National Forest System Land Management Planning

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 219

RIN 0596-AC94

National Forest System Land Management Planning

AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is proposing a new planning rule to guide land and resource management planning for all units of the National Forest System (NFS) under the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The proposed rule sets forth process and content requirements to guide the development, amendment, and revision of land management plans to maintain, protect, and restore NFS lands while providing for sustainable multiple uses, including ecosystem services, so that NFS lands continuously provide ecosystem functions and contribute to social and economic sustainability. Planning under the proposed rule would be collaborative and science-based with the responsible official required to take the best available scientific information into account and provide opportunities for public participation throughout the planning process.

The proposed framework consists of a three-part learning and planning cycle: Assessment, development/revision/amendment, and monitoring. The phases of the framework are complementary and are intended to create a feedback loop that allows the Forest Service to adapt management to changing conditions and to improve plans based on new information and monitoring. This framework is intended to move the Agency toward a more responsive planning process that allows the Agency to understand the landscape-scale context for management, adapt management to changing conditions, improve management based on new information and monitoring, and support an integrated and holistic approach to management that recognizes the interdependence of social, ecological, and economic systems.

The Agency is requesting public comment on the proposed rule and on the alternatives that are described and evaluated in the accompanying draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Readers are invited to comment on each section of the proposed rule and on how provisions in the DEIS alternatives compare with the proposed rule. The Agency will carefully consider all public comments in preparing the final rule.

DATES:

Comments must be received in writing by May 16, 2011. The Agency will consider and place comments received after this date in the record only if practicable. Public meetings to discuss the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement will be held throughout the country during the public comment period. A schedule of meeting dates and further information is available on the planning rule Web site at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments through the public participation portal at

http://www.govcomments.com/.

Alternatively, submit comments by addressing them to Forest Service Planning DEIS, c/o Bear West Company, 132 E 500 S, Bountiful, UT 84010; or via facsimile to 801-397-1605. Please identify your written comments by including “planning rule” on the cover sheet or the first page. Alternatively, submit comments through the World Wide Web/Internet Web site

http://www.regulations.gov.

All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments at

http://contentanalysisgroup.com/fsrd/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ecosystem Management Coordination staff's Assistant Director for Planning Ric Rine at 202-205-1022 or Planning Specialist Regis Terney at 202-205-1552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Additional Documents Are Available

The following information is available online at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule:

(1) This proposed rule; (2) a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) analyzing the effects of the proposed rule and alternatives to it; (3) the Civil Rights Impact Analysis for this proposed rule; (4) the cost-benefit analysis for this proposed rule; (5) summaries of the numerous roundtables and public meetings held to date to engage the public in the development of the proposed rule, and summaries of the input received thus far from comments to the Notice of Intent and the public meetings; and (6) the Forest Service directives on land management planning developed for the 1982 planning procedures, which may currently be used under the transition language of the 2000 rule. This information may also be obtained upon written request from the Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Forest Service, USDA, Mail Stop 1104, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1104. The final rule and environmental impact statement, when completed, will also be available on the above Web site.

2. Overview

A new Agency planning rule is proposed to guide land managers in developing, amending, and revising land management plans for all units of the National Forest System (NFS), consisting of 155 national forests, 20 grasslands and 1 prairie. The new planning rule must be responsive to the challenges of climate change; the need for forest restoration and conservation, watershed protection, and wildlife conservation; and the need for the sustainable provision of benefits, services, resources, and uses of NFS lands, including ecosystem services and sustainable recreation. It must provide a process for planning that is adaptive, science-based, and collaborative with ample opportunities for active and effective public participation. The new planning rule must be clear, efficient, effective, and within the Agency's capability to implement on all NFS units. It must meet requirements under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as well as allow the Agency to meet its obligations under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Wilderness Act, as well as other legal requirements. With stability in planning regulations, national land management planning can regain momentum, and units would be able to complete timely revisions that guide sustainable management of NFS lands.

The vision for the proposed rule.

The Forest Service mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The NFS consists of 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands. Land management plans provide a framework for integrated resource management on NFS units, and guide project and activity decisionmaking on the unit. The Forest Service planning rule serves as the primary tool to ensure that land management plans continuously provide desired ecosystem functions, contribute to social and economic sustainability, are rooted in the best available scientific information, and are developed with public input and participation.

The objective of this proposed rule is to guide the collaborative and science-based development, amendment, and revision of land management plans that

promote healthy, resilient, diverse, and productive national forests and grasslands. The Agency's goal is to create a planning framework that will guide management of NFS lands so they are ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability, with resilient ecosystems and watersheds, diverse plant and animal communities, and the capacity to provide people and communities with a range of social, economic, and ecological benefits now and for future generations. This planning framework will help the Agency to provide clean water, habitat for diverse fish, wildlife, and plant communities, and opportunities for recreational, spiritual, educational, and cultural sustenance.

The rule proposes a framework for adaptive management and planning and reflects key themes from the public, as well as experience gained through the Agency's 30-year history with land management planning. The framework is intended to move the Agency toward a more adaptive system with more frequent amendments that can keep plans current between revisions. Plans will be revised at least every 15 years. However, under the proposed rule, the Agency expects plan amendments to be done more frequently than they are now. For example, as budgets and conditions on-the-ground change, the plan objectives may be amended every 3 to 5 years. Alternatively, if new information is learned about a threatened and endangered species, plan standards and guidelines may be updated more often. Some plans may even be amended annually to reflect up-to-date information.

The proposed framework consists of a three-part learning and planning cycle: (1) Assessment, (2) development/revision/amendment, and (3) monitoring. The phases of the framework are complementary and are intended to create a feedback loop that allows the Forest Service to adapt management to changing conditions and to improve plans based on new information and monitoring.

Throughout implementation of the cycle, the Forest Service would:

(1)

Assess

conditions, stressors, and opportunities on the NFS unit within the context of the broader landscape and identify any need for changes to a plan;

(2)

Develop, Revise,

or

Amend

land management plans based on the need for change in the plan; and

(3)

Monitor

to detect changes on the unit and across the broader landscape, to test assumptions underlying management decisions, and to measure the effectiveness of management activity in achieving desired outcomes.

The proposed rule would strengthen the role of public involvement in the planning process and provide numerous opportunities for meaningful public participation and dialogue. The proposed rule would require that the best available scientific information be taken into account and documented. The planning process would take into account other forms of knowledge, such as local information, national perspectives, and native knowledge. Ideas, resources, and knowledge should be shared with all interests, individuals, and groups throughout the planning process.

The planning process also builds an understanding of the landscape-scale context for unit-level management. Assessments, in particular, are designed to create an understanding of conditions, trends, and stressors on-and-off NFS lands in order to guide the development of plans to manage resources on the unit. The proposed rule has requirements in each phase for working with the public, partners, landowners, other government agencies, and Tribes and would require the responsible official to identify each unit's unique roles and contributions to the local area, region, and Nation.

The proposed rule would include requirements for plan components. In the face of changing environmental conditions such as climate change, plans would include plan components to maintain or restore ecosystem and watershed health and resilience; protect key ecosystem elements, including water resources on the unit; and provide for plant and animal diversity. In doing so, responsible officials would take into account the various stressors or impacts that could affect the presence of ecological resources and their functions on the unit.

Plans would also include plan components to contribute to social and economic sustainability. The proposed rule emphasizes integrated resource management so that all the relevant interdependent elements of sustainability are considered as a whole, instead of as separate resources or uses. Planning would consider the full suite of multiple uses, including ecosystem services, energy, minerals, outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness, to the extent relevant to the plan area. Plan components would be required to provide for multiple uses, including sustainable recreation and ecosystem services, and protect cultural and historic resources and specially designated areas (such as wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers). Plans would also guide the management of timber harvest, as required by the NFMA.

The proposed rule would create a two-tiered strategy for monitoring at the unit level and at a broader scale. Monitoring would be a central part of both content of plans and the planning process, allowing responsible officials to test assumptions, track changing conditions, measure management implementation and effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes, and feed new information back into the planning cycle so that plans and management can be changed as needed.

Finally, the proposed rule would create a pre-decisional administrative review process to provide individuals and groups with an opportunity to resolve issues before the approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.

The History of Forest Planning and the Need for a New Planning Rule

The NFMA at 16 U.S.C. 1604 requires the Agency to have a planning rule developed “under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, that set[s] out the process for the development and revision of the land management plans, and the guidelines and standards” (16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)). This requirement is fulfilled through a planning rule, set out at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219 (36 CFR Part 219), which sets requirements for land management planning and content of plans.

In 1979, the Department issued the first regulations to comply with this statutory requirement. The 1979 regulations were superseded by the 1982 planning rule, which has formed the basis for all existing Forest Service land management plans.

In 1989, the Agency initiated a comprehensive Critique of Land Management Planning, which identified a number of adjustments that were needed to the 1982 planning rule. The Critique found that the 1982 planning rule process was complex, had significant costs, was lengthy, and was cumbersome for the public to provide input. The recommendations in the Critique and the Agency's experiences with planning led to the Agency issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for new regulations in 1991 and two proposed rules in 1995 and 1999.

After working with a committee of scientists, the Department issued a final rule in 2000 to revise the 1982 regulations. The 2000 revision of the planning rule described a new framework for NFS planning; made sustainability the foundation for NFS planning and management; required the

consideration of the best available scientific information during the planning process; and set forth requirements for implementation, monitoring, evaluation, amendment, and revision of land management plans. However, a review in the spring of 2001 found that the 2000 rule was costly, complex, and procedurally burdensome. The results of the review led the Department to issue a new planning rule in 2005 and a revised version again in 2008, but each of those rules was held invalid by a Federal District Court on procedural grounds (

Citizens for Better Forestry

v.

USDA,

481 F. Supp.2d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (2005 rule);

Citizens for Better Forestry

v.

USDA,

632 F. Supp.2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (2008 rule)).

Though committees of scientists were created for the 1979 rule and 2000 rule, a formal committee of scientists was not formed for this planning rule for several reasons. The Agency believes a collaborative approach, involving as many interests as possible, including the scientific community, is best for developing the planning rule. Science is one source of understanding and knowledge that informs planning and decision-making. Much of planning also involves consideration of public values in land management. This proposed rule is very much a science-based rule and establishes a strong requirement for consideration and use of best available scientific information in planning. The proposed rule is based on some of the major recommendations from the 1999 Committee of Scientists report: Sustainability, public participation and collaboration, adaptive management, monitoring and evaluation, the role of science, and the objection process; all concepts that were recommendations of that report. In addition, the Agency has reached out to the science community in developing this proposed rule. An open, public meeting of invited scientists occurred in Washington, DC, March 29-30, 2010, to create a dialogue about the latest science relevant to the planning rule. Additionally, scientists have been involved in the development and review of the proposed rule from the beginning and will continue to be involved throughout the rule making process.

Because it was the last promulgated rule to take effect and not to have been set aside by a court, the planning rule issued in 2000 legally governs the development, amendment, or revision of plans until a new planning rule is issued. On December 18, 2009, the Department reinstated the 2000 rule in the Code of Federal Regulations as an interim measure and made technical amendments to update transition provisions to be in effect until a new planning rule is issued (74 FR 67062). While the 2000 planning rule replaced the 1982 rule in the Code of Federal Regulations, the transition section of the 2000 rule allows units to use the 1982 planning rule procedures for plan revisions and amendments until a new planning rule is issued. The Agency's expectation, based on experience, is that those NFS units choosing to amend or revise plans during the development of this new rule will continue to use the 1982 rule procedures until the new planning rule is issued.

The 1982 planning rule procedures have guided the development, amendment, and revision of all existing Forest Service land management plans. However, since 1982 much has changed in our understanding of how to create and implement effective land management plans. The body of science that informs land management planning in areas such as conservation biology and ecology has advanced considerably since 1982, as has our understanding of the values and benefits of NFS lands, and the challenges and stressors that may impact resources on the unit (including climate change).

Because planning under the 1982 rule is often time consuming and cumbersome, it has been a challenge for units to keep plans current. Instead of updating plans as conditions on the ground change, units often wait and make changes all at once during the required revision process every 15 years. This can result in a drawn-out, difficult, and costly revision process. Plans in the interim lose much of their utility because they no longer reflect the reality on the ground. The focus of land management activity has also changed. Much of the 1982 rule focused on creating plans that would mitigate negative environmental impacts from resource extraction activities. The protective measures in the 1982 rule were important, but now the Agency needs plans that do more than mitigate harm. The Agency needs a planning process that helps units identify their unique roles in the broader landscape and create land management plans to guide proactive contributions of the unit and of management to ecological, social, and economic sustainability.

The instability created by the history of the planning rule has had a significant negative impact on the Agency's ability to manage the NFS and on its relationship with the public. At the same time, the vastly different context for management and improved understanding of science and sustainability that has evolved over the past three decades creates an urgent need for a planning framework that allows the Agency to respond to new challenges and management objectives for NFS lands. The NFMA requires that the Agency revise land management plans “at least every 15 years.” The NFS has 127 land management plans. Currently, 68 plans are past due for plan revision. Most plans were developed between 1983 and 1993 and should have been revised between 1998 and 2008. The Agency must establish a stable planning rule that is consistent with the current science and creates a planning process that can incorporate new knowledge as science continues to evolve, allowing the Agency to protect, reconnect, and restore national forests and grasslands for the benefit of human communities and natural resources.

