National Forest System Land Management Planning

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 219

RIN 0596-AD02

National Forest System Land Management Planning

AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule and record of decision.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is adopting a new National Forest System land management planning rule (planning rule). The new planning rule guides the development, amendment, and revision of land management plans for all units of the National Forest System (NFS), consisting of 155 national forests, 20 grasslands, and 1 prairie.

This planning rule sets forth process and content requirements to guide the development, amendment, and revision of land management plans to maintain and restore NFS land and water ecosystems while providing for ecosystem services and multiple uses. The planning rule is designed to ensure that plans provide for the sustainability of ecosystems and resources; meet the need for forest restoration and conservation, watershed protection, and species diversity and conservation; and assist the Agency in providing a sustainable flow of benefits, services, and uses of NFS lands that provide jobs and contribute to the economic and social sustainability of communities.

DATES:

Effective Date:

This rule is effective May 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

For more information, including a copy of the final PEIS, refer to the World Wide Web/Internet at:

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

More information may be obtained on written request from the Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Forest Service, USDA Mail Stop 1104, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1104.

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) 205-0895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Decision

This document records the decision that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reached in determining the alternative that best meets the purpose and need for a new planning rule. The USDA based this decision on the analyses presented in the

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, National Forest System Land Management Planning

(USDA, Forest Service, 2011) (PEIS). The PEIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

For the reasons set out in the discussion that follows, the Department hereby promulgates a regulation establishing a National Forest System land management planning rule as described in Modified Alternative A of the

National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

(USDA Forest Service, 2011) with clarifications, and the supporting record. The planning rule describes the process the Forest Service will use for development, amendment, and revision of national forest and grassland plans. It also sets out requirements for the structure of those plans and includes requirements for their content.

This planning rule replaces the final 2000 land management planning rule (2000 rule) as reinstated in the Code of Federal Regulations on December 18, 2009 (74 FR 67062).

Outline

The following outline shows the contents of the preamble which states the basis and purpose of the rule, includes responses to comments received on the proposed rule, and serves as the record of decision for this rulemaking.

Introduction and Background

Purpose and Need for the New Rule

Public Involvement

Summary of Alternatives Considered by the Agency

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Decision and Rationale

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended

Response to Comments

Regulatory Certifications

• Regulatory Planning and Review

• Agency Cost Impacts

• Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness Impacts

• Distributional Impacts

• Proper Consideration of Small Entities

• Energy Effects

• Environmental Impacts

• Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

• Federalism

• Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments

• Takings of Private Property

• Civil Justice Reform

• Unfunded Mandates

• Environmental Justice

Introduction and Background

The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Responsible officials for each national forest, grassland, and prairie will follow the direction of the planning rule to develop, amend, or revise their land management plans.

The new planning rule provides a process for planning that is adaptive and science-based, engages the public, and is designed to be efficient, effective, and within the Agency's ability to implement. It meets the requirements under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA), and the Endangered Species Act, as well as all other legal requirements. It was also developed to ensure that plans are consistent with and complement existing, related Agency policies that guide management of resources on the National Forest System (NFS), such as the Climate Change Scorecard, the Watershed Condition Framework, and the Sustainable Recreation Framework.

The planning rule framework includes three phases: Assessment, plan development/amendment/revision, and monitoring. The framework supports an integrated approach to the management of resources and uses, incorporates the landscape-scale context for management, and will help the Agency to adapt to changing conditions and improve management based on new information and monitoring. It is intended to provide the flexibility to respond to the various social, economic, and ecologic needs across a very diverse system, while including a consistent set of process and content requirements for NFS land management plans. The Department anticipates that the Agency will use the framework to keep plans current and respond to changing conditions and new information over time.

The planning rule requires the use of best available scientific information to inform planning and plan decisions. It also emphasizes providing meaningful opportunities for public participation early and throughout the planning process, increases the transparency of decision-making, and provides a platform for the Agency to work with the public and across boundaries with other land managers to identify and share information and inform planning.

The final planning rule reflects key themes expressed by members of the public, as well as experience gained through the Agency's 30-year history

with land management planning. It is intended to create a more efficient and effective planning process and provide an adaptive framework for planning.

This final planning rule requires that land management plans provide for ecological sustainability and contribute to social and economic sustainability, using public input and the best available scientific information to inform plan decisions. The rule contains a strong emphasis on protecting and enhancing water resources, restoring land and water ecosystems, and providing ecological conditions to support the diversity of plant and animal communities, while providing for ecosystem services and multiple uses.

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 land management planning. The body of science that informs land management planning in areas such as conservation biology and ecology has advanced considerably, along with our understanding of the values and benefits of NFS lands, and the challenges and stressors that may impact them.

Because planning under the procedures of the 1982 rule is often time consuming and cumbersome, it has been a challenge for responsible officials to keep plans current. Instead of amending plans as conditions on the ground change, responsible officials often wait and make changes all at once during the required revision process. The result can be a drawn-out, difficult, and costly revision process. Much of the planning under the 1982 rule procedures focused on writing plans that would mitigate negative environmental impacts. The protective measures in the 1982 rule were important, but the focus of land management has changed since then and the Agency needs plans that do more than mitigate harm. The Agency needs a planning process that leads to plans that contribute to ecological, social, and economic sustainability to protect resources on the unit and maintain the flow of goods and services from NFS lands on the unit over time.

The NFMA requires the Agency to develop a planning rule “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)). The Forest Service fulfills this requirement by codifying a planning rule 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, costly, lengthy, and cumbersome for the public to provide input. The recommendations in the Critique and the Agency's own experiences with planning led to the Agency issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for a new planning rule in 1991 and proposing a new, revised rule initially in 1995 and again in 1999.

The Department worked with a committee of scientists to develop a final rule, which was issued in 2000. The 2000 revision of the planning rule described a new agenda for NFS planning; made sustainability the foundation for NFS planning and management; required the consideration of the best available scientific information during the planning and implementation 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; however, the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California invalidated each of those rules 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)).

