throughout not only the proposed planning
regulations but also the entire federal planning process.
Response: The Department agrees that the inconsistent use of
sustainability in the proposed rule was a source of potential
confusion. A definition of sustainability has been included in the
final rule. Section 1(b)(3) defines sustainability as being composed of
interdependent ecological, social, and economic elements, embodying the
principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield without impairment to
the productivity of the land, and meeting needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs. Impairment of the productivity of the land means
managing lands in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of
ecological sustainability in section 219.20. It is beyond the scope of
the current rule-making effort to propose consistent treatment of
sustainability in all federal planning processes.
Comment: Implications for resource management. Some respondents
were concerned that the adoption of the sustainability goal will
prescribe activities on national forests that are considered
nonrenewable. They felt the proposed rule should address how actions
such as mining can be conducted in a sustainable manner. Others were
equally concerned that their personal access to national forests will
be limited by the proposed rule. They questioned what activities would
be allowed and feared their activity on national forests might be
excluded by the attempt to attain the goal of sustainability. These
respondents sought reassurances that such a scenario will be avoided.
Response: The proposed rule did not specifically address how
nonrenewable activities can be addressed in a sustainable manner or
define activities that would be allowed on the national forests and
grasslands. Likewise, these topics are not addressed in the final rule.
Rather, the rule establishes a process for identifying, discussing,
and, if appropriate, acting on issues that may emerge from a variety of
sources (section 219.4).
The Department believes that this rule, and in particular, its
sustainability requirements, will not by itself preclude mining
activities. Analysis and collaboration conducted under the requirements
of the rule, and following all applicable laws, will determine where
mining is appropriate and what mitigation measures will be required.
The rule's emphasis on ecosystem health, collaboration, and the role of
science may very well result in the identification and implementation
of effective and efficient mitigating measures applicable to mining
operations, improving the overall sustainability of the use and
development of what are commonly referred to as nonrenewable resources.
Comment: Assessing ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
Many respondents felt the ecological, economic, and social benefits
derived from national forest management must outweigh the costs
involved. This is the standard by which the Forest Service should
measure sustainability, according to these citizens. Others asserted
that ecological, economic, and social sustainability should receive
equal consideration in the proposed rule. Citing the fact that social
and economic sciences are currently not being integrated into Forest
Service decisions, they believed that this perceived oversight be
corrected in the final planning rule. In addition, one respondent
wanted the proposed rule to set a discrete time period over which
sustainability is to be measured. Finally, other people applauded the
choice of sustainability as the guiding principle of forest management
because they believe such a goal is admirable and attainable.
Response: Requirements for achieving sustainability are found in
sections 219.19, 219.20, and 219.21 of the final rule. The proposed
rule did not specify how social and economic sustainability was to be
achieved in relation to ecological sustainability. In the final rule,
social and economic sustainability is achieved by providing a range of
uses, products, services, and values, consistent with ecological
sustainability (section 219.20(b)). The first priority for stewardship
of the National Forest System, which is to maintain and restore
ecological sustainability, is unchanged from the proposed rule. The
Department believes that these requirements will result in ecological,
economic, and social benefits that are greater than the costs. As noted
by the Committee of Scientists, ``* * * ecological sustainability lays
a necessary foundation for national forests and grasslands to
contribute to the economic and social components of sustainability,
making contributions to strong productive economies and creating
opportunities for enduring human communities.''
In the proposed rule, information on ecological sustainability is
collected at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. This requirement
has been retained in the final rule. The proposed and final rules are
silent on the temporal scale for
[[Page 67541]]
the evaluation of social and economic sustainability. The proposed rule
acknowledges social and economic analyses being undertaken at various
spatial scales. The final rule requires the planning process to include
analyses for social and economic information at variable scales,
including national, regional, and local scales. The responsible
official has the authority to determine the appropriate scope and scale
of analysis and data collection. In making this determination, the
responsible official appropriately applies collaboration and the best
available science.
As noted in section 219.20(a) of the final rule, the collection and
analysis of information at a variety of spatial and temporal scales is
important in providing for maintenance or restoration of ecosystems.
These scales include geographic areas such as bioregions and
watersheds, scales of biological organization such as communities and
species, and scales of time ranging from months to centuries. For this
reason, the Department has not adopted a discrete time period over
which sustainability is to be measured.
The Department agrees that sustainability is the guiding principle
of National Forest System management. This section of the proposed rule
referred to sustainability as the overall goal for the management of
National Forest System land. The Department has retained this reference
in the final rule.
Comment: Linkage between ecological, economic, and social
sustainability. Some people believed that the Forest Service should
emphasize the link among the three types of sustainability outlined in
the proposed planning regulations. Others sought clarification
regarding the link between ecological and socioeconomic sustainability,
as well as what role extraction industries will play in achieving
ecological sustainability.
Response: The Department agrees that the linkage between
ecological, social and economic sustainability was not sufficiently
emphasized in the proposed rule. Language was added to the final rule
to rectify this insufficiency. In the final rule, sustainability,
composed of interdependent ecological, social, and economic elements,
embodies the MUSYA without impairment to the productivity of the land
and is the overall goal of management of the National Forest System.
The first priority for stewardship of the national forests and
grasslands is to maintain or restore ecological sustainability to
provide a sustainable flow of uses, values, products, and services from
these lands.
To contribute to economic and social sustainability, the
responsible official involves interested and affected people in
planning for National Forest System lands (Sec. 219.12-219.18),
provides for the development and consideration of relevant social and
economic information and analyses, and a range of uses, values,
products, and services. Plan decisions contribute to social and
economic sustainability by providing a range of uses, products,
services, and values, consistent with ecological sustainability
(section 219.21(b)).
The proposed rule did not define a specific role for extractive
industries in achieving ecological sustainability. Nor has such a role
been defined in the final rule. The final rule does include provisions
such as Sec. 219.21(a)(1)(iii) that require the responsible official to
consider opportunities to provide social and economic benefits to
communities through natural resource restoration strategies. The rule
establishes a process for identifying, discussing, and, if appropriate,
acting on issues that may emerge from a variety of sources (section
219.4). The Department believes that the role of extractive industries
in achieving ecological sustainability is most appropriately addressed
using this process.
The final rule would not, by itself, result in environmental
consequences. Rather, adverse effects or benefits would only be
realized when the new rule is applied on national forests and
grasslands through forest and project level planning. Because
application of the rule requires consideration of site-specific
information that pertains to the planning unit, it is not possible,
from a programmatic viewpoint, to determine short or long-term
environmental, social, or economic consequences of the final rule. The
Department believes that this rule, and in particular, its
sustainability requirements, will not by itself preclude mining or
other economic activities. Analysis and collaboration conducted under
the requirements of the rule, and following all applicable laws, will
determine where mining is appropriate and what mitigation measures will
be required. The rule's emphasis on ecosystem health, collaboration,
and the role of science may very well result in the identification and
implementation of effective and efficient mitigating measures
applicable to mining operations, improving the overall sustainability
of the use and development of what are commonly referred to as
nonrenewable resources. As noted above, mitigation of the effects of
mining activities through the application of the planning rule may
reduce the overall environmental impacts of mining within national
forests and grasslands.
Similarly, any short-term or long-term effects on the availability
of forest products and services would occur on a forest-by-forest basis
once forest plans were revised under the final rule. For this reason,
quantifiable impacts to the availability of forest products and
services cannot be determined at this time. The Forest Service
speculates that by implementing the rule, the Forest Service will put
greater emphasis on maintaining and restoring ecosystem health in order
to promote sustainable forest use. As a result, it is possible that
there could be less timber volume made available for commodity purposes
in the future. At the same time, more timber volume could be made
available as a result of efforts to increase timber harvest for
stewardship purposes.
Comment: Adoption of Montreal Criteria: One respondent recommended
that the rule be used to build greater consistency between sustainable
forest management, including national commitments to sustainable
forestry and the Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda, and national
forest planning. Adoption of the seven Montreal Process Criteria within
the regulation was specifically recommended to provide a framework for
measuring and organizing information and performance related to
sustainability.
Response: The Committee of Scientists, while acknowledging their
potential usefulness, had a number of qualifications about the use of
criteria and indicators for gauging sustainability on the National
Forest System lands. First, the Committee found that they might not be
sufficient, by themselves, to gauge ecological sustainability. As an
example, the ``maintenance of productive capacity of forest
ecosystems'' does not appear to include the amount of dead trees for
wildlife habitat as an indicator. Second, the Committee believed that
the criteria and indicators are generally non-spatial and seem to lack
a landscape view. They focus on measuring acres in certain condition
without the aggregation needed for judgments about areas. The lack of
integrative concepts on the use of the criteria and indicators may make
it difficult to use them to make overall judgments. Finally, the
Committee felt that they could consume much of the agency's resources
for inventorying and monitoring, leaving little to other important
measures of sustainability.
The Department is guided by the qualifications of the Committee of
Scientists concerning the use of criteria and indicators for gauging
sustainability
[[Page 67542]]
on National Forest System lands. The specific framework for
illustrating the linkage between sustainability and the Montreal
Criterion are under development and are expected to be included in
Forest Service directives as they become available.
Other changes: The final rule refers to sustainability as the
embodiment of the principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield
without impairment to the productivity of the land. This language is
not contained in the proposed rule. The Department has included this
language to more clearly describe the linkage of sustainability to the
requirements of the MUSYA. The phrase ``without impairment to the
productivity of the land'' in this statute is key in defining both
multiple-use and sustained-yield and is acknowledged in the final rule.
Other changes in the final rule are made to eliminate redundancy,
improve clarity, or incorporate changed terminology. The proposed rule
required that management be consistent with laws and regulations. This
reference is removed from the final rule because this is a requirement
of all actions by each civil servant and not unique to management of
national forests or grasslands. The proposed rule referred to
sustainability as the overall goal of National Forest System management
and this reference is retained in the final rule. Similar language is
found in section 219.1(b) of the final rule. Finally, section
219.1(b)(3) of the proposed rule made reference to the interdependent
elements of sustainability. This reference is included in this section
of the final rule to emphasize the importance of consideration of the
interdependent nature of ecological, social, and economic
sustainability.
Section 219.20--Ecological sustainability. This section of the
proposed rule described the key principles and desired outcomes for
ecological sustainability.
Comment: The definition of ecological sustainability. Some felt
that the proposed regulations should include humans and their impacts
on the environment in the definition. Of those respondents that use the
terms ecological sustainability and forest health interchangeably, some
suggested the proposed rule clarify the definition of forest health.
Response: The Department believes that humans and their impacts on
the environment are included in the definition of ecological
sustainability. The Department also believes that forest health is also
encompassed in this definition. Ecological sustainability is defined in
section 219.36 of the final rule as the maintenance or restoration of
the composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems including the
diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capacity
of ecological systems.
Comment: Ecological sustainability and discretionary language.
Numerous people cited the use of discretionary language, such as
``may'' and ``should,'' as a serious flaw in the proposed regulations.
These individuals would like to see the inclusion of imperative
language, such as ``shall'' and ``must,'' to ensure that ecological
sustainability is achieved.
Response: The Department has retained the discretionary language in
the final rule. It does not believe that the use of discretionary
language in referring to ecological sustainability is a serious flaw.
The planning rule is intended to provide numerous opportunities to
reach well-reasoned and sustainable solutions to natural resource
issues. Discretionary authority often provides flexible and appropriate
solutions to complex natural resource issues among competing interests.
It has been the experience of the Forest Service and others that the
net result of inflexible policies often results in poorer solutions.
Comment: Specific guidelines for ecological sustainability. Several
respondents that supported the goal of ecological sustainability felt
that the proposed planning rule lacks specific guidelines. They
requested that the Forest Service include clear, direct standards and
goals for achieving ecological sustainability in the final rule. Others
asserted that ecosystem recovery should occur before the maintenance of
sustainability is undertaken. A few respondents urged the Forest
Service to recognize the link between timber harvest and ecological
sustainability. They were adamant that fuel loads and overstocked
forests pose a more serious threat to forest health than logging does.
Response: The Department agrees that the proposed rule did not
include clear, direct standards and goals for achieving ecological
sustainability. This section of the final rule was revised in response
to this concern. Requirements for achieving ecological sustainability
are found in section 219.20(b) of the final rule.
The proposed rule did not require ecosystem recovery to occur
before the maintenance of sustainability is undertaken. Nor did it
recognize the link between timber harvest and ecological
sustainability. The Department did not include either of these issues
in the final rule. The rule does establish a process for identifying,
discussing, and, if appropriate, acting on issues that may emerge from
a variety of sources (section 219.4). The Department believes that
these issues are most appropriately addressed using this process.
Finally, as noted above, the Department believes that the
definition of ecological sustainability encompasses forest health.
Comment: Ecological sustainability as the over-reaching goal of
forest planning. Some respondents cited the loss of jobs and an
increase of appeals and litigation as reasons not to support the goal
of ecological sustainability. One respondent asserted that ecological
sustainability is unattainable under the current ecological
circumstances. Invasive species such as cheatgrass have irretrievably
altered the landscape, this person contended, precluding the
possibility of attaining ecological sustainability. Others believed the
goal of ecological sustainability is too nebulous a concept to use as a
standard upon which to judge forest health.
Response: The Department does not believe that the goal of
ecological sustainability will result in a loss of jobs or an increase
in appeals and litigation. As noted by the Committee of Scientists, ``*
* * ecological sustainability lays a necessary foundation for National
Forests and Grasslands to contribute to the economic and social
components of sustainability, making contributions to strong productive
economies and creating opportunities for enduring human communities.''
The intent of the objection process (section 219.32) is to encourage
resolution of issues before decisions are made. In the long run, the
objection process is expected to resolve many potential conflicts,
reducing litigation.
The proposed rule stated that where ecosystems have been altered to
the extent that it is not possible to return them to conditions within
the historical range, other scientifically credible approaches may be
used to maintain or restore ecological sustainability. The final rule
states that where it is not practicable to make measurable progress
toward conditions within the expected range of variability, plan
decisions may provide for ecosystem composition and structure outside
the expected range of variability. Other independently peer-reviewed
methods must be used to provide for ecosystem diversity. The Department
believes this language in the final rule provides for ecological
sustainability where circumstances, such as invasive species, have
irretrievably altered the landscape.
[[Page 67543]]
Finally, as noted above, the Department changed this section to
provide clear, direct standards and goals for achieving ecological
sustainability.
Comment: The maintenance of the composition, structure, and
processes of ecosystems. Some respondents asserted that the
discretionary and nebulous nature of this mandate will lead to
arbitrary and inconsistent decisions. Others believed that the proposed
rule does not address the physical characteristics of ecosystems.
According to these individuals, the Forest Service should emphasize
soil, water, and air as much as biological factors when conducting
ecological analyses.
Response: As noted above, the Department changed this section to
provide clear, direct standards and goals for achieving ecological
sustainability. As also noted above, the use of discretionary language
in referring to ecological sustainability is appropriate.
The proposed rule required ecological information and analyses on
the following physical characteristics: soil conditions, air and water
quality, stream channel morphology, and instream flows. The final rule
requires evaluations of soil resources, including soil productivity,
physical, chemical and biological properties, soil loss, and
compaction, and air resources, including air quality, visibility, and
other air resource values. The final rule also requires an evaluation
of the effects of air quality in ecological systems, including water,
and an estimate of current and foreseeable future Forest Service
consumptive and non-consumptive water uses and the quantity and quality
of water needed to support those uses and contribute to ecological
sustainability. The Department believes the requirements in the final
rule appropriately address the physical characteristics of ecological
sustainability.
Comment: Value of medicinal plants. The extraction of trees, while
fostering immediate economic gains, may be destroying valuable plants,
according to one respondent. Claiming that medicinal plants have the
potential to not only generate income but also save lives, this
respondent requested that the value of medicinal plants growing in
national forests be considered in the final rule.
Response: Medicinal plants will continue to be an important
consideration in the management of national forests and grasslands. The
procedures for the identification of functioning ecosystems described
in section 219.5 and the use of the issue identification process in
section 219.4 ensure appropriate attention and management action is
directed toward medicinal plants on National Forest System lands.
Comment: Pre-European settlement conditions. A few respondents
supported the concept of pre-European settlement conditions as it is
presented in the proposed regulations. They felt that using such a
standard would help the Forest Service avoid past mistakes. A majority
of respondents, however, presented numerous and diverse reasons for not
supporting these concepts. Many believed that the goal of pre-European
settlement conditions was unattainable. One individual cited airplane
over-flights as an example of the impossibility of returning forests to
the pre-European settlement conditions. Some respondents requested the
Forest Service clarify exactly what pre-European settlement conditions
are. Other respondents feared that this benchmark would be used to
restrict human access to national forests. One respondent believed that
adopting the pre-European settlement standard will shift forest product
demands onto less resilient forests around the world. Such a shift will
impact global biodiversity according to this respondent. Others
believed that the goal of pre-European settlement conditions
contradicts the letter and the spirit of the MUSYA. The resource needs
of the nation today cannot be met, they asserted, if such a standard is
adopted.
Response: The Department agrees that a goal of pre-European
settlement conditions is unattainable. Given climate change, land-use
change, and changing landscape conditions, the use of the conditions of
pre-European settlement as a reference was not realistic for many
environments. For this reason, the Department has eliminated the use of
this terminology from the final rule.
As discussed for more fully below, the final rule partially relies
on information from the historical natural disturbance regimes of
ecosystems, but does not purport to return ecosystems to the dynamics
of pre-European settlement. Rather, these requirements use the regimes
of natural disturbances of the current climatic period to estimate an
expected range of variability for characteristics of ecosystem
composition and structure that can be used in planning at broad spatial
scales across major ecological types.
Comment: Historical range of variability. Some respondents believed
that a lack of information makes a definitive determination of
historical range of variability unattainable. They felt that the Forest
Service should clearly define what the historical range of variability
means and how it will be applied. Others felt the term is too
discretionary and will allow the Forest Service to make arbitrary
management decisions. Some felt that the proposed planning regulations
should account for potential misuse of the historical range of
variability. They asserted that the concept can be exploited to support
extractive activities that do not necessarily support ecosystem
sustainability. Various respondents suggested that the final planning
rule provide specific guidance for instances when the historical range
of variability for a site is not clearly defined. Because they believed
that the determination of historical range of variability for specific
sites could take years to complete, several individuals requested that
the proposed planning regulations require the implementation of interim
protection guidelines for areas of high ecological value. Some
respondents wished to see the incorporation of heritage research in the
ecosystem management process. They believed such research was essential
to determine the historical range of variability. Some respondents
supported the benchmark of historical range of variability to measure
ecosystem integrity.
Response: The proposed rule described the concept of ecological
integrity and the historical range of variability, which, in turn, used
pre-European settlement as a reference period. Considering variable and
changing climate, land-use, and landscape conditions, the approach in
the proposed rule was changed.
The proposed rule contained important, essential ideas about
natural history and disturbances. It is well accepted in the scientific
community that the ecosystems and species of today are a product of
historical disturbance regimes as well as current environments. It is
also widely accepted that disturbances play a major role in creating
ecological diversity and productivity. The current species are adapted
to recent climatic and disturbance regimes of landscapes and contain a
long record of environmental history in their genetic structure.
Consequently, one cannot ignore the role of the past when attempting to
sustain ecological conditions into the future, even when that future
environment will be different.
Human desires, however, need to be in sync with ecological
capacities. When those desires include maintaining and enhancing
current biological diversity, or slowing the rate of its change, then
information from the past must be used to help sustain or
[[Page 67544]]
transition ecosystems into future states at rates that are socially
acceptable. The role of ecosystem management in this process is to
manage change in ecosystems such that the rate and direction of change
is consistent with ecological potential and social desires. It is
extremely difficult to establish desired conditions for species and
complex ecosystems without some reference to how they have functioned
in the past. When used carefully and in a limited way, historical
information can play an important role in sustaining desired ecosystems
into the future.
The final rule uses information from the historical natural
disturbance regimes of ecosystems, but does not purport to return
ecosystems to the dynamics of pre-European settlement. Rather, these
requirements use the regimes of natural disturbances of the current
climatic period to estimate an expected range of variability for
characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure. The expected
range of variability for characteristics of ecosystem composition and
structure in a landscape or region can be estimated from general
knowledge of disturbance frequencies, severities, and rates of
vegetation development.
The Department believes that providing ecological conditions within
the expected range of variability across all major ecological types
will reduce threats and risks to the sustainability of native and
desired non-native species and ecosystems on national forests and
grasslands. Many of the current threats to species and ecosystems on
these lands have their origin in accelerated rates and intensities of
human activities such as intensive management for timber production and
overgrazing or reduced rates of disturbance from fire suppression that
have altered the abundance, structure and composition of ecosystems at
multiple spatial scales. Providing ecological conditions within the
expected range of variability will also contribute to ecosystem
productivity and diversity and options for sustaining social, and
economic goods and services such as water, forage, and wood and
recreation. This requirement is intended to be set at relatively broad
province scales and for major ecological types that correspond to
potential natural vegetation series.
The proposed rule did not include interim protection guidelines for
areas of high ecological value; nor has the Department included such
interim guidelines in the final rule. The Department believes that,
unlike the historic range of variability, the estimation of the
expected range of variability can be accomplished without the need to
provide interim protection for areas of high ecological value.
The use of the expected range of variability is not intended to
preclude commercial timber harvest. Any short-term or long-term effects
on the availability of forest products and services would occur on a
forest-by-forest basis once forest plans were revised under the final
rule. For this reason, quantifiable impacts to the availability of
forest products and services cannot be determined at this time.
Comment: Reference landscapes. Some citizens suggested that the
final planning rule clarify the process of identifying reference
landscapes. They felt specific guidelines would help define which
landscapes will be deemed suitable for such a designation. A few
respondents questioned the possibility of finding suitable areas for
reference landscape designation. They believed the Forest Service will
be hard pressed to find large areas affected by natural disturbance
regimes yet still undisturbed by human activity. One individual
believed the establishment of reference landscapes is a usurpation of
Congressional authority. Since these landscapes are to be set aside in
perpetuity as benchmarks, this individual asserted that such an action
is a de facto wilderness designation. This respondent felt that such a
designation can be exploited to amass large land areas and then exclude
access to these lands.
Response: The Committee of Scientists noted that managers need some
guidance about the amount of environmental variation that is acceptable
and is within the biota's ability to respond adaptively to it.
Estimates of an acceptable range of variability in composition,
structures, and processes provide reference distributions or conditions
against which competing management scenarios are compared. The
conditions found in reference landscapes may be the ``coarse filters''
within which the current physical landscape and biota evolved. To the
degree that future management scenarios can achieve the conditions in
reference landscapes, the more likely it is that the ``coarse filter''
will achieve the objectives for ecological sustainability and the less
likely that ``fine-filter'' strategies will be needed for individual
species.
The Department has not included specific guidelines in the final
rule to define which landscapes will be deemed suitable for such a
designation. Reference landscapes are rarely uniform ``snapshots'' of
the past. Considerable variability caused by climate change and
disturbance by fire, flood, insects, disease, and other natural factors
typically affects reference conditions. Reference conditions vary
within an ecosystem over time, and the proportions of old-growth
forests or early seral conditions are never in a true equilibrium
state. These conditions also vary between ecosystems.
The Department agrees that it will be difficult finding suitable
areas for reference landscape designation. In general, it is easier to
reconstruct disturbance regimes (e.g., fire frequency and intensity)
than the effect of those regimes, so reference landscapes are rarely
precise. Nevertheless, they play a key role in evaluating the ``coarse
filter'' proposed by future management plans.
Finally, the establishment of reference landscapes is not a
usurpation of Congressional authority. The final rule does not set
aside reference landscapes in perpetuity as benchmarks.
Comment: Scientific foundation of ecosystem integrity. Some
respondents felt that the concept of ecosystem integrity cannot
currently be scientifically gauged. These respondents believed that the
lack of scientific measurement standards has led to the unfair labeling
of road building and logging activity as indicators of ecosystem
integrity. Such a designation, they asserted, leads to the prohibition
of road building and logging. One respondent, citing the complexity and
breadth of ecosystem processes, requested clarification on the
definition of the concept of a ``complete'' ecosystem. Another
respondent asserted that, ``Grouping species based on particular value
judgments and then using these groupings to evaluate * * * integrity
introduces enormous bias into the evaluation.''
Response: The proposed rule defined integrity as the completeness
of an ecosystem, at multiple spatial and temporal scales, that
maintains its characteristic diversity of biological and physical
components, spatial patterns, structure, and functional processes
within its approximate range of historic variability. These processes
include disturbance regimes, nutrient cycling, hydrologic functions,
vegetation succession, and species adaptation and evolution. Ecosystems
with integrity are resilient and sustainable in the presence of human
management actions and natural disturbances. Ecological integrity is an
intuitively appealing concept that is well established in the
ecological literature, but its definition is contentious. This
contention stems from the various (and often conflicting) perspectives
that include: Structural
[[Page 67545]]
(keep the parts), functional (maintain ecosystem functions and
processes), and human uses (accommodating the derivation of goods and
services from ecosystems for humans).
Ecological integrity was defined in the Committee of Scientists'
report as the state of being unimpaired and sound, and the quality or
condition of being whole or complete. Furthermore, the Committee of
Scientists recommended that a suite of indicators be used to evaluate
integrity that includes species composition, ecosystem composition,
ecosystem processes, and appropriate reference distributions against
which to judge management decisions. This definition has its basis in
the structural and functional perspectives defined above and was put
forth as a way to encapsulate the state of the ecosystem in the absence
of social and economic considerations.
There are a number of potential concerns tied to directly using
ecological integrity in the proposed rule, including: the lack of an
unambiguous definition in the literature; a tendency to be viewed as a
single state of absolute condition rather than recognizing the dynamic
nature of ecosystems; an inclination to link integrity measures to
goals (e.g., the historical range of variability of pre-European
conditions); and a redundancy with the concept of ecological
sustainability.
There is a relatively rich literature on the conceptual aspects of
ecological integrity. What is lacking is a generally accepted set of
scientific norms regarding integrity measures. For this reason, actual
applications of ecological integrity in a management context are rare
in the literature, making it difficult to use the concept of ecological
integrity in natural resource planning. Some applications of integrity
have focused on a single ecosystem stated as having integrity. The
concept does not lend itself to classify each system as having or not
having integrity. This approach fails to recognize the dynamic nature
of ecosystems.