What the Agency Heard

The Agency strongly believes that involving the public through a participatory, open, and meaningful process is the best way to develop this planning rule. This belief has, and continues to be, reflected in the unprecedented participatory process created to develop this proposed rule. The Agency is working to make the process accessible through the use of updated methods of involvement such as new media and has engaged in efforts to involve diverse groups and interests.

The development of this proposed rule has been informed by the 26,000 comments made on the Notice of Intent (NOI); a Science Forum with panel discussions from 21 scientists; regional and national roundtables held in over 35 locations and attended by over 3,000 people; national and regional tribal roundtables; feedback from Forest Service employees; and over 300 comments on the planning rule blog. Summary reports of this input are available at:

http://fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

A separate summary of the tribal consultation and participation and of how the proposed rule reflects tribal input is in a special section of this preamble called “

Consultation with Indian tribal governments.”

The participatory process to develop this proposed rule began with a new approach to the NOI. While an NOI typically involves sending out a detailed proposed action for comment, the Agency wanted to involve the public in crafting the proposed rule from its very beginning. The December 2009 NOI for the proposed planning rule therefore asked for public feedback on a set of eight principles that could be used to guide future land management planning. The notice resulted in a broad discussion of what should be in a proposed rule and led to a robust

dialogue with the public over the course of the national, tribal, regional, and Web-based public meetings. This discussion has allowed the Agency to craft a proposed rule that more fully responds to public comments and concerns.

While input from the public, Tribes, and agency employees covered a broad range of opinion, there were areas of consistent shared support. Broad support exists for a simple but effective planning process; a planning rule designed to persist through changing times; up-front collaboration in developing proposals for plan revisions; creating plans that focus on NFS units, but also reflect consideration of the landscape beyond unit boundaries; and a strong monitoring plan component that improves accountability and encourages a mutual learning process with cooperators and partners. Additional themes that arose during public participation included the importance of public involvement and working with Tribes, the importance of working with State and local governments and other Federal agencies in land management planning; the importance of providing for sustainable recreation; the importance of creating a rule that meets the multiple use mandate of MUSYA; and the need for an efficient plan amendment and revision process that can keep pace with changing conditions.

There were also broad areas of disagreement that emerged from the collaborative process. One point of tension was how to balance the need for national consistency with the need for local flexibility. Some people want a rule that is streamlined and only includes direction on meeting the minimum requirements of the NFMA, so that local units have more flexibility in how their plan is developed and in what it needs to contain. At the other end of the spectrum, others want a rule that is highly prescriptive and includes detailed national standards and processes.

Another major area of disagreement was how the planning process should consider and balance the multiple uses of the NFS, as well as local versus national and regional interests. Many people asked for a rule that emphasizes one resource area over another or prioritizes the needs of local communities over the needs and desires of people who live further from NFS lands. Others asked for a rule that requires plans to include direction for only restoration and preservation of ecological conditions, while others sought a rule that provides for and emphasizes a full array of multiple uses that contribute to social and economic opportunities.

While no rule can satisfy the entire spectrum of opinion, the Forest Service has worked to find a balance between these different needs and perspectives and has developed a proposed rule that is practical, workable, based on science, and reflective of public and agency values and input. The Agency is now eager to receive public feedback. Readers should carefully examine and consider the information in this preamble and proposed rule, as well as each of the alternatives that are described and evaluated in the accompanying draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). In particular, Alternatives D and E explore substitute or additional rule language that reflects comments received by the Agency during the public engagement process and the comment period for the notice of intent. Suggestions explored and analyzed in these alternatives include different approaches to rule text on management of water resources and watersheds, collaboration, climate change adaption and mitigation, monitoring, and planning for services that connect people to the unit, like conservation education and volunteer opportunities. Based on the public's continued feedback, the Agency will consider substituting or adding specific provisions on these subjects for inclusion in the final rule.

The Agency invites comments on each section of the proposed rule and on how provisions in the DEIS alternatives compare with the proposed rule. The Agency will carefully consider all public comments in preparing the final rule.

3. Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule

The following section-by-section descriptions are provided to explain the approach taken in the proposed rule to NFS land management planning. The proposed rule would create an adaptive framework based on science and public participation to guide unit-level land management planning for the NFS with a focus on integrated management of all forest resources. The overarching objective of this proposed rule is to move all NFS units toward social, economic, and ecological sustainability.

Subpart A—National Forest System Land Management Planning

Section 219.1 Purpose and Applicability

This section states that the purpose of Subpart A is to set out the planning requirements for developing, amending, and revising land management plans for the NFS in a national planning rule. The NFMA requires the Agency to have a planning rule developed under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA). The planning rule sets requirements for land management planning and content of plans and applies to all units in the NFS.

The proposed planning rule is designed to guide the collaborative and science-based development, amendment, and revision of land management plans that would promote healthy, resilient, diverse, and productive national forests and grasslands. These plans would guide management of NFS lands so that they are ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability. Plans would guide management to maintain and restore resilient ecosystems and watersheds and diverse plant and animal communities. Plans would also guide management to provide people and communities with a range of social, economic, and ecological benefits for the present and into the future, including clean water; habitat for fish, wildlife, and plant communities; and opportunities for recreational, spiritual, educational, and cultural sustenance.

The proposed rule is designed to create a collaborative and science-based planning process so that plans and their amendments reflect public values and the best available scientific information. It is intended to ensure that managers understand the role and contribution of their units and the context for management within the broader landscape. It is also designed to facilitate adaptation, creating a feedback loop to allow responsible officials to respond to new information and changing conditions.

Comments from and discussions with the public as part of this rule-making effort revealed growing concern about a variety of risks and stressors impacting resources, services, benefits, and uses on NFS lands. Issues included, for example: Climate change; insects and disease; recreation, timber, and shifts in other local demands and national market trends; population growth and other demographic shifts; water supply protection; and other ecosystem support services. Addressing these types of issues, risks, and contingencies requires a larger landscape perspective, information from a broader spectrum of sources and users, and a framework that can facilitate adaptation.

Questions about multiple use and ecosystem services came up in the collaborative process for the rule.

Multiple use management is well established in law, policy and the Agency mission. “Ecosystem services” is a term that is used today to describe many consumptive and non-consumptive uses, as well as traditional and non-traditional uses, that people associate with national forests. In the proposed rule we use the phrase “multiple uses, including ecosystem services” in certain places to show an association between the terms so both are recognized in the rule and within our statutory authority as part of land management planning. The management of the multiple uses described by the MUSYA of 1960 (outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes) has broader application in today's context.

The new requirements in the proposed rule should increase agency and unit capacity for adapting management plans to new and evolving information about risks, stressors, changing conditions, and management effectiveness. Agency intent is for responsible officials to use the proposed planning framework to keep plans and management activity current, relevant, and effective.

This section of the proposed rule also would require the Chief of the Forest Service to establish procedures for planning in the Forest Service Directives System that provide further explanation of the methods to implement the requirements of the rule. The Forest Service Directives System is designed to contain implementation requirements and protocols that are more detailed than the rule and provide guidance and direction on how to implement the rule. Directives can be updated as protocols and methods evolve and improve over time.

Some people wanted to see very detailed requirements in the rule, such as monitoring methods and protocols, while others emphasized the need to keep the rule simple so it would endure and could be implemented across different landscapes within the NFS. This section would ensure that the Agency would establish the needed detail in the Directives for effective implementation of the planning rule, while allowing rule language to remain strategic, relevant, and useful even as conditions change.

Finally, this section makes clear that the proposed rule would not affect treaty rights or valid existing rights, and that plans must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. It also includes direction for how responsible officials must treat certain information that is culturally sensitive to an Indian Tribe or Tribes.

Section 219.2 Levels of Planning and Responsible Official

Levels of Planning

Planning occurs at three levels—national strategic planning, NFS unit planning, and project or activity planning. Section 219.2 of the proposed rule describes these levels of agency planning and identifies specific attributes and requirements for unit-level planning. The first level is national strategic planning. At the second level of planning, land management plans are established for administrative units of the NFS (typically an individual forest, grassland, or prairie although in some instances, a plan will cover more than one forest or grassland). Land management plans (also called forest plans, or grassland plans), establish requirements and constraints for on-the-ground management decisions; they do not authorize projects or activities and do not commit the Forest Service to take any action. The proposed rule would provide guidance for this level of planning. The third level of planning includes development of on-the-ground projects and activities, which must be consistent with the unit's land management plan. The environmental effects of decisions made at the unit and project levels are analyzed and there are opportunities for public involvement at both levels.

Some members of the public suggested the Forest Service undertake two additional scales of planning, one at a regional scale between national and unit scales and another at a finer scale such as a ranger district or watershed. The 1982 rule required the preparation of a regional guide and a planning process for the development of that guide. The proposed rule does not include a requirement for regional planning. After several years of developing and using regional guides, the Agency found that they added an additional and time-consuming level of planning that often delayed progress of unit planning. Regional plans also tended to remain static and did not change as new information or science became available. Furthermore, most major issues that emerged regionally, such as issues regarding lynx or grizzly bears, were ultimately dealt with directly in the individual unit plans, usually through simultaneous amendment of multiple unit plans.

The proposed rule also does not include a requirement for finer scale planning (district or watershed scale) below the unit plan level. In many cases, units are building this kind of planning into the development of the management plan for the unit, with several of them using watersheds to organize planning. The proposed rule would allow for this to occur, and in § 219.7, would require identification of priority watersheds for restoration. However, on some units, watershed scale planning might not be appropriate or needed, such as on small NFS units or on units with highly intermixed ownerships. Some units that are influenced by disturbance regimes that are not defined by watershed boundaries may choose other ecological units on which to organize planning. This approach is intended to allow the responsible official to determine how planning on the unit is best organized based on the resources and desired conditions on the unit.

Responsible Official

The proposed rule identifies the unit supervisor as the responsible official for unit-level plans. This is a change from the 1982 rule, which identified the regional forester as the responsible official. This change is intended to facilitate and encourage active public participation by ensuring that the person sitting at the table during the planning process is the decisionmaker.

During public participation to develop the proposed rule, the Agency heard from members of the public who felt that empowering the supervisor with decisionmaking authority would strengthen the collaborative process, while others preferred the current assignment of authority to the regional forester because of concerns that the unit supervisor may be more inclined to place too much of an emphasis on local needs and concerns without being sufficiently responsive to national needs or issues of regional consistency. In the proposed rule, the Agency tried to create a balance by ensuring that planning would not happen in isolation. There are a number of places in the proposed rule that call for coordination with other staff in the Agency, including the appropriate research station director. The regional forester and regional office planning and resource specialists would continue to be involved by providing an additional level of oversight, including reviewing draft and final products developed during the planning process and participating in the development of those products. Regional office oversight would help to provide consistency in interpretation and implementation of the planning rule and other agency planning requirements on units within the region.

The proposed rule also specifically would allow the option for a higher-level official, such as a regional forester,

to choose to serve as the responsible official. For example, a higher-level official could assume responsibility for decisionmaking when planning issues apply to multiple units.

Section 219.3 Role of Science in Planning

This section of the proposed rule addresses the role of science in planning and would require that the responsible official take into account the best available scientific information. This requirement would apply throughout the planning process. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the responsible official has access to and considers the best available scientific information in order to make informed decisions when developing, revising, and amending land management plans; that social, economic, and ecological science would be appropriately interpreted and applied throughout the planning process; and that the best available scientific information would increase the understanding of risks and uncertainties and improve assumptions made in the course of decisionmaking.

This proposed rule emphasizes the use of science as an important source of information for decisionmaking with the intent that the best available scientific information be used to inform, but not dictate, decisions. The term “taking into account” is used because this term expresses that science is just one source of information for the responsible official and only one aspect of decisionmaking. Land management planning is complex and decisonmakers must consider such things as balancing competing values or competing ecological concerns. There also may be competing scientific perspectives or uncertainty in the science. While the appropriate interpretation and application of science provides the foundation for planning, the Agency recognizes that other forms of information, such as local and indigenous knowledge, public input, agency policies, results of monitoring and the experience of land managers must also be taken into account.

This proposed rule imposes a duty on the responsible official to review the available scientific information and determine which is the best, that is, the most accurate, reliable, and relevant information for the particular matter under consideration. The responsible official does not have unfettered discretion in making this determination, but must demonstrate and document how the determination was made.

In some circumstances, the best available scientific information would be that which is developed using the scientific method, which includes clearly stated questions, well designed investigations and logically analyzed results, documented clearly and subjected to peer review. However, in other circumstances the best available scientific information for the matter under consideration may be information from analyses of data obtained from a local area, or studies to address a specific question in one area. In other circumstances, the best available scientific information could be the result of expert opinion, panel consensus, or observations, as long as the responsible official has a reasonable basis for relying on that information. Regardless of the source of the information, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Information Quality Bulletin on Peer Review may apply.