This final rule replaces the 2000 rule. Because the 2000 rule was the last promulgated planning rule to take effect and not be set aside by a court, the 2000 rule is the rule currently in effect. While the 2000 planning rule replaced the 1982 rule in the Code of Federal Regulations, the transition section of the 2000 rule allowed units to use the 1982 planning rule procedures for plan amendments and revisions until a new planning rule was issued. After the 2008 rule was invalidated, on December 18, 2009, the Department reinstated the 2000 rule in the Code of Federal Regulations and made technical amendments to update transition provisions as an interim measure to be in effect until a new planning rule was issued (74 FR 67062).

The instability created by these past planning rule efforts has caused delays in planning and confused the public. At the same time, the vastly different context for management and improved understanding of science and sustainability that have evolved over the past three decades have created a need for an updated planning rule that will help the Agency respond to new challenges in meeting management objectives for NFS lands.

This final rule is intended to ensure that plans respond to the requirements of land management that the Agency faces today, including the need to provide sustainable benefits, services, and uses, including recreation; the need for forest restoration and conservation, watershed protection, and wildlife conservation; and the need for sound resource management under changing conditions. The new rule sets forth a process that is adaptive, science-based, collaborative, and within the Agency's capability to carry out on all NFS units. Finally, the new rule is designed to make planning more efficient and effective.

Purpose and Need for the New Rule

The NFMA requires regulations consistent with the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, that set out the process for the development and revision of the land management plans and the guidelines and standards the Act prescribes (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)). The Forest Service's experience, evolving scientific understanding of approaches to land management, changing social demands, and new challenges such as changing climate have made clear the need for a revised rule to more effectively fulfill NFMA's mandate.

On August 14, 2009, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined his vision for the future of our nation's forests, setting forth a direction for conservation, management, and restoration of NFS lands. Secretary Vilsack stated that: “It is time for a change in the way we view and manage America's forestlands with an eye towards the future. This will require a new approach that engages the American people and stakeholders in conserving and restoring both our National Forests and our privately-owned forests.” The Secretary emphasized that the Forest Service planning process provides an important means for integrating forest restoration,

climate resilience, watershed protection, wildlife conservation, opportunities to contribute to vibrant local economies, and the collaboration necessary to manage our national forests. “Our best opportunity to accomplish this is in the developing of a new forest planning rule for our national forests.”

The NFS currently consists of 127 land management plans, 68 of which are past due for revision. Most plans were developed between 1983 and 1993 and should have been revised between 1998 and 2008, based on NFMA direction to revise plans at least once every 15 years. The efforts to produce a new planning rule over the past decade have contributed to the delay in plan revisions. With clarity and stability in planning regulations, land management planning can regain momentum and units will be able to complete revisions more efficiently.

As explained in the Introduction and Background section of this document, the present planning rule is the 2000 planning rule. Under the transition provisions of that rule, the Agency can choose to use either the procedures of the 2000 rule or the planning procedures of the 1982 rule to develop, amend, or revise land management plans. Based on the concerns about implementing the 2000 rule procedures, the Forest Service has been relying upon the 2000 rule's transition provision to develop, amend, and revise land management plans under the 1982 procedures until a new planning rule is in place.

The Forest Service and the Department conclude that the procedures of neither the 2000 rule nor the 1982 rule meet the needs of the Agency today or fulfill the Secretary's vision. Moreover, the Department and the Forest Service have determined that the 2000 rule is beyond the Agency's capability to implement. Even though the Agency has had the option to use the procedures in the 2000 rule, no line officer has chosen to use the 2000 rule to revise or amend a land management plan because the 2000 rule is too costly, complex, and procedurally burdensome. At the same time, the 1982 rule procedures are not current with regard to science, knowledge of the environment, practices for planning and adaptive management, or social values, and are also too complex, costly, lengthy, and cumbersome.

The purpose of, and the need for, a new planning rule is to provide the direction for National Forests and Grasslands to develop, amend, and revise land management plans that will enable land managers to consistently and efficiently respond to social, economic, and ecological conditions.

The Secretary of Agriculture is vested with broad authority to make rules “to regulate occupancy and use and to preserve [the forests] from destruction” (16 U.S.C. 551). The MUSYA authorizes and directs that the national forests be managed under the principles of multiple use and to produce sustained yield of products and services. NFMA directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations for the development and revision of land management plans and prescribes a number of provisions that the regulations shall include, but not be limited to (16 U.S.C. 1600(g)). Based on the principles of the MUSYA, the requirements of NFMA, the Secretary's direction and nearly three decades of land management planning experience, the Department and the Forest Service find that a planning rule must address the following eight purposes and needs:

1. Emphasize restoration of natural resources to make our NFS lands more resilient to climate change, protect water resources, and improve forest health.

2. Contribute to ecological, social, and economic sustainability by ensuring that all plans will be responsive and can adapt to issues such as the challenges of climate change; the need for forest restoration and conservation, watershed protection, and species conservation; and the sustainable use of public lands to support vibrant communities.

3. Be consistent with NFMA and MUSYA.

4. Be consistent with Federal policy on the use of scientific information and the Agency's expertise and experience gained in over thirty years of land management planning.

5. Provide for a transparent, collaborative process that allows effective public participation.

6. Ensure planning takes place in the context of the larger landscape by taking an “all-lands approach.”

7. Be within the Agency's capability to implement on all NFS units; be clear; provide an efficient framework for planning; and be able to be implemented within the financial capacity of the Agency.

8. Be effective by requiring a consistent approach to ensure that all plans address the issues outlined by the Secretary and yet allow for land management plans to be developed and implemented to address social, economic, and ecological needs across the diverse and highly variable systems of the National Forest System.