The context for understanding the ecological integrity of any
specific landscape must be couched in terms of the goals and
expectations for the landscape. This translates, in part, to defining
some standard against which integrity will be measured. Often this
standard is based on some ecological condition like the historic range
of variability as reflected under pre-European settlement conditions.
Defining ecological integrity to be within the historic range of
variability and requiring that ecological conditions should be
maintained within that range does not capture the full meaning of
integrity as described in the literature. Linking only to historical
conditions, without framing the current and probable future climatic
system, is not supported by scientific understanding of environmental
change.
The proposed rule stated that ``to achieve ecological
sustainability, it is necessary to maintain and restore ecological
integrity.'' The Department found it difficult to separate ecological
integrity from the broader notion of ecological sustainability.
Ecological integrity and ecological sustainability are intended to
reflect the overall state of an ecosystem as a whole.
The language ``ecological integrity'' is not included in the final
rule. Integrity is viewed as a component of ecological sustainability
along with other system attributes like resiliency, health, and
vitality. The Department concluded that the explicit application of
ecological integrity as an analysis or performance requirement in the
final rule was unnecessary given the rule's focus on ecological
sustainability. The Department believes the concept of ecological
integrity is within the concept of sustainability as described by the
rule.
Comment: Indicators of ecosystem integrity. One respondent wondered
how the Forest Service will choose specific indicators to gauge the
integrity of ecosystems when, by definition, ecosystems are constantly
changing, dynamic systems. This person also questioned how, and by
whom, good and bad effects will be determined. Some respondents
supported the inclusion of water quality and water flow regimes as
indicators of ecosystem integrity in the final rule.
Response: As noted above, the Department found that ecological
integrity indicators are an unnecessary addition to the evaluation of
sustainability.
As also noted above, the final rule requires the estimation of an
expected range of variability for characteristics of ecosystem
composition and structure that can be used as planning objectives at
broad spatial scales across major ecological types. The expected range
of variability in a landscape or region can be estimated from general
knowledge of disturbance frequencies, severities and rates of
vegetation development.
With respect to the integrity of ecosystems, neither the proposed
nor final rule described how good and bad effects will be determined.
The requirements for ecosystem diversity (section 219.20(b)(1)) use the
expected range of variability to provide for the maintenance and
restoration of the characteristics of ecosystem composition and
structure.
The final rule provides for an evaluation of ecological
sustainability, which includes characteristics of ecosystem and species
diversity (section 219.20(a)). The characteristics to be evaluated
include water quality and flow regimes.
Comment: Species definitions. While some respondents sought general
clarification of focal species, others suggested the final rule
specifically elucidate the distinction between focal species and
management indicator species. Another respondent questioned whether
introduced species, such as the wolf, can be considered under the
definition of species-at-risk. In addition, certain respondents felt
the proposed definitions of focal species and species-at-risk create a
statutory conflict with endangered and threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. Some respondents wonder whether the Forest
Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service will designate focal species
and species-at-risk. One individual believed the definition of species-
at-risk should be expanded to include any species identified by
conservation organizations or state natural heritage programs as
imperiled. Another felt any documented declining species should be
designated. Conversely, numerous respondents supported the concept of
focal species, species-at-risk, and demand species as they are
currently defined in the proposed rule.
Response: In the current rule, management indicator species (MIS)
are selected in order to estimate the effects of management actions on
fish and wildlife populations. MIS include, where appropriate,
threatened and endangered species; species with special habitat needs
that may be significantly influenced by planned management programs;
species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped; non-game species of
special interest; and species whose population changes are believed to
indicate the effects of management activities on other species of
selected major biological communities or on water quality.
In the proposed rule, focal species are selected for use as
surrogate measures in the assessment of ecological integrity, including
the diversity of native and desired non-native species. Their status
and time trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger
ecological system to which they belong. Species selected would
represent the range of environments within the assessment area, and
would serve an umbrella function, or play key roles in maintaining
community structure or
[[Page 67546]]
processes. Focal species have been retained in the final rule.
In the proposed rule, species-at-risk were defined as endangered,
threatened, candidate, proposed, and sensitive species, and species for
which significant local reductions in distribution or density are
concerns. The final rule defines species-at-risk as federally listed
endangered, threatened, candidate, and proposed species and other
species for which loss of viability, including reduction in
distribution or abundance, is a concern. In the final rule, an
introduced species could be designated as a species-at-risk.
The Department does not believe the definitions of focal species
and species-at-risk in the proposed rule created a statutory conflict
with endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species
Act. In addition, the responsible official designates focal species and
those species-at-risk not designated as threatened, endangered,
candidate, and proposed species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in the proposed rule. This language is retained in the final rule
(section 219.20(a)).
The proposed rule did not require inclusion of species listed by
state natural heritage programs or conservation organizations as
species-at-risk. The Department believed that the state natural
heritage programs or conservation organizations listed species for
reasons other than viability concerns. In defining species-at-risk, the
Department sought a grouping of species based solely on viability
concerns. For this reason, the Department inserted language in the
final rule that species-at-risk include other species for which loss of
viability, including reduction in distribution or abundance, is a
concern within the plan area. These other species-at-risk may include
sensitive species and state listed species. Viability is the criterion
which determines what is included as a species-at-risk.
Comment: Game species. Some respondents felt habitats for abundant
game species have been enhanced at the expense of habitats for less
common and more sensitive species. They asserted that such practices
indicate the need for a shift of emphasis from demand species to focal
species and species-at-risk. In contrast, some felt that many species
of big game are not receiving the management attention they warrant.
Response: Demand species are those plants and animal species of
high social, cultural, or economic value. In the proposed rule, plan
decisions must provide for ecological conditions needed to achieve
sustainable use levels of demand species. This provision was deleted
from the final rule to ensure that the treatment of demand species
would not take place at the expense of habitats for focal species and
species-at-risk.
Comment: Use of focal species. Some respondents believed the Forest
Service should reconsider the use of focal species as indicators of
ecosystem integrity. One citizen asserted, ``There is not enough money
in the federal treasury to fund the numerous surveys and analyses that
will ultimately be required.'' Others agreed with this sentiment, and
added that the emphasis of the final rule should be shifted from focal
species to habitat capability. The Forest Service should be monitoring
for habitat, they declared, because it is not only easier than
monitoring for populations, but it also allows the appropriate entity,
the individual stated, to manage and monitor wildlife species.
Response: The Department acknowledges an increase in analysis and
monitoring in the proposed rule for ecological sustainability,
including focal species. Continued declines in the cost of analysis and
monitoring are expected in the future, however, with advances in
information technology. Furthermore, the Department believes that no
significant additional resources will be required for implementation of
the final rule as the planning framework shifts resources from later to
earlier in the planning process. For these reasons, the Department has
retained the provisions for appropriate analysis and monitoring in the
final rule.
Comment: Assessing viable populations of species. Population
sampling and monitoring of species, especially threatened and
endangered species, needs to be a mandate in the final rule, some
respondents asserted. These respondents felt that without actual
population surveys, species viability will not be sustained. Another
individual wondered if scientists have reached any consensus on broad-
scale methods and strategies for providing species viability. This
person asserted that such a model does not exist and hence the
attainment of species viability will be marred by confusion and
conflict.
Response: In the proposed rule, population sampling is appropriate
when the risk of local or broader extirpation is high or there is high
uncertainty about the habitats and conditions needed for species
viability. In the final rule, the plan monitoring strategy may require
population monitoring for some focal species and some species-at-risk
as appropriate.
The responsible official's decision to monitor populations and the
responsible official's choice of methodologies for monitoring selected
focal species and selected species-at-risk in the final rule may be
based upon factors that include, but are not limited to, the degree of
risk to the species, the degree to which a species' life history
characteristics lend themselves to monitoring, the reasons that a
species is included in the list of focal species or species-at-risk,
and the strength of association between ecological conditions and
population dynamics. The Department believes this language provides
assurance that species viability will be sustained.
Many scientists have reached a consensus on broad scale methods and
strategies for providing species viability. These scientists believe
that taking an ecosystem diversity approach increases the potential to
meet the needs of the preponderance of species. This is particularly
important because it is financially and technically impractical to
individually assess each species.
Ecological sustainability has two primary indicators in the final
rule: ecosystem diversity and species diversity. Ecosystem diversity
provides a ``coarse filter'' approach for sustaining ecosystems.
Ecological diversity is defined in a broad context by language
throughout section 219.20 of the final rule. Characteristics of
ecosystem diversity include, but are not limited to, major vegetation
types, water resources, soil resources, air resources, and focal
species. Evaluation of ecological diversity includes information about
focal species, biological and physical properties, principal ecological
processes, effects of human activities, estimations of the range of
variability of characteristics, effects of air quality, water uses, and
reference landscapes. Species diversity provides a ``fine filter''
approach for sustaining ecosystems in the final rule by addressing
those species that may not remain viable under the coarse filter
approach. These species typically include those that are currently
thought to have a high extinction risk within an area of interest. The
combination of coarse and fine filters in the final rule has the
advantage of efficiency; the responsible official assumes adequate
representation of ecological conditions by maintaining or restoring a
diversity of ecosystems and checks this assumption through assessments
of viability of a subset of individual species.
Comment: Use of plant and invertebrate species in evaluating
species viability. Many respondents exhorted the Forest Service to
reconsider the use of plant and invertebrate species in evaluating
species viability. Most of these
[[Page 67547]]
respondents felt that insufficient scientific data exists to implement
this increase in the scope of analysis. Other respondents applauded the
inclusion of plant and invertebrate species viability as an indicator
of ecological integrity. Of these respondents, at least one individual
suggested the Forest Service expand the species viability criteria to
include organisms from all the biological kingdoms.
Response: The proposed rule implemented the NFMA requirement to
provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities by expressly
defining species to include any taxon of the plant or animal kingdom.
The current rule only requires that viable populations of vertebrate
fish and wildlife be maintained. In the final rule, a species is
defined as any member of the animal or plant kingdom that is described
as a species in a peer-reviewed scientific publication and is
identified as a species by the responsible official pursuant to a plan
decision.
The Department acknowledges an increase in requirements for species
viability. But as noted above, continued declines in the cost of
information technology, such as personal computers and the application
of remote sensing technologies, are anticipated. In addition, it is
expected that the application of broad-scale assessments and subsequent
smaller-scale analyses and decisionmaking will build on one another and
improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of planning
activities.
The Department has not expanded the species viability criteria to
include organisms from all the biological kingdoms. NFMA's requirement
is specific to plant and animal communities.
Comment: Sustaining viable populations of non-native species. Some
respondents wondered why the Forest Service would wish to maintain
species that, by definition, disrupt the ecological integrity of an
ecosystem. One respondent wanted the Forest Service to recognize that
planning, in and of itself, cannot ensure species viability. This
person supported this assertion by noting that the American Chestnut,
once the dominant, climax tree species in eastern forests, has been
wiped out by chestnut blight. Forest planning has no effect on the loss
of such major ecosystem components, this respondent asserted. Another
citizen applauded the agency's acknowledgment of incomplete
information, uncertainty, and the inherent variability of ecological
systems. Such an acknowledgment should be heeded, this person asserted,
and precaution and prudence should be used when implementing any new
management practices.
Response: The proposed rule defined desired non-native species as
those species of plants or animals that are not indigenous to an area
but which represent a significant, and usually remnant segment of a
gene pool. The final rule retains its reference to desired non-native
species, which are defined as those species of plants or animals which
are not indigenous to an area, but valued for their contribution to
species diversity or their high social, cultural, or economic value.
The Department agrees that planning, in and of itself, cannot
ensure species viability. The Forest Service can only affect certain
ecological conditions on land it manages, such as the abundance and
distribution of habitat, roads, other structural developments, many
human uses, and some invasive or exotic species. Other factors beyond
the control of the Forest Service may influence the viability of
species.
As noted above, the final rule provides that where it is not
practicable to make measurable progress toward conditions within the
expected range of variability, plan decisions may provide for ecosystem
composition and structure outside the expected range of variability.
Other independently peer-reviewed methods must be used to provide for
ecosystem diversity.
An alternative method of providing for ecosystem diversity, which
was described in the proposed rule, is the historic range of
variability referenced to pre-European settlement conditions. Yet
another approach would be a range of variability referenced using a
time period more recent than pre-European settlement conditions. This
would provide for ecological sustainability where circumstances, such
as the Chestnut blight, which have irretrievably altered the landscape.
In the future there may also be other methods that have not yet been
fully tested or envisioned.
The proposed rule acknowledged the uncertainty and inherent
variability of ecological systems (sections 219.20(a)(10) and
219.20(b)(1)). The Department agrees with respondents that welcomed the
inclusion of this language. The final rule retains this language and
relocates it to section 219.22, The overall role of science in
planning.
Comment: Discretionary language. Many respondents felt that
specific, imperative language should be used in section 219.20 (b) of
the proposed rule. Discretionary language is too vague to be
enforceable, they asserted. One person asserted that phrases such as,
``Maintain the more likely conditions within the range,'' and ``provide
for * * * redundancy of habitat as necessary to buffer disturbances
characteristic of dynamic systems,'' needs less jargon and more
clarification. Another respondent felt that the final rule should
consider the variability of species distributions and density over
time.
Response: The Department acknowledges a lack of clarity in the
proposed rule and has revised paragraph (b) in section 219.20 to
improve its clarity and readability.
The species viability criteria do not specifically address the
variability of species distributions and density over time. These are
factors to be addressed during plan revisions as required by NFMA, to
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 (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).
Comment: Species viability requirements. Numerous respondents felt
that the Forest Service should use clear, specific, imperative language
to guide the maintenance of species viability. Some of these
respondents also believed the final rule should specify a discrete time
period over which species viability will be measured. Although dissent
exists among the public and even within the Committee of Scientists,
one respondent believed this should not preclude the Forest Service
from including requirements for sustaining viable populations. The
majority of respondents that supported requirements for sustaining
viable populations believed the final rule should contain specific
guidelines in this respect, rather than the vague ``high likelihood''
standard. Conversely, some respondents believe the Forest Service
should reconsider the requirement in the proposed rule to sustain
viable populations. They felt that such a mandate makes wildlife the
dominant, if not exclusive, goal of forest planning. Others questioned
whether funding sources will be available to support such a mandate.
Response: As noted above, the Department does not believe there is
a lack of imperative language in section 219.20(b). It does acknowledge
less than clear descriptions in this section of the proposed rule.
Paragraph (b) in section 219.20 is revised in the final rule to improve
its clarity and readability.
As also noted above, the collection and analysis of information at
a variety
[[Page 67548]]
of spatial and temporal scales is important in providing for
maintenance or restoration of ecological sustainability. These scales
include geographic areas such as bioregions and watersheds, scales of
biological organization such as communities and species, and scales of
time ranging from months to centuries. For this reason, the Department
has not adopted a discrete time period over which species viability is
to be measured.
The Department is adopting the ``high likelihood'' language to
emphasize the importance it places on the viability of plant and animal
species. The current rule states ``Fish and wildlife habitat shall be
managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired
non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.'' Furthermore, the
rule states that ``a viable population shall be regarded as one which
has the estimated number and distribution of reproductive individuals
to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning
area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained. *
* *''. Together, the phrases ``shall be managed to maintain'' and
``ensure'' have been perceived by some people to be a 100 percent
certainty that all species would remain viable at all times. This
expectation in the face of known as well as unknown uncertainty,
imperfect and incomplete information, as well as acknowledgment of
systemic environmental variation is a standard that is arguably a
technical impossibility--unattainable in the absolute. The Department
has adopted the high likelihood standard, as an administrative rather
than technical standard, to provide a reasonable level of assurance
that species will remain viable and correct what is perceived by many
to be a technical conundrum.
The Department revised the language in the final rule to clearly
apply the high likelihood standard to ecological conditions rather than
to the populations of species and their viability. This recognizes that
the Forest Service can only affect certain ecological conditions on the
land it manages. These conditions include the abundance and
distribution of habitat as well as other factors such as roads, other
structural developments, many human uses, and some invasive or exotic
species. Other factors beyond the control of the Forest Service may
influence the viability of some species. These factors include
fragmented land ownership patterns, adjacent activities, climate,
disease, and factors that may preclude a species from maintaining
viability within National Forest System lands.
The Department has retained the requirement in the final rule to
sustain viable populations. As noted above, the first priority for
stewardship of the National Forest System, which is to maintain and
restore ecological sustainability, is unchanged from the proposed rule.
Ecological sustainability has two primary indicators in the final rule:
ecosystem diversity and species diversity. Ecosystem diversity provides
a ``coarse filter'' approach to the conservation of biological
diversity. Species diversity requirements specified in the final rule
defines what is commonly considered a ``fine filter'' approach. The
combination of coarse and fine filters in the final rule has the
advantage of efficiency: the responsible official assumes adequate
representation of ecological conditions by maintaining or restoring a
diversity of ecosystems and checks this assumption through assessments
of viability of a subset of individual species.
The Department acknowledges an increase in requirements for species
viability. But as noted above, continued declines in the cost of
information technology are expected in the future. Furthermore, the
Department believes that, in total, no significant additional resources
will be required for implementation of the final rule.
Comment: Mandates to maintain habitat. Many respondents support
maintenance of habitat. However, several people believed that as
private lands become developed, the national forests and grasslands
could become increasingly important refuges for sensitive species. They
felt that the proposed regulations should include requirements to
restore or maintain disproportionately greater amounts of habitat in
national forests and grasslands for sensitive species. One individual
requested clarification regarding the concept of redundancy of habitat.
One organization suggested that the requirement to provide for
redundancy of habitat would only lead to more litigation.
Response: In the proposed rule, consideration is given to National
Forest System lands that have a unique opportunity to provide a
disproportionately greater contribution to ecological conditions needed
to reduce the likelihood of species becoming listed under the
Endangered Species Act or to contribute to the recovery of listed
species. In response to this comment, the final rule strengthens this
provision by requiring plan decisions to reflect the unique
opportunities that National Forest System lands provide to contribute
to recovery of listed species.
Section 219.20(b)(8)(v) in the proposed rule required structural
and functional redundancy of habitat as necessary to buffer
disturbances characteristic of dynamic systems. This provision was not
retained in the final rule and is best addressed in site-specific
planning.
Other changes. This section has been substantially reorganized from
the proposed rule and terms redefined. This was done to add clarity and
respond to public comments and staff review. None of the changes in
section 219.20 are intended to change the overall intent of the section
as originally proposed.
``Ecosystem diversity and species diversity'' are specifically
stated as the components of ecological sustainability in the final rule
and provide a focus to reorganize information in this section. The
proposed rule included, but did not explicitly identify ecosystem
diversity and species diversity as the two components of ecological
sustainability.
Comparison of the Components in Section 219.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components Proposed rule Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spatial and temporal scales. (a) Includes NEPA (a) NEPA requirement
under list of already exists and
methods. is not included.
Language added for
responsible
official to
determine
information and
analyses needed for
plan revisions,
amendments, and
site-specific
decisions.
Characteristics of ecosystem .................... (a)(1) New language
and species diversity. added for clarity.
Ecosystem diversity......... (a)(1), (a)(7), (a)(1)(i) Soil
(b)(6), (b)(7). resource language
added to level of
detail consistent
with water and air
resources.
[[Page 67549]]
Species diversity........... (a)(1), (a)(7)...... (a)(1)(ii).
Evaluation of ecological (a), (a)(5), (a)(8). (a)(2) Language
sustainability. added that
describes
evaluations of
ecological
sustainability.
Focus species............... (a)(7)(i)........... (a)(2)(i)(A).
Biological and physical (a)(1).............. (a)(2)(i)(B).
properties of ecosystems.
Ecological processes........ (a)(2).............. (a)(2)(i)(C) Adds
specific
information to be
included in the
description of
other ecological
processes and
feasibility of
maintaining
ecological
processes (e.g.
dispersal,
migration, nutrient
cycle, food web
dynamics,
waterfowls, etc.)
Effects of human activities. (a)(3).............. (a)(2)(i)(D).
Effects of air quality...... (b)(7).............. (a)(2)(i)(F).
Estimates of water use...... (b)(6).............. (a)(2)(i)(G).
Plan decision requirements (b)(6), (b)(7)...... (b)(1) Language not
for soil, water and air. retained,
requirements
included within
overall statement.
Identification of reference (a)(6).............. (a)(2)(i)(H).
landscapes.
Definitions: Focal species, (a)(7)(i), Section 219.36,
Species-at-risk. (a)(7)(ii). Definitions.
Species viability........... (a)(8)(i)........... (a)(2)(ii)
Situations where
risks to viability
are high not
included, enough
language is
included to analyze
these situations.
Measures of ecological (a)(8)(ii).......... Provides for
integrity. evaluation of a
comprehensive list
of physical and
biological
indicators.
Individual and group species (a)(8)(i)........... (a)(2)(ii) Language
assessments. added requiring
individual species
assessments of
federally listed
species, otherwise
allowing for group
assessments. Group
assessments
necessary for
financial and
technical
feasibility.
Variability of ecological (a)(10), (b)(1)..... Section 219.22.
systems.
Consistency of planning (b)................. Section 219.7
level decisions and adequately
existing rights and legal describes these
requirements. requirements.
Plan decision for (b)(2), (b)(3)...... (b)(1).
maintenance or restoration
of ecosystems.
Conditions within the range (b)(3)(i), (b)(1)(i) New
of variability. (b)(3)(iv) for language provides
exception. an exception,
(b)(1)(iv), when
staying within the
range is
unacceptable.
Conditions outside the range (b)(3)(ii), (b)(1)(ii) New
of variability. (b)(3)(iv) for language provides
exception. an exception,
(b)(1)(v), when
staying outside the
range is
acceptable.
Range of variability cannot (b)(3)(iv).......... (b)(1)(iii) New
be defined. language ensures
other peer-reviewed
methods are used.
Natural disturbance (b)(3)(iii)......... (a)(2)(i)(E).
processes.
Future stewardship choices.. (b)(4).............. (b)(1) Language not
retained, intent
addressed.
Reference landscapes........ (b)(5).............. (b)(1) Language not
retained, intent
addressed.
Plan decisions affecting (b)(8), (b)(8)(ii), (b)(2).
species diversity. (b)(8)(iii),
(b)(8)(i) replaced
by new language
referencing methods.
Exceptions for plan (b)(8)(iv).......... (b)(2)(ii).
decisions affecting species (b)(8)(ii).......... (b)(2)(iii) New
diversity. language to prevent
species extirpation
and support
viability.
(b)(2)(iv) Added to
support viability
where infeasible to
restore ecological
conditions.
Redundancy of habitat to (b)(8)(v)........... Language not
buffer disturbances. retained,
requirements of the
section provide a
comprehensive
ecological
approach.
Federally listed species.... (b)(10)............. (b)(3)(i) Language
that actions not
contribute to
species listing is
covered under ESA
and restated only
for conservation
agreements.
Biological opinions and (b)(9).............. (b)(3)(ii) Specific
recovery plans. language for
recovery plans is
replaced by
requirement for
plan decisions and
ESA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 219.21--Social and economic sustainability. This section of
the proposed rule described a process for developing a comprehensive
understanding of sustainable social and economic environments.
Comment: Definition of economic and social sustainability. Many
respondents express confusion over the myriad of definitions of social
and economic sustainability contained in the proposed planning
regulations. Clear, concise, and consistent definitions are needed,
according to numerous citizens. Several
[[Page 67550]]
people believe the use of discretionary language in this section is
rampant, and therefore makes all the subsequent guidelines moot.
Response: The Department acknowledges a lack of clear, concise, and
consistent definitions in the proposed rule concerning social and
economic sustainability. The final rule has been revised in response to
this concern.
In the final rule, social and economic sustainability is defined as
meeting the economic, social, aesthetic, and cultural needs and desires
of current generations without reducing the capacity of the environment
to provide for the needs and desires of future generations, considering
both local communities and the nation as a whole. It also involves the
capacity of citizens to communicate effectively with each other and to
make sound choices about their environment.
The Forest Service contributes to social and economic
sustainability by developing and considering relevant social and
economic information and analyses, providing early and frequent
opportunities for interested and affected people to participate in
National Forest System planning and stewardship, and providing a range
of uses, values, products, and services. These uses, values, products,
and services include but are not limited to outdoor recreation; forage;
timber; wildlife and fish; biological diversity; productive soils;
clean air and water; and minerals. They also afford intangible benefits
such as beauty, inspiration, and wonder.
The final rule requires the responsible official to develop or
supplement information and analyses (section 219.21(a)), including
specific social and economic analyses (section 219.21(a)(1)) and
analyses of community or regional risk and vulnerability (section
219.21(a)(2)).
Comment: Goal of economic and social sustainability. Several people
felt that social and economic concerns have received little
consideration in past Forest Service decisions. These people do not
think the proposed regulations will prevent such transgressions. To
help emphasize these concerns, one person requested that social and
economic sustainability be split into two separate sections. Another
individual asserted that the Forest Service should establish the
achievement of economic and social sustainability as the first priority
among the goals of the proposed rule. Of those that believe the social
and economic section needs to be emphasized and expanded, many
requested that the Forest Service promulgate specific, mandatory
guidelines for achieving social and economic sustainability. Some
believed the proposed rule should not emphasize economic and social
sustainability, because they fear such an emphasis will result in the
reallocation of time and money away from natural resource management.
Improving local stewardship capacities and collaboration were also
offered as ways to attain social and economic sustainability.
Response: In the final rule, the Department has not split social
and economic sustainability into two separate sections. Nor has it
established the achievement of economic and social sustainability as
the first priority among the goals of the proposed rule. Finally, the
Department has not included in the final rule specific, mandatory
guidelines for achieving social and economic sustainability.
Requirements for achieving sustainability are found in sections
219.19, 219.20, and 219.21 of the final rule. As noted above, social
and economic sustainability is achieved by providing a range of uses,
products, services, and values, consistent with ecological
sustainability (section 219.20(b)). The first priority for stewardship
of the National Forest System, which is to maintain and restore
ecological sustainability, is unchanged from the proposed rule. As
noted by the Committee of Scientists, ``* * * ecological sustainability
lays a necessary foundation for National Forests and Grasslands to
contribute to the economic and social components of sustainability,
making contributions to strong productive economies and creating
opportunities for enduring human communities.''
