National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning

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

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. § 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 revision, the quality and importance of nine characteristics of inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas must be evaluated

Section 219.9(b)(8) requires the responsible official to consider inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas in all plan revisions and at other times as appropriate through the criteria in section 219.20(a) and 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 air; and

294.13(a)(2) Sources of public drinking water

219.20(a)(1)(i)(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.

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 plant and animal communities

219.20(a)(2)(ii) 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.

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 threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land

219.20(a)(2)(ii)(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.

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-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation

Section 219.27(c) The consideration of recreation-related uses of land is addressed in the planning framework and within administratively designated areas that may include inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas as well as motorized and non-motorized public use areas.

294.13(a)(6) Reference landscapes

219.20(a)(2)(i)(H) An identification of reference landscapes to provide for evaluation of the effects of actions.

294.13(a)(7) Landscape character and scenic integrity

The consideration of landscapes and scenic integrity is within the development of landscape goals (section 219.12(b)) and consideration of issues.

294.13(a)(8) Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites

219.21(a) 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:

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.

294.13(a)(9) Other locally identified unique characteristics

219.5 The responsible official, in 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.

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 (§ 219.6(a)) or identification of other issues (§ 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

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

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

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

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 collabo

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.