Public Involvement

Public Involvement in the Development of the Proposed Rule and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

The Department and the Agency engaged in an extensive public outreach and participation process unprecedented for the development of a planning rule. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a new planning rule and an accompanying draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was published in the

Federal Register

on December 18, 2009 (74 FR 67165). The NOI solicited public comments on the proposal until February 16, 2010. The notice presented a series of substantive and procedural principles to guide development of a new planning rule. Under each principle, the notice posed several questions to stimulate thoughts and encourage responses. The Forest Service received over 26,000 comments in response to the notice.

The Agency held a science forum on March 29 and 30, 2010, in Washington, DC to ground development of a new planning rule in science and to foster a collaborative dialogue with the scientific community. Panels made up of 21 scientists drawn from academia, research organizations, non-government organizations, industry, and the Federal Government presented the latest science on topics relevant to the development of a new rule for developing land management plans. The format was designed to encourage scientists and practitioners to share the current state of knowledge in key areas and to encourage open dialogue with interested stakeholders.

The Forest Service convened a series of four national roundtables held in Washington, DC during the course of developing the proposed planning rule. The intent was to have a national-level dialogue around the concepts for development of the Forest Service proposed planning rule, to get public input prior to developing the proposed rule. The Forest Service also held 33 regional roundtables during April and May 2010 in the following States: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Additionally, the Forest Service Webcast many of the national and regional roundtables, posted materials and summaries of the roundtables online, and hosted a blog to further encourage participation. In all, more than 3,000 members of the public participated in these opportunities to provide their input.

Public Involvement in the Development of the Final Rule and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)

The Department and the Agency used the input provided by the public in response to the NOI and during the roundtables to inform the development of the proposed rule and DEIS. The proposed planning rule and draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) were published for comment on February 14, 2011 (76 FR 8480). The comment period ran for 90 days through May 16, 2011. The Department received nearly 300,000 comments during the comment period.

Early in the comment period, the Agency held a series of public meetings that provided opportunities for interested persons to ask questions about the proposed rule. The intent of the meetings was to explain the proposed rule and provide information to the public as they developed their comments on the proposed rule. Between March 10, 2011, and April 7, 2001, the Agency held 1 national and 28 regional forums, which reached 72 satellite locations across the country. The national meeting was held in Washington, DC. Regional and satellite meetings were held in the following States: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Tribal Involvement

To ensure Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations were heard in a way that gave recognition to their special and unique relationship with the Federal Government, the Agency provided opportunities for participation and consultation throughout the process.

To get input early in the process, the Agency hosted two national Tribal roundtables conducted via conference call in May and August, 2010. Additionally, six Tribal roundtables were held in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations also participated in many of the national and regional roundtables prior to development of the proposed rule.

On September 23, 2010, the Deputy Chief for the National Forest System sent a letter inviting 564 federally recognized Tribes and 29 Alaska Native Corporations to begin government-to-government consultation on the proposed planning rule. The Agency held 16 consultation meetings across the country with designated Tribal officials in November and December, 2010, prior to the publication of the proposed rule in February, 2011. Tribal consultation continued following the release of the proposed rule, with additional opportunities for Tribal consultation provided in 2011.

During the public comment period on the proposed rule the Forest Service held a Tribal teleconference to discuss with Tribes how their previous comments were addressed in the proposed rule. Sixteen Tribes participated in the discussion and had the opportunity to have their questions answered by members of the rule writing team, the Ecosystem Management Coordination Director, and the Associate Chief of the Forest Service. Additionally consultation with Tribes continued at the local level.

Summaries of public involvement may be viewed at

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

Issues Identified in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)

Based on public comments, an interdisciplinary team identified a list of issues to analyze:

• Ecosystem Restoration.

• Watershed Protection.

• Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities.

• Climate Change.

• Multiple Uses.

• Efficiency and Effectiveness.

• Transparency and Collaboration.

• Coordination and Cooperation beyond NFS Boundaries.

The PEIS analyzes six fully developed alternatives (A, Modified A, and B through E), and considered nine additional alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study (40 CFR 1502.14(a)). The six fully developed alternatives, with the exception of Alternative B (No Action), meet all aspects of the purpose and need to varying degrees and are described below. The additional alternatives (Alternatives F through N) were considered but eliminated from detailed study because they did not meet some of the aspects of the purpose and need. Chapter 2 of the PEIS provides a more complete discussion of the disposition of these alternatives.

Summary of Alternatives Considered by the Agency

The following summaries describe each alternative. A comparison of the alternatives is available in Chapter 2 of the PEIS.

Alternative A (Proposed Action and Proposed Planning Rule)

Alternative A uses an adaptive framework. The framework consists of a three-part learning and planning framework to assess conditions and stressors; develop, amend, or revise land management plans based on the need for change; and monitor to test assumptions, detect changes, and evaluate whether progress is being made toward desired outcomes.

Alternative A would make the supervisor of the national forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative unit the responsible official for approving new plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions.

This alternative would require the responsible official to take science into account in the planning process and would require documentation as to how science was considered.

This alternative would require the responsible official to provide opportunities for public participation throughout all stages of the planning process, and includes requirements for outreach, Tribal consultation, and coordination with other planning efforts. This alternative would require responsible officials to provide formal public notification at various points in the process and to post all notifications online. This alternative requires the responsible official to encourage participation by youth, low-income, and minority populations. Alternative A would explicitly require the responsible official to provide the opportunity to undertake consultation with federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations and require the responsible official to encourage participation by interested or affected federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. As part of Tribal participation and consultation, the responsible official would invite Tribes to share native knowledge during the planning process. Alternative A would require that the responsible official coordinate planning with the equivalent and related planning efforts of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian Tribes.

Alternative A would require assessments to identify and evaluate information needed to understand and assess existing and potential future conditions on NFS lands in the context of the broader landscape. These assessments would include a review of relevant information from other governmental or non-governmental assessments, plans, reports, and studies.