The Department agrees that improving local stewardship capacities
and collaboration are ways to attain social and economic
sustainability. The proposed rule provided that the responsible
official and those involved in planning should invite and encourage
others to engage in the collaborative development of landscape goals.
This language has been retained in the final rule (section
219.12(b)(1)). As noted in the Committee of Scientists' report,
collaborative planning is a shared process within which agencies
cooperate with one another; work with tribes, other public, and private
organizations; and engage communities and citizens in envisioning and
working toward a sustainable future on the national forests and
grasslands.
Comment: Role of timber harvest in economic and social
sustainability. One respondent believed that the Forest Service must
realize that timber harvest is necessary to achieve economic and social
sustainability. In contrast, another individual asserted that the
Forest Service has no responsibility or reason to sustain certain
cultural and economic practices such as commodity extraction. No
federal agency should maintain a particular lifestyle over another,
according to this respondent.
Response: The proposed rule did not consider timber harvest or more
generally, commodity extraction, necessary to achieving economic and
social sustainability. Nor did the Department include either of these
issues in the final rule. The rule does establish a process for
identifying, discussing, and, if appropriate, acting on issues that may
emerge from a variety of sources (section 219.4). The Department
believes that these issues are most appropriately addressed using this
process.
Comment: Analysis of economic and social sustainability. Many
respondents offered various ideas to help achieve social and economic
sustainability in national forest communities. One person suggested the
Forest Service adopt better modeling tools to improve analysis. Others
cited the need to expand the analysis criteria to include adjacent
communities and elected officials in management decisions. One person
believed the Forest Service should reconsider the requirement to
analyze social and economic sustainability on a large scale. Such
analysis, this person asserted, masks the impacts on small and sparsely
populated communities.
Response: The Department agrees that better modeling tools should
be adopted to improve analysis. The final rule requires that the best
available science be considered in planning (section 219.22(a)).
The Department has not expanded the analysis criteria to include
adjacent communities and elected officials in the analysis of
management decisions. As noted above, section 219.14 of the final rule
identifies some of the key steps where state and local governments will
be engaged in planning. State and local governments will be involved in
the identification of issues as described in section 219.4(a). In
addition, the rule recognizes the need for the Forest Service and state
and local governments to coordinate plans and programs. Section
219.3(c) provides opportunities for state and local governments to
participate in the collaborative planning process.
The proposed rule encouraged appropriate analysis within the
relevant scales of influence for national forest and grassland planning
and decisionmaking. This language has been
[[Page 67551]]
retained in the final rule. Large-scale studies may not be appropriate
to determine the impacts of an action within a particular village or
small town. Conversely, looking only at economic or social
relationships within a village or small town may mask identification of
regional trends and emerging events. As with many topics, the early
identification of issues and their appropriate scope and scale are
critical to successful planning and natural resource management.
Comment: Measurement of social sustainability. The exact means by
which social sustainability will be measured needs to be clarified for
many respondents. Some felt that the proposed regulations should expand
the criteria of future social analyses to include the input of adjacent
communities and their elected officials. Numerous people cited the use
of discretionary language, such as ``may'' and ``should,'' as a serious
flaw in the proposed regulations. These individuals would like to see
the inclusion of imperative language, such as ``shall'' and ``must,''
to ensure that social analysis is, in fact, undertaken.
Response: The proposed rule did not describe the exact means by
which social sustainability will be measured. This information was not
included in the final rule. Instead, this information will be included
in the Forest Service Manual.
As noted above, the Department has not expanded the criteria of
analyses to include the input of adjacent communities and their elected
officials. Section 219.14 of the final rule identifies some of the key
steps where state and local governments will be engaged in planning.
State and local governments will be involved in the identification of
issues as described in section 219.4(a). In addition, the rule
recognizes the need for the Forest Service and state and local
governments to coordinate plans and programs. Section 219.3(d) provides
opportunities for state and local governments to participate in the
collaborative planning process.
As noted above, the Department agrees that the use of discretionary
language, such as ``may'' and ``should,'' was a serious flaw in the
proposed rule. The final rule requires the responsible official to
develop or supplement information and analyses (section 219.21(a)),
including specific social analyses (section 219.21(a)(1)(i)) and
analyses of community or regional risk and vulnerability (section
219.21(a)(2)).
Comment: Social data and effects. Specific clarification regarding
social data collection is needed according to many respondents. Local
values, social standards, and changes in social values were mentioned
as criteria that need to be further clarified. The social effects of
the loss of timber industry jobs, specifically on rural communities,
were also a concern. Several respondents asserted that their quality of
life is at least partially, if not wholly, dependent on the health of
the national forests.
Response: The Department agrees that the proposed rule was not
specific concerning the collection of social information. As described
above, the final rule requires the responsible official to develop or
supplement information and analyses (section 219.21(a)), including
specific social analyses (section 219.21(a)(1)(i)). Additional
specificity will be provided in the Forest Service Manual.
Included in section 219.21(a)(1)(i) of the final rule is the
requirement to develop or supplement information on social and cultural
opportunities provided by National Forest System lands. The Department
believes this language encompasses the social effects of the loss of
timber industry jobs, including those effects on rural communities.
The Department agrees that quality of life is at least partially
dependent on the health of the national forests. As noted above, the
first priority for stewardship of the National Forest System, which is
to maintain and restore ecological sustainability, is unchanged from
the proposed rule.
Comment: Economic analysis of Forest Service management. Several
people felt that previous economic analyses of national forests have
been myopic in scope, and hence the proposed rule should expand the
criteria of future economic analysis to include adjacent communities
and elected officials in management decisions. Some cited the need for
a comprehensive economic analysis of the entire Forest Service and its
management activities.
Response: As noted above, the Department has not expanded the
criteria of analyses to include the input of adjacent communities and
local elected officials. Section 219.14 of the final rule identifies
some of the key steps where state and local governments will be engaged
in planning. State and local governments will be involved in the
identification of issues as described in section 219.4(a). In addition,
the rule recognizes the need for the Forest Service and state and local
governments to coordinate plans and programs. Section 219.3(c) provides
opportunities for state and local governments to participate in the
collaborative planning process.
An economic analysis of the entire Forest Service and its
management activities is beyond the scope of this rule.
Comment: Valuation of non-market benefits. Several respondents felt
that the Forest Service has been ignoring the indirect and often time
invisible benefits of forest systems. They believed that non-commodity
resource benefits, such as carbon sequestration, oxygen production, and
water filtration, should be factored into any economic analysis of
forest management activities. One citizen urged the Forest Service to
assign a monetary value to these traditionally priceless benefits. This
individual felt that such an exercise would ensure that the loss of
these benefits would be a factor in economic cost-benefit analysis.
Response: The proposed rule provided for, but did not require, the
consideration of the financial and opportunity costs derived from
market and non-market use. Section 219.21(a)(1)(ii) of the final rule
requires the development of information on the range and estimated
long-term value of market and non-market goods, uses, services, and
amenities that can be provided by National Forest System lands
consistent with the requirements of ecological sustainability. This
includes the cost of providing them, and the effect of providing them
on regional and community well-being, employment, and wages. The
Department believes this language in the final rule requires the
inclusion of commodity and non-commodity resource benefits in economic
analyses, with values assigned to these benefits.
Comment: Economic impacts on ecosystems. Some respondents felt that
the long-term ecological consequences have not been considered when
conducting cost-benefit analysis of past forest management activities.
One individual cited the long-term loss of water quality incurred from
the short-term economic benefit of logging as an example. Another
citizen stated that timber harvest often has adverse economic impacts,
citing the loss of windbreak and temperature regulation that a nearby
forest once provided local families. Some respondents suggested that
the cost-benefit analysis of past logging expand in scope to include
any and all costs associated with specific projects.
Response: The proposed rule did not provide for cost-benefit
analysis of past forest management activities. The Department has not
included such a provision in the final rule. While
[[Page 67552]]
acknowledging that timber harvest in the past may have had adverse
economic impacts, the Department does not believe that quantifying past
economic impacts would significantly improve the planning process.
As noted above, the final rule requires the development of
descriptions and analyses, including the estimated long-term value of
market and non-market goods, uses, services, and amenities that can be
provided by National Forest System lands consistent with the
requirements of ecological sustainability.
Comment: Economic impacts on local economies. Some respondents felt
that the final rule will further restrict timber harvest, and this
restriction will adversely affect the economies of local companies and
communities. Other individuals cited the need for the Forest Service to
specifically identify the economic impacts the proposed rule may have
on local economies. Many felt that the small, rural communities
associated with national forests have experienced, and will continue to
experience, the majority of impacts any change in forest management
policy engenders. Thus, they asserted, local communities, especially
those where the majority of adjacent land is federally owned, warrant
special consideration.
Response: The proposed rule provided for, but did not require, the
consideration of economic estimates of the National Forest System
contribution to present and future society benefits. As noted above,
section 219.21(a)(1)(ii) of the final rule requires the development of
information on the range and estimated long-term value of market and
non-market goods, uses, services, and amenities that can be provided by
National Forest System lands consistent with the requirements of
ecological sustainability. This includes the cost of providing them,
and the effect of providing them on regional and community well-being,
employment, and wages. The Department believes this language helps
identify the economic impacts on local economies.
Comment: Direct and indirect costs. Another person felt the
language in the current rule better ensures that direct and indirect
costs are included in such an economic analysis. This person suggested
the Forest Service retain the current language rather than adopt the
less stringent proposed language. Such language will lead to more
divisiveness, according to this individual. In addition to including
traditional expenses, these people believed the Forest Service should
include the costs of general overhead and possible litigation in their
economic analysis.
Response: In the proposed rule, lands not suited for timber
production included lands where the costs of timber production were not
justified by the ecological, social, or economic benefits (section
219.28(b)(5)). This provision has not been retained in the final rule.
In the final rule, the responsible official may establish timber
production and its possible harvest as a multiple-use value and plan
objective within the plan area where timber may be harvested if the
costs of timber production are justified by the ecological, social, or
economic benefits (section 219.28(b)). The Department believes the
costs and benefits referenced in this Section of the final rule include
all direct and indirect costs and benefits.
Comment: Economic analysis and demographics. Several respondents
believed that the Forest Service should conduct economic analyses
suited to local demographics. The densely populated, sparsely forested
East Coast is demographically distinct from the sparsely populated,
densely forested western regions. Some asserted that such demographics
should be incorporated into the economic analysis of Forest Service
activities. The dearth of forests and plethora of humans in the eastern
region of the United States dictates that the value of tourism should
outweigh the value of timber in eastern economic analyses, according to
these respondents.
Response: The proposed rule provided for, but did not require, the
consideration of the demographics, including current demographics
related to direct, indirect, and induced effects on income, population,
and industry employment, and the ability of communities to adapt to
change. The final rule requires the development of descriptions and
analyses, but its treatment of demographics is limited to social
trends.
Other changes. The Department acknowledges the frequent use of
discretionary language in this section of the proposed rule. In
contrast, the final rule requires the responsible official to develop
or supplement information and analyses, including specific social and
economic analyses and analyses of community or regional risk and
vulnerability, paragraph (a).
The proposed rule did not include requirements for plan decisions
that may affect economic and social sustainability. The final rule
requires that plan decisions contribute to social and economic
sustainability by providing a range of uses, products, services, and
values, consistent with ecological sustainability, paragraph (b). This
paragraph also contains new language concerning the scope and scale of
decisions, issues addressed, and analyses conducted in previous
provision of this section. The language was added to clarify that plan
decisions affecting economic and social sustainability would be made
consistent with the principles of ecological sustainability and
applicable laws, including the MUSYA.
The Department acknowledges respondent's concerns regarding
definitions for social and economic sustainability in the proposed rule
that are clear, concise, and consistent. Section 219.21 is revised to
reduce redundancy and improve clarity and readability, as described
below:
Comparison of the Components in Section 219.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components Proposed rule Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning involves interested (a)................. Opening paragraph
and affected references sections
people...................... 219.12 through
219.18.
Social and economic (b), (c), (d)....... (a) Language added
information. that requires
social and economic
information and
analyses for
planning.
Economic effect............. (b)(4), (b)(5), (a).
(b)(7).
Social and economic analyses (b)(3), (b)(4), (a) Adds monitoring
(c)(1), (c)(2), results to the list
(d)(1), (d)(2). of methods.
[[Page 67553]]
Demographic trends.......... (b)(1), (e)......... (a)(1)(i) Language
added to include
social and cultural
opportunities,
community
assistance needs,
and other
appropriate
information to
provide a
comprehensive list
of social
indicators.
Employment, income, and (b)(3-6)............ (a)(1)(ii) Language
other economic trends. added includes long-
term costs and
benefits provided
by National Forest
System lands and
their effects on
community well-
being to provide a
comprehensive list
of economic
indicators.
Benefits of restoration (b)(2).............. (a)(1)(iii).
strategies.
Other information........... .................... (a)(1)(iv) Added to
provide for issues
being considered by
the responsible
official, section
219.4.
Risk and vulnerability (c)(3), (g)......... (a)(2).
analyses.
Evaluate social and economic .................... (b) Requires
sustainability. responsible
official to use the
information
analyses developed
in (a).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Contribution of Science
Section 219.22--The role of assessments, analyses, and monitoring.
This section of the proposed rule described the role of assessments,
local analyses, and monitoring. In the final rule, this section has
been renamed ``The role of science in assessments, analyses, and
monitoring.'' It has been designated as section 219.23.
Comment: Integrating science into the planning process. While many
people agree with using science as a management tool, respondents
expressed a variety of opinions on how to best integrate science into
the planning process. One person suggested replacing the phrase ``best
available science'' with the phrase ``broadly accepted scientific
principles, information, and analysis'' in order to maintain continuity
in scientific assessment. Others contended that science must be
statistically sound and supportable.
Response: The Committee of Scientists' report emphasized that
``Collaborative planning rests upon a foundation of scientific
information developed by scientists and other knowledgeable people in
an open, public process.'' The Committee identified at least five
different tasks for scientists in collaborative planning: creating
knowledge of relevance to collaborative planning, developing
integrative science for bioregional assessments, helping managers
understand the application of scientific and technical knowledge,
helping to design effective monitoring procedures and adaptive
management experiments, and evaluating the use of scientific
information in planning and implementation.
Planning is based on scientific and other forms of knowledge. Where
scientific information is used, the quality of such information should
be ensured by using appropriate levels of independent peer review,
quality assurance protocols for monitoring and other data, as well as
free and open access by the public (including the scientific community)
to data, assumptions, and conclusions.
The final rule acknowledges these roles for science and the
responsibilities of the Forest Service Research and Development
Program. It requires the responsible official to ensure that the best
available science is considered in planning (section 219.22). It also
sets mechanisms in place through involvement of Forest Service Research
and Development, Science Advisory Boards (section 219.25), science
consistency evaluations (section 219.24), and scientific peer reviews
(section 219.22) to ensure that the best science is available to
decision makers, is properly analyzed and interpreted, and can be
applied with scientific credibility.
Comment: Human values and multiple perspectives. Even though many
believe that the use of scientists in national forest planning is
important, some requested that human values and multiple perspectives
be integrated with science to evaluate sustainability.
Response: The role of science in the final rule (section 219.22) is
to ensure that the best available science, including social science, is
available and soundly considered in planning. Collaborative planning
involving other federal agencies, state and local governments, American
Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives, private landowners, and other
interested individuals and organizations (sections 219.12 to 219.18) is
encouraged to ensure that a broad range of human values and
perspectives is brought to bear, along with the best science available,
in land management planning. Through these processes, a locally
appropriate balance of ecological conditions and social issues, goals,
and proposed actions will be identified to ensure that scientifically
sound management decisions are made to sustain ecological conditions
for the future while meeting current desires and requirements of
humans. Furthermore, the final rule underscores that science provides
information, not decisions, and it is the responsible official who has
final decision authority.
Comment: Balance between economic, social, and biological sciences.
Many respondents asserted that economic and social sciences must be
weighed equally with biological sciences in the decisionmaking process.
Response: Section 219.22(a) of the final rule includes new language
requiring consideration of the best available science in the
development of recommendations or conclusions. This includes all
scientific fields appropriate to natural resource issues, which will be
considered by the responsible official along with other forms of input
in decisionmaking.
Other changes: The introductory paragraph of the proposed rule has
not been retained in final rule. This information is already contained
in section 219.5.
Section 219.23--The participation of scientists in planning. This
section of the proposed rule described expectations and roles for
scientists in National Forest System planning and decisionmaking. In
the final rule, this section has been renamed ``The overall role of
science in planning.'' It has been designated as section 219.22.
Comment: Use of sound science. Various individuals suggested that
the
[[Page 67554]]
regulations clarify the definition of ``scientist.'' The real issue,
according to some of these respondents, is the use of sound science
information and scientific methods--not who brings the information or
methods to the process.
Response: The Department agrees, and section 219.22 of the final
rule shifts the emphasis from scientists, as the deliverers of
scientific information, to the role of science in the planning process.
This shifts the focus from individuals who may participate in the
process, to an embracing of science as an integral part of National
Forest System planning--thus including scientific knowledge, scientific
methods, and expert scientific review and opinion, including analyses
based on the latest scientific information.
Comment: Influence of science advisory panels. Enthusiasm for
science in land management was tempered by concerns regarding the level
of authority and influence of science advisory panels. Some felt that
the scientific advisory board should support Forest Service staff and
should not be involved in decisionmaking.
Response: The final rule requires the responsible official to
ensure that the best available science is considered in planning. It
clarifies the intent that science consistency evaluations (section
219.24) and science advisory boards (section 219.25) are to inform this
process, not to advocate a particular decision, and clearly states that
all decision authority rests with the responsible official.
Comment: Cost and effectiveness of scientific input. Some
respondents questioned the cost and effectiveness of increasing the
required levels of scientific input into the forest planning process.
Others expressed concern that the Forest Service does not have the
budget or resources to effectively evaluate the credentials of non-
governmental science professionals.
Response: The final rule requires that the best scientific
information be considered in planning (section 219.22(a)), but
recognized that all plan decisions do not require detailed and costly
broad-scale assessments, science consistency evaluations, or similar
costly approaches, to achieve this goal (section 219.5). Concerns
regarding scientific efficacy are addressed by increasing peer review
of science input (section 219.22), involving the Deputy Chief for
Research and Development, Research Station Directors, and Science
Advisory Boards (sections 219.24 and 219.25).
Comment: Use of science advisory boards. Forest Service officials
are granted too much discretion in determining the use of peer reviews
and science advisory boards, many respondents contended. Additionally,
many respondents worry about the potential for bias in the selection of
scientists. One person recommends using professional literature
searches to ensure an efficient and cost effective means for gathering
and documenting information. Others recommended publishing the names
and qualifications of those selected to serve on science advisory
boards.
Response: The final rule requires full consideration of the best
available science in plan development, including peer review and
science consistency evaluations. Peer reviews and public involvement
provide powerful mechanisms to detect scientific or other bias in
decisionmaking. Furthermore, the final rule clarifies that the
responsible official, not scientists or others, makes the decision.
Membership on advisory boards would be public information, and the
Department assumes that literature searches would be a part of applying
the best available science where appropriate.
Other changes. Section 219.23 in the proposed rule, paragraphs (b)
and (c) are not retained in the final rule. These are functions of
scientists listed in the proposed rule, which are only illustrative and
not needed in the final rule. In the proposed rule, general assistance
in applying relevant scientific information is addressed in paragraph
(a), to the extent necessary in the rule, by science consistency
evaluations in section 219.25. The material related to issues in
paragraph (d) of the proposed rule, is also not retained. It is
referenced in section 219.4 which suggests that the responsible
official consider the scientific basis and merit of available data and
analyses in determining whether an issue is appropriate for
consideration. Section 219.23 in the final rule addresses the role of
science in information development and interpretation. Since the final
rule does not focus on scientists, the last sentence in paragraph (d)
of the proposed rule discussing their employer is not included.
Section 219.24--Science consistency evaluations. This section of
the proposed rule described responsibilities for scientific review of
planning processes to ensure that proposed actions and supporting
procedures are consistent with current scientific understanding.
Comment: Some reviewers felt that the planning regulations should
clarify what science consistency guidelines may be used if the
responsible official chooses not to consult with the science advisory
board.
Response: The final rule requires the responsible official to
consider the best available science in plan development and subsequent
decisions; it is at her/his discretion as to how this can best be
accomplished. The final rule makes it clear that the use of advisory
boards is one means identified in the final rule to assist, others
include: Direct informal and formal involvement of scientists and
technical experts, peer reviews of draft analyses and plans, and
science consistency evaluations. All of these, as well as others, are
available to the responsible official. The method employed for a
planning activity is to be selected by the responsible official, but at
a minimum, the responsible official must periodically consult with an
advisory board.
Other changes. There are two important changes in paragraph (a).
The first clarifies the purpose of science consistency evaluations. The
proposed rule initially stated that decisions must be consistent with
available science. It then restates the test as whether information
gathered, evaluations conducted, or analyses and conclusions reached in
the planning process are consistent with the best available scientific
information and analysis. A finding of inconsistency that results from
this process does not necessarily mean that a decision is ``wrong.'' It
does mean that the information and analysis supporting that decision
should be revisited, which may in turn lead to a change in the
decision. The final rule states the purpose of the science consistency
evaluation is to determine whether information, evaluations, analyses,
or interpretations used in proposals for plan decisions are consistent
with the best available science.
The second change in paragraph (a) concerns the role of the science
advisory boards in this process. In the proposed rule, the responsible
official may use them to assist in the science consistency evaluation.
In the final rule, the responsible official must use them to determine
when a science consistency evaluation is appropriate. This change is
consistent with the change in emphasis away from who is performing
analysis. While the proposed rule did not require participation of the
science advisory boards, it gave too much weight to this one approach.
In addition, giving the science advisory boards a role in determining
when to conduct science consistency analysis addressed the concern that
there are no criteria for when such an analysis should occur.
[[Page 67555]]
Section 219.25--Science advisory boards. This section of the
proposed rule described establishment of National and Regional Science
Advisory Boards and work groups
Comment: Representation of interests. A large number of comments
recommended that the proposed regulations establish protections against
bias and unequal representation of interests. Many people advocated
that the proposed planning regulations require representation from a
broad range of scientific fields in peer evaluations and advisory
boards. For example, some suggested that the Forest Service should
better recognize university professionals and other federal agency
scientists as resources in planning. Others argued that the use of non-
Forest Service scientists be explicitly required in forest planning to
minimize agency influence over scientific conclusions.
Response: Sections 219.25(a) and (b) of the final rule now
stipulate that: ``Board membership (of National and Regional Science
Advisory Boards) must represent a broad range of scientific disciplines
including, but not limited to, the physical, biological, and social
sciences.'' The Department believes that the purpose of the science
advisory boards, as specified in section 219.25(a) of the final rule,
is to advise on matters of science. It is not, however, a role of
Advisory Board members to represent or advocate special interests.
Sections 219.22(b) and 219.24(a) should help expose and mitigate any
perceived bias.
Comment: Role of Forest Service scientists. Many respondents
believe the role of Forest Service scientists needs to be clarified.
Several people state that the proposed regulations will unduly burden
Forest Service research station personnel and potentially compromise
their integrity as field experts. Conversely, several people indicate
that the regulations should encourage land managers to utilize research
station professionals more extensively.
Response: The final rule specifies that ``the best available
science'' must be considered and obtained from those individuals
possessing appropriate scientific credentials. In some cases this may
include Forest Service scientists. In others cases it may not.
This section of the final rule differs from the proposed rule in
that the Deputy Chief for Research and Development must establish a
National Science Advisory Board to advise on issues of national
importance, rather than the Chief as required in the proposed rule. The
final rule also states that Station Directors and the Deputy Chief for
Research and Development must personally chair the science advisory
board(s) they establish, or appoint the chair(s).
The proposed rule states that work groups could be established with
the concurrence of ``Forest Service officials.'' The final rule
specifies that concurrence must be by the Deputy Chief for Research and
Development for the National Science Advisory Board, or the Research
Station Director for a Regional Science Advisory Board.
Other changes. Paragraph (a) in the final rule requires the
establishment of a national science advisory board. This board is
required by paragraph (b) in the proposed rule. The role remains to
provide advice on issues of national significance. The final rule
clarifies that the Chief of the Forest Service will identify these
issues. The composition of the science advisory boards generated many
public comments, including some advocating a stronger role for Forest
Service research scientists. In response, the final rule gives the
Deputy Chief for Research and Development the responsibility for
establishing and chairing the national science advisory board. In the
proposed rule, the Chief of the Forest Service is responsible for
establishing the national advisory board.
Paragraph (b) in both the proposed and final rules requires the
appropriate Forest Service Research Station Director(s) to establish
regional science advisory boards. As a result of public comments, in
the final rule, this director or directors shall chair the advisory
board or appoint a chair. The final rule clarifies the geographic
boundaries of the boards need not align with National Forest System
Regional boundaries.
Special Considerations
Proposed Section 219.26--Identifying and designating suitable uses.
This section of the proposed rule identified the suitability of various
uses on national forests and grasslands and provided criteria for
making a determination of suitability within the planning framework.
Designation of suitable land uses was one of the decisions that must be
included in plans (see Section 219.7).
Comment: Multiple-use as the guiding principle. Multiple-use should
continue to be the guiding principle for management of national
forests, according to many individuals. Like a number of respondents
who view this section as a significant departure both from relevant
statutes and from the existing planning rule, these individuals saw the
proposed planning regulations as de-emphasizing multiple-use to the
extent that they ``violate the mandates prescribed in the NFMA and the
MUSYA as well as other applicable rules and regulations.'' In
particular, some respondents suggested that the planning rule encourage
industrial commodity production and extraction. One person, though,
asked the Forest Service to define the term multiple-use since the term
may include connotations other than resource extraction.
Response: National forest and grasslands will continue to be
available for a wide variety of multiple uses as long as those uses do
not conflict with one another and they are appropriate for the location
where they may occur. This section of the planning rule provides
criteria for making this determination.