The proposed rule would require the responsible official to document how the best available scientific information was taken into account in the assessment report, the plan decision document, and the monitoring evaluation reports. Through this requirement, the Agency seeks to ensure science is considered throughout the planning process and decisions are well-thought-out and reasoned. This requirement would also provide transparency and an explanation to the public as to how science was used and how the responsible official arrived at important decisions.

It is important to note that the Agency is already required to incorporate science into decisionmaking. The Agency has a longstanding practice of considering relevant factors and explaining the bases for its decisions. Including this section in the proposed rule, with its explicit requirements for determining and documenting the consideration of the information most accurate, reliable, and relevant to making planning decisions, will help to ensure a consistent approach across the National Forest System. However, this section is not intended to impose a higher standard for judicial review than the existing “arbitrary and capricious” standard.

The requirements of this section of the proposed rule are also separate from those of NEPA (40 CFR 1502.22(b)), which requires the responsible official to seek out missing or incomplete scientific information needed for an environmental impact statement, unless the costs of doing so are prohibitive. This section of the proposed rule does not change that requirement. However, the requirements proposed in section 219.3 apply throughout the planning process, and are focused on ensuring the responsible official takes into account the best scientific information that is already available. Thus, while an assessment report or monitoring evaluation report may identify gaps or inconsistencies in data or scientific knowledge, this rule would not impose the affirmative duty that the CEQ regulation applies to EISs, that is, to engage in new studies or develop new information, or to document that the costs of seeking new information are prohibitive.

During the public participation process to create this proposed rule, questions were raised as to what, if anything, the rule should say about the role of science in decisionmaking. Some suggested that science should inform planning but not have a dominant or exclusive role in the decisions. Others wanted more structure or national standards. Many expressed the desire that the input of non-scientists be used to inform agency decisionmaking as many of the issues and problems have social and economic aspects that cannot be resolved through scientific or technical solutions. There were differing opinions on how science should be used to resolve differences in value judgments and how science and public participation should be integrated and weighted in the decisionmaking process. The Agency believes the proposed rule would strike the appropriate balance for using science as an integral and foundational, but not the sole, influence on planning.

The Forest Service Directive System would contain further detail on how to document the consideration of science including identifying the sources of data such as peer reviewed articles, scientific assessments, or other scientific information, and when applicable, the Forest Services' information quality guidelines and OMB's Information Quality Bulletin on Peer Review. Direction about science reviews may be found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12—Land Management Planning, Chapter 40—Science and Sustainability.

Section 219.4 Requirements for Public Participation

Participation Opportunities

The proposed rule seeks to ensure that the Forest Service provides meaningful opportunities for the public to participate early and throughout the planning process. This section lists the specific points during the planning process when opportunities for public participation would be provided. In order to meet these requirements, the responsible official must be proactive considering who may be interested in the plan, who might be affected by a

plan or change to a plan, and how to encourage various constituents and entities to engage. Additionally, the proposed rule would require the responsible official to use collaborative processes when possible, to take into account the various roles and responsibilities of participants and the responsibilities of the Forest Service itself, and to create a process that is open and accessible.

To develop the public participation requirements of this proposed rule, the Forest Service used the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) publication:

Collaboration in NEPA—A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners at:

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ntf/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct_2007.pdf,

(the rule definition of collaboration, at § 219.19, references the CEQ handbook). The CEQ handbook describes a spectrum of engagement, including the categories of inform, consult, involve, and collaborate. Each of these categories is associated with a set of tools, from traditional activities such as notice and comment on the inform end of the spectrum, to consensus building or a Federal advisory committee on the collaborative end of the spectrum. Because “collaboration” is often associated with only those activities on one end of the public engagement spectrum, the rule uses the term “public participation” to clarify the level of public engagement that could be used in the planning process. Every planning process would involve traditional scoping and public comment; in addition, the responsible official would determine the combination of additional public participation strategies that would best engage a diverse set of people and communities in the planning process.

It is important to clarify that while this section of the rule commits the Agency to public participation requirements and encourages collaboration, the Forest Service would retain final decisionmaking authority and responsibility throughout the planning process.

A successful planning process must be socially inclusive in order to adequately reflect the range of values, needs, and preferences of society, and especially those who may be affected by land management planning. The outcomes of public participation can include a greater understanding of interests underlying the issues, a shared understanding of the conditions on the unit and in the broader landscape that provide the context for planning, the development of alternatives that could accommodate a wide range of interests, and the potential development of a shared vision for the unit, as well as an understanding of how and why planning decisions are made. People expressed the desire to participate at a number of points in the planning process, including, but not limited to, crafting the proposed plan revision or plan amendment and monitoring unit progress toward meeting the plan desired conditions, objectives, or other plan components.

The proposed rule specifically would require the responsible official to encourage participation by the public, Tribes, governments, scientists, and other individuals by sharing knowledge, ideas, and resources. It is also expected that the responsible official would rely on proactive, contemporary tools, such as the Internet, to encourage widespread participation.

Because the make-up and dynamics of the communities surrounding each planning area differ, and because the level of interest in decisionmaking may vary, based on the scope and potential impact of the decision being contemplated, the responsible official would need the flexibility to select the public participation methods that would best meet the needs of interested people and communities. Some people wanted a rule that contains thorough process and method requirements detailing how each unit would conduct public participation. Others wanted the responsible official to have full discretion for how public participation would be conducted. The Agency is proposing a balanced approach that would require the responsible official to engage a diverse array of people and communities throughout the planning process but would allow flexibility in the methods.

Many people discussed the need for the Forest Service to make a stronger effort to engage groups and communities that traditionally have been underrepresented in land management planning. This is reflected in the requirement that responsible officials encourage the participation of youth, low-income populations, and minority populations in the planning process and in the requirements to be proactive to use contemporary tools to reach out to the public and consider the accessibility of the process to interested groups and individuals. The Agency recognizes the need to engage a full range of interests and individuals in the planning process and the responsibility to promote environmental justice.

Tribal Participation in Land Management Planning

The proposed rule also acknowledges the Federal Government's unique obligations and responsibilities to Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations in the planning process. The proposed rule recognizes the government-to-government relationship that creates a unique role for federally recognized Tribes. As required by Executive Order 13175, government-to-government consultation would continue throughout the development of plans separately, and in addition to, the process for public participation. The Agency also seeks to involve Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations throughout the planning process and the proposed rule would require the responsible official to encourage their participation in the public process. The responsible official would work with Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations to seek out native knowledge, including information about land ethics, cultural issues, and sacred and culturally significant sites as an additional opportunity for information sharing and dialog that would augment the consultation process.

Several Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations are concerned about keeping information confidential to protect sites from vandalism. Responsible officials will protect confidentiality regarding information given by Tribes in the planning process and may enter into agreements to do so. Participation in a collaborative process would be voluntary and would supplement, not replace consultation.

The Agency heard from Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations that the rule should clearly state how the rights and interests of Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations would be provided for in the planning process. The comments emphasized the obligations the Forest Service has to honor the exercise of treaty rights on NFS lands and the need to fully recognize the government-to-government relationship that exists between the Federal Government and federally recognized Indian Tribes. Requirements in this section of the proposed rule, as well as § 219.1, seek to respond to those comments.

Coordination With Other Public Planning Efforts

Some local governments also asked that the planning rule require land management plans to strive for consistency with local government plans. The proposed rule would require that during the plan development or plan revision process, the responsible official would review the planning and land use policies of federally recognized Indian Tribes and of other Federal, State, and local governments and document the results of the review in

the draft EIS. The review would include assessments conducted by other Federal agencies, statewide forest resource assessments, community wildfire protection plans, or state wildlife action plans. The review would consider the objectives of federally recognized Indian Tribes, and of other Federal, State, and local governments, as expressed in their plans and policies, and would assess the compatibility and interrelated impacts of these plans and policies. The review would include a determination of how each Forest Service plan should address the impacts identified or how each plan might contribute to joint goals.

Requiring land management plans to be consistent with local government plans; however, would not allow the flexibility needed to address the diverse management needs on NFS lands and could hamper the Agency's ability to address regional and national interests on Federal lands. In the event of conflict with Forest Service planning objectives, consideration of alternatives for resolution within the context of achieving NFS goals or objectives for the unit would be explored.

Section 219.5 Planning Framework

This section provides an overview of a proposed new framework for land management planning that would require a three-part learning and planning cycle: assessment, development/revision/amendment, and monitoring. This new framework is science-based and would provide a blueprint for the land management process, creating a structure within which land managers and partners could work together to understand what is happening on the land, revise management plans to respond to existing and predicted conditions and needs, and monitor changing conditions and the effectiveness of management actions to provide a continuous feedback loop for adaptive management.

In the assessment phase, the responsible official would conduct a review of conditions on the ground and in the context of the broader landscape, using available ecological, social, and economic data to the extent possible. The assessment phase would lead to the identification of a potential need to change the unit's plan. In the development, revision, or amendment phase, the responsible official would work with other government agencies, Tribes, and the public to use the information gathered in the assessment phase to shape a proposed action that would respond to the need for change. This process would include scoping and public comment in accordance with agency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and would culminate in a plan decision. In the monitoring phase, the responsible official would implement a monitoring plan informed by the assessment and developed as part of the plan, revision, or amendment. This phase would give managers data to evaluate management actions and measure effectiveness, test assumptions, track changing conditions, and make adjustments to both projects and to the land management plan as needed.

This framework would also guide land managers in working with the public and partners before, during, and after plans are written, offering participation opportunities to partners and interested parties throughout the planning process. An open and participatory approach for each phase of the framework is intended to ensure planning efforts are well understood; informed by public knowledge and opinion; and responsive to ecological, social, and economic conditions that may be impacted by management on the unit.

The approach described in the proposed framework responds to the public's stated desire for participation throughout land management planning. The assessment phase would allow for early public participation—well before a proposed action—so that stakeholders could engage in joint fact-finding and develop a mutual understanding of the interconnections among social, economic, and ecological communities and systems. The development/revision/amendment element of the framework responds to the public desire to help develop and provide meaningful input to proposals for land management plans. The monitoring part of the framework responds to stakeholder's desires for a systematic, deliberate, monitoring approach that can inform, and be informed, by other monitoring efforts relevant to management on the unit. Both stakeholders and the Agency recognize the potential efficiencies of a uniform monitoring approach and hope to increase information sharing and learning opportunities.

The proposed framework embraces adaptive management in planning and reflects key themes heard from the public, as well as experience gained through the Agency's 30-year history with land management planning. The new proposed framework is intended to establish a more responsive and agile process that would allow the Agency to adapt management to changing conditions and improves management based on new information and monitoring. As proposed, the framework would support a more integrated and holistic approach to management recognizing the interdependence among all parts of the ecosystem including the communities (biotic and human) and systems (functions and values) that are part of each forest.

Section 219.6 Assessments

This section sets out both process and content requirements for assessments. Assessments are intended to provide a solid base of information and context for plan decisionmaking. The responsible official would have discretion to set the scale and scope of the assessment but would engage the public early and would encourage participation in the assessment process. The content of assessments would be used to develop new plans and plan revisions, to develop monitoring questions, and to provide a feedback loop. The scope and scale of an assessment could be comprehensive, such as those for a revision, or they could be narrow, such as those for an amendment focused on one issue.

Responsible officials would use assessments to determine the unique roles and contributions of the unit within the context of the broader landscape as well as the need to change the plan. Assessments should provide useful information to the responsible official to develop plan components and other content for a new or revised plan, to identify gaps in needed information that might be filled by a monitoring program, to identify changing conditions that the Agency might need to track, or to identify assumptions that should be tested later.

Process Requirements

This section of the proposed rule would require an assessment prior to plan revision or development. The responsible official would reach out to the public, Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, States, local governments, and scientists to start the assessment and help identify the questions and issues to be considered. The responsible official would also be required to coordinate with the regional forester, and agency staff from State and Private Forestry, Research and Development, as well as other governmental and non-governmental partners to consolidate existing information and develop strategies for satisfying any additional information needs. Early engagement with a diverse set of interests is needed to create an accurate depiction of the issues affecting the plan area and a solid base of understanding for any changes needed to the plan.

This section of the proposed rule would require the responsible official to document the assessment in a report or set of reports. To bring transparency and accountability to the assessment process, the reports would be available to the public. The report, or set of reports, would be included in the planning record and document how the relevant best available scientific information was taken into account. Within the report, the responsible official would identify how a new plan should be proposed or identify the potential need to change an existing plan based on the assessment.

Content Requirements

At a minimum, the content of assessments for revisions and new plans would provide information to support development of plan components that meet the substantive requirements of other rule provisions such as sustainability (§ 219.8), diversity (§ 219.9), multiple uses (§ 219.10), and the timber requirements based on the NFMA (§ 219.11). In order that planners have sufficient information to meet the requirements set out in sections 219.8 through 219.11, assessments would include information on existing conditions, trends, and stressors, both on and off the unit, which might impact resources or ecological, social, or economic sustainability.

An assessment is expected to use existing information and be conducted rapidly in order to respond to changing conditions. Existing information may come from sources inside or outside the Forest Service, such as assessments conducted by other Federal agencies, statewide forest resource assessments, community wildfire protection plans, or state wildlife action plans. Existing information would be gathered and synthesized for relevant ecological, economic, and social conditions and trends within the context of the broader landscape. However, nothing in this section would restrict the responsible official from gathering new information to address the issues or questions for the assessment.