Alternative A would require plans to include five plan components—desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability of areas for resource management. Plans could also include goals as option plan components. Alternative A includes direction for other content required in the plan, including the monitoring program.

Alternative A would require plan components to provide for the maintenance or restoration of the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area. In addition, Alternative A would include plan components to guide the unit's contribution to social and economic sustainability.

Under Alternative A, plan components for ecological sustainability would be required to take into account air quality, landscape-scale integration of ecosystems, system drivers and stressors including climate change, and opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems. Plan components would also be designed to maintain, protect and restore various ecosystem elements including soil, water, and riparian areas.

Alternative A would require plan components for the conservation of all native aquatic and terrestrial species with the aim of providing the ecological conditions to contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve candidate species, and maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern. Alternative A would also require monitoring of select ecological and watershed conditions and focal species to assess progress towards meeting diversity and ecological sustainability requirements.

Alternative A would require that plans provide for multiple uses and ecosystem services, considering a full range of resources, uses, and benefits relevant to the unit, as well as stressors, and other important factors.

Alternative A would require plan components for sustainable recreation, considering opportunities and access for a range of uses. Recreational opportunities could include non-motorized, motorized, developed, and dispersed recreation on land, water, and air. In addition, plans should identify recreational settings and desired conditions for scenic landscape character.

Alternative A includes requirements for plan components for timber, consistent with the requirements of NFMA.

Alternative A provides an efficient process for amendments, required for any substantive change to plan components, and for administrative changes to make corrections or changes to parts of the plan other than the plan components.

Alternative A requires plan-level and broader-scale monitoring, to inform adaptive management.

Alternative A would require an environmental impact statement for new plans and plan revisions. Plan amendments would require either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment, or could be categorically excluded from documentation, based on the significance of effects pursuant to Agency NEPA procedures.

Alternative A would require that the decision document for the plan include the rationale for approval, an explanation of how the plan components meet the requirements for sustainability and diversity, best available scientific information documentation, and direction for project application.

Alternative A requires that projects and activities must be consistent with the plan components, and provides direction for determining consistency. It also requires that other resource plans that apply to the plan area be consistent with the plan components.

The responsible official initiating a plan revision or development of a new plan before Alternative A went into effect would have the option to complete the plan revision or development of the new plan under the prior rule or conform to the requirements of the final rule after providing notice to the public. All plan revisions or new plans initiated after the effective date of the final rule would have to conform to the new planning requirements.

Alternative A includes a severability provision, stating if parts of Alternative A are separately found invalid in litigation, individual provisions of the rule could be severed and the other parts of the rule could continue to be implemented.

Alternative A provides a pre-decisional administrative review (objection) process for proposed plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions. The objection process is based on the objection regulations for certain proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects, found at 36 CFR part 218, and is intended to foster continued collaboration in the administrative review process.

The complete text of Alternative A is provided in Appendix A of the PEIS.

Reason for non-selection:

Alternative A meets the purpose and need and responds to the significant issues displayed in the PEIS in a manner very similar to Modified Alternative A. The Department received a large number of public comments on Alternative A including suggestions about how to change Alternative A, improve clarity, and better align the text of the alternative with the Department's intent as described in the preamble for the proposed rule. The Department developed Modified Alternative A after considering public comments. Modified Alternative A is described below. Alternative A was not selected because the Agency developed Modified Alternative A in response to public comment. For this reason, Alternative A was not selected as the final rule.

Modified Alternative A (Final Rule)

Modified Alternative A, with clarifications, was selected as the final rule, (see the Decision and Rationale section of this document).

Modified Alternative A includes the same concepts and underlying principles as Alternative A, and retains much of the same content. However, a number of changes to the rule text and organization have been made, based on public comment on the proposed rule (Alternative A) and the DEIS. The Forest Service considered the available option of replacing the text of Alternative A with the text of Modified Alternative A in the PEIS. However, because Modified Alternative A looks different than Alternative A, the Agency included it as a new alternative for transparency and for the ease of the reviewer in comparing the proposed rule with the final preferred alternative.

Modified Alternative A uses an adaptive framework for planning. The framework consists of a three-part learning and planning framework to assess information relevant to the plan area, develop, amend, or revise land management plans based on the need for change, and monitor to test assumptions, detect changes, and evaluate whether progress is being made toward desired outcomes.

Modified Alternative A would make the supervisor of the national forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative unit the responsible official for approving new plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions. The Chief would be required to establish a national oversight process for consistency and accountability.

Modified Alternative A would require the responsible official to use the best available scientific information to inform the planning process, plan components, and other plan content including the monitoring program, and

includes requirements for documentation of how the best available scientific information was used to inform the plan decision.

Modified Alternative A would require the responsible official to provide opportunities for public participation throughout all stages of the planning process, and includes requirements for outreach, Tribal consultation, and coordination with other planning efforts. Modified Alternative A requires the responsible official to encourage participation by youth, low-income, and minority populations. Modified Alternative A would explicitly require the responsible official to provide the opportunity to undertake consultation with federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations and require the responsible official to encourage participation by interested or affected federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. As part of Tribal participation and consultation, the responsible official would invite Tribes to share native knowledge during the planning process. Modified Alternative A would require that the responsible official coordinate planning with the equivalent and related planning efforts of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian Tribes.

Modified Alternative A would require assessments to rapidly identify and evaluate existing information relevant to the plan area to understand and assess existing and potential future conditions on NFS lands in the context of the broader landscape, focused on a set of topics that relate to the requirements for plan components and other plan content. These assessments would include a review of relevant information from other governmental or non-governmental assessments, plans, reports, and studies.

Modified Alternative A would require plans to include five plan components—desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability of areas for resource management. Plans could also include goals as option plan components. Modified Alternative A includes direction for other content required in the plan, including the monitoring program.