Comment: Criteria to identify and designate suitable uses. Some
respondents believed that in comparison to the current NFMA planning
regulations, the proposed criteria to identify and designate suitable
uses is thoroughly inadequate. These individuals contended that the
proposed rule should provide clear suitability standards--particularly
regarding livestock grazing, mineral extraction, and timber removal. To
this end, some respondents suggested that the Forest Service retain the
existing suitability requirements since the current guidelines are more
prescriptive than those included in the proposed regulations. In
addition, several people asserted that the final rule's suitability
requirements must not grant excessive discretion to Forest Service land
managers. Specifically, they suggested replacing the word ``should''
with ``shall'' throughout the subsection. Such a change would require
land managers to consider the possible uses listed in this section,
they asserted. Several other people asked the Forest Service to clarify
the statutory authority by which Executive Orders can restrict suitable
uses of national forests. One respondent wondered how forest plans
would designate and map management areas for specific uses.
Response: The Department has added criteria to the rule related to
impairment of the productivity of the land and compatibility with plan
decisions. With these changes, the Department believes that it has
provided sufficient guidance for amendment and revision of plans. The
current regulation was put in place to enable the agency to prepare
comprehensive national forest and grassland plans. Detailed
instructions were necessary and appropriate for completion of the first
round of planning. Each national forest and grassland now has a plan in
place, and the task at hand is to evaluate and improve upon each of
these. Detailed
[[Page 67556]]
procedures regarding the integration of natural resource management
practices are no longer appropriate. Rather, as described in the
planning regulation, it is now appropriate to look to ways to improve
existing plans and provide for needed adjustments in uses.
Comment: Access to national forests and grasslands. Several
respondents feared that the proposed rule would limit access to
national forest lands. Among those that felt access will be restricted,
some asserted that if national forests really are the ``people's
lands,'' then the people have the right to access them for recreation,
such as hiking, biking, off-highway travel, and snowmobiling. ``I have
a right as a taxpayer and a law abiding citizen to use these lands,''
wrote one respondent. Recreational access is especially crucial for
visitors with disabilities, according to many. ``I cannot park a car in
a trailhead parking lot and hike into areas that non-handicapped
persons can,'' one citizen said. ``I should be able to access the same
public lands as non-handicapped persons,'' this person stated.
Response: Congress has given the Secretary of Agriculture the
responsibility to regulate use of the National Forests System. The
MUSYA acknowledges that not all lands must be available for all uses.
Any changes to access for specific uses under this rule will occur
using the framework for planning, will involve collaboration with the
affected and other publics, and will use the best available science to
identify the uses that are suitable within the plan area.
Comment: Mining. Many respondents felt that the proposed rule fails
to emphasize mining as a legitimate use of national forests. At the
very least, according to one person, the proposed rule should clarify
how nonrenewable resources, such as minerals, will be regulated. If
mining is to be allowed, others asserted, its effects must be
mitigated.
Response: Unlike current planning rule, the revised rule does not
try to provide direction for specific uses. It focuses instead on
sustainability of the economic, social, and ecological systems. Mining
is one of many uses of national forests, and it may occur where it is a
suitable use, consistent with plans. Other federal statutes applicable
to mining must also be considered in determining where and how mining
may occur.
The Department believes that this rule, and in particular, its
sustainability requirements, will not by itself preclude mining
activities. Analysis and collaboration conducted under the requirements
of the rule, and following all applicable laws, will determine where
mining is appropriate and what mitigation measures will be required.
The rule's emphasis on ecosystem health, collaboration, and the role of
science may very well result in the identification and implementation
of effective and efficient mitigating measures applicable to mining
operations, improving the overall sustainability of the use and
development of what are commonly referred to as nonrenewable resources.
Comment: Grazing. Requiring monitoring and enforcement of grazing
standards on national forest lands, some contended, will ameliorate the
negative effects of grazing. To this end, wrote one person, the
proposed rule should clarify how science will aid in determining the
suitability of lands for grazing.
Response: This level of detail is not appropriate for this rule.
The role of science is generally described in section 219.22, which
requires the use of best available science in all aspects of planning,
including suitability determinations.
Comment: Recreation. One respondent contended that limiting access
to portions of public land might shift increasing visitor pressure into
other, ever-dwindling, public use areas. Conversely, others
specifically requested access restrictions for types of recreation that
degrade public lands. Activities that are allowed on Forest Service
lands--be they recreational or commercial-must not degrade forest
resources, many argued. Still others questioned what role recreation
should have in forest planning.
Response: Outdoor recreation is one of the uses of national forests
recognized in the MUSYA. The NFMA requires that plans provide for these
uses. In accordance with this rule, all potential uses, and decisions
to limit access must be considered in the context of overall
sustainability.
Comment: Biodiversity. One respondent suggested that the planning
rule should require that public lands be evaluated for their role in
maintaining and protecting biodiversity.
Response: Section 219.20 requires this evaluation.
Comment: Relationship with private land. Several respondents
suggested that the proposed planning rule address the relationship
between resource extraction on national forests and that on private
lands. Another respondent argued for conservation easements across
deeded lands.
Response: Section 219.17 requires the Forest Service to interact
with private landowners, which may include the relationship between
resource extraction on national forests and that on private lands and
conservation easements across deeded lands.
Other changes. The final rule characterizes the process as
identifying lands not suited for particular uses, whereas the proposed
rule required identification of lands suited for certain uses. The
approach in the final rule is more in line with the introductory
statement that national forests and grasslands are suitable unless they
are designated unsuitable.
Additional criteria are added to the final rule for identifying
lands not suitable for particular uses. These are: (1) Incompatibility
with policies of the National Forest System, (2) causing substantial
and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land, and (3)
incompatibility with one or more plan decisions. With these changes,
the Department believes that it has provided sufficient guidance for
amendment and revision of plans. The current regulation was put in
place to enable the agency to prepare comprehensive national forest and
grassland plans. Detailed instructions were necessary and appropriate
for completion of the first round of planning. Each national forest and
grassland now has a plan in place, and the task at hand is to evaluate
and improve upon each of these. Detailed procedures regarding the
integration of natural resource management practices are no longer
appropriate. Rather, as described in the planning regulation, it is now
appropriate to look to ways to improve existing plans and to provide
for needed adjustments in uses.
Proposed Section 219.27--Special designations. The proposed rule
identified types of special designations the Forest Service can
recommend through the plan amendment or revision process. It required
all roadless, undeveloped areas of sufficient size to be considered for
wilderness designation. It required special areas designated by statute
to be incorporated in the plan.
Comment: List of special designations. A state agency believed that
the proposed planning regulations should clarify which special
designations, in addition to those listed, will be allowed. In the
minds of some respondents, the list in section 219.27 contains too many
designations. In particular, many believed that public access would be
unnecessarily limited by special designations such as wilderness and
research natural areas. Others contended that Forest Service officials
simply have too much discretion to authorize special designations.
This, they believed, is an abrogation of
[[Page 67557]]
Congressional powers. Conversely, several people suggested that the
Forest Service broaden the list of special designations to include
heritage management areas, unique botanical areas, indigenous religious
sites, and utility corridors. Some recommended protecting and
strengthening existing special designations areas such as reference
landscape areas and research natural areas.
Response: The lists of both Congressionally and administratively
designated areas are examples, and not all-inclusive. The
recommendation or designation of these or other kinds of special areas
is within the scope of existing laws and regulations and is within the
authority of planning as designated in NFMA. The framework for planning
allows for the development of issues leading to the proposal of special
designations, and also gives ample opportunity for the public and
others to collaborate on the issue at all levels of planning.
In response to comments, and to more clearly delineate the
authorities related to special designations, the final rule separates
Congressionally designated areas, paragraph (a), from administratively
designated areas, paragraph (c). Based on public comment, specific
requirements for evaluating inventoried roadless areas and unroaded
areas are included in section 219.9(b)(8) of the final rule to
emphasize that the responsible official must evaluate these areas
during the revision process. The Forest Service may adopt special
designations or recommend designation to higher authorities through the
planning process. In the final rule, the Forest Service is not limited
to the classifications listed in the rule, and the Forest Service,
Department, or Administration may designate areas as appropriate.
Comment: Wild and Scenic Rivers. Many respondents urged the Forest
Service to protect watersheds, wetlands, and riparian areas. According
to a few respondents, affected rivers must be evaluated for Wild and
Scenic River designation as per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Specifically, The Draft Unified Federal Policy for Ensuring a Watershed
Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management was cited by a state
agency as a model for watershed restoration. Correspondingly, a water
users' association believed that the Forest Service's founding mandate
dictates that the agency ensure certain and stable water flows from
national forests. ``While the Cache La Prouder Water Users Association
approves in concept the long-term, sustainable management of the
forests, we are concerned that the proposed rule's emphasis on
sustainability may in practice subvert and cripple one of the original
purposes of the national forests--favorable conditions of water flows
for use by the people.'' Conversely, one respondent asked the Forest
Service to justify the purpose of maintaining riparian buffer zones.
Response: Authorities governing the development and the management
of the National Forest System include the Organic Administration Act,
the Clean Water Act, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The
requirements of these must be followed. This rule does not reiterate
those requirements, but it does create a framework for planning to meet
them. Specific methods for the protection of watersheds, wetlands, and
riparian areas and the use of riparian buffer zones are not addressed
in this rule. These are developed through the planning process using
the best available science.
Comment: Evaluating areas for wilderness. One respondent stated
that the language of section 219.27(a) ``clearly singles out and
emphasizes wilderness as a consideration for management and in the next
paragraph says that roadless areas should receive a full range of
management options.'' The wilderness biases should be eliminated from
the text of the rule, this person believed. During any analysis of
proposed wilderness, wrote one organization, an ecological, social, and
economic cost-benefit analysis should be conducted. Some respondents
suggested specific suitability criteria. ``There should be some sort of
release criteria to prevent unsuitable areas from remaining in `limbo'
for decades as wilderness study areas do now,'' one respondent stated.
Others called for using either environmental impact statements or site-
specific analyses (in accordance with RARE I and II) as the appropriate
tools to evaluate roadless areas for wilderness designation. Others
questioned the efficacy of considering roadless areas for wilderness
designation at this time--they suggest changing section 219.27(a) to
exempt wilderness consideration ``during this round of plan
revisions.''
Response: The Department believes that the best process for
determining suitability for wilderness designation is the planning
process embodied in this rule, and conducted at a scale that can
address unique characteristics of each area. The Department does not
see a need to change the wilderness suitability process significantly
from the one that was used to develop current plans. Wilderness review
is intrinsic to planning. Wilderness designation will be subject to the
planning and public involvement requirements of this rule. A
responsible official may establish management direction for areas not
recommended for wilderness, consistent with requirements of this and
other applicable rules. The Department does not believe this section of
the rule establishes a bias or preference for wilderness designation.
Comment: Evaluating roadless areas. Many people supported the
proposed rule's directive to evaluate roadless areas for wilderness
designation. One person suggested that, at the very least, commercial
activities should be prohibited in roadless areas.
Response: The Forest Service's proposed Roadless Area Conservation
Rule would provide protections for inventoried roadless areas by
prohibiting certain activities in inventoried roadless areas. In
addition, as discussed above, the final planning rule clarifies that
the responsible official will have to evaluate inventoried roadless and
unroaded areas and consider additional protections during the time of
plan revision.
Comment: ``Roadless'' and ``unroaded'' areas. A pervasive theme
among respondents'' comments was the need for the Forest Service to
clarify the definition and relationship of ``roadless area'' and
``unroaded area.'' Specifically, some questioned the appropriateness of
using the term unroaded since, according to one group, ``Congress has
never legally recognized the term.'' Another respondent, however, asked
that the final planning rule clarify the definition of unroaded to
address the size, configuration, composition, and inherent values of
unroaded areas. The proposed rule was vague, according to a
recreational organization, as to whether ``the Forest Service will
undertake a comprehensive inventory of the unroaded areas.'' Many feel
that the Forest Service should perform such an inventory since,
according to one individual, ``the existing inventories on many forests
were never performed accurately during the RARE II process.''
Response: To reduce this confusion, the final planning rule renames
``roadless'' areas ``inventoried roadless areas.'' Definitions of
inventoried roadless area and unroaded areas in the final planning rule
are consistent with the Forest Service's proposed roadless area
conservation rule and road management policy. An unroaded area is any
area, without the presence of a classified road, of a size and
configuration sufficient to protect the inherent characteristics
associated with its roadless condition. As noted above,
[[Page 67558]]
the final rule clarifies that during the revision process the
responsible official must evaluate inventoried roadless areas and
unroaded areas and identify areas that warrant protection and the level
of protection to be afforded.
Comment: Protection of roadless areas. Many believed all remaining
roadless areas on National Forest System lands--particularly roadless
areas of 1,000 acres or more--should be protected. A primary reason
cited for this view was the need to preserve ecologically significant
areas upon which plant and animal species are dependent. Some believed
the Tongass National Forest exhibited these qualities and argued that
the Tongass not be exempted from roadless area protection. Others
suggested biodiversity protection can be achieved by basing roadless
area management on the recommendations found in the Committee of
Scientists' report.
Response: The Forest Service's proposed Roadless Area Conservation
Rule would provide protections for inventoried roadless areas by
prohibiting certain activities in inventoried roadless areas. In
addition, as discussed above, the final planning rule (section
219.9(b)(8)) clarifies that the responsible official must evaluate
inventoried roadless and unroaded areas and consider additional
protections during plan revision. This evaluation must include
information and analyses developed to assess ecological sustainability,
including assessments of ecosystem and species diversity at the
appropriate spatial and temporal scale. The final planning rule does
not include special provisions for the Tongass National Forest.
The Department believes it inappropriate to predetermine the size
or configuration of unroaded areas to be analyzed and considered
through plan revisions. In some areas, 1,000-acre unroaded areas may be
an appropriate standard. In other areas, management criteria, such as
the scarcity or abundance of unroaded and inventoried roadless areas,
may require the consideration of smaller or larger sized areas.
Responsible officials may determine that other size, configuration, or
resource criteria may be appropriate to best evaluate and protect the
important social and ecological characteristics of unroaded and
inventoried roadless areas. Unroaded areas should be of a size, shape,
and position within the landscape to reasonably achieve the long-term
conservation of roadless characteristics such as soil, water, and air
quality; sources of drinking water; diversity of plant and animal
communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate,
and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large,
undisturbed areas of land; primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and
semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation; reference
landscapes, landscape character and scenic integrity; traditional
cultural properties and sacred sites; and other locally identified
unique characteristics. Areas may include those that provide important
corridors for wildlife movement, or areas that share a common boundary
of considerable length with an inventoried roadless area, with a
component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or with
unroaded areas 5,000 acres or more on lands administered by other
federal agencies. In selecting areas, the responsible official should
consider the distance from, and the scarcity of, other unroaded areas,
particularly for those areas east of the 100th meridian.
Comment: Access to public lands. Many argued against the withdrawal
of roadless areas because access for active management practices was
needed to maintain forest health. Additionally, many stated that access
to public lands for recreation was an essential component of multiple-
use. Furthermore, the fact that motorized vehicle use had been
authorized in certain areas in the past should ensure future access for
this activity, according to some.
Response: This final rule does not withdraw roadless areas from
active management or prohibit access to public lands. The proposed
Roadless Area Conservation Rule proposes prohibiting certain activities
in inventoried roadless areas, but it does not propose closing trails
or roads, prohibiting off-road vehicle use, changing current forest
access, or interfering with access granted by statute, treaty, or
reserved or outstanding rights. Under the proposed roadless rule,
decisions about recreational activities (other than those that depend
on road construction and reconstruction) on National Forest System
lands would continue to be made through the planning process with the
full involvement of trail riders and other interested people.
Indeed, the final planning rule establishes a process for
identifying, discussing, and, if appropriate, acting on issues that may
emerge from a variety of sources and on a variety of special and
temporal scales (section 219.3). This rule anticipates that issues will
be resolved at the appropriate level--national, regional, or local--
through the planning process. In some places, activities such as
mineral exploration or recreational access to the national forests and
grasslands may become issues. As such, these issues would be considered
using the explicit collaboration, science, sustainability, and planning
requirements articulated in the final planning rule.
Comment: Legal mandates and proposed roadless area conservation
rule. Many respondents felt the proposed roadless rule must not violate
existing statutes such as the Wilderness Act and the MUSYA. Several
individuals expressed concern that the proposed roadless rule
circumvents Congressional authority to designate wilderness areas.
Among those who explicitly argued against the proposed roadless rule,
the need to comply with forest management and multiple-use mandates
were two prominent reasons offered in support of their position.
Response: Consistent with all applicable law, the Forest Service's
proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule would provide protections for
inventoried roadless areas by prohibiting certain activities in
inventoried roadless areas. In addition, as discussed above, the final
planning rule (section 219.9) clarifies that the responsible official
will have to evaluate inventoried roadless and unroaded areas and
consider additional protections during the time of plan revision. These
procedures are in accordance with existing statutory direction,
including the Wilderness Act and the MUSYA.
Other changes. The final rule expanded the list of special
designations to be more inclusive than that of the proposed rule. The
final rule clarifies that an amendment or revision of a plan is a
mechanism by which the Forest Service establishes management direction
for special designations.
Section 219.28--Determination of land suitable for timber harvest.
This section of the proposed rule established two classifications of
land suitability for timber harvest. The first was the classification
of lands not suited for timber production. The second was the
classification of lands where timber harvest would be permitted.
Comment: Suitability classifications. The proposed rule listed two
classifications of land relative to timber production: ``land not
suited for timber production'' and ``land where timber harvest is
permitted.'' A number of respondents claimed that these classes are not
consistent with NFMA. Others suggested retaining the suitability
determination requirements in the existing regulations. Some
individuals suggested adding additional classifications such as ``lands
unavailable for timber production'' or
[[Page 67559]]
other classifications that take into account forest health harvests or
long-term harvest rotations.
Response: The final rule has been reorganized to better incorporate
the intent of the NFMA, and also to better accommodate innovative
management approaches to achieving sustainability. The final rule,
identifies three separate classifications of land in section 219.28:
(a) Lands where timber may not be harvested; (b) lands where timber may
be harvested for timber production; and (c) lands where timber may be
harvested for other multiple-use values.
Comment: Consistency with NFMA requirements. Some respondents
wanted the proposed planning rule to include various specific
provisions from NFMA. Other people voiced reservations regarding the
criteria for determining lands not suited for timber production as
detailed in the proposed rule. These criteria are too vague and should
be eliminated, according to several people. Expressing a common
sentiment among respondents, one wood products industry representative
believed that ``interpretation of the phrases `ecosystem integrity,'
and `lands where the costs of timber production are not justified by
the ecological, social, or economic benefits,' would be costly and
controversial at best, and most likely would contribute to further
planning gridlock.''
Response: Criteria for lands where timber harvest may not occur are
taken directly from NFMA section 6(e). In order to determine lands
where timber harvest is an objective, the responsible official must
complete the planning process to determine that the projected costs of
timber production are justified by the overall benefits. The Department
believes that these criteria are straightforward and legally sound. In
the final rule, criteria for where timber may be harvested from lands
not suited for timber production, include the term ``ecological
sustainability'' instead of ``ecosystem integrity,'' and the rule
elaborates on its meaning in 219.20. The rule also defers the
determination of the need to harvest timber until site-specific
information is available.
Comment: Land withdrawn form timber harvest. The proposed rule
lists a number of lands not suited for timber production--one category
being ``lands that have been withdrawn from timber harvest by the
Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service.'' Several
respondents question this executive branch authority that they believe
is reserved for Congress alone.
Response: Authority to withdraw land from availability for timber
harvest may be undertaken by the Secretary of Agriculture or Chief of
the Forest Service for specific reasons such as, but not limited to,
public health and safety, accomplishments of other multiple-use
objectives, and other appropriate uses of the land.
Comment: Lands where technology is not available for conducting
timber harvesting. The proposed planning rule also describes lands
``where technology is not available for conducting timber harvesting *
* *'' as another land-class not suited for timber production. One wood
products industry representative recommends striking this provision
based on the belief that ``technology is ever changing, and tomorrow
systems will be available that we aren't even thinking of today.''
Response: This language is a requirement of NFMA. The fact that
technology changes was recognized by the additional requirement in NFMA
(and this section of the rule) to review lands determined to be not
suited for timber production at least every ten years, or as prescribed
by law.
Comment: Lands where the costs of timber production are exceeded by
benefits. The proposed planning regulations defined one classification
of lands not suitable for timber production as ``lands where the costs
of timber production are not justified by the ecological, social, or
economic benefits'' (section 219.28(b)(5)). Respondents raised a number
of related concerns regarding this classification.
First, some believed that timber production costs should be
exempted from consideration during suitability determinations for
timber production because to do otherwise, they contended, would
constitute a violation of NFMA suitability criteria. Second, a number
of people asked the Forest Service to clarify what they mean by below-
market cost timber sales. In other words, what ``costs'' are being
considered in such determinations? Are they ecological, social, or
economic? A possible solution offered by one respondent requires the
Forest Service to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of ecological,
social, and economic factors in conjunction with proposed timber
removal actions. Third, if ecological, social, or economic benefits do
not outweigh the cost of conducting a timber sale; such projects should
be prohibited, according to some.
Response: Section 6(k) of the NFMA requires the Secretary of
Agriculture to identify lands, which are not suited for timber
production, considering physical, economic, and other pertinent
factors. Under this authority, it is appropriate to consider the
relative costs and benefits from timber production. In the final rule,
regarding lands that are not classified as unsuitable for timber, the
responsible official may establish timber production as a multiple-use
objective in the plan if the costs of timber production are justified
by the ecological, social, or economic benefits. With regard to
individual timber sales, no economic test is required on lands where
timber production has been established as a plan objective based on
plan-level analysis. On lands where timber production is not an
objective, analysis must be used to determine that timber harvest is
necessary to achieve other objectives. However, the Department does not
believe this rule should limit use of timber harvest as a management
tool in these situations based on the ability to recover economic
costs.
Comment: Lands where timber harvest is permitted. Several
respondents argued that in order to achieve the goals of multiple-use
sustained-yield, the Forest Service must require active timber
management through its planning regulations. For some, this even meant
harvesting timber from roadless areas. In addition to the statutory
foundation for this position, these individuals cited the need to
improve both forest health and wildlife habitat.
Response: Plans prepared pursuant to this planning regulation may,
in response to issues that have been identified, require active timber
management to achieve their objectives, the Department does not believe
that it is appropriate to mandate such action on each national forest
and grassland at the national level. The planning rule provides ample
direction and opportunity for the responsible official to provide for
timber production.
Comment: Salvage and Sanitation harvests. A few people asked the
Forest Service to clarify the language of section 219.28(d), which,
according to one person, ``seems to allow salvage logging on all
national forest lands not protected by wilderness status.'' The bottom
line for these individuals is that the Forest Service needs to clearly
differentiate between salvage, sanitation, and green timber harvests.
However, assuming that the proposed rule does, in fact, allow salvage
logging on all non-wilderness lands, other respondents urged the Forest
Service to eliminate salvage and sanitation harvests entirely. They
questioned the efficacy of such harvests to actually control fires or
curb insect infestations. They also cited perceived past abuses of the
salvage sale program as reason enough to be skeptical of the program in
the future. In contrast, others supported planning rule provisions for
[[Page 67560]]
salvage and sanitation harvests. These, they claimed, are essential to
local economies and to improving forest health.
Response: Both sanitation and salvage harvest of timber are
legitimate, tested, silvicultural practices that may be appropriate to
curb or manage the harmful impacts of undesirable insect and disease
attacks. The Department believes that the language in this section on
suitability is appropriate regardless of the kind of timber harvesting
activity. The reference to the sanitation and salvage harvest has been
removed from this section. No exceptions are made for salvage and
sanitation harvests in this rule. They will be allowed on lands where
timber may be harvested for timber production, and on lands where it
may be harvested for other values as long as the criteria for harvest
from such lands are met. NFMA requires keeping separate records of
salvage and sanitation harvest volume.
New language has been added to section 219.29 which states, based
on NFMA: ``For purposes of limiting the amount of timber harvest, the
harvest of timber from areas that are substantially affected by fire,
wind, or other events, or for which there is an imminent threat from
insects or disease may either substitute such timber for timber that
would otherwise be sold or, if not feasible, sell such timber over and
above the plan volume * * *''
Other changes. The final rule emphasizes that a decision to harvest
timber must be consistent with plan decisions, in accordance with
section 219.10.
Paragraph (b)(2) in the proposed rule designated all lands that do
not meet the definition of forested land as not suited for timber
production. That provision is not in the final rule; rather, paragraph
(b) allows a decision on such lands to be based on an evaluation of the
costs and benefits of timber production. Lands that do not meet the
definition of forested land are by their nature, not suitable for
timber production. NFMA requires that lands determined to be not
suitable for timber production be reviewed at least once every ten
years. In accordance with paragraph (b), all lands other than those
selected pursuant to this paragraph are not suited for timber harvest,
and subject to this review requirement.
Proposed Section 219.29--Limitation on timber harvest. This section
of the proposed rule required the estimation of the long-term
sustained-yield capacity of timber. In addition, it provided for the
calculation of an allowable sale quantity for any decade that departs
from the projected long-term average sale quantity.
Comment: Exceeding sustained-yield limits. Most respondents agreed
that the concept of sustained-yield is, in principle, a positive goal.
However, some people took exception to how this actually will be
implemented through the proposed regulations. For example, some saw
section 219.29(c)(2) as providing a loophole for truly sustainable
timber removal. These people argued that this section allows the
responsible officials the discretion to exceed sustained-yield limits
``whenever they want as long as the sale is disclosed.''
Response: The text of the proposed rule regarding the procedures
that must be used when a departure in timber harvest levels is
necessary is not retained in the final rule. Because this text was
taken from the language of NFMA, it is believed that in the rare
circumstance when a departure in projected timber harvests may be
necessary, it is best to rely on the exact language of NFMA. Also, the
calculation for long-term, sustained-yield limitations is separated
into two categories in the final rule. The first is a limitation on the
harvests that may take place from timber production lands. The second
is a limitation on the harvests that may take place for the removal of
timber to accomplish multiple-use objectives other than timber
production. The two calculations cannot be combined to increase harvest
levels from either category of land.