Assessments for Plan Amendments

Because plan amendments vary in their complexity, this section provides a flexible approach to preparing an assessment for a plan amendment. Plan amendments would be based on a documented need for change but do not require an assessment. In some cases, the information from monitoring and evaluation would identify the need for change, or the need may arise from an unexpected proposed use such as a new permit application. Thus, there would be no need for an assessment. In other cases, the assessment would focus on an issue or question that only affects a portion of the plan area. In such a case, the scope of the assessment would be narrow and scale would be small. In other cases, particularly for complex issues that cross unit boundaries, the responsible official could conduct a more comprehensive assessment for an amendment.

Section 219.7 Plan Development or Plan Revision

This section sets out requirements for how to develop a new plan or revise an existing plan. This section has two primary topics: (1) The process for developing or revising plans and (2) the plan, which includes plan components and other content in the plan. Plans and plan revisions provide direction and guidance and management for the unit as a whole. Plan revisions are required every 15 years under the NFMA. Most plans would be revised in the 15-year period. However, the responsible official has the discretion to determine at any time that conditions on a unit have changed significantly such that a plan must be revised. A plan revision before the 15-year requirement has been rare in the past, and is expected to be rare in the future.

A plan revision is considered an entirely new plan even if it uses much of the same direction and guidance as the previous version.

Process Requirements

The responsible official would begin by notifying the public of the start of a process to draft a proposed plan. That proposal would be informed by the assessment(s) that would identify the need to change the plan as well as information about the unique roles of the unit in the context of the broader landscape.

Drafting a proposed plan with public participation is a change from current planning processes. Typically, the responsible official appoints an interdisciplinary team to draft a proposed plan and then publishes it for public comment. Under the proposed rule, the public would have opportunities to shape the proposed plan while it is being drafted, however, these opportunities are not intended to prejudge the outcome of the NEPA process. This process change responds to the desire expressed during the collaborative process for this proposed rule that the public be involved early, before proposed plans are already drafted.

The process would include the preparation of an EIS with opportunities for consideration of alternatives during a public comment period. By crafting a proposed plan with public participation, it is expected that meaningful alternatives would be rapidly developed and evaluated in the EIS. The environmental analysis should be focused and the responsible official should reach a decision in a timely manner.

As part of the process for developing a proposal, this section would require the responsible official to, at minimum, review information from the assessment. This includes consideration of conditions, trends, and stressors that affect plan components as well as the identification of the presence and value of resources on the unit. The responsible official would also assess potential wilderness areas, eligible wild and scenic rivers, suitability of areas for resource management, and the quantity of timber that can be removed in accordance with NFMA requirements. The proposed plan would identify questions for the monitoring plan and potential other content in the plan. These requirements are designed to form a basis for developing plan components and content that would meet the requirements set forth in this proposed rule.

Many people have asked that the rule streamline planning; that it not include detailed processes and methods that may rapidly become outdated. By conducting an assessment using a collaborative approach prior to starting a new plan or plan revision and by working with the public to develop a proposal for a new plan or plan revision, the Agency expects that the actual preparation of a plan would be much less time consuming. These process requirements incorporate the best practices learned from the past 30 years of planning and the Agency believes these practices should be carried out in an efficient and effective manner.

Plan Components

This section sets out proposed requirements for plan components. Every plan would contain five plan components: desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability of areas. Plans could also contain goals, an optional plan component. These plan components are based on techniques widely accepted and practiced by planners, both inside and outside of government. Every plan would contain at least one of each of the required five plan components—these are the central parts of a plan. Projects and activities would be required to be consistent with plan components.

Except to correct clerical errors, plan components could only be changed through plan amendment or revision.

Desired conditions identify an overall vision for the unit. When developed during a collaborative process with the public, desired conditions would provide a way to identify a shared vision for a plan area. Other plan components would provide the strategy and guidance needed to achieve that vision. A desired condition is generally supported by objectives that identify intended, measureable progress toward reaching the desired condition. Taken as a whole, objectives lead to the development of a proactive program of work of passive or active management designed to achieve the desired condition.

Standards, guidelines, and suitability (identifying lands within the planning area as suitable or not suitable for various uses) are intended to create a framework that would permit uses, projects, and activities that move the unit toward the desired conditions, while restricting uses, projects, or activities that may be inconsistent with achieving desired conditions.

Standards are mandatory constraints and do not allow for deviation. The Agency heard from the public that many people want the rule to include “default” standards, and others want a way for responsible officials to “opt-out” of standards when they do not fit the situation at hand. The Agency recognizes that circumstances on the ground differ from place-to-place. The proposed rule would require guidelines that, like standards, are requirements. Guidelines are not intended to allow an “opt-out,” but they would allow the responsible official some flexibility in how to meet the intent of the guideline, recognizing that different conditions may necessitate a different approach. Guidelines provide a means to protect resources in different ways depending on those circumstances.

Examples of a desired condition, objective, standard, and guideline for long leaf pine restoration are provided below.

These examples assume that during the assessment it was determined that the native ecological condition for a portion of the plan area on a coastal plain forest should be a long leaf pine savanna. The existing condition has 45 percent of the area dominated by loblolly pine forest with closed canopy and a sparse understory. The following statement would describe the desired condition, usually in terms of composition, structure, and function for ecological types.

Desired condition:

First would be a description of the composition:

The composition is predominately longleaf pine savanna, comprising approximately 75 percent of the area. There are patches of mixed pine/hardwood primarily along streams, but these patches comprise less than 25 percent of the total composition.

Often a statement would follow regarding the vegetation structure:

The forest has two distinct layers: a pure longleaf pine open canopy approaching 70 feet in height and a wiregrass dominated herbaceous layer.

The functions or processes in this ecological type would then be described:

This savanna structure is maintained by recurring fire on an average 3-year cycle. This ecological type functions as primary nesting and foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker.

Objective:

The objective statement would be written to show the change from the existing condition to the desired condition:

Restore longleaf pine on approximately 1250 to 1500 acres per year over for the 10 years following plan approval on longleaf pine landtypes currently dominated by loblolly pine. Within 5 years of the restoration activity, the desired outcome is 150 to 250 seedlings per acre, free of competition.

Standard:

A standard intended to protect all existing longleaf pine could be written as:

Retain any longleaf pine during the restoration activity.

Guideline:

A guideline to protect soil and water with built in flexibility could be written as:

To avoid unacceptable risks of erosion, mechanical fire lines should not occur on slopes greater than 30 percent or on the highly erosive X, Y, and Z soil types.

In the suitability plan component, the plan would identify specific areas of the planning unit as being suitable or not suitable for certain types of uses or activities. The plans are not required to have suitability identified for any specific type of use or activity, with the exception that areas not suitable for timber production must be identified as required by the NFMA. Determining the suitability of a specific land area for a particular use or activity is usually based upon the desired condition for that area and the inherent capability of the land to support the use or activity. If the plan identifies an area as not suitable for a type of use or activity, such a use or activity may not be permitted within that area. If the plan identifies an area as suitable for a type of use or activity, authorization of such a use or activity in that area may be considered; however, site-specific analysis consistent with NEPA procedures and due consideration of relevant factors will always be needed before a specific use or activity can be authorized.

For example, a plan may identify an area as suitable for motorized recreation trails on stable soils, but the plan also has a guideline limiting motorized recreation during the nesting season. Before a new designated motorized trail can be opened in the management area, a site-specific analysis would need to determine which parts of the project area have stable soils and are thus suitable for the motorized trail. Consistent with the plan, a motorized trail may then be proposed within the management area on stable soils with a requirement that it be seasonally closed during the month of the nesting season. The site-specific analysis for the proposal would have to document consistency with the motorized trail suitability, the wildlife guideline, and any other applicable plan components.

A goal is an optional plan component that conveys a broad statement of intent. Usually, goal statements are not associated with on-the-ground conditions in contrast to desired conditions. Instead, goals express intentions about how processes or interactions with the public would be conducted under the plan. Examples of goal statements in current plans are:

Provide opportunities for the local populations to develop a unique connection—a sense of place—to the national forest.

Provide information about the natural and cultural environment to foster understanding of the uniqueness of the resources of the unit and to help develop ecological-based tourism.

Goals are optional plan components because some responsible officials find them useful while others do not. The proposed rule would allow the responsible officials flexibility to choose whether to include goals as a plan component.

The set of plan components must meet the substantive requirements for sustainability (§ 219.8), plant and animal diversity (§ 219.9), multiple uses (§ 219.10), and timber requirements based on the NFMA (§ 219.11) as well as other requirements laid out in the plan. While all plans must contain the required five plan components (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, suitability of areas, and may contain goals), not every issue or resource contained in a plan would require all five plan components. Through the planning process, the responsible official would determine the content of plan components needed to

address specific management issues or resources.

Other Content in the Plan

In addition to the plan components, this section would require other content in the plan for integrated resource management. Other required content differs from plan components in that an amendment or revision would not be required for changes to be made to reflect new information or changed conditions.

This section sets out four requirements for other required content: The monitoring program, identification of watersheds that are a priority for maintenance or restoration, description of the unit's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape, and information reflecting proposed and possible actions that may occur on the unit during the life of the plan. Other content could be included as needed.

The proposed monitoring program, described in § 219.12, would be required in every plan. A monitoring program has been included as other required content, but not as a plan component, so the program can be updated without a plan amendment. In the past, monitoring programs became outdated and ineffective because any changes required a plan amendment, which usually took a long time to complete. Since monitoring methods and protocols are constantly being refined, and since it may be important to add or change a monitoring question or indicator to be sure that the monitoring is effective and targeted to inform and improve management, it is important to have processes where changes can be made rapidly. Reflecting the importance that stakeholders place on monitoring, the proposed rule requires advanced public notice (§ 219.16) of any changes to be made in the monitoring program, along with an opportunity for the public to provide comment on the proposed change.

The proposed requirement that other required content include the identification of priority watersheds for maintenance or restoration is designed to complement the water-based sustainability requirements found in § 219.8. The Agency realizes that areas prioritized for potential restoration activities could change quickly due to events such as wildfire, hurricanes, drought, or the onslaught of invasive species. Therefore, this requirement is included in this section as other required content rather than in § 219.8 for plan components thus allowing an administrative change (§ 219.13) to be used to re-prioritize watersheds for maintenance or restoration.

The proposed requirement that the plan describe the unit's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape is designed to ground the development of plan components in a context of capability and opportunity. The identification of the unit's roles and contributions directly supports development of desired conditions and objectives. The requirement should lead to each unit developing a plan that reflects its unique characteristics while addressing issues of importance for the NFS and setting priorities for management.

Section 219.8 Sustainability

Sustainability is the fundamental principle that will guide land management planning. The intent is for plans to guide management so that NFS lands are ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability, with resilient ecosystems and watersheds, diverse plant and animal communities, and the capacity to provide people and communities with a range of social, economic, and ecological benefits for the present and future generations.

The requirements of this section of the proposed rule are linked to the requirements in the assessment (§ 219.6) and monitoring sections (§ 219.12). In addition, this section provides a foundation for the next three sections regarding diversity of plant and animal communities (§ 219.9), multiple uses (§ 219.10), and timber requirements based on the NFMA (§ 219.11). Together these sections of the proposed rule would guide the land management planning process for maintaining or restoring ecological sustainability on NFS lands and contributing to social and economic sustainability of the local communities and regions and the Nation.

The proposed requirements of this section are limited to what can be accomplished within the Agency's authority and the capability of the unit. This limitation arises from the fact that some influences on sustainability are outside the Agency's control, for example, climate change, extreme disturbance events, and urbanization on lands outside of or adjacent to NFS lands. Given those constraints, the Agency realizes it cannot guarantee sustainability. However, it can establish planning processes and practices that provide the best opportunity for maintaining or restoring sustainable ecological systems and contributing to social and economic sustainability.

It is important to note that plan components themselves could not compel agency action or guarantee specific results. Instead, they provide the vision, strategy, guidance, and constraints needed to move the unit toward sustainability. This section must be read with these constraints in mind.

Ecological Sustainability

A common theme brought up throughout the public involvement process was the importance of maintaining or restoring healthy, resilient ecosystems and the benefits that such resilient systems provide. Examples of such benefits include a reduced risk of catastrophic fire, clean abundant water, connected habitats for wide ranging species, and economic benefits. Those themes are reflected in the requirements of this section in the proposed rule.

The proposed requirements for plan components in this section are based on sound ecological principles that the health of aquatic and terrestrial systems is interdependent, and that they are shaped by processes at the landscape scale. When the Agency speaks of ecological sustainability in this document, the Agency means to maintain or restore ecosystem and watershed structure, function, composition, and connectivity.

The proposed rule, therefore, would require the development of plan components that maintain or restore the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of these systems as a whole and that maintain, protect, or restore key elements within each system. Management to maintain, protect, and restore ecosystems would include both active and passive management and require different levels of investment based on the difference between the desired and existing conditions of the system.