Modified Alternative A would require plan components to provide for the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area. In addition, Modified Alternative A would include plan components to guide the unit's contribution to social and economic sustainability.

Under Modified Alternative A, plan components for ecological integrity would be required to take into account the interdependence of ecosystems, impacts from and to the broader landscape, system drivers and stressors including climate change, and opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems and for landscape scale restoration. Plan components would be also be required to maintain or restore air, soil and water resources, and to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of riparian areas.

Modified Alternative A would require that plans use a complementary ecosystem and species-specific approach to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities and maintain the persistence of native species in the plan area. Ecosystem plan components would be required for ecosystem integrity and diversity, along with additional, species-specific plan components where necessary to provide the ecological conditions to contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern. Modified Alternative A would also require monitoring of select ecological and watershed conditions and focal species to assess progress towards meeting diversity and ecological sustainability requirements.

Modified Alternative A would require that plans provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses, considering a full range of resources, uses, and benefits relevant to the unit, as well as stressors and other important factors.

Modified Alternative A would require plan components for sustainable recreation, including recreation settings, opportunities, access; and scenic character. Recreational opportunities could include non-motorized, motorized, developed, and dispersed recreation on land, water, and air.

Modified Alternative A includes requirements for plan components for timber management, consistent with the requirements of NFMA.

Modified Alternative A provides an efficient process for amendments, required for any substantive change to plan components, and for administrative changes to make corrections or changes to parts of the plan other than the plan components.

Modified Alternative A requires plan-level and broader-scale monitoring to inform adaptive management.

Modified Alternative A would require an environmental impact statement for new plans and plan revisions. Plan amendments would require either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment, or could be categorically excluded from documentation, based on the significance of effects pursuant to Agency NEPA procedures.

Modified Alternative A would require that the decision document for the plan include the rationale for approval; an explanation of how the plan components meet the requirements for sustainability, diversity, multiple use and timber; best available scientific information documentation; and direction for project application.

Modified Alternative A requires that projects and activities must be consistent with the plan components, and provides direction for determining consistency. It also requires that other resource plans that apply to the plan area be consistent with the plan components.

Modified Alternative A would require responsible officials to provide formal public notification at various points in the process and to post all notifications online.

The responsible official initiating a plan revision or development of a new plan before Modified Alternative A went into effect would have the option to complete the plan revision or development of the new plan under the prior rule or conform to the requirements of the final rule after providing notice to the public. All plan revisions or new plans initiated after the effective date of the final rule would have to conform to the new planning requirements.

Modified Alternative A includes a severability provision, stating if parts of Alternative A are separately found invalid in litigation, individual provisions of the rule could be severed and the other parts of the rule could continue to be implemented.

Modified Alternative A provides a pre-decisional administrative review (objection) process for proposed plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions. The objection process is based on the objection regulations for certain proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects, found at 36 CFR part 218, and is intended to foster continued collaboration in the administrative review process.

As is clear from this summary, Modified Alternative A includes the same concepts and underlying principles as Alternative A, and retains much of the same content. However, a number of changes to the rule text and organization were made based on public comment on the proposed rule (Alternative A) and the DEIS.

Many people commented that the proposed rule lacked clarity and was ambiguous in places. Others felt that the intent stated in the preamble of the proposed rule was at times not reflected in the actual text of the proposed rule itself. They were concerned that this ambiguity would lead to inconsistent implementation of the rule and that the intent as expressed in the preamble would not be realized. Modified Alternative A rewords the text in a number of places to improve clarity and better reflect the Department's intent as stated in the preamble to the proposed rule.

There are also a number of changes to the process and content requirements of Alternative A, to address certain concerns raised by the public, reduce process, and make other modifications in response to public comments. A complete description of these changes is provided in the Response to Comments section of this document.

A detailed analysis was conducted to determine if there were any difference in programmatic effects between Alternative A and Modified Alternative A. Because Modified Alternative A was developed to reflect the intent of Alternative A, there were very few differences in programmatic effects between the two alternatives. The few differences in programmatic effects between Alternative A and Modified Alternative A were to plan content and the planning process (requirements for assessments, documentation, notification, plan components) or to the costs of implementation. Any differences in effects to resources cannot be determined at this programmatic level. However, the Department concludes the added clarity in Modified Alternative A will lead to more consistent implementation of the rule.

The full text of Modified Alternative A can be found in Appendix I of the PEIS and is set out as the final rule below. A detailed description of changes to Alternative A that led to Modified Alternative A can be found in the Response to Comments section of this document and in Appendix O of the PEIS. An analysis of the effects of Modified Alternative A has been included in Chapter 3 of the PEIS.

Alternative B (No Action)

The “No Action” alternative, as stated by the Council on Environmental Quality, “may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed” (Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026, 18027 (March 23, 1981)). The “No Action” alternative is the 2000 planning rule, which, since the 2008 rule was set aside by court order, is the current rule (see 74 FR 67059 (December 18, 2009)). If the Department chooses to take no action, the 2000 rule would remain in effect. However, the “present course of action” under the 2000 rule is not to use the 2000 rule in its entirety but to use its transition provisions at 36 CFR 219.35, which allow use of the 1982 rule procedures to develop, amend, and revise land management plans until a new planning rule is in place. Since identifying a set of issues with the 2000 rule provisions, as explained in the PEIS at Chapter 1 and in the discussion section of Alternative F, the Forest Service has been relying upon the 2000 rule's transition wording at § 219.35 to use the 1982 rule procedures to develop, amend, and revise land management plans.

The 1982 rule, as amended, is in Appendix B of the PEIS. However, only the provisions of that rule applicable to the development, amendment, and revision of land management plans are available for use pursuant to 36 CFR 219.35 of the current (2000) rule. The 1982 rule procedures require integration of natural resource planning for national forests and grasslands, by including requirements for integrated management of timber, range, fish and wildlife, water, wilderness, and recreation resources, with resource protection activities such as fire management, and the use of other resources such as minerals.