Comment: Ecologically sustainable timber harvest. Some respondents
urged the Forest Service to adopt specific standards and criteria to
achieve ecologically sustainable timber harvests. Several respondents
suggested possible means to this end: adopting guidelines to ensure a
diversity of tree age classes on national forests rather than simply
evaluating sustainable biomass removal; measuring sustained-yield at a
finer scale than the current provision that allows combining forests
less than 200,000 acres in size; or using the Sustainable Fisheries Act
as a model for sustainable logging. Sections 219.29(a) and (c) of the
proposed rule used the term ``perpetuity.'' One respondent wondered how
``perpetuity'' will be calculated-is this a mathematical estimation and
who would determine this figure?
Response: In accordance with section 219.20, plans must provide for
ecosystem diversity, which includes many characteristics such as
distribution and abundance of successional stages of vegetation. The
Department intends and believes that timber harvest levels that result
from implementation of this rule will be consistent with ecological
sustainability.
Comment: Allowable sale quantity. Many public concerns centered on
the concept of allowable sale quantity (ASQ). Some saw the proposed
rule as a detrimental move away from existing ASQ requirements, which
were thought to be important for sustaining the economies of timber-
dependent communities. Moreover, one wood products industry
representative contended that pursuant to NFMA requirements, the
proposed rule should require that ASQ determinations be made at the
forest level and that ``any significant up or down departure from
planned allowable sale quantities should trigger a forest plan
amendment.'' In contrast, others requested that ASQ provisions be
entirely eliminated from the proposed rule or revised to require that
ASQ determinations reflect salvage and sanitation harvest volumes.
Response: The topic of ASQ has long caused confusion for those
concerned with the management of the national forests. NFMA authorizes,
but does not require, the establishment of an ASQ where it is necessary
to plan harvest of more timber in a decade than what could be removed
on a sustained-yield basis (16 U.S.C. 1611). The current planning rule
required the establishment of an ASQ for every plan based on its
projected sale schedule (36 CFR 219.16(b)). In accordance with NFMA,
both the sustained-yield quantity (long-term sustained-yield capacity)
and ASQ were intended to impose limits on the sale of timber from a
national forest rather than to establish targets. Nevertheless, many
individuals have viewed ASQ as a target to be achieved. However, many
factors beyond the control of the agency have influenced and will
continue to influence actual harvest levels. These include the budget
received from Congress, new listings and designations of critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act, weather, and the requirements
of other statutes and Executive Orders.
The proposed rule, while not requiring the establishment of an ASQ,
did require the establishment of a long-term sustained-yield capacity
at the forest level, which set the upper cap on the sale of timber from
lands where timber production was an objective. In addition, the
proposed rule required that plans contain a display of actions,
outcomes, and projected products and services that could be used for
reasonable estimates of likely timber
[[Page 67561]]
harvest levels. These provisions are retained in the final rule. In
addition, a limitation on the amount of timber that may be removed from
lands unsuited for timber production is added to the final rule.
Language from NFMA has been added to clarify the relationship of
salvage and sanitation sales to harvest volume limits. To simplify the
text and acknowledge the intended limited use of the term, ``allowable
sale quantity,'' it is no longer used in the rule, but may be found in
the referenced section of NFMA.
Comment: Logging methods. Logging methods and techniques were very
important for many who comment on the proposed planning rule. In order
to ensure minimal environmental impact during logging activities, some
suggested using small equipment for timber cutting and removal
procedures. One person requested that the Forest Service design timber
harvest units to mimic stand composition and structure created by
natural disturbance events. Indeed, to some, mimicking disturbance
events requires an explicit commitment by the Forest Service to
continue the practice of clearcutting. Clearcuts, they claimed,
contribute to a multi-age forest structure and serve as habitat for a
variety of wildlife species. Still, there must be limits on individual
clearcut size, some argued. One person suggested using the Committee of
Scientists report as a guide for establishing size limits based on the
characteristics of natural disturbance regimes. Many other respondents
called for a complete ban on clearcutting in national forests. To them,
clearcuts are ecologically destructive and reduce the capacity of
forests to act as wind buffers for human communities in some regions of
the country.
Response: Clearcutting is a legitimate and sometimes needed
silvicultural tool for managing certain forested landscapes. Forest
silviculture and ecosystem disturbance ecology support this view. At
the same time, the Department shares the concerns over inappropriate
application of clearcutting. The Department is confident that the
planning framework and the collaborative, science-based approach to
ecological diversity it contains will result in clearcutting being used
appropriately. It remains agency policy that clearcutting be used only
when and where it is appropriate and fully supported by science.
Other changes. Paragraph (a) in the final rule requires calculation
of the amount of timber that could be sold in perpetuity on a
sustained-yield basis from lands where timber harvest is not
prohibited. In the proposed rule, this calculation was required only
for those lands where timber production was identified as an objective.
NFMA does not make this distinction, and in the final rule the
requirement applies to all lands not identified in paragraph (a).
Estimates for lands that may be harvested for other purposes may be
difficult to make and less reliable than for timber production lands.
For that reason, and to avoid excessive harvest from either type of
land, the volume estimates for the two areas may not be combined.
Paragraph (b) imposes separate limits on the volume that may be sold
from lands that are suited for timber production and those lands that
are not suited for timber production, but available for the harvest of
timber to fulfill other multiple use objectives.
Planning Documentation
Proposed Section 219.30--Land and resource management plan
documentation. This section of the proposed rule described the
documentation requirements for the plan, including the summary
document, a display of land suitable for selected uses, a display of
decisions for the plan area, a list of actions to achieve desired
conditions, the minimum level of monitoring and evaluation, a display
of budgetary information, and a list of reference materials. In the
final rule, this section has been renamed ``Plan documentation.''
Comment: Many people found the ``living document'' idea appealing
although they doubt the ability of the Forest Service to meet the goals
set out in this subsection of the proposed rule. Some people claimed
that ``existing forest plans are already living documents'' due to
rapidly changing conditions which require revisions. Other people
questioned the ability of the Forest Service to keep up with
expectations outlined in the proposal. ``This is a lot of disparate
information to keep track of, connected, integrated, and continually
updated.'' A few respondents asked how the documentation will work and
how it will be organized. Will the living document result in ``the same
sort of unintelligible documents that appeared during the first round
of planning,'' another person asked? Others had specific suggestions
for the kind of budget and output information to include.
Response: In general, section 219.30 of the final rule retains the
language in the proposed rule. The Department does not view the plan
documentation as an undue burden. The items to be displayed already
exist within agency records. By following the plan documentation
process, information relative to plan and site-specific decisions as
well as future implementation would be readily available to the public.
The intent of this section of the rule is to provide one location for
all the documents that pertain to plan decisions on the forest or
grassland. As noted in the Committee of Scientists Report, the
integrated plan is the assemblage of all policies and decisions
affecting an administrative unit. The Department agrees with the
comment that forest plans currently can be viewed as ``living
documents.'' However, the Department believes that the planning
structure outlined in the final rule provides for more timely and
flexible planning based on the appropriate scale of the issue.
Other Changes. The term ``guidelines'' in the proposed rule has
been removed from this section in the final rule. There was some
confusion about the terms ``standards and guidelines'' and their
meaning in the proposed rule. The term ``standards'' has been retained
in the final rule. New language is added in the final rule referring to
``maintenance or restoration of sustainability.'' This language has
been added to emphasize the goals of sustainability in the final rule.
The language referring to ``watershed protection or restoration'' in
paragraph (a) from the proposed rule is removed in the final rule. The
Department believes that the language in the final rule referring to
``ecological'' environments within the plan area encompasses watershed
protection and restoration.
Some editing and clarifying changes to paragraph (b), ``Display of
public uses,'' and paragraph (c), ``Plan decisions,'' are made in the
final rule. There is also some editing and clarifying changes to
paragraph (d), ``Display of actions and outcomes.'' Paragraph (d)(4),
regarding the projected range of outcomes for uses, values, and
services is changed from 10-year projection in the proposed rule to a
15-year projection in the final rule to coincide with the required
revision schedule for plans.
Proposed Section 219.31--Maintenance of the plan and planning
records. This section of the proposed rule described the requirements
that keep plans up-to-date and readily available to the public. It also
described the types of administrative changes to plans that are
considered maintenance.
Comment: Many people believed that the maintenance of planning
documents under the proposed rule would become an insurmountable
obstacle to effective management. They were concerned about the staff
time it will take to comply with the reporting periods. One
[[Page 67562]]
person wrote that at a two-year cycle for documentation maintenance
would be a better use of staff time. Others argued that posting the
entire plan record on the Internet is not feasible. Some people
requested that complete sets of documents be maintained at district
offices. Distances can sometimes be ``unduly burdensome for staff and
citizens to have to travel to the Supervisor's office,'' they asserted.
Some respondents feared that special interest groups would be able to
unduly influence management by initiating revisions. Other people felt
that stability is more important than flexibility in a forest plan.
Response: The Department believes it is reasonable to expect the
requirements under this provision to be successfully followed by the
Forest Service. The documents should be available in an electronic
format. However, the reference to the Internet in section 219.31(a) in
the proposed rule has been eliminated from the final rule to allow for
development and use of other applicable electronic media for
information exchange. The Department has removed the language in
section 219.31(b) of the proposed rule referring to ``complete and
current data'' associated with planning records. This language was
removed because these terms have specific legal interpretations.
The Department has also added a new item (4) under subsection (b)
that would exempt changes in monitoring methods from Forest Service
NEPA procedures. The Department made this change to make sure that any
changes in monitoring methods would be considered administrative
corrections, and not plan revisions or amendments subject to NEPA.
Objections and Appeals
Proposed Section 219.32--Objections to amendments or revisions. In
the proposed rule, this section described the process by which the
public could challenge plan revisions or amendments. This process will
provide the public an opportunity to challenge Forest Service planning
prior to the responsible official making a final decision. This section
requires the responsible official in the planning process to respond to
all objections prior to approving an amendment or revision of the plan.
This process will provide the Forest Service and the public with an
opportunity to address issues before a final decision is made.
Comment: Objection process. Many people feared the objection
process would reduce the influence that the current appeals process
provides to some individuals. They claimed the 30-day objection period
is insufficient time to identify issues and generate an administrative
record. Many believed the proposed objection process would undermine
their ability to establish standing for possible litigation. Although
some respondents felt that the objection process is an inadequate
protection of public interests, others felt that requirements for
standing should be much more stringent to prevent needless obstruction.
Many respondents noted that there is no time limit for the agency to
respond to objections. To achieve conflict resolution and efficiency in
the objection process, ``time limits are essential,'' wrote one
individual. However, one forest products industry representative
believed that the pre-decisional objection process would allow managers
to implement decisions without ``excessive appeals.''
Response: The objection process applies only to amendments and
revisions of a land and resource management plan. The process
recognizes the interest of people engaged in stewardship and the
achievement of sustainability is grounded in the recommendations of the
Committee of Scientists. It furthers the intent of the collaborative
dialogue outlined in sections 219.12 to 219.18 and supports the premise
of the problem-solving and decisionmaking model envisioned in the
framework for planning (sections 219.3 to 219.11). The process
complements and is consistent with the maintenance of established
relationships, commitments, and responsibilities necessary to
continuing solving problems for effective stewardship prior to
finalizing a pending plan amendment or revision.
The final rule, as a whole, addresses the weaknesses in the current
36 CFR part 217 appeal process through integration of the objection
process with the framework for planning (sections 219.3 to 219.11) and
supplementing traditional NEPA public involvement with collaborative
planning for sustainability (sections 219.12 to 219.18). In the long
run, the objection process is expected to resolve many potential
conflicts. The purpose of the objection process is to encourage
resolution of issues before decisions are made. The intent is to
provide the reviewing officer with an opportunity to work more closely
with the responsible official and those filing objections to resolve
the objections before a decision is made. A predecisional objection
process will also enhance interagency collaboration by standardizing
objection procedures and provide incentives to work out substantive
differences rather than focus on procedural errors.
Critical to the success of the objection process is the active
effort of the responsible official and others to engage in early and
frequent opportunities for public involvement and dialogue. An
objection must be filed, in writing, within 30 calendar days of public
notice of the appropriate NEPA documentation. The 30-day objection
period mirrors a similar existing process used successfully by the
Bureau of Land Management, and the Department feels that it should not
prove a barrier to those who wish to utilize it--particularly if they
have been involved in the collaborative processes. Establishing a time
limit for the agency to respond to objections would burden the
collaborative process with an unnecessary constraint. The focus of the
objection process is on joint problem solving to resolve issues, not on
pressing a decision to meet an artificial deadline.
Comment: Current appeals process. Many respondents argued for the
retention of the current appeal process. They felt that appeals ensure
cumulative analysis, allow public oversight of Forest Service policy,
and are a citizen's right. Changing the process, some declared, will
destroy confidence in the integrity of the Forest Service. Many people
believed an appeals process provides the option to resolve conflict
before litigation becomes necessary.
Response: Under the current 36 CFR part 217 appeal process, the
agency and the public expend significant human and financial resources
in fulfillment of procedural requirements. Under the existing rule,
some individuals and interest groups have little trust in the integrity
of the current process and perceive they have a better chance of
achieving their interests through costly appeal and litigation
processes. Often, a polarized relationship develops where there is no
real incentive to address natural resource issues, creating a cycle of
``bulletproofing environmental documentation'' and expending both human
and financial capital, often without long-lasting solutions. The
objection process provides for the consideration of a pending plan
amendment or revision without restricting citizens' legal rights. The
responsible official, the reviewing officer and the objector have the
opportunity to seek reasonable solutions to conflicting views before a
plan amendment or revision is adopted.
Comment: Analysis of prior appeals. Some respondents suggested that
the Forest Service address prior appeals
[[Page 67563]]
against Forest Service decisions as part of the proposed planning rule.
They believed that interviews with people who filed appeals should be
incorporated into the planning process.
Response: Appeals and the concerns of national forest and grassland
users were considered in the development of the final planning rule.
The team that developed the proposed rule and response to public
comment based their work on years of experience in addressing the
concerns of interested citizens. The increased emphasis that the
planning rule places on collaboration is a direct response to improve
working relationships among interested citizens. In the objection
process, the reviewing officer can step in and review the procedures as
well as the substance of a pending decision and seek a suitable
resolution of an objection.
Subparagraph (b) has been added to the final rule which provides
for objectors and other parties to participate in meetings with the
responsible official to discuss their objection, narrow differences,
agree on facts, and explore opportunities for resolution. Any person
would be allowed to object to a pending decision. The objection
submittal requires copies of all documents addressing the issue or
issues that were submitted during the planning process by the objecting
party or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed
for the record. Unlike the current 36 CFR part 217 rule, the objection
process in section 219.32 of the final rule does not have a specific
time limit for resolving objections. The current appeal process
prevents a higher level intervention or participation in issue
resolution or problem solving because of the need to avoid ex parte
communication by higher-level reviewing authorities and also to
maintain an independent, objective review of the record, at the higher
level of appeal. Under the objection process, to expedite resolution of
any objection, the responsible official would not be allowed to approve
an amendment or revision under objection until a decision on the
objection has been reached and documented in an appropriate decision
document. Also, the reviewing officer must promptly render a response,
in writing, setting forth the rationale for the response. The reviewing
officer's response regarding an objection is the final decision of the
Department of Agriculture.
Other changes. The Department added new language in paragraph (a)
in the final rule, which requires the responsible official to publish
notice of all objections in a newspaper of record. This language was
added to ensure that the list of objections would be disclosed to the
public. The Department removed the section of paragraph (b) in the
proposed rule pertaining to the Notice of Intent and multi-agency
planning. The Department believes that this language is not necessary
in the final rule. The Department also removed paragraph (c) of the
proposed rule pertaining to review and final response to an objection.
The Department determined that the objection process should not be
viewed as a legal process.
Proposed Section 219.33--Appeals of site-specific decisions. This
section of the proposed rule addressed appeals of site-specific
decisions. The appeal process is the same as the existing requirements
provided in 36 CFR part 215.
Comment: Although many people wanted to keep the existing appeals
process, some felt that the objection process is a good direction for
the Forest Service and is appropriate for site-specific decisions as
well. Others believed that the Forest Service must clarify the
relationship between the pre-decision objection process for plan
decisions and the appeal process for site-specific decisions. A few
people argued that objection process violates due process requirements
for site-specific decisions.
Response: While there is merit in having an objection process for
site-specific decisions, amending the appeal process is beyond the
scope and authority for developing these planning regulations under the
NFMA. For this reason, the administrative appeal process for site-
specific decisions remains unchanged in the final rule.
The Department added language to this section to clarify the
relationship between the objection processes for plan decisions and the
appeal process for site-specific decisions. Other revisions have been
made to incorporate changed terminology.
The Department does not believe that objection process violates due
process requirements for site-specific decisions. The agency's NEPA
procedures provides for both public comment and appeal of site-specific
decisions.
Applicability and Transition
Proposed Section 219.34--Applicability. This section of the
proposed rule provided that the direction in the rule applied to all
units of the National Forest System and remains unchanged in the final
rule. The agency did not receive any specific comments on this section.
Proposed Section 219.35--Transition. This section of the proposed
rule addressed the shift in planning from the use of the existing
regulation to the new rule, including the initiation of transition, the
length of time existing plans remain in effect, the review of
unsuitable land for timber production, the timing for completion of
ongoing amendment or revision efforts, the relationship between
transition and site-specific decisions, and the withdrawal of regional
guides. This section outlined the process by which the Forest Service
will transition from the 1982 planning regulations.
Comment: Many respondents requested a clear distinction between
forest plans and project-level plans in terms of when they must conform
to requirements in the proposed rule. Existing NEPA regulations still
apply to project plans, stated one person. In addition, the application
of the proposed regulations to recently revised forest plans was a
significant concern of many people. One respondent said that the new
regulations could overturn environmental safeguards developed in
revised forest plans. Some commented that a timeframe must be set in
order that proposed projects, which can take years to develop, don't
come into conflict with forest plans under the new regulations.
Response: The final rule adequately describes the relationship
between plan decisions, site-specific decisions, and the agency's NEPA
procedures. The transition from the existing regulations to the new
rule and the relationship between transition and site-specific
decisions is addressed in section 219.35. The Department does not
believe that the new rule could overturn environmental safeguards
developed in revised forest plans. For site-specific decisions, section
219.35(d) provides a three-year time period for transition between the
existing regulations and the new rule.
Comment: The use of Regional Guides after implementation of the
proposed planning regulations should be discussed in more detail some
contended. One respondent suggested that Regional Guides should be
withdrawn ``on a forest-by-forest basis.'' Another requests they not
apply until the next scheduled plan revision. Several people asserted
that provisions must be in place to prevent delays in revision of
forest plans through ``endless extensions.'' On a separate note, one
person wanted requirements for evaluating suitability for multiple-uses
specified in the transition section instead of ``just sustainability.''
Response: The management direction contained within each Regional
Guide would be transferred to the Forest
[[Page 67564]]
Service directives system or to applicable plans. The direction
contained within Regional Guides will be used to develop plan
revisions. Section 219.35(f) of the final rule provides that the
Regional Forester will have 1 year from the effective date of this rule
to withdraw the regional guide. In regard to the comment about delays
in planning, the rule provides a transition framework that will
expeditiously amend or revise existing forest plans. In addition, the
rule establishes a framework for incorporating this new planning
structure into project planning as well as forest and grassland plans.
In regard to the comment about suitability, the identification and
designations of suitable uses will be implemented in accordance with
Section 219.26 of the final rule. It is the intent of this rule to
provide that suitable uses will be evaluated during the transition
period.
Other Changes. Some editing and clarifying changes are made to this
section of the final rule. In addition, the Department has added new
text in paragraph (a) of the final rule requiring the responsible
official to consider the ``best available science to implement, and, if
appropriate, amend the current plan.'' This text is added in the final
rule in order to require the Forest Service to incorporate the best
science within current plans. The Department intends this to be
incorporated within existing forest plans that have been prepared under
the 1982 planning structure, too.
New text in paragraph (b) of the final rule is added to allow for
the completion of an ongoing plan amendment or revision under the 1982
rule if an environmental assessment or draft environmental impact
statement has been issued within six months of the effective date of
the new planning rule. The responsible official may complete the
amendment or revision under the new rule. This addition to the final
rule was made to ensure that ongoing plan amendments or revisions
nearing completion were not delayed. Implementation of the new planning
rule would take place as described by the transition process.
New language in paragraph (e) requiring the Regional Forester to
withdraw the regional guide within one year of the effective date of
the regulation is added to the final rule. The language in the proposed
rule that required all the forests within a region to complete their
revisions prior to withdrawal of the regional guide has been removed.
This change was made to ensure the expeditious withdrawal of regional
guides. The information in the regional guide will be transferred to a
regional supplement of the Forest Service directives system or to
existing forest plans. Public notice for these actions will be
announced in the Federal Register. The Department has included new
language in paragraph (f) of the final rule that provides for the
transfer of information from the regional guide to other plans does not
constitute new decisionmaking subject to additional Forest Service NEPA
procedures.
A new subparagraph (g) is added to the final rule that requires the
Chief of the Forest Service to prepare a schedule for completion of the
plan revisions within one year. This section was moved from section
219.9, Revision, of the proposed rule to this section in the final
rule. The change was made to emphasize this is one of the major
responsibilities during the transition period. This language will
enable the Chief of the Forest Service to prioritize plan revisions and
provide the necessary resources to complete them in a timely manner.
Definitions
Proposed Section 219.36--Definitions. This section of the proposed
rule defines terms used in the rule. This section has been retained in
the final rule, with some changes in terms.
Comment: Many people requested that a variety of terms be defined
this section of the proposed planning rule. Other respondents offered
specific comments regarding the need for the clarification of terms
already defined in the proposed planning regulations.
Response: The changes in the definitions and terms from the
proposed rule to the final rule are as follows:
Assessment or analysis area. The definition of assessment or
analysis area was retained from the proposed rule, with some minor
clarifying language. The term ``geographic'' has been added to describe
the area of analysis.
Broad-scale assessment. The proposed rule included a definition for
this term. The definition of broad-scale assessment has been moved to
section 219.5(a) of the final rule.
Candidate species. The term candidate species has been retained in
the final rule. The phrase ``a list of such species prepared by the
USFWS and published in the Federal Register'' has been removed. The
Department believes that this language is unnecessary and redundant.
Conservation agreement. The term conservation agreement was defined
in the proposed rule has been retained in the final rule. There are no
changes to the definition.
Current climatic period. This term has been added to the final
rule. The Department believes that this term is important to understand
the timeframe for species and ecosystems within the final rule.
Demand species. This term was defined in the proposed rule. It has
been removed from the final rule. The Department believes that the
final rule should concentrate on protection of species that may have
viability concerns. Demand species, as defined in the proposed rule,
may not have viability concerns.
Desired condition. This term has been modified in the final rule by
deleting the phrases pertaining to the description of the range of
natural variability. The Department removed this language because there
is a new definition for range of variability.
Desired non-native species. This term has been modified in the
final rule to recognize that non-native species can have ``high social,
cultural, or economic value.'' This term could include ``demand
species,'' as defined in the proposed rule.
Disturbance processes. This term has been changed from
``disturbance processes'' to ``disturbance regime'' in the final rule.
The Department believes that this term better describes disturbances.
The Department also removed the term ``land use development'' from the
list of human caused disturbances. The Department believes that the
list of disturbances in the final rule describes all of the activities
that could occur on national forests and grasslands.
Diversity of plant and animal communities. The Department has
retained this term in the final rule.
Ecological composition. This term, which was defined in the
proposed rule, has been removed from the final rule. The Department
believes that the characteristics of ecological composition are defined
in the definitions for the terms ecosystem composition, ecosystem
processes, and ecosystem structure.
Ecological conditions. The Department has removed the term
``ecological sustainability'' from the list of components of the
biological and physical environment. The term ``ecological
sustainability'' has been defined in the final rule. The Department has
also added the phrase ``abundance and distribution'' to the list of
ecological conditions. This phrase was added to ensure that planning
takes into consideration these factors in identifying ecological
conditions.
Ecological sustainability. This term, which was defined in the
proposed rule,
[[Page 67565]]
has been retained in the final rule with some modifications. The
Department has removed the language in the proposed rule referring to
``plan area.'' The Department believes that this definition should not
be limited to only the plan area.
Ecosystem. This term, which was defined in the proposed rule, has
been removed from the final rule. The Department believes that this
term is adequately defined within the definitions of ecosystem
structure, ecosystem processes, and ecosystem composition.
Ecosystem composition. The Department has added this definition to
the final rule to clarify what ecological elements are included within
this term.
Ecosystem integrity. This term has been removed from the final
rule. The Department believes that the terms ecosystem composition,
ecosystem processes, and ecosystem structure provide adequate
definitions for this term in the final rule.
Ecosystem processes. The Department has added this term to the
final rule. The Department believes that it is important for
participants in the planning process to have an understanding of the
elements of ecological processes.
Ecosystem structure. This term was defined in the proposed rule. It
has been retained in the final rule, with some modifications. The
Department has removed the language listing the specific
characteristics for identifying ecosystem structure. The Department
believes that this information is not necessary.
Focal species. The proposed rule did not define this term. The
Department has added this term to the final rule because of its
importance in determining viability of species. This is a term that is
used broadly by the scientific community.
Forest Service NEPA procedures. The Department has retained this
definition in the final rule.
Historical range of variability. The Department has removed this
term from the final rule. It has included a new definition for range of
variability in the final rule. The Department removed this term because
it wanted to ensure that range of ecosystem processes considered in the
new planning process are within the current climatic period, but not
limited to pre-European settlement time period.
Inherently rare species. This term was not defined in the proposed
rule. The Department has added this term to the final rule. The
Department has defined this term because it is important for the agency
and public to understand that there may be species that are ``rare''
because of natural circumstances.
Inventoried roadless areas. The Department has added this term in
the final rule. This was done to further clarify the terms of
``roadless areas'' and ``unroaded areas'' in the proposed rule and make
the definition consistent with Forest Service Roadless Area
Conservation Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary and Proposed
Rule, dated May 2000.
Local analysis. The Department has removed this definition from the
final rule. This term is defined in Section 219.5, Information
development and interpretation.
Major vegetation types. The Department has added a definition of
this term to the final rule. This term was added to describe the
predominant plant communities within a region or sub-region.
Native species. The Department has made minor editorial changes to
this definition in the final rule. The substance of the definition
remains unchanged.
Plan area. This term was defined in the proposed rule. It is
defined in the final rule, with some modifications. The Department has
added the term ``geographic.'' The Department believes that this
addition is important for describing the plan area.