In designing plan components to maintain or restore ecosystems and watersheds, the proposed rule would require the responsible official to take into account the physical (including air quality) and biological integration of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within a landscape. Because fire is an important ecosystem driver, the proposed rule would require that the responsible official would also take wildland fire and opportunities to restore wildland fire ecosystems into account. During the planning process, other potential ecosystem drivers, disturbance regimes, and environmental stressors, including climate change, would be identified, assessed, and considered when developing plan

components for ecological sustainability.

Paragraph (a)(2) would require that the responsible official develop plan components to maintain, protect, or restore certain ecosystem elements. The first two elements would require the responsible official to develop plan components for aquatic and terrestrial areas, including lakes, streams, wetlands, forest stands, meadows, and other habitat types. These areas represent the individual elements that form a foundation for maintaining the health and resilience of the overall ecosystem or watershed. The third element would require plan components for rare aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal communities, which may have particular value as communities, consistent with the individual species and ecosystem diversity requirements in § 219.9. Finally, plan components would be required to protect, maintain, and restore clean, abundant water supplies (both surface and groundwater sources), and soils, and productivity recognizing their importance as fundamental ecosystem resources and services.

Water

One of the original purposes for establishing the NFS was to protect our Nation's water resources. Of all land uses, forested land provides the highest quality water. National Forest System lands contain 400,000 miles of streams, 3 million acres of lakes, and many aquifer systems that together serve as the source of drinking water for more residents of the United States than any other source. The Agency administers over 90,000 water rights in cooperation with States; protects and improves habitat for more than 550 rare, threatened, and endangered aquatic species; provides outdoor recreation to more than 130 million visitors per year near streams, lakes, and other water resources; and supports access and operations for more than 200 hydroelectric facilities. National forests alone provide 18 percent of the Nation's water and over half the water in the West. The Organic Act, Weeks Act, MUSYA, and the NFMA all discuss the protection of water and/or watersheds.

Although forests are effective at maintaining hydrologic functions, there are areas on national forests where water resources are degraded. There are serious environmental and economic costs of depleting or damaging water resources and unsustainable water and land use practices pose risks to people and ecosystems. The quantity and quality of America's water and aquatic habitats are affected by our changing climate as well as by non-climate related stressors. Changing conditions and stressors can include changing water temperatures, variability in volume and timing of precipitation, and increased frequency and severity of floods. The requirements of this section recognize the importance of maintaining those watersheds and aquatic resources that are in good condition and restoring those that are not.

The proposed rule would require that plans include plan components to maintain, protect, and restore public water supplies, groundwater, sole source aquifers, and source water protection areas where they occur on NFS lands. Source water protection areas are areas delineated for public water systems as part of the State or tribal source water assessment and protection program and may include ground water or surface water or both. Under section 1424(e) of the Safe Water Drinking Act, sole source aquifers are defined as underground water sources that are designated by the Environmental Protection Agency and supply at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer.

Riparian areas are important elements of watersheds that provide critical transition zones linking terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The proposed rule would highlight the importance of maintaining, protecting, or restoring riparian areas and the values such areas provide by requiring that plans include plan components to guide management with riparian areas. The proposed rule also requires that plans establish a default width within which those plan components apply. The width of such zones is usually measured from the edge of the water, extending outward to the adjacent upland areas, and it could be a standard width for all riparian areas or it could vary based on the type of waterbody.

Additionally, riparian areas would be site-specifically verified over time, either during watershed or landscape assessments or when management actions are proposed that might affect riparian areas. The width of the actual riparian area would be based on the characteristics of the site and could be wider or narrower than the default width(s). Many NFS units already have actual riparian areas identified, while in some areas, for example wilderness areas, there may be no need to site-specifically delineate riparian areas. Restoration of riparian areas may be accomplished through passive management or may require active management, particularly in areas where natural disturbance such as fire or flooding have been excluded or where past management has altered function.

Public comment ranged between those who wanted very prescriptive national standards in the rule for such things as road density or riparian area widths and those who wanted very few requirements and ultimate flexibility at the unit level to determine the suite of plan components best suited to the unit's unique situation. The proposed rule reflects a balance by including requirements for plan components to guide management of these resources but not prescribing national standards that may not be ecologically appropriate or practical across all units. In this way, the Agency ensures that all plans will consistently include plan components for these critical resources while allowing the flexibility to design plan components that are ecologically appropriate to the unit.

Social and Economic Sustainability

During the public participation process to develop this proposed rule, there was a divergence of opinion on whether ecological sustainability should take precedence over social and economic sustainability or if the ecological system, the social system, and the economic system are of equal importance. The proposed rule considers the ecological, social, and economic systems as interdependent systems, which cannot be ranked in order of importance.

However, there is an important difference in the wording between the ecological and the social/economic sustainability requirements. The requirements for ecological sustainability would require responsible officials to provide plan components to maintain or restore elements of ecological sustainability. The requirements for social sustainability would require plan components to guide the unit's contribution to social and economic sustainability.

The distinction between these two sets of requirements recognizes the Agency has more influence over the factors that impact ecological sustainability on NFS lands (ecological diversity, forest health, road system management, etc.) than it does for social and economic sustainability (employment, income, community well-being, culture, etc.). National Forest System lands can provide valuable contributions to economic and social sustainability, but that contribution is just one in a broad array of factors that influence the sustainability of social and economic systems. Similar to the requirements for ecological

sustainability, the requirements for social and economic sustainability reflect that NFS lands are integral parts of the larger landscape.

Section 219.8(b) of the proposed rule would require plans to include plan components to guide the unit's contribution to social and economic sustainability. In developing these plan components, the responsible official would be required to take into account through the collaborative planning process and the results of the assessment the social, cultural, and economic conditions relevant to the area influenced by the plan; the distinctive roles and contributions of the unit within the broader landscape; sustainable recreational opportunities and uses; multiple uses, including ecosystem services, that contribute to local, regional, and national economies in a sustainable manner; and cultural and historic resources and uses.

Several Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations requested the rule recognize and provide a framework for sustaining cultural services and benefits from national forests and grasslands, including cultural traditions, ways of life, and cherished spaces. Furthermore, several Tribes and Alaskan Native Corporations requested that sustainability be based on four equal aspects: Ecological, economic, social, and cultural sustainability. The Agency has defined sustainability as having three aspects since 1999: Ecological, economic, and social. Instead of adding a new aspect to sustainability, the Agency proposes that the planning rule require responsible officials to take into account cultural conditions when developing plan components for social and economic sustainability. An alternative way of dealing with this issue would be to require the responsible official to develop plan components for cultural resilience (The ability of cultural knowledge and expression to adapt to social, economic, and ecological change in ways that continue the core meanings of that knowledge and expression). The Agency welcomes public comment on the issue of cultural sustainability.

Requirements for specific elements that would contribute to social and economic sustainability are found in § 219.10 and § 219.11.

Section 219.9 Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities

The Agency is committed to the goals of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the NFMA. This section of the proposed rule demonstrates agency commitment to meeting the NFMA requirement to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the capability of the plan area. The Agency's intent is to keep common native species common, contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conserve candidate species, and protect species of conservation concern.

This section of the proposed rule addresses the diversity requirement by focusing on factors within agency control and using the best available scientific information to design a robust and achievable diversity standard. The proposed rule adopts a complementary ecosystem diversity and species conservation approach to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities in the plan area and the long term persistence of native species. Known as a coarse-filter/fine-filter approach, this is a well-developed concept in the scientific literature and has broad support from the scientific community and many stakeholders. The coarse-filter should provide ecological conditions for the long-term persistence of the vast majority of species within the plan area. The fine-filter would identify specific habitat needs of species with known conservation concerns or whose long-term persistence in the plan area is at risk, and for which the coarse-filter protection is insufficient.

The wording in paragraph (a) for ecosystem diversity intentionally mirrors that found in § 219.8(a)(1) for ecological sustainability, as they are not intended to be separate processes or requirements. The requirements in § 219.8 (a)(1) for plan components to maintain or restore structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds would also meet the requirement of this section to retain or restore ecosystem diversity on the unit. The requirements are restated in both of these sections to emphasize the link between sustainability of terrestrial and aquatic systems and the diversity of plant and animal communities.

Specific agency policy direction for ecosystem diversity and species conservation using the coarse-filter/fine-filter approach, as well as for identifying species of conservation concern would be included in the Forest Service Directive System.

The Coarse-Filter Approach

Paragraph (a) of this section of the proposed rule would require plan components for maintaining or restoring structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds to maintain the diversity of native species. This serves as the “coarse-filter” aspect of the diversity standard. The premise behind the proposed coarse-filter approach is that native species evolved and adapted within the limits established by natural landforms, vegetation, and disturbance patterns prior to extensive human alteration. Maintaining or restoring the ecological conditions similar to those under which native species have evolved therefore offers the best assurance against losses of biological diversity and maintains habitats for the vast majority of species in an area, subject to factors outside of the Agency control, such as climate change. Climate change and related stressors could affect many species and may make it impossible to maintain current ecological conditions.

Ecosystems are described in terms of their composition (vegetation types, rare communities, aquatic systems, riparian systems); structure (vertical and horizontal distribution of vegetation, stream habitat complexity, and riparian habitat elements); function (processes such as stream flows, nutrient cycling, and disturbance regimes); and the connection of habitats (for breeding, feeding, or movement of wildlife and fish within species home ranges or migration areas). Healthy ecosystems are indicated by the degree of ecological integrity related to the completeness or wholeness of their composition, structure, function, and connectivity. Resilience refers to the capacity of the system to absorb disturbance so as to retain essentially the same function. By working toward the goals of diverse native ecosystems with connected habitats that can absorb disturbance, it is expected that over time, management would create ecological conditions, through activities such as ecosystem restoration treatments, which support the abundance, distribution, and long-term persistence of native species within a plan area to provide for plant and animal diversity.

The Fine-Filter Approach

Paragraph (b) of this section sets forth three species-specific requirements for plan components that would provide the basis for the fine-filter approach to species conservation. The intent would be to provide plan components that identify specific habitat needs of species, when those needs are not met through the coarse filter. These species are threatened and endangered (T&E) species, candidate species, and species of conservation concern.

The first species conservation requirement in this section of the proposed rule is to maintain or restore

ecological conditions to contribute to the recovery of T&E species. These species are at risk of extinction and are protected under the ESA. The Agency proposes that its role is to provide ecological conditions in the plan area that would contribute to recovering these species across their ranges, which in many cases includes lands outside NFS boundaries where the Agency has no control. The responsible official may also contribute to other recovery actions, such as species reintroductions to increase species distribution.

The second species conservation requirement proposed in this section of the proposed rule is to maintain or restore ecological conditions to conserve candidate species. These species are plants and animals for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing under the ESA, but for which a listing regulation has not yet occurred. Under the ESA, candidate species do not receive special legal protections, as do threatened and endangered species. However, the agency would like to be proactive and take measures to ensure animal and plant species do not require protection under ESA. Candidate species are not the same as focal species (§ 219.12), but units may choose to use a candidate species as a focal species, as part of their monitoring program. The Agency is proposing to use its policy discretion to take steps to reduce the risks to candidate species from activities on NFS lands. These steps would include identifying specific ecological conditions for NFS land that would conserve candidate species and specifying plan components for the maintenance or restoration of those conditions.

The proposed rule would represent a higher level of protection for candidate species than currently exists in the planning process while still recognizing that candidate species may not have viable populations. Protection requirements for candidate species may at times contradict the protection requirements of other species or other management objectives. The Agency invites public comment on how it should address these circumstances in this rule.

The final species conservation requirement in this section of the proposed rule addresses the needs of species of conservation concern. A species of conservation concern is a species that is not threatened, endangered, or a candidate species, but is one for which the responsible official has determined there is evidence demonstrating significant concern about its capability to persist over the long term in the plan area. A viable population is defined in this proposed rule as a population of a species that continues to persist over the long-term with sufficient distribution to be resilient and adaptable to stressors and likely future environmental conditions. The responsible official would identify, where necessary, specific ecological conditions needed by these species that are not provided by the coarse-filter. The identification of species of conservation concern within the plan area could be based on several criteria, such as substantial scientific information as to the overall status of the species, the quantity and quality of species habitat within the plan area, and the potential for management activities to affect the species habitat within the plan area. Forest Service Directives would contain the criteria for selecting species of conservation concern. State lists of endangered, threatened, rare, endemic, or other classifications of species, such as those listed as threatened under State law; and other sources such as the Nature Serve conservation status system may be used to inform the selection of species of conservation concern.

The proposed rule's requirement for species of conservation concern would be to maintain or restore ecological conditions to maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern within the plan area, within the Agency's authority and consistent with the inherent capability of the plan area. Where a viable population of a species of conservation concern already exists within the plan area, the appropriate ecological conditions needed to maintain the long-term persistence of that species will continue to be provided.

At times, factors outside the control of the Agency prevent the Agency from being able to maintain a viable population of species of conservation concern within the plan area, such as when the range and current distribution of a species extends beyond NFS boundaries. In such cases, the proposed rule would require that the Agency provide plan components to maintain or restore ecological conditions within the plan area for that species, and by doing so to contribute to the extent practicable to a viable population across its range. Additionally, the responsible official would reach out beyond NFS boundaries to land managers who have authority where the species exists, to coordinate management for the benefit of a species across its range.