An appeal process has been used throughout the life of the 1982 planning rule. Under § 219.35 of the current (2000) rule, responsible officials have the option of using either a post-decisional appeal process or a pre-decisional objection process for challenging plan approval decisions.

The 1982 rule procedures require regional foresters to be the responsible official for approval of new plans and plan revisions.

Alternative B would continue to require an environmental impact statement for new plans and plan revisions. Documentation for plan amendments would continue to be determined by the significance of effects pursuant to Agency NEPA procedures and could, therefore, range from categorical exclusions to environmental impact statements.

Rule text for this alternative is provided in Appendices B, C, and D of the PEIS, which contain planning provisions, transition provisions, and administrative review provisions respectively.

Reason for non-selection:

Alternative B is the no action alternative. The 1982 rule procedures are not current with regard to science, knowledge of the environment, practices for planning and adaptive management, or social values, and are unduly complex, costly, lengthy, and cumbersome. For those reasons, the Agency has actively been trying to promulgate a new planning rule to replace the 1982 planning procedures for over a decade (see Introduction and Background section above).

Many plans recently revised under the 1982 planning procedures reflect elements of the purpose and need such as emphasizing restoration, addressing climate change, using a coarse-filter/fine-filter approach for maintaining species diversity, and using a collaborative approach to planning. However, the 1982 planning procedures do not require consideration of these and other important elements in planning that reflect current science, Agency expertise, and best practices in planning. This has resulted in inconsistent incorporation of the elements of the purpose and need in plans.

Alternative B reflects an approach to land management planning that focused on producing outputs (for example, board feet of timber, recreation visitor days, and animal months of grazing) and mitigating the effects of management activities on other resources. The Agency recognizes and supports the importance, value, and legal responsibility of providing for multiple use purposes. Timber, grazing, recreation, and other multiple uses supported on NFS lands provide jobs and income to local communities, and products used by all Americans. However, land management planning today focuses on managing toward desired conditions, or outcomes, rather than focusing simply on outputs.

Outcome-based planning shifts the focus from how to get something done to why it is done. In contemporary planning, outputs are services that are generated as projects and activities are carried out that lead to desired outcomes on the ground. Outcome based planning is well supported by the Agency's experience in land management planning. This approach to planning is also well supported by other land and urban planning agencies at all scales—from urban planning for small cities to international level planning efforts. It is also extensively used in the fields of education, health care, economics, and others. Outcome based planning can and does occur under

Alternative B. However, this approach is not required under this alternative.

Alternative B does not meet several elements of the purpose and need. Alternative B does not:

• Emphasize restoration of natural resources to make our NFS lands more resilient to climate change, protect water resources, and improve forest health.

• Ensure all plans will be responsive to issues such as the challenges of climate change; the need for forest restoration and conservation, and watershed protection.

• Be consistent with Federal policy on the use of scientific information and the Agency's expertise and experience gained in more than 30 years of land management planning.

• Ensure planning takes place in the context of the larger landscape by taking an “all-lands approach.”

Alternative B has also proven costly to implement. The 1982 planning procedures require complex analysis processes, such as benchmark analysis, resulting in plan revisions that have, on average, taken 5 to 7 years to complete. In 1989, the Forest Service, with the assistance of the Conservation Foundation, conducted a comprehensive review of the planning process and published the results in a summary report, “Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management Planning” (

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5127602.pdf

). The Critique found that the planning process of the 1982 rule was very complex, had significant costs, took too long, and was too cumbersome.

Finally, Alternative B includes planning procedures that do not reflect current science or result in unrealistic or unattainable expectations because of circumstances outside of the Agency's control, particularly for maintaining the diversity of plant and animal species. The 1982 rule at 36 CFR 219.19 requires that fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area. These requirements do not recognize that there are limitations on the Agency's authority and the inherent capability of the land. In addition, these requirements do not reflect the most current science. For example:

(1) At times, circumstances that are not within the

authority

of the Agency limit the Agency's ability to manage fish and wildlife habitat to insure the maintenance of a viable population of a species within the plan area, such as:

• Forest clearing in South America—South American forests provide important wintering areas for many Neotropical birds that nest in North America. The clearing of these forests for agricultural purposes poses a serious threat to the long-term viability of the Cerulean warbler and the ability of national forests in the southern Appalachian Mountains to maintain populations of this species.

• Hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest and off-shore fishing harvest practices—These facilities and practices are primary downstream threats to Chinook salmon populations whose spawning beds may occur on stream reaches within national forests in the Intermountain West, thus affecting the ability of national forests within this salmon's range to maintain viable populations of this species on their respective units.

• Land use patterns on private lands within and adjacent to NFS units, such as the continuing agricultural uses and urbanization that is occurring east of the Rocky Mountains—habitat fragmentation as a result of these changes reduces available habitat and further isolates existing swift fox populations. This affects the ability of national grasslands in eastern Colorado to maintain viable populations of this species.

(2) At times, it may be beyond the Agency's authority to manage habitat to insure the maintenance of a viable population of a species within the plan area, given that the Agency must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. An example would be when efforts to maintain the habitat conditions necessary for a viable population of one species would jeopardize an endangered or threatened species, in violation of the Agency's statutory obligations under the ESA. Another example would be when maintaining the habitat conditions necessary for a viable population of one species would consume the resources available to a unit to the point of precluding other activities from occurring on the unit that are necessary to comply with independent statutory or regulatory requirements.

(3) Examples of circumstances that are not consistent with the

inherent capability

of the plan area that limit the Agency's ability to manage fish and wildlife habitat to insure the maintenance of a viable population of a species within the plan area include:

• Where a species is inherently rare because its members occur at low numbers and are wide ranging individuals. For such a species the number of breeding individuals that may occur on an individual national forest may be too small to be considered a viable population. The wolverine of the northern Rocky Mountains is such a species.