Productive capacity of ecosystems. The Department has changed this
term to ``productive capacity of ecological systems'' in the final
rule. The Department believes that this better describes ecosystem
processes in the planning structure.
Range of variability. The Department has added this term to the
Definition section in the final rule. As mentioned above, the
definition on historical range of variability is no longer included in
the final rule. The new definition states that the natural disturbance
regimes are in the current climatic period. The Department believes
that this language better characterizes the range of variability for
planning on national forests and grasslands.
Reference landscapes. The Department has redefined this term in the
final rule. The Department removed the phrases referring to
``historical range of variability'' and ``terrestrial and aquatic
areas.'' The Department has added new language that describes the
``reference landscapes'' as places within the ``plan area.'' The
Department believes that this new language better describes the types
of reference landscapes that can be used in the planning process.
Responsible official. The Department has modified this definition
in the final rule by removing the language referring to more than one
line officer. The Department believes that this phrase is not
necessary. The Department has also removed the language referring to
``line officer,'' and has added new language that provides for the
responsible official to be the person who oversees the planning
process.
Reviewing officer. The Department has added this term in the final
rule. The Department wanted to clarify who this individual is and what
their responsibility is in the planning framework.
Roadless areas. The Department has renamed this term ``inventoried
roadless areas'' to further differentiate it from unroaded areas.
Salvage harvest of timber. The Department has removed this
definition from the final rule. The Department believes that it is not
necessary to specifically define this term.
Sanitation harvest of timber. The Department has removed this
definition from the final rule. The Department believes that this term
does not need to be defined in the final rule.
Sensitive species. The Department has removed this definition from
the final rule. The term is only referred to in the Definition section
for ``species-at-risk'' in the final rule and the Department believes
it is not necessary to specifically define it.
Social and economic sustainability. The Department added this
definition in the final rule based on public comment.
Species. The definition in the proposed rule stating that ``any
native taxon of the plant or animal kingdom'' is defined as a species
has been changed in the final rule to ``any member of the plant or
animal kingdom.'' The Department made this change to broaden the
definition to include native and non-native species.
Species-at-risk. The Department has defined this new term in the
final rule. The Department wanted to clarify that these are federally
listed and other species that have a viability risk within the plan
area.
Species viability. The Department has retained this definition in
the final rule, with some modifications. The Department has removed the
language in the proposed rule referring to the ``genetic diversity'' of
self-sustaining populations. The Department removed this language
because it believes that viability should be interpreted in the
broadest manner.
Successional stages. The Department has added this term to the
final rule. The Department believes there is a need to define the
various phases of
[[Page 67566]]
vegetation development within the context of sustainability.
Timber production. This definition is unchanged from the proposed
rule.
Undeveloped areas. This term was added to the final rule. This term
refers to all areas of sufficient size that are ``untrammeled'' by
human beings that are appropriate to evaluate for wilderness
designation in the planning process.
Unroaded areas. This term is revised to be consistent with the
definition used in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Draft
Environmental Impact Statement Summary and Proposed Rule, dated May
2000.
Vegetation Management. This term has been removed from the final
rule. The term is defined within the content of sections 219.4,
Identification and consideration of issues, 219.28, Determination of
land suitable for timber harvest, and 219.29, Limitation on timber
harvest.
Watershed integrity. This term has been removed from the final
rule. It is defined within the content of section 219.20, Ecological
Sustainability.
Regulatory Certifications
Regulatory Impact
This rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive
Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been determined
that this is not an economically significant rule. This rule will not
have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor
adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, nor state or local governments. This rule will
not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor
raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs.
However, because of the extensive interest in National Forest System
planning and decisionmaking, the Office of Management and Budget has
determined this rule to be significant and thus, subject to OMB review
under Executive Order 12866.
The cost-benefit analysis focused on key activities in land and
resource management planning for which costs could be estimated under
the existing and final planning rules. Those major activities included
regional guides, land and resource management plan revisions, land and
resource management plan amendments, and advisory committees. The final
rule would reduce costs by eliminating regional guides and reducing the
length of the planning process. Increased costs would result from new
requirements for FACA-type advisory boards and science advisory boards.
The cost of broad-scale assessments will also be a new planning
expense, which is assumed to be at least equal to the cost of
maintaining regional guides. Based on the quantified costs, the final
rule is estimated to result in an average annual cost savings of $2.4
million compared to the existing rule. This estimate is a conservative
estimate of cost savings, since it is assumed that the cost of
significant amendments under the existing rule is zero (based on the
rarity of application), and no cost savings are estimated as a result
of improved efficiencies, streamlined processes, and reduced litigation
costs because of improved methods for dealing with planning conflicts.
The cost-benefit analysis can be obtained by contacting: the Director,
Ecosystem Management and Coordination, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box
96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090, (202) 205-1697.
Moreover, this rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it has been
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act. The
rule imposes no requirements on either small or large entities. Rather,
the rule sets out the process the Forest Service will follow in
planning for the management of the National Forest System. The rule
should increase opportunities for small businesses to become involved
in both site-specific and national forest and grassland plan decisions.
Moreover, by streamlining the planning process, small businesses should
see more timely site-specific decisions that affect outputs of products
and services.
Eight comments from law firms or representatives of small mining
operators, outfitters and guide permit holders, and small timber
companies challenged the Forest Service assertion that the proposed
rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on small
businesses and other entities. Several of these reviewers asserted that
the shift to ecological sustainability would result in reductions in
resource allocations and thus would have severe adverse effects on
small businesses and communities within and adjacent to National
Forests. One commenter also challenged the assertion that the proposed
rule streamlined the planning process. One organization representing
the 8,000 recreation outfitters and guides operating under permit on
the national forests and grasslands contended that the proposed
planning rule would reduce recreation opportunities with corollary
reductions in commercial outfitting and guiding.
Several representatives of small mining operators also asserted
that the proposed planning rule, in combination with actions by the
Bureau of Land Management, would violate the small miners
Constitutional rights. Finally, all these respondents quoting various
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, believed that the Forest
Service had not complied with the Act, either by not preparing Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Act, or not presenting a factual basis for why
an IRFA was not required.
The Department finds that the planning rule would not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
as defined by the Small Business Act. Those who allege severe shifts in
resource allocations have not offered facts and data to prove their
point.
This planning rule establishes a process for planning of national
forest and grasslands and does not directly regulate any business. The
process that is being established under this rule offers greater
opportunity for small entities to actively participate in the planning
process than in the past. Forest dependent businesses and communities
may choose to become involved in planning if the issues are relevant
and important to them.
No Takings Implications
This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, and it has been determined
that the rule does not pose the risk of a taking of Constitutionally
protected private property. This rule establishes a process for
amending and revising land and resource management plans for national
forests and grasslands. Several respondents commented that the proposed
regulations would impose ``takings'' of private property. After careful
review of the proposed and final regulations, the Department finds that
there are no ``takings'' implications by this rule. As stated
previously, the rule establishes a process and only applies to national
forests and grasslands, not private property.
Civil Justice Reform Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. As adopted, (1) all state and local laws and
regulations that are in conflict with this rule or which would impede
its full implementation are to be
[[Page 67567]]
preempted; (2) no retroactive effect is given to this rule; and (3) it
does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file
suit in court challenging its provisions. Several respondents commented
about the federal government's authority to preempt state and local
laws. The Department has carefully reviewed this language and finds
that this is entirely consistent with the legal responsibilities of the
federal government.
Unfunded Mandates Reform
The President signed into law on March 22, 1995, direction
regarding unfunded mandates. The Department has assessed the effects of
this rule on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private
sector. This rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or
more by any state, local, or tribal governments or anyone in the
private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is
not required. Several respondents commented that the proposed
regulations imposed an ``unfunded mandate'' on state and local
governments. The Department disagrees with this comment. These
regulations do not impose any mandatory requirements on states, tribes,
or local governments. These regulations only apply to land and
management planning for national forests and grasslands. It is
discretionary for state and local governments and tribes to participate
in the planning process detailed in this rule.
Environmental Impact
This rule deals with the development and adoption of Forest Service
land and resource management plan decisions as well as procedures for
developing site-specific decisions that may include decisions regarding
the occupancy and use of National Forest System land. An environmental
assessment has been completed with a finding of no significant impact.
Several respondents asked why the Forest Service did not prepare an
environmental impact statement. As stated previously, the Department
prepared an environmental assessment consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act. The environmental assessment prepared by the
Forest Service includes a Cost-Benefit Analysis and Civil Rights Impact
Analysis. The environmental assessment can be obtained by contacting:
Director, Ecosystem Management and Coordination, Forest Service, USDA,
P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090, (202) 205-1697. Subsequent
NEPA documents will be written when land and resource management plans
and site-specific plans are undertaken.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the information collection or reporting requirements
included in the rule have been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and assigned control number 0596-0158.
Section 219.32 Objections and Appeals would establish a new process
for citizens and groups to object to a forest plan amendment or
revision decision. Instead of appealing a decision after it is made
under the rules of 36 CFR part 217, the rule would allow interested and
affected persons and groups to file an objection before the decision is
made. The final rule also includes a provision for other parties to
participate in the objection process. The objection process should be
open and inclusive of all parties. In addition, language has been added
to the final rule that provides for objectors and other parties to
participate in meetings with the reviewing officer to discuss their
concerns regarding a proposed plan amendment or revision. This is an
opportunity for all parties to explore possible resolution of their
concerns with the responsible official.
The rule sets out the information that an objector would need to
provide in order to file an objection to a proposed decision. This
information is the same information that is currently required by the
rules at 36 CFR part 217, which provides post-decisional administrative
appeal and review of land and resource management plan decisions. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB initialed number.
The agency received comments on this section for the proposed
regulation. Respondents indicated that language in the proposed rule
was nebulous and confusing. There were concerns stated for replacing
the appeal process with a pre-decisional objection process and
including site-specific decisions in the land and resource management
plan. Respondents said that the direction for analysis and
documentation would not reduce paperwork under the proposed rule.
The language in the final rule clarifies the language used in the
proposed rule. The new objection process replaces the paperwork
required in the appeal process with upfront discussions until the
objection is resolved. Site-specific decisions are required to be
identified in the two-year budgetary documentation of the Land and
Resource Management Plan and be consistent with the planning processes.
Site-specific decisions will continue to be conducted consistent with
applicable NEPA procedures.
Use of Comments--Federalism
The agency has considered this rule under the requirements of
Executive Order 12612 and made a preliminary assessment that the rule
will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, the agency has determined that no further
assessment on federalism implications is necessary at this time. In
addition, the agency has reviewed the consultation requirements under
Executive Order 13132, which is effective on November 2, 1999. This
Order calls for enhanced consultation with state and local governmental
officials and emphasizes increased sensitivity to their concerns. In
the spirit of these new requirements, the agency consulted with the
Western Governors' Association and the Natural Resources Committee of
the National Governors' Association for comments on a draft version of
the rule. Representatives of the Western Governors' Association
indicated that the rule fits the principles espoused in their
organization's ENLIBRA policy, which encourages greater participation
and collaboration in decisionmaking, focuses on outcomes rather than
programs only, and recognizes the need for a variety of tools beyond
regulation that can improve environmental and natural resource
management. The National Governors' Association also has adopted the
ENLIBRA policy. Many state and local government representatives
attended town meetings on the proposed rule. Department representatives
also met with and shared information about the proposed planning rule
with the International City and County Management Association, National
Conference of State Legislators, The Council of State Governments,
National Association of Counties, Western Governors Association, U.S.
Conference of Majors, and National League of Cities.
The rule calls for enhanced collaboration with state and local
governments. Section 219.14 shows sensitivity to federalism concerns
from a substantive standpoint. Under the rule, the responsible official
must provide opportunities for involvement of state and local
governments in the
[[Page 67568]]
planning process, including opportunities to participate in the
identification and consideration of issues related to planning.
Respondents appreciated the consultation required with state and
local governments in the proposed rule. One respondent felt the role of
states and local governments was diminished by so much emphasis on
collaborative relationships with the public. Respondents were concerned
that public meetings on the proposed rule were not held in more local
communities. In the context of planning activities, there was concern
that this was the province of the city and county governments and that
the Forest Service should not promote community organization around a
set of agency determined goals.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 217
Administrative practice and procedure, National forests.
36 CFR Part 219
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
statements, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Forest and forest
products, National forests, Natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Science and technology.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the
authority of 16 U.S.C. 551, chapter II of title 36 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 217--[REMOVED]
1. Remove Part 217.
2. Revise Part 219 to read as follows:
PART 219--PLANNING
Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
Purpose and Principles
Sec.
219.1 Purpose.
219.2 Principles.
The Framework for Planning
219.3 Overview.
219.4 Identification and consideration of issues.
219.5 Information development and interpretation.
219.6 Proposed actions.
219.7 Plan decisions.
219.8 Amendment.
219.9 Revision.
219.10 Site-specific decisions.
219.11 Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management.
Collaborative Planning for Sustainability
219.12 Collaboration and cooperatively developed landscape goals.
219.13 Coordination among federal agencies.
219.14 Involvement of state and local governments.
219.15 Interaction with American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives.
219.16 Relationships with interested individuals and organizations.
219.17 Interaction with private landowners.
219.18 Role of advisory committees.
Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability
219.19 Ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
219.20 Ecological sustainability.
219.21 Social and economic sustainability.
The Contribution of Science
219.22 The overall role of science in planning.
219.23 The role of science in assessments, analyses, and
monitoring.
219.24 Science consistency evaluations.
219.25 Science advisory boards.
Special Considerations
219.26 Identifying and designating suitable uses.
219.27 Special designations.
219.28 Determination of land suitable for timber removal.
219.29 Limitation on timber removal.
Planning Documentation
219.30 Plan documentation.
219.31 Maintenance of the plan and planning records.
Objections and Appeals
219.32 Objections to amendments or revisions.
219.33 Appeals of site-specific decisions.
Applicability and Transition
219.34 Applicability.
219.35 Transition.
Definitions
219.36 Definitions.
Subpart B--[Reserved]
Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management
Planning
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; and Secs. 6 and 15, 90 Stat. 2949,
2952, 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613).
Purpose and Principles
Sec. 219.1 Purpose.
(a) Land and resource management planning guides how the Forest
Service will fulfill its stewardship of the natural resources of the
National Forest System to fulfill the designated purposes of the
national forests and grasslands and honor their unique place in
American life. The regulations in this subpart set forth a process for
amending and revising land and resource management plans, hereafter
referred to as plans, for the National Forest System and for monitoring
the results of plan implementation under the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest
Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq. The regulations in this
subpart also guide the selection and implementation of site-specific
actions. The principal authorities governing the development and the
management of the National Forest System include: the Organic
Administration Act of 1897, as amended (16 U.S.C. 473 et seq.); the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.); the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1121 et. seq.); the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resource Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.); and the Clean Water
Act of 1948, as amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987 and other laws (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1323 et seq.).
(b) The National Forest System constitutes an extraordinary
national legacy created by people of vision and preserved for future
generations by diligent and far-sighted public servants and citizens.
These are the peoples' lands, emblems of the nation's democratic
traditions.
(1) The national forests and grasslands provide a wide variety of
uses, values, products, and services that are important to many people,
including outdoor recreation, forage, timber, wildlife and fish,
biological diversity, productive soils, clean air and water, and
minerals. They also afford intangible benefits such as beauty,
inspiration, and wonder.
(2) To assure the continuation of this array of benefits this
regulation affirms sustainability as the overall goal for stewardship
of the natural resources of each national forest and grassland
consistent with the laws that guide management of these lands.
(3) Sustainability, composed of interdependent ecological, social,
and economic elements, embodies the principles of multiple-use and
sustained-yield without impairment to the productivity of the land.
Sustainability means meeting needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
Planning contributes to social and economic sustainability without
compromising the basic composition, structure, and functioning of
ecological
[[Page 67569]]
systems. The progress toward achievement of sustainability is assessed
through monitoring and evaluation.
Sec. 219.2 Principles.
The planning regulations in this subpart are based on the following
principles:
(a) The first priority for planning to guide management of the
National Forest System is to maintain or restore ecological
sustainability of national forests and grasslands to provide for a wide
variety of uses, values, products, and services. The benefits sought
from these lands depend upon long-term ecological sustainability.
Considering increased human uses, it is essential that uses of today do
not impair the functioning of ecological processes and the ability of
these natural resources to contribute to sustainability in the future.
(1) Planning provides the guidance for maintaining or restoring the
diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capacity
of ecological systems, the core elements of ecological sustainability.
(2) Planning is based on science and other knowledge, including the
use of scientifically based strategies for sustainability and benefits
from independent scientific peer review.
(3) Planning is based on the temporal and spatial scales necessary
for sustainability.
(4) Planning includes the monitoring and evaluation of the
achievement of goals.
(b) Planning contributes to social and economic sustainability by
providing for a wide variety of uses, values, products, and services
without compromising the basic composition, structure, and function of
ecological systems.
(1) Planning recognizes and fosters a broad-based understanding of
the interdependence of national forests and grasslands with economies
and communities.
(2) Planning fosters strategies and actions that provide for human
use in ways that contribute to long-term sustainability.
(c) Planning is efficiently integrated into the broader geographic,
legal, and social landscape within which national forests and
grasslands exist. Other agencies, governments, corporations, and
citizens manage land in and around the national forests and grasslands.
Planning, therefore, is outward looking with the goal of understanding
the broader landscape in which the national forests and grasslands lie.
(1) Planning fosters coordination among all affected federal
agencies.
(2) Planning proceeds in close cooperation with state, tribal, and
local governments.
(3) Planning recognizes the rights of American Indian tribes and
Alaska Natives.
(4) Planning is interdisciplinary, providing analyses and options
that are responsive to a broad range of ecological, social, and
economic.
(5) Planning acknowledges the limits and variability of likely
budgets.
(d) Planning meaningfully engages the American people in the
stewardship of their national forests and grasslands. Just as the
Forest Service can help the American people learn about the limits and
capabilities of the national forests and grasslands, managers also
should be guided by the knowledge and values of the American people.
(1) Planning encourages extensive collaborative citizen
participation and builds upon the human resources in local communities
and throughout the nation.
(2) Planning actively seeks and addresses key issues and promotes a
shared vision of desired conditions.
(3) Planning and plans are understandable.
(4) Planning restores and maintains the trust of the American
people in the management of the national forests and grasslands.
(e) Planning is an ongoing process, where decisions are adapted, as
necessary, to address new issues, new information, and unforeseen
events.
(1) Planning is innovative and practical.
(2) Planning is expeditious and efficient in achieving goals.
(f) Planning seeks to manage National Forest System resources in a
combination that best serves the public interest without impairment of
the productivity of the land consistent with the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.
The Framework for Planning
Sec. 219.3 Overview.
(a) The planning framework. Land and resource management planning
is a flexible process for fitting solutions to the scope and scale of
needed action. Planning, conducted according to the planning framework
outlined in Secs. 219.3-219.11, involves engaging the public
(Secs. 219.12-219.18) and applying the best available science
(Secs. 219.22-219.25) to contribute to sustainability (Secs. 219.19-
219.21) in the use and enjoyment of National Forest System lands.
(b) Levels of planning. Planning may be undertaken at the national,
regional, national forest or grassland, and/or ranger district
administrative levels depending on the scope and scale of issues.
(1) The Chief of the Forest Service is responsible for national
planning. National planning includes the Forest Service national
strategic plan required under the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 306, 31 U.S.C. 1115-1119 and 9703-9704) that
establishes national long-term goals, outcome measures, and strategies
to be considered in managing the National Forest System and the
Resources Planning Act Program (16 U.S.C. 1600).
(2) The Forest or Grassland Supervisor is the responsible official
for a plan amendment or revision, except to the extent the Regional
Forester or Chief decides to act as the responsible official.
(3) When appropriate, two or more Forest or Grassland Supervisors,
one or more Regional Foresters, or the Chief of the Forest Service may
undertake planning which may amend or revise one or more plans.
(4) The Chief of the Forest Service, Regional Foresters, National
Forest and Grassland Supervisors, or District Rangers may authorize and
implement site-specific actions.
(c) An interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to planning. An
interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to planning may be achieved
by engaging the skills and interests of appropriate combinations of
Forest Service staff, consultants, contractors, other federal agencies,
states, American Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, or local government
personnel, or other interested or affected people consistent with
applicable laws.
(d) Key elements. The planning cycle begins with the identification
and consideration of issues and concludes with the monitoring and
evaluation of results. Based upon the scope and scale of issues,
planning includes one or more of the following key elements:
(1) Identification and consideration of issues (Sec. 219.4);
(2) Information development and interpretation (Sec. 219.5);
(3) Proposed actions (Sec. 219.6);
(4) Plan decisions (Sec. 219.7);
(5) Amendment (Sec. 219.8);
(6) Revision (Sec. 219.9);
(7) Site-specific decisions (Sec. 219.10); and
(8) Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management
(Sec. 219.11).
Sec. 219.4 Identification and consideration of issues.
(a) Origination of issues. Issues may originate from a variety of
sources including, but are not limited to:
[[Page 67570]]
inventories, assessments, analyses, monitoring and evaluation of
projects; discussions among people and proposals by organizations or
governments interested in or affected by National Forest System
management; Presidential, Departmental, and Forest Service conservation
leadership initiatives; cooperatively developed landscape goals
(Sec. 219.12(b)); evaluation of sustainability (Sec. 219.9(b)(4));
enactment of new laws; policies such as the Forest Service national
strategic plan; and applications for authorization for occupancy and
use of National Forest System lands.
(b) Consideration of issues. The responsible official has the
discretion to determine, at any time, whether and to what extent an
issue is appropriate for consideration.
(1) In making this determination, the responsible official should
consider:
(i) The scope, complexity, and geographic scale of potential
actions that may address an issue;
(ii) Statutory requirements;
(iii) Organizational and community capabilities and available
resources, including current and likely Forest Service budgets;
(iv) The scientific basis and merit of available data and analyses;
(v) The relationship of possible actions to the Forest Service
national strategic plan, other existing plans, adopted conservation
strategies, biological opinions, or other strategies applicable within
all or a portion of the plan area; and
(vi) The opinions of interested or affected individuals,
organizations, or other entities and the social and cultural values
related to an issue.
(2) The responsible official should consider the extent to which
addressing the issue relates to or provides:
(i) Opportunities to contribute to the achievement of cooperatively
developed landscape goals;
(ii) Opportunities for the national forests and grasslands to
contribute to the restoration or maintenance of ecological
sustainability, including maintenance or restoration of watershed
function, such as water flow regimes to benefit aquatic resources,
groundwater recharge, municipal water supply, or other uses, and
maintaining or restoring ecological conditions needed for ecosystem and
species diversity;
(iii) Opportunities for the national forests or grasslands to
contribute to social and economic sustainability;
(iv) Opportunities to recover threatened or endangered species and
maintain or restore their habitat;
(v) The potential for negative environmental effects, including
human health, economic and social effects, upon minority and low income
communities;
(vi) Opportunities to maintain or restore ecological conditions
that are similar to the biological and physical range of expected
variability (Sec. 219.20(b)(1)); and
(vii) Opportunities to contribute to knowledge about and
preservation of historic and cultural resources.
Sec. 219.5 Information development and interpretation.
If the responsible official determines an issue should receive
consideration, the responsible official should review relevant
information such as inventories, broad-scale assessments, local
analyses, or monitoring results to determine if additional information
is desirable and if it can be obtained at a reasonable cost and in a
timely manner. The responsible official, at his or her discretion, may
choose the methods and determine the scope of information development
and interpretation for an issue under consideration. A broad-scale
assessment or a local analysis may be developed or supplemented if
appropriate to the scope and scale of an issue. Broad-scale
assessments, local analyses, monitoring results, and other studies are
not site-specific or plan decisions or proposals for agency action
(Sec. 219.6(a)) subject to Forest Service NEPA procedures.
(a) Broad-scale assessments. Broad-scale assessments provide
information regarding ecological, economic, or social issues that are
broad in geographic scale, sometimes crossing Forest Service regional
administrative boundaries. Ecological information and analyses that may
be provided in an assessment are addressed in Sec. 219.20(a). Social
and economic information and analyses that may be provided in an
assessment are addressed in Sec. 219.21(a).
(1) Broad-scale assessment should provide the following as
appropriate:
(i) Findings and conclusions that describe historic conditions,
current status, and future trends of ecological, social, and/or
economic conditions, their relationship to sustainability, and the
principal factors contributing to those conditions and trends. The
responsible official may use these findings and conclusions to identify
other issues (Sec. 219.4), develop proposals for action (Sec. 219.6),
or for other purposes.
(ii) Identification of needs for additional research to develop new
information or address conflicting interpretations of existing
information.
(2) Station Directors and Regional Foresters must have joint
responsibility for Forest Service participation in broad-scale
assessments. Each broad-scale assessment should be designed and
conducted with the assistance of scientists, resource professionals,
governmental entities, and other individuals and organizations
knowledgeable of the assessment area.
(b) Local analyses. Local analyses provide ecological, social, or
economic information as deemed appropriate by the responsible official.
Local analyses may cover watersheds, ecological units, and social and
economic units, and may tier to or provide information to update a
broad-scale assessment. Local analyses should provide the following, as
appropriate:
(1) Characterization of the area of analysis;
(2) Description of issues within the analysis area;
(3) Description of current conditions;
(4) Description of likely future conditions;
(5) Synthesis and interpretation of information; and
(6) Recommendations for proposals (Sec. 219.6(a)) or identification
of other issues (Sec. 219.4).
Sec. 219.6 Proposed actions.
(a) Proposal. The responsible official may propose to amend or
revise a plan, propose a site-specific action, or both.
(b) NEPA requirements. Unless otherwise provided by law, the
responsible official must analyze the effects of the proposal and
alternative(s) in conformance with Forest Service NEPA procedures. The
responsible official may use issues identified and information reviewed
pursuant to Secs. 219.4-219.5 for scoping required in Forest Service
NEPA procedures.
Sec. 219.7 Plan decisions.
Plan decisions guide or limit uses of National Forest System
resources and provide the basis for future agency action. Plan
decisions link the requirements of laws, regulations, Executive Orders,
policies, and the Forest Service national strategic plan to specific
national forests and grasslands. While plan decisions generally do not
commit resources to a site-specific action, plan decisions provide a
framework for authorizing site-specific actions that may commit
resources. In making decisions, the responsible official should seek to
manage National Forest System resources in a combination that best
serves the public interest without impairment of the productivity of
the land consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.