Some examples of plan components used for the fine-filter approach to address species-specific ecological conditions could be the following: a desired condition statement that describes the composition, structure, and function of a longleaf pine ecosystem that will provide optimum habitat conditions for red-cockaded woodpeckers; an objective for acres of occupied prairie dog habitat to facilitate the goal of reintroducing black-footed ferrets; a standard that sets a maximum road density that will improve habitat conditions for the Canada lynx or gray wolf; or a guideline that recommends a “no disturbing activities” time period within a specified distance of a known bald eagle or goshawk nest site during the critical breeding period.

Diversity of Trees and Other Plant Species

The intent of the “diversity of trees and other plant species” requirement in this section of the proposed rule is to address the specific requirements of the NFMA to preserve, where appropriate, and to the degree practicable, the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan. The proposed rule would require plan components to preserve diversity of native tree and other plant species. Preserving the diversity of tree species native to the unit will also preserve other native plant species. Meeting the requirements for ecosystem diversity and species conservation, as discussed above, would meet this provision as well.

Endangered Species

As part of the Forest Service mission, the actions needed to recover T&E species and maintain or restore critical habitats are a high priority. Under the ESA, the Forest Service is to carry out “programs and activities for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species” (16 U.S.C. 1536 (a)(1)) and “insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by [it] is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [designated critical habitat]” (16 U.S.C. 1635 (a)(2)).

Under the proposed rule, plans would address conservation measures and actions identified in recovery plans relevant to T&E species in the plan area. The Forest Service would continue to collaborate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the development and implementation of recovery plans for these species. The Forest Service would also continue to work with USFWS, NOAA, States, and other partners to conserve and recover

federally listed plant and animal species. The Agency would continue to restore NFS ecosystems and habitats through a number of management activities, including monitoring, habitat assessments, habitat improvements through vegetation treatments and structure installation, species reintroductions, development of conservation strategies, research, and conservation education. In addition, the Agency would continue to evaluate effects of proposed management actions to T&E species or designated critical habitat.

The proposed rule would require the responsible official to explicitly recognize the recovery of T&E species as an important part of land management plans and provide plan components to maintain or restore ecological composition, structure, function, and connectivity. Additionally, the requirements in this section are linked to the proposed requirements for public participation, assessments, and monitoring (Sections 219.4, 219.6, and 219.12 respectively). Collectively these requirements are intended to have the responsible official work beyond the planning unit boundary to collaborate and cooperate with other landowners and land managers in working toward an all-lands approach to ecosystem and species diversity and conservation.

Providing for Diversity Within the FS Authority and the Capability of the Plan Area.

This section fulfills the diversity requirement of the NFMA, which directs the Forest Service to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives of a land management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan” (1604(g)(3)(B)).

The 1982 planning rule required the Forest Service to manage habitat to “maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area” (47 FR 43048; September 30, 1982, section 219.19). The 1982 viability standard at times proved to be unattainable because of factors outside the control of the Agency. Some factors outside the control of the Agency include: (1) Species ranging on and off NFS lands; (2) activities outside the plan area (

e.g.,

increasing fragmentation of habitat, non- and point source pollution) often impact species and their habitats, both on and off NFS lands; (3) failure of the species to occupy suitable habitat; and (4) climate change and related stressors, which could impact many species and may make it impossible to maintain current ecological conditions.

Other stressors, such as invasive species, insects, disease, catastrophic wildfire, floods, droughts, and changes in precipitation, among others, will also affect species and habitat in ways that the Agency cannot completely control or mitigate for.

Additionally, it is important to note that the proposed rule is not limited to “vertebrate” species as required under the 1982 provisions. The proposed rule would include native plants and native invertebrates (fungi, aquatic invertebrates, insects, plants, and others) for which the Agency currently has very minimal biological information on their life histories, status, abundance, and distribution. However, maintaining or restoring ecosystem diversity within the plan area is the best opportunity to conserve these little-known species.

People suggested a broad range of approaches, including reinstating the 1982 viability provision; protecting and maintaining healthy habitats, with no species specific provisions; promoting biodiversity and measuring it with a biodiversity index; monitoring landscape characteristics as proxies for a suite of species; and including both habitat- and species-level standards with specific population monitoring requirements. In addition, some people emphasized the need to coordinate and cooperate beyond NFS unit boundaries for purposes of identifying and protecting critical habitat, migration corridors, and other habitat elements. The Agency believes that the proposed rule requirements to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities are practical and meet the intent of the NFMA.

Section 219.10 Multiple Uses

The intent of this section is to provide the requirements for developing plans that guide management for continued and sustainable multiple uses, including ecosystem services, through integrated resource management, and in the context of the requirements of sections 219.7-11.

Multiple Use Background

NFS lands provide economic, social, and cultural sustenance for local communities; for Tribes; and for people across the Nation. Products and services generated on NFS lands continue to sustain traditional livelihoods, provide for subsistence uses, and provide new economic opportunities or benefits generated through sustainable recreation and tourism, restoration activities, ecosystem services, and renewable energy. National Forest System lands are also of immense social and cultural importance, enhancing quality of life; sustaining scenic, historic, and culturally important landscapes; sustaining traditional life ways; and providing places to engage in outdoor recreation, improve physical and mental health, and reconnect with the land.

The MUSYA has guided NFS management since it was enacted in 1960. The MUSYA expanded upon the original purposes for which national forests may be established and administered, which were identified in the Organic Administration Act: “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.” (Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 475)).

The MUSYA states that the Forest Service is to “administer the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the several products and services obtained therefrom.” (16 U.S.C. 529). The MUSYA defines “multiple use” as “the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services (16 U.S.C. 531(a)). In the MUSYA, Congress declared that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes (16 U.S.C. 528). The MUSYA also explicitly recognizes that “the establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are consistent with the purposes and provisions of [this Act].” (16 U.S.C. 529).

The Agency believes that MUSYA anticipated changing conditions and needs. In particular, the Agency's understanding of what is meant by the “several products and services obtained” from the national forests has changed since 1960, and incorporates all values, benefits, products, and services the Agency now knows the NFS provides, and what are now more typically identified as ecosystem services. Over time, the Agency expects understanding will continue to evolve.

Integrated Resource Management.

The responsible official would use information gathered during assessment and the opportunities for public participation to consider a wide range of resources, potential stressors, foreseeable risks, and opportunities to work with neighboring landowners and partners to develop plan components.

The proposed rule would require the development of a set of plan components that provide for integrated resource management. This is a different approach than the 1982 rule, which focused on individual resources and provided detailed planning processes and guidance based on the type of resource. These requirements did not necessarily translate into integrated plan components and often led to fragmented management of resources within the ecosystem with each resource considered independently within the plan and within Agency management structures. In addition, the level of detail in the requirements was often not relevant or an appropriate fit for circumstances on an individual unit, resulting in Forest Service employees spending disproportionate time on processes that produced little value for plan direction and subsequent management.

Many people expressed a desire for very prescriptive national requirements established for various resources or program areas. Others expressed a desired for a more holistic approach to management focusing on the system as a whole. Still others wanted to see the planning process become “simpler” and “more elegant” without detailed procedures or national prescriptive standards that might become outdated or might not work for all units.

The Agency believes that an interdisciplinary process is the best way to achieve integration of all resource concerns, recognizing that ecosystems are complex communities of interconnected and interdependent resources and systems that function as a whole. To be effective, land management strategies must take into account a wide range of resource conditions and values and strive to achieve multiple benefits while managing the risk of adverse effects to interconnected systems.

This section would require that in meeting the requirements of § 219.8 and § 219.9, and within Forest Service authority, the capability of the plan area and the fiscal capability of the unit, the plan would provide for multiple uses, including ecosystem services, outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish. Paragraph (a) identifies nine factors the responsible official would be required to consider when developing plan components to provide for multiple uses, to the extent that each factor is relevant to the plan area. This requirement builds on a similar requirement in § 219.7(c)(2)(ii), as well as consideration of the resources on the unit during the assessment phase.

First, the responsible official would be required to consider the existence and relative value of the resources on the unit. The list included in the proposed rule is intentionally long in order to reflect stakeholder and agency staff comments that all relevant resources and stressors need to be considered during the planning process. There may be some uses or benefits not included in the list that could be considered if they arise in connection with plan development or revision. The Agency invites public comment on the scope of this list in § 219.10(a)(1). In addition to the resources included on the list, and any others that are relevant, § 219.10(a)(2) and (3) would direct responsible officials to consider renewable and nonrenewable energy and mineral resources on the unit in the context of the unit's contributions within the broader landscape, along with the sustainable management of infrastructure on the unit, such as recreational facilities and transportation and utility corridors.

The proposed rule would require responsible officials to consider opportunities to coordinate with neighboring landowners to link open spaces and take into account joint management objectives where feasible and appropriate. The responsible official would also be required to consider the landscape-scale context for management as identified in the assessment and the land ownership and access patterns relative to the plan area. These requirements reflect the “all-lands” approach the Agency is taking to resource management.

The responsible official would also be required to consider habitat conditions, subject to the requirements of § 219.9, for wildlife, fish, and plants commonly enjoyed and used by the public, such as species that are hunted, fished, trapped, gathered, observed, or needed for subsistence. This requirement is intended to respond to comments the Agency received, particularly from Indian Tribes and State game and fish departments, that certain species play a special role in contributing to social, cultural, and economic sustainability, and that plans should consider habitat for those species beyond what is required to provide diversity. Through this provision the Agency recognizes the important role of NFS lands in providing the habitat for these species subject to the provisions of §§ 219.8 and 219.9. This provision is not intended to require that units support the population goals of State agencies.

Paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9) would require that the responsible official take into account reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, social, and economic sustainability and the potential impacts of climate and other system drivers, stressors, and disturbance regimes, such as wildland fire, invasive species, and human-induced stressors, on the unit's resources. These requirements would build on the assessment and lead into the monitoring phases of planning and are intended to ensure that the responsible official has a science-based understanding of the context for managing resources and providing for multiple uses. Paragraph (a) is not intended to require an exhaustive analysis; rather, the responsible official would consider existing information (§ 219.6), identify gaps and uncertainties in the information, and move forward with reasonable assumptions that could be monitored over time (§ 219.12).

Specific Requirements for Plan Components

This section further describes specific requirements for plan components for new plans or plan revisions. These requirements would be developed based on the set of resources considered in paragraph (a) that contribute to the unique role of the unit in the larger landscape.

Recreation

The high value placed on recreation has been a common theme throughout the public participation process leading to the proposed planning rule. Many people said that the NOI ignored recreation as a stand-alone issue, and wanted the rule to address it separately from the other multiple uses. Others said that recreation should be considered along with, and equal to, all other multiple uses.

Americans make over 170 million visits to national forests and grasslands each year. These visits provide an important contribution to the economic vitality of rural communities as spending by recreation visitors in areas surrounding national forests amounts to nearly 13 billion dollars annually. Recreation is also a critical part of social sustainability, connecting people to nature, providing for outdoor activities that promote long-term physical and mental health, enhancing the American public's understanding of their natural

and cultural environments, and catalyzing their participation and stewardship of the natural world. Providing for sustainable recreation is one of the biggest challenges and opportunities facing the Forest Service, and land management planning is a critical process in meeting this need. The proposed rule recognizes the importance of recreation as a multiple use, and integrates recreation concerns and provides for the unique needs of the recreation resource throughout the planning process, including in the assessment and monitoring phases.

Section 219.8 would require the responsible official to take sustainable recreation opportunities and uses into account when developing plan components to contribute to social and economic sustainability. This section would go a step further, requiring that plan components provide for sustainable recreation, considering opportunities and access for a range of uses. It also calls for plans to identify recreational settings and desired conditions for scenic landscape character. The proposed rule defines sustainable recreation as “the set of recreational opportunities, uses and access that, individually and combined, are ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable, allowing the responsible official to offer recreation opportunities now and into the future. Recreational opportunities could include non-motorized, motorized, developed, and dispersed recreation on land, water, and in the air.”

Together, these requirements and those in sections 219.6 and 219.12 reflect the Agency's intent that the unit would understand recreation roles, demands, benefits, and impacts in the assessment phase; include a set of plan components to provide for sustainable recreational opportunities, uses, and access in the plan, revision, or amendment; and monitor visitor use and progress toward meeting recreational objectives in the monitoring phase.

Cultural and Historic Resources

The Agency recognizes the social, cultural, and economic importance of cultural and historic resources and uses. This section would require that plans would contain plan components designed to protect cultural and historic resources and uses. Our intent in using the word “protection” is to ensure that the responsible official takes into account the effect a plan may have on cultural and historic values and provides for these resources and uses, within the context of managing for multiple uses. The intent is not to create a preservation mandate; rather, where actions might impair the resources or use, the responsible official would seek to avoid or minimize potential harm to the extent practicable. In some cases, damage may occur if necessary to achieve a different multiple use objective.

We also recognize that Tribes may have areas within the national forest system that are of special importance to them, and our intent is to ensure that the responsible official recognizes those areas and provides appropriate management.