• Plan areas that lack sufficient land area with the ecological capacity to produce enough habitat to maintain a viable population within the plan area. An example is the Kisatchie National Forest's inability to maintain a viable population of swallow-tailed kite on the Forest due to very limited amounts of land area ecologically capable of producing broad bottomland hardwood and cypress swamp habitats.

• Water quality conditions in Appalachian Mountain streams that provide habitat for eastern brook trout have been altered through acid deposition, due to past and current acid rain, rendering many of them unsuitable for brook trout and compromising the ability of some Appalachian national forests to maintain viable populations of this species.

(4) Sometimes a combination of a lack of authority and the inherent capability of the land limit the Agency's ability to manage fish and wildlife habitat to “

insure

[a vertebrate species'] continued existence is well distributed in the planning area,” for example, a federally listed threatened or endangered species may face a combination of stressors such that a population may no longer be viable and whose recovery, in most cases, cannot be achieved within the boundaries of a single unit.

(5) An example of an approach included in the 1982 requirements that is no longer supported by the best available scientific information is the concept of management indicator species (MIS). The 1982 rule is largely reliant on the ability of selected MIS and their associated habitat conditions to adequately represent all other vertebrates in the plan area for assessing vertebrate species viability. Even though the process of assessing and selecting MIS has evolved, the ability of a species or species group, on its own, to adequately represent all associated species that rely on similar habitat conditions is now largely unsupported in the scientific literature.

For these reasons Alternative B was not selected as the final rule.

Alternative C

Alternative C was developed to meet the minimum requirements of NFMA, with additional provisions narrowly designed to meet the purpose and need for this rule-making effort.

Provisions to meet the purpose and need, but not otherwise required by NFMA, were included in this alternative to ensure that plans would be responsive to the challenges of climate change, the need for forest restoration, and to ensure the sustainable use of NFS lands to support vibrant communities. The full text of Alternative C is displayed in Appendix E of the PEIS. Specifically, the multiple uses provision in this alternative at § 219.10 requires plan components to include guidance to identify and consider climate change, forest restoration and conservation, and social and economic elements of sustainability to support vibrant rural communities. Provisions were also added to ensure that plans would be developed in a collaborative manner. The public participation provision in this alternative at § 219.4 requires the responsible official to use a collaborative and participatory approach to land management planning. The same provisions for pre-decisional objections found in Alternative A are also included in this alternative.

Unlike the other alternatives considered in detail, this alternative would not explicitly require preparation of an environmental impact statement for development of a new plan or for a plan revision. Instead, this alternative would rely on Agency NEPA implementing procedures at 36 CFR part 220 to determine the level of environmental analysis and documentation. Similar to other alternatives considered in detail, documentation for plan amendments would be determined by the significance of effects pursuant to Agency NEPA procedures and could, therefore, range from categorical exclusions to environmental impact statements.

Reason for non-selection:

Alternative C imposes the fewest specific requirements for the planning process and plan content of all alternatives analyzed in detail. This alternative reflects the opposite end of the spectrum from Alternative E (the most prescriptive of the alternatives). Under Alternative C the process of plan development, amendment, and revision would be largely guided by the Forest Service Directives System. The result of having few requirements in a rule is greater uncertainty as to what the effects on plan content and the planning process would be and as a result, greater uncertainty as to potential effects to resources over time.

Under Alternative C, the Agency would expect a range of results: The range might vary from an expedited planning process producing very streamlined plans on some units to a planning process and plans that are similar to those plans that have been recently revised using the 1982 planning procedures on other units. There would be no certainty with regard to the inclusion of any plan components beyond the minimum required by this Alternative, and a potential lack of consistency across the National Forest System.

A similar approach of developing a streamlined planning rule and relying on the Forest Service directives for details of implementation was used for the 2008 planning rule. The uncertainty of this approach generated a great deal of distrust by many members of the public who felt the full intent of management direction related to planning should be reflected in the rule.

Alternative C does not expressly include an adaptive management framework. The Department concludes that the adaptive management framework of assessing, revising, amending, and monitoring provides a scientifically supported foundation for addressing uncertainty, understanding changes in conditions that are either the result of management actions or others factors, and keeping plans current and relevant.

This is the least costly of all of the alternatives and that is an important consideration. However, there are other alternatives that would reduce the current costs of planning, have broader based public support, and that, in the Department's view, provide for a more appropriate balance between prescriptive and non-prescriptive approaches to planning.

Even though Agency costs are lower under Alternative C compared to other alternatives, the Department is uncertain whether plans will be developed, amended, or revised to the high standards of excellence the Department expects. All units would comply with the requirements of this alternative. However, there is higher uncertainty associated with selecting an alternative with few requirements as the final rule. The level of uncertainty results in a higher risk that the level of compliance with such important elements as monitoring, public participation, species conservation, or watershed protection may not lead to plans that meet the Department's full objectives.

For these reasons, Alternative C was not selected as the final rule.

Alternative D

The full text of Alternative D is displayed in Appendix F of the PEIS. This alternative consists of Alternative A with additional and substitute direction focused on coordination requirements at § 219.4, assessment requirements at § 219.6, sustainability requirements at § 219.8, species requirements at § 219.9, monitoring requirements at § 219.12, and some additional and alternative definitions at § 219.19.

This alternative was designed to evaluate additional protections for watersheds and an alternative approach to addressing the diversity of plant and animal communities. These approaches were addressed together because they both involve requirements for substantive plan content for resource protection, as opposed to other issues that are concerned with procedural requirements.