Plan decisions may apply to all or part of a plan area. Paragraphs (a)
[[Page 67571]]
through (e) of this section describe the decisions in a plan.
(a) Desired resource conditions. These plan decisions define the
resource conditions sought within all or portions of the plan area.
Desired resource conditions may include, but are not limited to, the
desired watershed and ecological conditions and aquatic and terrestrial
habitat characteristics.
(b) Objectives. These plan decisions are concise statements
describing measurable results intended to contribute to sustainability
(Sec. 219.19), including a desired level of uses, values, products, and
services, assuming current or likely budgets and considering other
spending levels as appropriate. Objectives include an estimate of the
time and resources needed for their completion.
(c) Standards. These plan decisions are the requirements and
limitations for land uses and management actions necessary for the
achievement of desired conditions and objectives and compliance with
applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and policies. Standards
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Limitations on even-aged timber harvest methods;
(2) Maximum size openings from timber harvest;
(3) Methods for achieving aesthetic objectives by blending the
boundaries of vegetation treatments; and
(4) Other requirements to achieve multiple-use of the national
forests and grasslands.
(d) Designation of suitable land uses. These plan decisions
identify lands within the National Forest System that are or are not
suitable for specific uses (Sec. 219.26), including, but not limited
to: the transportation system; livestock grazing; special designations
as described in Sec. 219.27; and lands where timber production is an
objective (Sec. 219.28).
(e) Monitoring strategy. A monitoring strategy is required by each
plan as described in Sec. 219.11(a).
Sec. 219.8 Amendment.
(a) Amending plans. A plan amendment may add, modify, or rescind
one or more of the decisions of a plan (Sec. 219.7). An amendment
decision must be based on the identification and consideration of
issues (Sec. 219.4), applicable information (Sec. 219.5), and an
analysis of the effects of the proposed amendment (Sec. 219.6). In
developing an amendment, the responsible official must provide
opportunities for collaboration consistent with Sec. 219.12 through
Sec. 219.18.
(b) Environmental review of a proposed plan amendment. For each
proposal for a plan amendment, the responsible official must complete
appropriate environmental analyses and public involvement in accordance
with Forest Service NEPA procedures. A proposed amendment that may
create a significant environmental effect and thus require preparation
of an environmental impact statement is considered to be a significant
change in the plan. If a proposal for amendment requires the
preparation of an environmental impact statement, the responsible
official must give public notice and an opportunity to comment on the
draft environmental impact statement for at least 90 calendar days.
Sec. 219.9 Revision.
(a) Application of the revision process. Revision of a plan is
required by 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5). The revision process is a review of
the overall management of a unit of the National Forest System and an
opportunity to consider the likely results if plan decisions were to
remain in effect.
(b) Initiating revision. To begin the revision process, the
responsible official must:
(1) Provide opportunities for collaboration consistent with
Sec. 219.12 through Sec. 219.18;
(2) Summarize those issues the responsible official determines to
be appropriate for consideration (Sec. 219.4), any relevant
inventories, new data, findings and conclusions from appropriate broad-
scale assessments and local analyses, monitoring and evaluation
results, new or revised Forest Service policies, relevant portions of
the Forest Service national strategic plan, and changes in
circumstances affecting the entire or significant portions of the plan
area;
(3) Develop the information and complete the analyses described in
Sec. 219.20(a) and Sec. 219.21(a);
(4) Evaluate the effectiveness of the current plan in contributing
to sustainability (Secs. 219.19-219.21) based on the information,
analyses, and requirements described in Sec. 219.20(a) and (b) and
Sec. 219.21(a) and (b), and provide for an independent scientific peer
review (Sec. 219.22) of the evaluation;
(5) Identify new proposals for special areas, special designation,
or for recommendation as wilderness (Sec. 219.27);
(6) Identify specific watersheds in need of protective or
restoration measures;
(7) Identify lands classified as not suitable for timber production
(Sec. 219.28);
(8) Identify and evaluate inventoried roadless areas and unroaded
areas based on the information, analyses, and requirements in
Sec. 219.20(a) and Sec. 219.21(a). During the plan revision process or
at other times as deemed appropriate, the responsible official must
determine which inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas warrant
additional protection and the level of protection to be afforded; and
(9) Develop an estimate of outcomes that would be anticipated,
including uses, values, products, or services, for a 15-year period
following initiation of the revision process, if the plan decisions in
effect at the time the revision process began remain in effect.
(c) Public notice of revision process and review of information.
After the responsible official has compiled the information required
under paragraph (b) of this section, the responsible official must give
public notice of the plan revision process and make the information
compiled under paragraph (b) of this section available for public
comment for at least 45 calendar days.
(d) Notice of Intent. Based upon the information compiled under
paragraph (b) of this section and any comments received during the
comment period required under paragraph (c) of this section, the
responsible official must publish a Notice of Intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement to add, modify, remove, or continue in
effect the decisions embodied in a plan. The responsible official must
give the public notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft
environmental impact statement for at least 90 calendar days. Following
public comment, the responsible official must oversee preparation of a
final environmental impact statement in accordance with Forest Service
NEPA procedures.
(e) Final decision on plan revision. The revision process is
completed when the responsible official signs a record of decision for
a plan revision.
Sec. 219.10 Site-specific decisions.
To the extent appropriate and practicable and subject to valid
existing rights and appropriate statutes, the responsible official must
provide opportunities for collaboration consistent with Sec. 219.12
through Sec. 219.18, follow the planning framework described in
Secs. 219.4-219.6 and comply with Sec. 219.11 to make site-specific
decisions. All site-specific decisions, including authorized uses of
land, must be consistent with the applicable plan. If a proposed site-
specific decision is not consistent with the applicable plan, the
responsible official may modify the proposed decision to make it
consistent
[[Page 67572]]
with the plan, reject the proposal; or amend the plan to authorize the
action.
Sec. 219.11 Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management.
(a) Plan monitoring strategy. Each plan must contain a practicable,
effective, and efficient monitoring strategy to evaluate sustainability
in the plan area (Secs. 219.19-219.21). The strategy must require
monitoring of appropriate plan decisions and characteristics of
sustainability.
(1) Monitoring and evaluation of ecological sustainability. The
plan monitoring strategy for the monitoring and evaluation of
ecological sustainability must require monitoring of:
(i) Ecosystem diversity. Monitoring must be used to evaluate the
status and trend of selected physical and biological characteristics of
ecosystem diversity (Sec. 219.20(a)(1)). The plan monitoring strategy
must document the reasons for selection of characteristics to be
monitored, monitoring objectives, methodology, and designate critical
values that will prompt reviews of plan decisions.
(ii) Species diversity. Monitoring must be used to evaluate focal
species and species-at-risk as follows:
(A) The status and trends of ecological conditions known or
suspected to support focal species and selected species-at-risk must be
monitored. The plan monitoring strategy must document the reasons for
the selection of species-at-risk for which ecological conditions are to
be monitored, including the degree of risk to the species, the factors
that put the species at risk, and the strength of association between
ecological conditions and population dynamics.
(B) In addition to monitoring of ecological conditions, the plan
monitoring strategy may require population monitoring for some focal
species and some species-at-risk. This monitoring may be accomplished
by a variety of methods including population occurrence and presence/
absence data, sampling population characteristics, using population
indices to track relative population trends, or inferring population
status from ecological conditions.
(C) A decision by the responsible official to monitor populations
and the responsible official's choice of methodologies for monitoring
selected focal species and selected species-at-risk may be based upon
factors that include, but are not limited to, the degree of risk to the
species, the degree to which a species' life history characteristics
lend themselves to monitoring, the reasons that a species is included
in the list of focal species or species-at-risk, and the strength of
association between ecological conditions and population dynamics.
Monitoring of population trend is often appropriate in those cases
where risk to species viability is high and population characteristics
cannot be reliably inferred from ecological conditions. The reasons for
selection of species, monitoring objectives, and methodologies must be
documented as part of the plan monitoring strategy. Critical values
that will prompt reviews of plan decisions must be designated in the
monitoring strategy.
(iii) Monitoring effectiveness. As a part of the plan monitoring
strategy, the responsible official must evaluate the effectiveness of
selected characteristics of ecosystem diversity and species diversity
in providing reliable information regarding ecological sustainability.
(2) Monitoring and evaluation of social and economic
sustainability. The plan monitoring strategy for the monitoring and
evaluation of social and economic sustainability should provide for
periodic review of national, regional, and local supply and demand for
products, services, and values. Special consideration should be given
to those uses, values, products, and services that the National Forest
System is uniquely poised to provide. Monitoring should improve the
understanding of the National Forest System contributions to social and
economic sustainability. The plan monitoring strategy must require the
responsible official to evaluate the effectiveness of information and
analyses described in Sec. 219.21(a) in providing reliable information
regarding social and economic sustainability.
(b) Monitoring of site-specific actions. The decision document
authorizing a site-specific action should describe any required
monitoring and evaluation for the site-specific action. The responsible
official must determine that there is a reasonable expectation that
anticipated funding is adequate to complete any required monitoring and
evaluation prior to authorizing a site-specific action.
(c) Monitoring methods. Unless required by the monitoring strategy,
monitoring methods may be changed to reflect new information without
plan amendment or revision.
(d) Use of monitoring information. Where monitoring and evaluation
is required by the plan monitoring strategy, the responsible official
must ensure that monitoring information is used to determine one or
more of the following:
(1) If site-specific actions are completed as specified in
applicable decision documents;
(2) If the aggregated outcomes and effects of completed and ongoing
actions are achieving or contributing to the desired conditions;
(3) If key assumptions identified for monitoring in plan decisions
remain valid; and
(4) If plan or site-specific decisions need to be modified.
(e) Coordination of monitoring activities. To the extent
practicable, monitoring and evaluation should be conducted jointly with
other federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments,
scientific and academic communities, and others. In addition, the
responsible official must provide appropriate opportunities for the
public to be involved and utilize scientists as described in
Sec. 219.23.
(f) Annual monitoring and evaluation report. The responsible
official must prepare a monitoring and evaluation report for the plan
area within 6 months following the end of each fiscal year. The report
must be maintained with the plan documents (Sec. 219.30(d)(5)), and
include the following:
(1) A list or reference to monitoring required by the plan; and
(2) A summary of the results of monitoring and evaluation performed
during the preceding fiscal year and appropriate results from previous
years. The summary must include:
(i) A description of the progress toward achievement of desired
conditions within the plan area; and
(ii) A description of the plan area's contribution to the
achievement of applicable outcomes of the Forest Service national
strategic plan.
Collaborative Planning for Sustainability
Sec. 219.12 Collaboration and cooperatively developed landscape goals.
(a) Collaboration. To promote sustainability, the responsible
official must actively engage the American public, interested
organizations, private landowners, state, local, and Tribal
governments, federal agencies, and others in the stewardship of
National Forest System lands. To engage people in the stewardship of
National Forest System lands, the responsible official may assume many
roles, such as leader, organizer, facilitator, or participant. The
responsible official must provide early and frequent opportunities for
people to participate openly and meaningfully in planning taking into
account the diverse roles, jurisdictions, and responsibilities of
interested and affected organizations,
[[Page 67573]]
groups, and individuals. The responsible official has the discretion to
determine how to provide these opportunities in the planning process.
(b) Cooperatively developed landscape goals. (1) The responsible
official and other Forest Service employees involved in planning must
invite and encourage others to engage in the collaborative development
of landscape goals. Using information from broad-scale assessments or
other available information, and subject to applicable laws, the
responsible official may initiate or join ongoing collaborative efforts
to develop or propose landscape goals for areas that include National
Forest System lands.
(2) During collaborative efforts, responsible officials and other
Forest Service employees, must communicate and foster understanding of
the nation's declaration of environmental policy as set forth in
section 101(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321-4347), which states that it is the continuing
responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means,
consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to
improve and coordinate federal plans, functions, programs, and
resources to the end that the Nation may--
(i) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of
the environment for succeeding generations;
(ii) Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(iii) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and
unintended consequences;
(iv) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of
our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment
which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice;
(v) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which
will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
amenities; and
(vi) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the
maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
(3) Cooperatively developed landscape goals, whether the result of
efforts initiated by the Forest Service or others, must be deemed an
issue for the purposes under Sec. 219.4.
Sec. 219.13 Coordination among federal agencies.
The responsible official must provide early and frequent
coordination with appropriate federal agencies and may provide
opportunities:
(a) For interested or affected federal agencies to participate in
the identification of issues and formulation of proposed actions;
(b) For the streamlined coordination of federal agency policies,
resource management plans, or programs; and
(c) The development, where appropriate and practicable, of joint
resource management plans.
Sec. 219.14 Involvement of state and local governments.
The responsible official must provide early and frequent
opportunities for state and local governments to:
(a) Participate in the planning process, including the
identification of issues; and
(b) Contribute to the streamlined coordination of resource
management plans or programs.
Sec. 219.15 Interaction with American Indian tribes and Alaska
Natives.
(a) The Forest Service shares in the federal government's overall
trust responsibility for federally recognized American Indian tribes
and Alaska Natives.
(b) During planning, the responsible official must consider the
government-to-government relationship between American Indian or Alaska
Native tribal governments and the federal government.
(c) The responsible official must consult with and invite American
Indian tribes and Alaska Natives to participate in the planning process
to assist in:
(1) The early identification of treaty rights, treaty-protected
resources, and American Indian tribe trust resources;
(2) The consideration of tribal data and resource knowledge
provided by tribal representatives; and
(3) The consideration of tribal concerns and suggestions during
decisionmaking.
Sec. 219.16 Relationships with interested individuals and
organizations.
The responsible official must:
(a) Make planning information available to the extent allowed by
law;
(b) Conduct planning processes that are fair, meaningful, and open
to persons with diverse opinions;
(c) Provide early and frequent opportunities for participation in
the identification of issues;
(d) Encourage interested individuals and organizations to work
collaboratively with one another to improve understanding and develop
cooperative landscape and other goals;
(e) Consult with individuals and organizations who can provide
information about current and historic public uses within an assessment
or plan area, about the location of unique and sensitive resources and
values and cultural practices related to issues in the plan area; and
(f) Consult with scientific experts and other knowledgeable
persons, as appropriate, during consideration of collaboratively
developed landscape goals and other activities.
Sec. 219.17 Interaction with private landowners.
The responsible official must seek to collaborate with those who
have control or authority over lands adjacent to or within the external
boundaries of national forests or grasslands to identify:
(a) Local knowledge;
(b) Potential actions and partnership activities;
(c) Potential conditions and activities on the adjacent lands that
may affect management of National Forest System lands, or vice versa;
and
(d) Issues (Sec. 219.4).
Sec. 219.18 Role of advisory committees.
(a) Advisory committees. Advisory committees can provide an
immediate, representative, and predictable structure within which
public dialogue can occur and the Forest Service can develop
relationships with diverse communities of interests. The responsible
official may seek the assistance or advice from a committee, consistent
with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
app.) in determining whether there is a reasonable basis to propose an
action to address an issue. Each Forest or Grassland Supervisor must
have access to an advisory committee with knowledge of local conditions
and issues, although an advisory committee is not required for each
national forest or grassland. Responsible officials may request
establishment of advisory committees and recommend members to the
Secretary of Agriculture. Advisory committees used by other agencies
may be utilized through proper agreements.
(b) Participation in other types of community-based groups. When
appropriate, the responsible official should consider participating in
community-based groups organized for a variety of public purposes,
particularly those groups organized to develop landscape goals
(Sec. 219.12(b)).
Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability
Sec. 219.19 Ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
Sustainability, composed of interdependent ecological, social, and
[[Page 67574]]
economic elements, embodies the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of
1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) without impairment to the productivity of
the land and is the overall goal of management of the National Forest
System. The first priority for stewardship of the national forests and
grasslands is to maintain or restore ecological sustainability to
provide a sustainable flow of uses, values, products, and services from
these lands.
Sec. 219.20 Ecological sustainability.
To achieve ecological sustainability, the responsible official must
ensure that plans provide for maintenance or restoration of ecosystems
at appropriate spatial and temporal scales determined by the
responsible official.
(a) Ecological information and analyses. Ecosystem diversity and
species diversity are components of ecological sustainability. The
planning process must include the development and analysis of
information regarding these components at a variety of spatial and
temporal scales. These scales include geographic areas such as
bioregions and watersheds, scales of biological organization such as
communities and species, and scales of time ranging from months to
centuries. Information and analyses regarding the components of
ecological sustainability may be identified, obtained, or developed
through a variety of methods, including broad-scale assessments and
local analyses (Sec. 219.5), and monitoring results (Sec. 219.11). For
plan revisions, and to the extent the responsible official considers
appropriate for plan amendments or site-specific decisions, the
responsible official must develop or supplement the following
information and analyses related to ecosystem and species diversity:
(1) Characteristics of ecosystem and species diversity.
Characteristics of ecosystem and species diversity must be identified
for assessing and monitoring ecological sustainability. In general,
these identified characteristics should be consistent at various scales
of analyses.
(i) Ecosystem diversity. Characteristics of ecosystem diversity
include, but are not limited to:
(A) Major vegetation types. The composition, distribution, and
abundance of the major vegetation types and successional stages of
forest and grassland systems; the prevalence of invasive or noxious
plant or animal species.
(B) Water resources. The diversity, abundance, and distribution of
aquatic and riparian systems including streams, stream banks, coastal
waters, estuaries, groundwater, lakes, wetlands, shorelines, riparian
areas, and floodplains; stream channel morphology and condition, and
flow regimes.
(C) Soil resources. Soil productivity; physical, chemical and
biological properties; soil loss; and compaction.
(D) Air resources. Air quality, visibility, and other air resource
values.
(E) Focal species. Focal species that provide insights to the
larger ecological systems with which they are associated.
(ii) Species diversity. Characteristics of species diversity
include, but are not limited to, the number, distribution, and
geographic ranges of plant and animal species, including focal species
and species-at-risk that serve as surrogate measures of species
diversity. Species-at-risk and focal species must be identified for the
plan area.
(2) Evaluation of ecological sustainability. Evaluations of
ecological sustainability must be conducted at the scope and scale
determined by the responsible official to be appropriate to the
planning decision. These evaluations must describe the current status
of ecosystem diversity and species diversity, risks to ecological
sustainability, cumulative effects of human and natural disturbances,
and the contribution of National Forest System lands to the ecological
sustainability of all lands within the area of analysis.
(i) Evaluation of ecosystem diversity. Evaluations of ecosystem
diversity must include, as appropriate, the following:
(A) Information about focal species that provide insights to the
integrity of the larger ecological system to which they belong.
(B) A description of the biological and physical properties of the
ecosystem using the characteristics identified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)
of this section.
(C) A description of the principal ecological processes occurring
at the spatial and temporal scales that influence the characteristic
structure and composition of ecosystems in the assessment or analysis
area. These descriptions must include the distribution, intensity,
frequency, and magnitude of natural disturbance regimes of the current
climatic period, and should include other ecological processes
important to ecological sustainability, such as nutrient cycling,
migration, dispersal, food web dynamics, water flows, and the
identification of the risks to maintaining these processes. These
descriptions may also include an evaluation of the feasibility of
maintaining natural ecological processes as a tool to contribute to
ecological sustainability.
(D) A description of the effects of human activities on ecosystem
diversity. These descriptions must distinguish activities that had an
integral role in the landscape's ecosystem diversity for a long period
of time from activities that are of a type, size, or rate that were not
typical of disturbances under which native plant and animal species and
ecosystems developed.
(E) An estimation of the range of variability of the
characteristics of ecosystem diversity, identified in paragraph
(a)(l)(i) of this section, that would be expected under the natural
disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. The current values
of these characteristics should be compared to the expected range of
variability to develop insights about the current status of ecosystem
diversity.
(F) An evaluation of the effects of air quality on ecological
systems including water.
(G) An estimation of current and foreseeable future Forest Service
consumptive and non-consumptive water uses and the quantity and quality
of water needed to support those uses and contribute to ecological
sustainability.
(H) An identification of reference landscapes to provide for
evaluation of the effects of actions.
(ii) Evaluations of species diversity. Evaluations of species
diversity must include, as appropriate, assessments of the risks to
species viability and the identification of ecological conditions
needed to maintain species viability over time based on the following:
(A) The viability of each species listed under the Endangered
Species Act as threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed species
must be assessed. Individual species assessments must be used for these
species.
(B) For all other species, including other species-at-risk and
those species for which there is little information, a variety of
approaches may be used, including individual species assessments and
assessments of focal species or other indicators used as surrogates in
the evaluation of ecological conditions needed to maintain species
viability.
(C) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) of this section,
for species groups that contain many species, assessments of
functional, taxonomic, or habitat groups rather than individual species
may be appropriate.
(D) In analyzing viability, the extent of information available
about species, their habitats, the dynamic nature of ecosystems and the
ecological conditions needed to support them must
[[Page 67575]]
be identified. Species assessments may rely on general conservation
principles and expert opinion. When detailed information on species
habitat relationships, demographics, genetics, and risk factors is
available, that information should be considered.
(b) Plan decisions. When making plan decisions that will affect
ecological sustainability, the responsible official must use the
information developed under paragraph (a) of this section. The
following requirements must apply at the spatial and temporal scales
that the responsible official determines to be appropriate to the plan
decision:
(1) Ecosystem diversity. Plan decisions affecting ecosystem
diversity must provide for maintenance or restoration of the
characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure within the range
of variability that would be expected to occur under natural
disturbance regimes of the current climatic period in accordance with
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, in
situations where ecosystem composition and structure are currently
within the expected range of variability, plan decisions must maintain
the composition and structure within the range.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section,
where current ecosystem composition and structure are outside the
expected range of variability, plan decisions must provide for
measurable progress toward ecological conditions within the expected
range of variability.
(iii) Where the range of variability cannot be practicably defined,
plan decisions must provide for measurable progress toward maintaining
or restoring ecosystem diversity. The responsible official must use
independently peer-reviewed scientific methods other than the expected
range of variability to maintain or restore ecosystem diversity. The
scientific basis for such alternative methods must be documented in
accordance with (Secs. 219.22-219.25).
(iv) Where the responsible official determines that ecological
conditions are within the expected range of variability and that
maintaining ecosystem composition and structure within that range is
ecologically, socially or economically unacceptable, plan decisions may
provide for ecosystem composition and structure outside the expected
range of variability. In such circumstances, the responsible official
must use independently peer-reviewed scientific methods other than the
expected range of variability to provide for the maintenance or
restoration of ecosystem diversity. The scientific basis for such
alternative methods must be documented in accordance with
(Secs. 219.22-219.25).
(v) Where the responsible official determines that ecological
conditions are outside the expected range of variability and that it is
not practicable to make measurable progress toward conditions within
the expected range of variability, or that restoration would result in
conditions that are ecologically, socially or economically
unacceptable, plan decisions may provide for ecosystem composition and
structure outside the expected range of variability. In such
circumstances, the responsible official must use independently peer-
reviewed scientific methods other than the expected range of
variability to provide for the maintenance or restoration of ecosystem
diversity. The scientific basis for such alternative methods must be
documented (Secs. 219.22-219.25).
(2) Species diversity. (i) Plan decisions affecting species
diversity must provide for ecological conditions that the responsible
official determines provide a high likelihood that those conditions are
capable of supporting over time the viability of native and desired
non-native species well distributed throughout their ranges within the
plan area, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)-(iv) of this
section. Methods described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section may
be used to make the determinations of ecological conditions needed to
maintain viability. A species is well distributed when individuals can
interact with each other in the portion of the species range that
occurs within the plan area. When a plan area occupies the entire range
of a species, these decisions must provide for ecological conditions
capable of supporting viability of the species and its component
populations throughout that range. When a plan area encompasses one or
more naturally disjunct and self-sustaining populations of a species,
these decisions must provide ecological conditions capable of
supporting over time viability of each population. When a plan area
encompasses only a part of a population, these decisions must provide
ecological conditions capable of supporting viability of that
population well distributed throughout its range within the plan area.
(ii) When conditions outside the authority of the agency prevent
the agency from providing ecological conditions that provide a high
likelihood of supporting over time the viability of native and desired
non-native species well distributed throughout their ranges within the
plan area, plan decisions must provide for ecological conditions well
distributed throughout the species range within the plan area to
contribute to viability of that species.
(iii) Where species are inherently rare or not naturally well
distributed in the plan area, plan decisions should not contribute to
the extirpation of the species from the plan area and must provide for
ecological conditions to maintain these species considering their
natural distribution and abundance.
(iv) Where environmental conditions needed to support a species
have been so degraded that it is technically infeasible to restore
ecological conditions that would provide a high likelihood of
supporting viability, plan decisions must provide for ecological
conditions to contribute to supporting over time viability to the
degree practicable.
(3) Federally listed threatened and endangered species. (i) Plan
decisions must provide for implementing actions in conservation
agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National
Marine Fisheries Service that provide a basis for not needing to list a
species. In some situations, conditions or events beyond the control or
authority of the agency may limit the Forest Service's ability to
prevent the need for federal listing. Plan decisions should reflect the
unique opportunities that National Forest System lands provide to
contribute to recovery of listed species.
(ii) Plan decisions involving species listed under the Endangered
Species Act must include, at the scale determined by the responsible
official to be appropriate to the plan decision, reasonable and prudent
measures and associated terms and conditions contained in final
biological opinions issued under 50 CFR part 402. The plan decision
documents must provide a rationale for adoption or rejection of
discretionary conservation recommendations contained in final
biological opinions.
Sec. 219.21 Social and economic sustainability.
To contribute to economic and social sustainability, the
responsible official involves interested and affected people in
planning for National Forest System lands (Secs. 219.12-219.18),
provides for the development and consideration of relevant social and
economic information and analyses, and a range of uses, values,
products, and services.