Section 219.8 would also require the responsible official to take cultural and historic resources on the unit into account when developing plan components to contribute to social and economic sustainability. Benefits of cultural and historic sites include expanded knowledge and understanding of history; cultural and spiritual connections to our heritage; scientific data about past cultures or historical conditions and similar matters; and tourism that benefits rural economies. The Agency considers these resources very important for social sustainability as well as important economic contributors.

Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Other Designated Areas

This section would require that plan components provide for the protection of designated wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers, and for the protection of recommended wilderness and eligible or suitable wild and scenic rivers in order to protect the ecologic and social values and character for which they may at some point be included in the system(s). These requirements meet agency responsibilities under the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and are consistent with the recognition in the MUSYA that wilderness protection is a valid multiple use. Wilderness areas provide important places for recreation, solitude, and renewal; are refuges for species; and, like cultural and historic sites, can attract tourism that benefits rural economies.

Some members of the public wanted the rule to include additional restrictions on uses within recommended wilderness areas and for eligible or suitable wild and scenic rivers. The Agency believes the requirement in the proposed rule meets the Agency's intent to ensure, in the case of recommended wilderness, that the types and levels of use allowed would maintain wilderness character and would not preclude future designation as wilderness, and, in the case of eligible or suitable wild and scenic rivers, that no modification to the free-flow, river-related values, or classification would be allowed which would preclude future designation.

The Agency also manages other kinds of designated areas, including experimental forests, national heritage areas, national monuments, national recreational areas, national scenic trails, research natural areas, and scenic byways. These are areas or features within a planning unit with specific management direction normally established through a process separate from the land management planning process, including by statute or through a different administrative process. These areas can contribute in important ways to social and economic sustainability as well as ecologic sustainability. This section would require that plan components provide protection and appropriate management guidance for those areas, based on the purpose for which the area is established.

Section 219.11 Timber Requirements Based on the NFMA

Timber is one of the multiple uses of the NFS, as recognized by the MUSYA and the Act of 1897, also known as the Organic Administration Act. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 at the time signaled a new direction for the planning and management of NFS lands, especially with regard to management of the timber resource and impacts to other resources. Management and use of timber harvest on NFS lands continue to evolve. Today, harvest of timber on NFS lands occurs for many different reasons, including restoration of ecological resilience, community protection in wildland urban interfaces, habitat restoration, and protection of municipal water supplies. Timber harvest also supports economic sustainability through the production of timber, pulp for paper, specialty woods for furniture, and fuel for small-scale renewable energy projects. Timber harvesting, whether for restoration or wood production objectives, also provides employment and tax revenue in many counties throughout the country.

This section would meet the statutory requirements of the NFMA related to management of the timber resource. It includes provisions for identification of lands as suitable or not suitable for timber production. It would allow for timber harvest on lands unsuitable for timber production for other reasons, such as for: achieving desired conditions and objectives of the plan, multiple use purposes, sanitation, salvage, or protection of public health

and safety. The NFMA, along with the proposed requirements of this section, would provide for mitigation of the effects of timber harvest on other resources and multiple uses. Other sections of this proposed rule contain provisions that would supplement the protections of this section.

The specific factors proposed in this rule for identifying lands not suitable for timber production are based on the NFMA requirements limiting timber harvest (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(E)) and agency policy. Lands would be suitable for timber production unless they are identified in the plan as not suitable, and, as required by the NFMA, lands not suitable for timber production must be reviewed every 10 years to determine whether they are still not suitable. The proposed rule clarifies that timber harvest on lands suitable for timber production can also occur for other reasons, including resource management, restoration, or community protection.

Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section is a specific factor that would not allow lands to be identified as suitable for timber production unless technology is currently available for conducting timber harvest without causing irreversible damage to soil, slope, or other watershed conditions or substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land. Available technology may vary from place to place, and could be any of the following: Horse logging, ground based skidding, aerial systems, or cable logging systems. This provision has been in place since the 1979 rule, to meet the NFMA obligation to consider physical factors to determine the suitability of lands for timber production. The factor has been effective in protecting watershed conditions.

In addition, the proposed rule at paragraph (d) of this section would require plan components to ensure that timber will be harvested from NFS lands only where such harvest would not violate the NFMA prohibition of timber harvest that would irreversibly damage soil, slope or other watershed conditions (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(E)(i)). This prohibition applies whether the harvest is for timber production or other purposes, and whether or not lands were identified as suited for timber production.

Some people requested the proposed rule change or add to the NFMA criteria for defining lands not suitable for timber harvest. The Agency believes that the NFMA provisions continue to provide a firm foundation for identifying these lands. The proposed rule includes an additional requirement that would prohibit timber production where it is not compatible with the achievement of desired conditions and objectives established by the plan, including those desired conditions and objectives designed to meet requirements for plan development or revision (§ 219.7); social, economic, and ecological sustainability (§ 219.8); plant and animal diversity (§ 219.9); multiple uses (§ 219.10); and timber (§ 219.11). Some people requested that additional limits be placed on the harvest of timber on lands not suitable for timber production. The Agency believes that the provisions of this section would provide a balanced approach, allowing timber harvest on lands not suitable for timber production if it serves as a tool for achieving or maintaining plan desired conditions or objectives. Timber harvest today is used often to achieve ecological conditions and other multiple use benefits for purposes other than timber production; therefore we have included § 219.11(b)(2) in the proposed rule to clarify.

Paragraph (d) sets forth limits on timber harvest, regardless of the reason, on all NFS lands. All plans would, at a minimum, comply with the limitations set forth by the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(E) and (F)). These requirements would limit harvest to situations where the productivity of the land could be sustained and harvesting prescriptions are appropriately applied. These requirements are referenced but not repeated because the Agency believes they are incorporated and enhanced by the requirements for resource protection and plan compatibility set forth in this section of the proposed rule. However, paragraph (d) does reiterate that harvests must be carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic resources.

Paragraph (d) also includes requirements that track the NFMA at 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(F) regarding even-aged timber harvest. These requirements: (1) Limit clearcutting to locations where it is determined to be the optimum method for regenerating the site; (2) require interdisciplinary review of the harvest proposal; (3) require cutting to be blended with the natural terrain; (4) establish maximum size limits of areas that may be cut; and (5) require that harvest is consistent with resource protections. These limits on the maximum opening sizes were established in the 1979 planning rules and have been in use under the 1982 rule. There were no issues raised about these default maximum size limits in the public comments on the notice of intent or in the collaborative round tables. The procedure for varying these limits is an established process and has worked effectively, providing a limit on opening size and public involvement with higher level approval for exceeding the limits.

The Agency believes that the procedure for varying from these limits may be particularly justifiable in the future for ecological restoration, species recovery, improvement of vegetation diversity, mitigation of wildland fire risk, or other reasons. For example, some rare species are adapted to large patch sizes with similar habitat attributes for critical parts of their life cycle.

Many of the specific NFMA requirements related to timber harvest are not reiterated in the text of the proposed rule, but are incorporated by reference. Some requirements are not repeated because they are addressed by other regulations; for example, the NEPA regulations direct environmental analysis and the use of interdisciplinary teams. Other requirements are not repeated because they are addressed under separate sections of the proposed rule. For example, the minimum harvest limitations are not repeated because § 219.8 incorporates and exceeds the requirements of the NFMA.

Many of the NFMA provisions referenced or included in this section refer to project level activities. The proposed planning rule provides the proposed guidance for developing plans, not guidance for individual projects, and it is important to recognize that any individual timber project or activity could not provide for all aspects of social, economic, or ecological sustainability. However, all projects and activities must be consistent with the plan components developed to meet the requirements of sustainability, diversity, and multiple uses (§§ 219.8 through 219.10), as required by § 219.15.

Section 219.12 Monitoring

Monitoring is a critical part of the proposed planning framework that provides a feedback loop for adaptive management and is intended to test assumptions underpinning management decisions, track conditions relevant to management of resources on the unit, and measure management effectiveness and progress toward achieving desired conditions and objectives.

This section sets forth the proposed requirements for the monitoring program, including unit-level and broader-scale monitoring. The unit-level monitoring program would be informed by the assessment phase, developed

during plan development, plan revision, or amendment, and implemented after plan approval. The regional forester would develop broader-scale monitoring strategies while the responsible official would develop the unit monitoring program. Monitoring results and data would be documented in biennial monitoring evaluation reports, which would include an assessment of whether or not the new information suggests there is a need to change the plan or the monitoring program, or do a new assessment.

In developing the monitoring program, the Agency intends for responsible officials to coordinate with each other, with other parts of the Agency, and with partners and the public. The proposed rule also would require that the responsible official ensure that monitoring efforts are integrated with relevant broader-scale monitoring strategies to ensure that monitoring is complementary and efficient, and that information is gathered at scales appropriate to the monitoring questions. The Agency does not intend for the requirements in this section to lead to an exhaustive or research-based program; monitoring must be targeted toward information needed to inform management of resources on each unit.

The unit-level monitoring program could be changed either in a plan revision or amendment, or through an administrative change (§§ 219.6 and 219.13).

Unit-Level Monitoring

As proposed, the unit-level monitoring program would be part of required other content in the plan, developed by the responsible official, or two or more responsible officials, during development of a new plan or plan revision, with input provided by the public through opportunities for public participation throughout the planning process. The unit-monitoring program sets out unit-monitoring questions and associated indicators, which would be designed to inform the management of resources on the unit.

The responsible official would have the discretion to determine the scope and scale of the monitoring program that best meets the information needs identified through the planning process as most critical for informed management of resources on the unit, taking into account existing information and the financial and technical capacity of the Agency.

This section has eight specific requirements for every unit-monitoring program. This set of requirements is designed to link the monitoring program back to the assessment and plan development or revision phases of the planning framework and to the substantive content requirements set forth in other sections of the proposed rule, thereby creating a feedback loop for adaptive management. A range of monitoring techniques may be used to meet the eight specific requirements.

Every monitoring program would contain one or more questions or indicators that address each of the following: the status of select watershed conditions; the status of select ecological conditions; the status of focal species; the status of visitor use and progress toward meeting recreational objectives; measurable changes on the unit related to climate change and other stressors on the unit; the carbon stored in above ground vegetation; the progress toward fulfilling the unit's distinctive roles and contributions to ecological, social, and economic conditions of the local area, region, and Nation; and finally, the effects of management systems to determine that they do not substantially and permanently impair the productivity of the land.

Monitoring for ecological and watershed conditions is intended to support achievement of the sustainability and diversity requirements of §§ 219.8 and 219.9, and the provisions of multiple uses including ecosystem services in § 219.10.

The proposed requirement that monitoring questions address the status of visitor use and progress toward meeting recreational objectives is intended to support achievement of the sustainable recreation requirements of § 219.8 and the multiple use requirements of § 219.10.

Monitoring questions developed to measure changes on the unit related to climate change and carbon stored in above ground vegetation are intended to help responsible officials understand potential impacts to resources from climate change, as well as contributions of the unit to carbon storage. Currently, the Agency tracks information about climate change influences and carbon storage using the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) through protocols of the Research and Development branch of the Forest Service. The FIA protocol has been an ongoing process for some time. Although they are a required part of the unit monitoring program, it is likely that these monitoring requirements would be coordinated with other agency actions on climate change, and would be met using a broader-scale approach.

Monitoring questions to measure progress toward fulfilling the unit's distinctive roles and contributions to the ecological, social, and economic conditions of the local area, region, and Nation are intended to help the responsible official understand how resources on the unit would contribute to sustainability both locally and in the context of the broader landscape. Monitoring questions that focus on the plan components of desired conditions (the vision for future conditions) and objectives (strategy to make progress toward achieving desired conditions) are expected to be most useful for meeting this requirement.

Monitoring to determine that management systems are not substantially or permanently impairing the productivity of the land is intended to meet the NFMA requirements.

Focal Species and Management Indicator Species

The proposed requirement for monitoring questions that address the status of focal species is linked to the requirement of § 219.9 of the proposed rule to provide for ecosystem diversity, which describes the coarse filter approach for providing diversity of plant and animal communities. The term “focal species” is defined in the rule as: a small number of species selected for monitoring whose status is likely to be responsive to changes in ecological conditions and effects of management. Monitoring the status of focal species is one of many ways to gauge progress toward achieving desired conditions in the plan.

There are several categories of species that could be used to inform the selection of focal species for the unit. These include indicator species, keystone species, ecological engineers, umbrella species, link species, species of concern, and others.

Monitoring the status of selected focal species over time is intended to provide insight into the integrity of ecological systems on which those species depend and the effects of management on those ecological conditions (

i.e.,

the coarse filter aspect of the diversity requirement). It is not expected that a focal species be selected for every element of ecological conditions. The proposed requirement for the responsible official to monitor a small number of focal species is intended to allow discretion to choose the number needed to properly assess the relevant ecological conditions across the planning area, within the financial and technical capabilities of the Agency.

The choice to have the proposed rule require monitoring of focal species as well as select ecological and watershed conditions is a shift from the 1982 rule's requirement to specifically monitor

population trends of “management indicator species,” or MIS. The theory of MIS has been discredited since the 1982 rule. Essentially, monitoring the population trend of one species should not be extrapolated to form conclusions regarding the status and trends of other species. In addition, population trends for most species are extremely difficult to determine within the 15-year life of a plan, as it may take decades to establish accurate trend data, and data may be needed for a broader area than an individual national forest or grassland. Instead, the Agency expects to take advantage of recent technological advancements in monitoring the status of focal species, such as genetic sampling to estimate area occupied by species.