[[Page 67576]]
(a) Social and economic information and analyses. To understand the
contribution national forests and grasslands make to the economic and
social sustainability of local communities, regions, and the nation,
the planning process must include the analysis of economic and social
information at variable scales, including national, regional, and local
scales. Social analyses address human life-styles, cultures, attitudes,
beliefs, values, demographics, and land-use patterns, and the capacity
of human communities to adapt to changing conditions. Economic analyses
address economic trends, the effect of national forest and grassland
management on the well-being of communities and regions, and the net
benefit of uses, values, products, or services provided by national
forests and grasslands. Social and economic analyses should recognize
that the uses, values, products, and services from national forests and
grasslands change with time and the capacity of communities to
accommodate shifts in land uses change. Social and economic analyses
may rely on quantitative, qualitative, and participatory methods for
gathering and analyzing data. Social and economic information may be
developed and analyzed through broad-scale assessments and local
analyses (Sec. 219.5), monitoring results (Sec. 219.11), or other
means. For plan revisions, and to the extent the responsible official
considers to be appropriate for plan amendments or site-specific
decisions, the responsible official must develop or supplement the
information and analyses related to the following:
(1) Describe and analyze, as appropriate, the following:
(i) Demographic trends; life-style preferences; public values;
land-use patterns; related conservation and land use policies at the
state and local level; cultural and American Indian tribe and Alaska
Native land settlement patterns; social and cultural history; social
and cultural opportunities provided by national forest system lands;
the organization and leadership of local communities; community
assistance needs; community health; and other appropriate social and
cultural information;
(ii) Employment, income, and other economic trends; the range and
estimated long-term value of market and non-market goods, uses,
services, and amenities that can be provided by national forest system
lands consistent with the requirements of ecological sustainability,
the estimated cost of providing them, and the estimated effect of
providing them on regional and community well-being, employment, and
wages; and other appropriate economic information. Special attention
should be paid to the uses, values, products, or services that the
Forest Service is uniquely poised to provide;
(iii) Opportunities to provide social and economic benefits to
communities through natural resource restoration strategies;
(iv) Other social or economic information, if appropriate, to
address issues being considered by the responsible official
(Sec. 219.4).
(2) Analyze community or region risk and vulnerability. Risk and
vulnerability analyses assess the vulnerability of communities from
changes in ecological systems as a result of natural succession or
potential management actions. Risk may be considered for geographic,
relevant occupational, or other related communities of interest.
Resiliency and community capacity should be considered in a risk and
vulnerability analysis. Risk and vulnerability analysis may also
address potential consequences to communities and regions from land
management changes in terms of capital availability, employment
opportunities, wage levels, local tax bases, federal revenue sharing,
the ability to support public infrastructure and social services, human
health and safety, and other factors as necessary and appropriate.
(b) Plan decisions. When making plan decisions that will affect
social or economic sustainability, the responsible official must use
the information analyses developed in paragraph (a) of this section.
Plan decisions contribute to social and economic sustainability by
providing for a range of uses, values, products, and services,
consistent with ecological sustainability.
The Contribution of Science
Sec. 219.22 The overall role of science in planning.
(a) The responsible official must ensure that the best available
science is considered in planning. The responsible official, when
appropriate, should acknowledge incomplete or unavailable information,
scientific uncertainty, and the variability inherent in complex
systems.
(b) When appropriate and practicable and consistent with applicable
law, the responsible official should provide for independent,
scientific peer reviews of the use of science in planning. Independent,
scientific peer reviews are conducted using generally accepted
scientific practices that do not allow individuals to participate in
the peer reviews of documents they authored or co-authored.
Sec. 219.23 The role of science in assessments, analyses, and
monitoring.
(a) Broad-scale assessments. If the Forest Service is leading a
broad-scale assessment, the assessment must be led by a Chief Scientist
selected by the Deputy Chief of Research and Development. When
appropriate and practicable, a responsible official may provide for
independent, scientific peer review of the findings and conclusions
originating from a broad-scale assessment. Independent, scientific peer
review may be provided by scientists from the Forest Service, other
federal, state, or tribal agencies, or other institutions.
(b) Local analyses. Though not required, a responsible official may
include scientists in the development or technical reviews of local
analyses and field reviews of the design and selection of subsequent
site-specific actions.
(c) Monitoring. (1) The responsible official must include
scientists in the design and evaluation of monitoring strategies.
Additionally, the responsible official must provide for an independent,
scientific peer review of plan monitoring on at least a biennial basis
to validate adherence to appropriate protocols and methods in
collecting and processing of monitoring samples and to validate that
data are summarized and interpreted properly.
(2) When appropriate and practicable, the responsible official
should include scientists in the review of monitoring data and
analytical results to determine trends relative to ecological,
economic, or social sustainability.
Sec. 219.24 Science consistency evaluations.
(a) The responsible official must ensure that plan amendments and
revisions are consistent with the best available science. The
responsible official may use a science advisory board (Sec. 219.25) to
assist in determining whether information gathered, evaluations
conducted, or analyses and conclusions reached in the planning process
are consistent with the best available science. If the responsible
official decides to use a science advisory board, the board and the
responsible official are to jointly establish criteria for the science
advisory board and the responsible official to use in reviewing the
consistency of proposed plan amendments and revisions with the best
available science.
(b) The science advisory board is responsible for organizing and
conducting a scientific consistency evaluation to determine the
following:
[[Page 67577]]
(1) If relevant scientific (ecological, social, or economic)
information has been considered by the responsible official in a manner
consistent with current scientific understanding at the appropriate
scales;
(2) If uncertainty of knowledge has been recognized, acknowledged,
and adequately documented; and
(3) If the level of risk in achievement of sustainability is
acknowledged and adequately documented by the responsible official.
(c) If substantial disagreement among members of the science
advisory board or between the science advisory board and the
responsible official is identified during a science consistency
evaluation, a summary of such disagreement should be noted in the
appropriate environmental documentation within Forest Service NEPA
procedures.
Sec. 219.25 Science advisory boards.
(a) National science advisory board. The Forest Service Deputy
Chief for Research and Development must establish, convene, and chair a
science advisory board to provide scientific advice on issues
identified by the Chief of the Forest Service. Board membership must
represent a broad range of scientific disciplines including, but not
limited to, the physical, biological, economic, and social sciences.
(b) Regional science advisory boards. Based upon needs identified
by Regional Forester(s) or Research Station Director(s), the Forest
Service Research Station Director(s), should establish and convene
science advisory boards consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. app.) to provide advice to one or more Regional Foresters
regarding the application of science in planning and decisionmaking for
National Forest System lands. At least one regional science advisory
board must be available for each national forest and grassland. The
Station Director(s) must chair the board or appoint a chair of such
boards. The geographical boundaries of the boards need not align with
National Forest System Regional boundaries. Board membership must
represent a broad range of science disciplines including, but not
limited to, the physical, biological, economic, and social sciences.
Regional science advisory board tasks may include, but are not limited,
to:
(1) Evaluating significance and relevance of new information
related to current plan decisions, including the results of monitoring
and evaluation; and
(2) Evaluating science consistency as described in Sec. 219.24.
(c) Work groups. With the concurrence of the appropriate chair and
subject to available funding, the national or regional science advisory
boards may convene work groups to study issues and provide
recommendations.
Special Considerations
Sec. 219.26 Identifying and designating suitable uses.
National forests and grasslands are suitable for a wide variety of
public uses, such as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, timber
harvest, off-road vehicle travel, or other uses except where lands are
determined to be unsuited for a particular use. Lands are not suited
for a particular use if that use: is prohibited by law, regulation, or
Executive Order; is incompatible with the mission or policies of the
National Forest System; or would result in substantial and permanent
impairment of the productivity of the land. Through a plan amendment or
revision, the responsible official may determine whether specific uses
may begin, continue, or terminate within the plan area. Planning
documents should describe or display lands suitable for various uses in
areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic
adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions.
Sec. 219.27 Special designations.
The Forest Service may recommend special designations to higher
authorities or, to the extent permitted by law, adopt special
designations through plan amendment or revision. Special designations
are areas within the National Forest System that are identified for
their unique or special characteristics and include the following:
(a) Congressionally designated areas. Congressionally designated
areas may include, but are not limited to, wilderness, wild and scenic
rivers, national trails, scenic areas, recreation areas, and monuments.
These nationally significant areas must be managed as required by
Congress and may have specific requirements for their management.
(b) Wilderness area reviews. Unless federal statute directs
otherwise, all undeveloped areas that are of sufficient size as to make
practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired condition must
be evaluated for recommended wilderness designation during the plan
revision process. These areas may be evaluated at other times as
determined by the responsible official.
(c) Administratively designated areas. Administratively designated
areas may include, but are not limited to, critical watersheds,
research natural areas, national monuments, geological areas,
inventoried roadless areas, unroaded areas, motorized and non-motorized
recreation areas, botanical areas, and scenic byways.
Sec. 219.28 Determination of land suitable for timber harvest.
(a) Lands where timber may not be harvested. The plan must identify
lands within the plan area where timber may not be harvested. These
lands include:
(1) Lands where timber harvest would violate statute, Executive
Order, or regulation and those lands that have been withdrawn from
timber harvest by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the
Forest Service;
(2) Lands where technology is not available for conducting timber
harvesting without causing irreversible damage to soil, slope, or other
watershed conditions or produce substantial and permanent impairment of
the productivity of the land; and
(3) Lands where there are no assurances that such lands can be
adequately restocked within 5 years after harvest;
(b) Lands where timber may be harvested for timber production. The
responsible official may establish timber production as a multiple-use
plan objective for lands not identified in paragraph (a) of this
section if the costs of timber production are justified by the
ecological, social, or economic benefits considering physical,
economic, and other pertinent factors to the extent feasible. Lands
where timber production is not established as a plan objective are
deemed not suited for timber production. These lands must be reviewed
by the responsible official at least once every 10 years, or as
prescribed by law, to determine their suitability for timber production
considering physical, economic, and other pertinent factors to the
extent feasible. Based on this review, timber production may be
established as a plan objective for these lands through amendment or
revision of the plan.
(c) Lands where timber may be harvested for other multiple-use
values. Except for lands identified in paragraph (a) of this section,
timber may be harvested from land where timber production is not
established as a plan objective if, based on a site-specific analysis,
the responsible official determines and documents that such timber
harvest would contribute to achievement of desired conditions and
ecological sustainability, and is necessary to protect multiple-use
values other than timber production.
[[Page 67578]]
Sec. 219.29 Limitation on timber harvest.
(a) Estimate of the limitation of timber harvest. The responsible
official must estimate the amount of timber that can be sold annually
in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis from National Forest System
lands other than those identified in Sec. 219.28(a). This estimate must
be based on the yield of timber that can be removed consistent with
achievement of objectives or desired conditions in the applicable plan.
In those cases where a national forest has less than 200,000 acres of
forested land identified in lands other than those in Sec. 219.28(a),
two or more national forests may be combined for the purpose of
estimating amount of timber that can be sold annually on a sustained-
yield basis. Estimations for lands where timber production is
established as a plan objective Sec. 219.28(b) and estimations for
lands identified in Sec. 219.28(c) cannot be combined.
(b) Limitation of timber harvest. The responsible official must
limit the sale of timber from the lands where timber production is an
objective and from other lands to a quantity equal to or less than that
estimated in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Exceptions to limitations of timber harvest. For purposes of
limiting the sale of timber, the responsible official may sell timber
from areas that are substantially affected by fire, wind, or other
events, or for which there is an imminent threat from insects or
disease, and may either substitute such timber for timber that would
otherwise be sold or, if not feasible, sell such timber over and above
the plan limit established in paragraph (b) of this section. If
departure from the quantity of timber removal established in paragraph
(b) of this section is necessary to meet overall multiple-use
objectives, the requirements in 16 U.S.C. 1611 must be followed.
Planning Documentation
Sec. 219.30 Plan documentation.
A plan is a repository of documents that integrates and displays
the desired conditions, objectives, standards, and other plan decisions
that apply to a unit of the National Forest System. The plan also
contains maps, monitoring and evaluation results, the annual monitoring
and evaluation report, and other information relevant to how the plan
area is to be managed. Planning documents should be clear,
understandable, and readily available for public review. Plan documents
should be updated through amendments, revision, and routine maintenance
(Sec. 219.31). Plan documents include, at a minimum, the following:
(a) A summary of the plan. The summary is a concise description of
the plan that includes a summary of the plan decisions and a
description of the plan area and appropriate planning units. The
summary should include a brief description of the ecological, social,
and economic environments within the plan area and the overall strategy
for maintenance or restoration of sustainability, including desired
conditions and objectives for their achievement. The summary also
includes appropriate maps, a description of the transportation system,
utility corridors, land ownership patterns and proposed land ownership
adjustments, charts, figures, photographs, and other information to
enhance understanding.
(b) Display of public uses. The plan documents must identify the
suitability of the plan area for various uses (Sec. 219.26) such as
recreation uses, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and mineral
developments. The plan documents must identify land where timber may
not be harvested and where timber production is an objective
(Sec. 219.28). The plan documents also must describe the limitations on
the removal of timber (Sec. 219.29) and the standards for timber
harvest and regeneration methods (Sec. 219.7(c)).
(c) Plan decisions. The plan documents must display or describe the
plan decisions (Sec. 219.7).
(d) Display of actions and outcomes. The plan documents must also
contain:
(1) An annually updated list or other display of proposed,
authorized, and completed actions to achieve desired conditions and
objectives within the plan area;
(2) A 2-year schedule, updated annually, of anticipated outcomes
which may include anticipated uses, values, products, or services based
on an estimate of Forest Service budget and capacity to perform the
identified program of work. The estimate of Forest Service budget and
capacity should be based on recent funding levels;
(3) A 2-year summary, updated annually, of the actual outcomes
which may include specific uses, values, products, or services provided
as a result of completed site-specific actions;
(4) A projected range of outcomes which may include anticipated
uses, values, products, and services for the next 15 years, assuming
current or likely budgets while considering other spending levels as
appropriate. These projections are estimates and as such often contain
a high degree of uncertainty; they are intended to describe expected
progress in achieving desired conditions and objectives within the plan
area. The projections are to be updated during revision of each plan;
(5) A description of the monitoring strategy to occur in the plan
area and the annual monitoring and evaluation report; and
(6) A summary of the projected program of work, updated annually,
including costs for inventories, assessments, proposed and authorized
actions, and monitoring. The projected program of work must be based on
reasonably anticipated funding levels. Reasonably anticipated funding
levels should be based on recent funding levels. The plan documents
must also include a description of the total current-year budget,
funded actions, projections for future budgets over the next 2 years;
and a display of the budget trends over at least the past 5 years.
(e) Other components. A plan must contain or reference a list of
materials, Forest Service policies, and decisions used in forming plan
decisions. The information should include, but is not limited to, lists
of previous decision and environmental documents, assessments,
conservation agreements and strategies, biological opinions,
inventories, administrative studies, monitoring results, and research
relevant to adoption of plan decisions.
Sec. 219.31 Maintenance of the plan and planning records.
(a) Each National Forest or Grassland Supervisor must maintain a
complete set of the planning documents required under Sec. 219.30 that
constitute the plan for the unit. The set of documents must be readily
available to the public using appropriate and relevant technology.
(b) The following administrative corrections and additions may be
made at any time, are not plan amendments or revisions, and do not
require public notice or the preparation of an environmental document
under Forest Service NEPA procedures:
(1) Corrections and updates of data and maps;
(2) Updates to activity lists and schedules as required by
Sec. 219.30(d)(1)-(6);
(3) Corrections of typographical errors or other non-substantive
changes; and
(4) Changes in monitoring methods other than those required in a
monitoring strategy (Sec. 219.11(c)).
Objections and Appeals
Sec. 219.32 Objections to amendments or revisions.
(a) Any person may object to a proposed amendment or revision
[[Page 67579]]
prepared under the provisions of this subpart, except for an amendment
or revision proposed by the Chief. The objection must be filed within
30 calendar days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability of a final environmental impact
statement regarding a proposed amendment or revision in the Federal
Register, or within 30 calendar days of the publication of a public
notice of a proposed amendment not requiring preparation of an
environmental impact statement. Within ten days after the close of the
objection period, the Responsible Official shall publish notice of all
objections in the local newspaper of record. An objection must be filed
with the reviewing officer identified in the notice and contain:
(1) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person
filing the objection;
(2) A specific statement of the basis for each objection; and
(3) A description of the objector's participation in the planning
process for the proposed amendment or revision, including a copy of any
relevant documents submitted during the planning process.
(b) Objectors may request meetings with the reviewing officer and
the responsible official to discuss the objection, to narrow the
issues, agree on facts, and explore opportunities for resolution. The
reviewing officer must allow other interested persons to participate in
such meetings. An interested person must file a request to participate
in an objection within ten days after publication of the notice of
objection as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The reviewing officer must respond, in writing, to an objection
within a reasonable period of time and may respond to all objections in
one response. The reviewing officer's response regarding an objection
is the final decision of the Department of Agriculture.
(d) The responsible official may not approve a proposed amendment
or revision until the reviewing officer has responded to all
objections. A decision by the responsible official approving an
amendment or revision must be consistent with the reviewing officer's
response to objections to the proposed amendment or revision.
(e) Where the Forest Service is a participant in a multi-agency
decision subject to objection under this subpart, the responsible
official and reviewing officer may waive the objection procedures of
this subpart to adopt the administrative review procedure of another
participating federal agency, if the responsible official and the
responsible official of the other agencies agree to provide a joint
response to those who have filed for administrative review of the
multi-agency decision.
(f) The information collection requirements of this section have
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned
control number 0596-0158.
Sec. 219.33 Appeals of site-specific decisions.
If a site-specific decision is proposed in conjunction with a plan
amendment or revision, a person may object to the proposed plan
amendment or revision as described in (Sec. 219.32). If a decision is
made to authorize a site-specific action, a person may request
administrative review of that decision as described in 36 CFR part 215.
Applicability and Transition
Sec. 219.34 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all units of the
National Forest System as defined by 16 U.S.C. 1609.
Sec. 219.35 Transition.
(a) The transition period begins on November 9, 2000 and ends upon
the completion of the revision process (Sec. 219.9) for each unit of
the National Forest System. During the transition period, the
responsible official must consider the best available science in
implementing and, if appropriate, amending the current plan.
(b) If, as of November 9, 2000, a plan revision or amendment has
been initiated under the 1982 planning regulations in effect prior to
November 9, 2000 (See 36 CFR part 219, revised as of July 1, 2000.) and
if a notice of availability of a draft environmental impact statement
or an environmental assessment is published by May 9, 2001 in the
Federal Register, the responsible official may complete the amendment
or revision process under the 1982 regulations or adjust the process to
conform to the provisions of this subpart.
(c) If a review of lands not suited for timber production is
required before the completion of the revision process, the review must
take place as described by the provisions of Sec. 219.28, except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Site-specific decisions made by the responsible official 3
years from November 9, 2000 and afterward must be in conformance with
the provisions of this subpart.
(e) Within 1 year of November 9, 2000, the Regional Forester must
withdraw the regional guide. When a regional guide is withdrawn, the
Regional Forester must identify the decisions in the regional guide
that are to be transferred to a regional supplement of the Forest
Service directive system (36 CFR 200.4) or to one or more plans and
give notice in the Federal Register of these actions. The transfer of
direction from a regional guide to a regional supplement of the Forest
Service directive system or to one or more plans does not constitute an
amendment, revision, or site-specific action subject to Forest Service
NEPA procedures.
(f) Within 3 years after completion of the revision process for a
unit, the responsible official must complete the first monitoring and
evaluation report as required in Sec. 219.11(f).
(g) Within 1 year of November 9, 2000, the Chief of the Forest
Service must establish a schedule for completion of the revision
process for each unit of the National Forest System.
Definitions
Sec. 219.36 Definitions.
Definitions of the special terms used in this subpart are set out
in alphabetical order in this section as follows:
Adaptive management: An approach to natural resource management
wherein the effects of policies, plans, and actions are monitored for
the purpose of learning and adjusting future management actions.
Successive iteration of the adaptive process is essential in
contributing to sustainability.
Assessment or analysis area: The geographic area included within
the scope of a broad-scale assessment or local analysis.
Candidate species: Species identified by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), which are considered to be candidates for listing under the
Endangered Species Act as published in the Federal Register.
Conservation agreement: A formal agreement between the Forest
Service and the USFWS and/or NMFS identifying management actions
necessary to prevent the need to list species under the Endangered
Species Act.
Current climatic period: The period of time since establishment of
the modern major vegetation types, which typically encompass the late
Holocene Epoch including the present, including likely climatic
conditions within the planning
[[Page 67580]]
period. The climatic period is typically centuries to millennia in
length, a period of time that is long enough to encompass the
variability that species and ecosystems have experienced.
Desired condition: A statement describing a common vision for a
specific area of land or type of land within the plan area. Statements
of desired conditions should include the estimated time required for
their achievement.
Desired non-native species: Those species of plants or animals
which are not indigenous to an area but valued for their contribution
to species diversity or their high social, cultural or economic value.
Disturbance regime: Actions, functions, or events that influence or
maintain the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or
aquatic ecosystems. Natural disturbances include, among others,
drought, floods, wind, fires, insects, and pathogens. Human-caused
disturbances include actions such as recreational use, livestock
grazing, mining, road construction, timber harvest, and the
introduction of exotic species.
Diversity of plant and animal communities: The distribution and
relative abundance of plant and animal communities and their component
species occurring within an area.
Ecological conditions: Components of the biological and physical
environment that can affect the diversity of plant and animal
communities, including species viability, and the productive capacity
of ecological systems. These could include the abundance and
distribution of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, roads and other
structural developments, human uses, and invasive and exotic species.
Ecological sustainability: The maintenance or restoration of the
composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems including the
diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capacity
of ecological systems.
Ecosystem composition: The plant and animal species and communities
in the plan area.
Ecosystem processes: Ecological functions such as photosynthesis,
energy flow, nutrient cycling, water movement, disturbance, and
succession.
Ecosystem structure: The biological and physical attributes that
characterize ecological systems.
Focal species: Focal species are surrogate measures used in the
evaluation of ecological sustainability, including species and
ecosystem diversity. The key characteristic of a focal species is that
its status and trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger
ecological system to which it belongs. Individual species, or groups of
species that use habitat in similar ways or which perform similar
ecological functions, may be identified as focal species. Focal species
serve an umbrella function in terms of encompassing habitats needed for
many other species, play a key role in maintaining community structure
or processes, are sensitive to the changes likely to occur in the area,
or otherwise serve as an indicator of ecological sustainability.
Certain focal species may be used as surrogates to represent ecological
conditions that provide for viability of some other species, rather
than directly representing the population dynamics of those other
species.
Forest Service NEPA procedures: The Forest Service policy and
procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR
chapter V) as described in Chapter 1950 of the Forest Service Manual
and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Environmental Policy and
Procedures Handbook (See 36 CFR 200.4 for availability).
Inherently rare species: A species is inherently rare if it occurs
in only a limited number of locations, has low population numbers, or
has both limited occurrences and low population numbers, and those
conditions are natural characteristics of the life history and ecology
of the species and not primarily the result of human disturbance.
Inventoried roadless areas: Areas are identified in a set of
inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless
Area Conservation, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2,
dated May 2000, which are held at the National headquarters office of
the Forest Service, or any subsequent update or revision of those maps.
Major vegetation types: Plant communities, which are typically
named after dominant plant species that are characteristic of the
macroclimate and geology of the region or sub-region.
Native species: Species of the plant and animal kingdom indigenous
to the plan area or assessment area.
Plan area: The geographic area of National Forest System lands
covered by an individual land and resource management plan. The area
may include one or more administrative units.
Productive capacity of ecological systems: The ability of an
ecosystem to maintain primary productivity including its ability to
sustain desirable conditions such as clean water, fertile soil,
riparian habitat, and the diversity of plant and animal species; to
sustain desirable human uses; and to renew itself following
disturbance.
Range of variability: The expected range of variation in ecosystem
composition, and structure that would be expected under natural
disturbance regimes in the current climatic period. These regimes
include the type, frequency, severity, and magnitude of disturbance in
the absence of fire suppression and extensive commodity extraction.
Reference landscapes: Places identified in the plan area where the
conditions and trends of ecosystem composition, structure, and
processes are deemed useful for setting objectives for desired
conditions and for judging the effectiveness of plan decisions.
Responsible official: The officer with the authority and
responsibility to oversee the planning process and make decisions on
proposed actions.
Reviewing officer: The supervisor of the responsible official.
Social and economic sustainability: Meeting the economic, social,
aesthetic, and cultural needs and desires of current generations
without reducing the capacity of the environment to provide for the
needs and desires of future generations, considering both local
communities and the nation as a whole. It also involves the capacity of
citizens to communicate effectively with each other and to make sound
choices about their environment.
Species: Any member of the animal or plant kingdom that is
described as a species in a peer-reviewed scientific publication and is
identified as a species by the responsible official pursuant to a plan
decision, and must include all species listed under the Endangered
Species Act as threatened, endangered, candidate, or proposed for
listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Species-at-risk: Federally listed endangered, threatened,
candidate, and proposed species and other species for which loss of
viability, including reduction in distribution or abundance, is a
concern within the plan area. Other species-at-risk may include
sensitive species and state listed species. A species-at-risk also may
be selected as a focal species.
Species viability: A species consisting of self-sustaining and
interacting populations that are well distributed through the species'
range. Self-sustaining populations are those that are sufficiently
abundant and have sufficient diversity to display the array of life
history strategies and forms to
[[Page 67581]]
provide for their long-term persistence and adaptability over time.
Successional stages: The different structural and compositional
phases of vegetation development of forests and grasslands that occur
over time following disturbances that kill, remove, or reduce
vegetation and include the major developmental or seral stages that
occur within a particular environment.
Timber production: The sustained long-term and periodic harvest of
wood fiber from National Forest System lands undertaken in support of
social and economic objectives identified in one or more land and
resource management plans. For purposes of this regulation, the term
timber production includes fuel wood.
Undeveloped areas: Areas, including but not limited to inventoried
roadless areas and unroaded areas, within national forests or
grasslands that are of sufficient size and generally untrammeled by
human activities such that they are appropriate for consideration for
wilderness designation in the planning process.
Unroaded areas: Any area, without the presence of a classified
road, of a size and configuration sufficient to protect the inherent
characteristics associated with its roadless condition. Unroaded areas
do not overlap with inventoried roadless areas.
Subpart B--[Reserved]
Dated: October 31, 2000.
Dan Glickman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28580 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-U
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}