Broader-Scale Monitoring Strategies

The proposed rule would require the regional forester to develop a broader-scale monitoring strategy for those monitoring questions that could best be answered at a scale broader than one unit; for example, detecting changes in conditions related to wide-ranging or migratory species or measuring stressors such as climate change.

The proposed broader-scale monitoring strategy would be a new requirement for the Agency. Other options were considered, such as requiring only a unit-level monitoring program without any specific monitoring requirements. However, the Agency believes that having broader-scale monitoring strategies provides a way to distribute the monitoring workload most efficiently. Unit-level monitoring would be focused on answering questions directly related to the management of an individual plan area, and that are within the capability of the unit to measure. Broader-scale monitoring would look at how plans fit within the larger landscape, taking into account drivers and stressors affecting large ecosystems, multiple land ownerships, and information available from other branches of the Agency as well as other governmental and nongovernmental partners.

Coordinating Unit-Level and Broad-Scale Approaches

The Agency recognizes that the timing of plan revisions and the development of broader-scale strategies needs to be coordinated. In some cases, a plan revision for a unit may not be scheduled for 8 or 10 years, which would delay the development and implementation of an effective broader-scale strategy. To address this concern, the Agency proposes that within 4 years of the effective date of the rule, or as soon as practicable, all units would change their unit-monitoring program to comply with the requirements of this section.

Biennial Evaluations

Many scientists, agency employees, and the public emphasized the importance of using monitoring to measure the effectiveness of plans and regularly evaluate monitoring results to change the plan or to change management activities. Others wanted to use pre-determined thresholds, called triggers, to initiate a change to management activities. These concerns are addressed by the proposed requirement that the responsible official conduct a biennial evaluation of the monitoring information and determine whether there is a need for an administrative correction, a plan amendment, or plan revision. The biennial evaluation of monitoring information is intended to provide a report on progress toward meeting desired conditions and other plan components to determine whether additional actions are necessary. The biennial monitoring evaluation does not need to evaluate all questions or indicators on a biennial basis but must focus on new data and results that provide new information for management.

The Agency considered other timeframes for the evaluation, such as an annual evaluation or a 5-year evaluation. The Agency experience is that an annual evaluation is too frequent to determine trends or to accumulate meaningful information and the 5-year time frame is too long to wait in order to respond to changing conditions. Therefore, the Agency proposes that the monitoring evaluation would occur at a 2-year interval.

The Agency also considered requiring pre-determined thresholds or triggers to initiate a change to management activities. The Agency experience is that pre-determined thresholds may be quite difficult to develop and therefore may take years to formulate when there is uncertainty regarding scientific or other information. Instead, during the biennial evaluation, the responsible official would decide whether the monitoring data indicates that a change to the plan or management activities is warranted. Changes to the monitoring program would also be considered based on the evaluation, to ensure that monitoring remains effective and relevant.

The first monitoring evaluation for a plan or plan revision developed under this proposed rule would have to be produced no later than 2 years from the time of plan approval. For plan monitoring programs that were developed under the provisions of a prior planning regulation, the first monitoring evaluation would have to be produced no later than 2 years from any change made to meet the requirements of this section. The proposed rule would require all units to change their monitoring programs to conform to this section of the rule within 4 years of the effective date of the rule, or as soon as practicable.

The public notice of the availability of the monitoring evaluation report may be made in any way the responsible official deems appropriate (§ 219.16(c)(5)). The responsible official may post on the Forest Service Web site. The responsible official may postpone the monitoring evaluation for 1 year after providing notice to the public in the case of exigencies such as a natural disaster or catastrophic fire.

Section 219.13 Plan Amendment and Administrative Changes

This section sets out the proposed process for changing plans through plan amendments or administrative changes. The requirements in this section are intended to facilitate rapid amendment and adjustment of plans. The section would allow the responsible official to use new information obtained from the monitoring program or other sources and react to changing conditions to amend or change the plan.

Public comments emphasized the need for the Agency to have a framework for adaptive management. Under this proposed rule's framework, the Agency anticipates the availability of more complete information provided through the unit-monitoring program and evaluation reports. The framework is also expected to facilitate more collaboration with the public and a more efficient amendment process. Comments about how to change the plan ranged from a desire for a flexible and rapid approach to plan changes, to those who wanted more structure and requirements for both the process of planning and actual content of the plan. The Agency believes the approach taken in the proposed rule strikes an appropriate balance with rule requirements commensurate with the three methods of changing the plan described below.

Plan revisions as described in § 219.7 contain more comprehensive requirements, as the revision stage is the appropriate time for a comprehensive evaluation of the plan. As noted in § 219.7, plan revisions are required every 15 years. However, the responsible official has the discretion to determine at any time that conditions

on a unit have changed significantly such that a plan must be revised. A plan revision before the 15-year requirement has been rare in the past, and is expected to be rare in the future.

Plan amendments incrementally change the plan as need arises. Plan amendments could range from project specific amendments, amendments of one plan component, to the amendment of multiple plan components. Finally, the proposed rule allows for administrative changes, which would allow for rapid correction of errors in the plan components and rapid adjustment of other content in the plan.

Plan Amendments

The proposed rule would provide that the responsible official could amend plans or change the plan at any time. Plan amendments would be required whenever a plan component would be materially altered (clerical errors could be corrected by an administrative change). Plan amendments may change other content in the plan. The process requirements for plan amendments and administrative changes would be simpler than those for new plan development or plan revisions in order to allow responsible officials to keep plans current and adapt to new information or changed conditions.

The proposed rule would require that for new plans or plan revisions responsible officials conduct an assessment and collaboratively develop the plan proposal prior to issuing a proposed plan and environmental documents, entertaining objections to the proposed plan, and approving the plan or plan revision. Amendments may include each of those steps, but the proposed rule would allow the responsible official to rely on a documented need to change the plan to propose an amendment without doing an assessment or including the separate process step of developing a proposal before issuing a proposed amendment.

An amendment would be preceded by a documented need to change the plan, set out in an assessment report, monitoring evaluation report, or other source. For example, a monitoring evaluation report may show that a plan standard is not sufficiently protecting streambeds, indicating that a change to that standard may be needed to achieve the unit's objective or desired condition for riparian areas. In that case, the responsible official could choose to act quickly to propose an amendment to change that particular plan component, without doing an additional assessment or developing a proposal that goes further than the specific need to change the plan clearly indicated by the monitoring report.

However, the responsible official could choose to conduct an assessment and take additional time to develop a proposal when the potential amendment is broader or more complex or requires an updated understanding of the landscape-scale context for management. For example, a monitoring evaluation report may indicate that a new invasive species is affecting forest health on the unit. The responsible official may want to conduct an assessment to synthesize new information about the spread of that species, how other units or land management agencies are dealing with the threat, what stressors make a resource more vulnerable to the species, how the species may be impacting social or economic values, or how neighboring landowners are approaching removal of the species. The outcome of the assessment may identify a need to change the plan through an amendment. The responsible official, consistent with the requirements for public participation in § 219.4, would then collaboratively develop with the public a proposal to amend several plan components to deal with the invasive species.

For plan amendments done to make a specific project or activity consistent with a plan, the project analysis alone would likely suffice to document the need to change the plan.

All plan amendments must comply with Forest Service NEPA procedures. The proposed rule provides that appropriate NEPA documentation for an amendment could be an EIS, an environmental assessment (EA), or a categorical exclusion (CE) depending upon the scope and scale of the amendment and its likely effects.

Administrative Changes

Administrative changes would be permitted to correct clerical errors to plan components, to alter content in the plan other than the plan components, or to achieve conformance of the plan to new statutory or regulatory requirements. A clerical error is an error of the presentation of material in the plan such as phrasing, grammar, typographic errors, or minor errors in data or mapping that were appropriately evaluated in the development of the plan, plan revision, or plan amendment.

An administrative change could not otherwise be used to change plan components or the location in the plan area where plan components apply, except to conform the plan to new statutory or regulatory requirements. Whether an administrative change or an amendment would be done to conform plan components to a new statutory or regulatory requirement would depend upon the requirement. A requirement that would allow no discretion in management would call for simply an administrative change, as there would be no decision for the responsible official to make, and no reason for public input. For example, an addition of lands to an existing wilderness boundary would call for simply extending the wilderness plan components to the newly included lands, as there would be no reason to manage those lands differently from the rest of the wilderness. In contrast, designation of an entirely new wilderness would require a plan amendment to ensure appropriate public involvement in the development of plan components for the new wilderness area.

Other content in the plan that could be altered with an administrative change, as identified in § 219.7(e), includes the monitoring plan, the identification of watersheds that are a priority for maintenance or restoration, the unit's distinctive roles and contributions, and information about proposed or possible actions that may occur on the unit during the life of the plan. The plan may also include additional items such as other content in the plan, including management approaches or strategies; partnership opportunities and coordination activities; or criteria for priority areas or activities to achieve objectives of the plan.

An example of how the responsible official may conform the plan to a new statutory requirement would be if a new wilderness bill becomes law and it adds land to an existing wilderness area. To comply with the law, the responsible official may modify the management area map contained within the plan through an administrative change. This change would allow the existing plan components for the existing wilderness area to apply to the additional land. If the responsible official determines an administrative change is appropriate, the responsible official would post notice of the administrative change on the planning unit's Web site.

The proposed rule would require the responsible official to provide public notice before issuing an administrative change. If the change would be to the monitoring program, the responsible official would provide public notice and an opportunity for the public to comment on the intended change and consider public concerns and suggestions before making a change. Following this notification, the

responsible official would adjust the plan. The Agency believes that allowing administrative changes to other content, other than plan components, would help the responsible official adapt to changing conditions, while requiring the responsible official to notify the public.

Section 219.14 Decision Documents and Planning Records

The proposed rule would require the responsible official to record approval of a new plan, plan revision, or amendment in a decision document prepared according to Forest Service NEPA procedures. This section describes requirements for decision documents and associated records for approval of plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions.

Decision Document

Many members of the public have expressed a desire for greater transparency to help understand decisionmaking in the development, revision, and amendment of plans. The proposed rule would require the decision document to describe the rationale for approval of a plan. It further would require that the decision document include an explanation of how plan components meet plan requirements for sustainability and diversity set forth in §§ 219.8 and 219.9. This explanation would allow the responsible official to say what the plan components are designed to do given the limits of Forest Service authority and the capability of the plan area. In addition the explanation would be required to describe how the plan applies to approved projects and activities (§ 219.15(a)), and how the best available scientific information was taken into account and applied (§ 219.3). The decision documents must contain research station director concurrence on experimental forests and ranges (§ 219.2(b)(4)) to ensure proper coordination between the Research and NFS branches for the management of these areas. The effective date of approval (§ 219.17) would also be required to clarify the exact date the plan action takes effect.

These requirements would help provide a clearer understanding of the approval, the reasons for approving the plan, plan revision, or plan amendment and its immediate consequences in a way that is clear to all participants in the planning process.

Meeting the proposed requirements for a plan development or plan revision would require a comprehensive discussion of each of these requirements with respect to the plan. For an amendment, these requirements would only need to be described for those plan components being changed by the plan amendment. For example, if a plan amendment does not change plan components applicable to an experimental forest or range, there would be no need to document the research station director's concurrence with the amendment. For plan development or revision, the decision document would also be accompanied by a final EIS. A plan amendment would be accompanied by appropriate NEPA documentation.

Planning Records

This section also sets forth basic requirements for the responsible official to maintain public documents related to the plan and monitoring program. It would require the responsible official to ensure that certain key documents are readily accessible to the public online and through other means. The published planning documents associated with a plan, plan revision, or amendment are listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. These documents must be posted online. Other documents that support the analytical conclusions and alternatives of the planning process would be part of the planning record and must be available to the public although they would not be required to be online. The planning record for each plan, plan revision, or amendment would be required to be maintained and available to the public at the office that developed that plan, plan revision, or amendment.

Section 219.15 Project and Activity Consistency With the Plan

The NFMA requires that “resource plans and permits, contracts and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans” (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)). However, no previous planning rule provided specific criteria to evaluate consistency of projects or activities with the plan. Forest Service policy was that consistency could only be determined with respect to standards and guidelines, or just standards.

See

the 1991 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 56 FR 6508, 6519-6520 (Feb. 15, 1991) and the 1995 Proposed Rule, at 60 FR 18886, 18902, 18909 (April 13, 1995).

The Forest Service's position has been that a project's consistency with a land management plan could only be determined with respect to standards and guidelines, because an individual project by itself could almost never achieve objectives and desired conditions. Objectives and desired conditions are long-term aspirations whose achievement would depend on the cumulative effect of a number of agency actions, and often on factors outside the agency's control.

We continue to believe that the consistency requirement cannot be interpreted to require achievement of the aspirational components of a plan, but we believe that we can interpret the consistency requirement, in a way that makes those components more meaningful in the day-to-day management of the unit. The proposed rule therefore would provide that each project must be expected to either to move the plan area toward desired conditions and objectives, or at least not

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