Unlike Alternative A, this alternative requires establishment of riparian conservation areas and key watersheds, prescribes a 100-foot width for riparian conservation areas, and places the highest restoration priority on road removal in watersheds. Watershed assessments would be required to provide information for defining riparian conservation area boundaries and developing watershed monitoring programs. The alternative would require the identification of key watersheds to serve as anchor points for the protection, maintenance, and restoration of habitat for species dependent on aquatic habitat. It would also require plans to provide spatial connectivity among aquatic and upland habitats.

This alternative would take a somewhat different approach than Alternative A for maintaining viable populations within the plan area. It would require an assessment prior to plan development or revision that identifies: current and historic ecological conditions and trends, including the effects of global climate change; ecological conditions required to support viable populations of native species and desired non-native species within the planning area; and current expected future viability of focal species within the planning area. It would also require that the unit monitoring program establish critical values for ecological conditions and focal species that trigger reviews of planning and management decisions to achieve compliance with the provision for

maintaining viable populations within the plan area.

See Appendix F of the PEIS for Alternative D text in a side-by-side comparison with Alternative A.

Reason for non-selection:

Alternative D meets the purpose and need in a manner similar to Alternative A. Alternative D includes additional requirements for watershed and species protection and collaboration that provide among the highest levels of watershed and species conservation of all alternatives. However, Alternative D has the second highest planning and monitoring costs of all alternatives, and there are several requirements of Alternative D that would be difficult to implement or not appropriate across all NFS units.

This alternative capitalizes on approaches for watershed management that have been demonstrated to be effective in some areas of the country—largely the Pacific Northwest. However, a single, prescriptive approach may not be effective for improving watershed conditions across the highly diverse watersheds of the NFS.

For example, it is unlikely that the requirements of this Alternative that all plans establish watershed networks that can serve as anchor points for the protection, maintenance, and restoration of broad-scale processes and recovery of broadly distributed species and to maintain spatial connectivity within or between watersheds would be an effective management strategy for improving watershed conditions on certain units, for example, where the percentage of NFS land ownership in a given watershed is very low. Such requirements also may not be the most effective means of maintaining or restoring watershed health on these or other units, and attempting to meet this requirement may preclude other more effective management options.

Alternative D includes a national standard for a minimum 100 foot default width for riparian conservation areas. Based on the analysis in the PEIS, a national standard setting a minimum default width applicable to all types of waterbodies and in all geomorphic settings is not consistent with the preponderance of scientific literature which largely argues for scalable widths, widths tailored to geomorphic settings or an adaptable approach matched to resource characteristics. The national standard does provide certainty or assurance that all riparian areas of 100 feet or less would be fully incorporated within the riparian conservation area, even where narrower widths would be more appropriate based on geomorphic features, conditions, or type of water bodies. However, to expand the default width beyond 100 feet will require a “burden of proof” during the planning process that some units may not be willing or able to accomplish, which could lead to the width being under inclusive for riparian areas in the plan area.

Alternative D requires standards to restore sediment regimes to within a natural range of variability. While an understanding of the natural range of variability in sediment regime could provide important context for sediment reduction activities, standards to restore sediment regimes to a natural range of variability might be impractical as they require information on historical flow regimes that might not be applicable to future conditions. Historical ranges of variation as standards or guidelines for restoration may be inappropriate in the face of changing hydrologic conditions brought about by climate change. The added requirements are likely not appropriate for all NFS units, will be data intensive, and might constrain or delay other management actions that could address known sediment problems.

This alternative requires that road removal or remediation in riparian conservation areas and key watersheds be considered a top restoration priority. Setting one primary national restoration priority for all units does not take into account the high variability of conditions and stressors across NFS lands. Also, it does not take into account changing conditions. While road remediation in riparian areas will likely be the highest priority in some places or at some times, it might not be for all units and across the entire life of a plan. For example, it might be more important to shift restoration focus to control a new occurrence of invasive species before it becomes pervasive in a watershed, or to reduce hazardous fuels to reduce the risk of negative effects to soil and water of uncharacteristic or extreme wildfire events.

Finally, Alternative D requires that, with limited exceptions, only management activities for restoration would be allowed in riparian areas. The Department understands the importance and supports the protection of healthy functioning riparian areas for water quality, water quantity, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The Department also understands the potential negative effects that management activities or uses such as dispersed or developed recreation, grazing, and water level management can have on riparian areas. However, the Department concludes that decisions regarding management activities in riparian areas are better made at the individual plan and project levels where the effects to the resources, to the users, and to communities can be better determined within the context of overall watershed restoration and the maintenance and restoration of the ecological integrity of riparian areas in the plan area.

None of the individual elements of Alternative D is inconsistent with the final planning rule and they could be incorporated at the plan level into plan direction where they are determined to be applicable and effective for those units. In fact, many current plans already incorporate elements of this alternative. However, requiring incorporation of all elements of Alternative D does not provide enough flexibility for effective and efficient resource management on all units of the NFS.

For these reasons Alternative D was not selected as the final rule.

Alternative E

The full text of Alternative E is displayed in Appendix G of the PEIS. This alternative consists of the proposed rule (Alternative A) with additional and substitute direction focused on prescriptive requirements for public notification at § 219.4, assessment requirements at § 219.6, and monitoring requirements at § 219.12.

This alternative prescribes an extensive list of monitoring and assessment questions and requires plan monitoring programs to identify signals for action for each question and its associated indicator.

This alternative specifies performance accountability for line officers' management of unit monitoring and adds responsibility for the Chief to conduct periodic evaluations of unit monitoring programs and the regional monitoring strategies.

Alternative E adds more prescriptive requirements for public participation in the planning process. To help connect people to the outdoors, this alternative also includes requirements for plans to provide for conservation education and volunteer programs.

See Appendix G of the PEIS for Alternative E text in a side-by-side comparison with Alternative A.

Reason for non-selection:

Alternative E requires more evaluation of ecological conditions and possible scenarios during assessment for plan revisions and more monitoring of specific conditions and responses to restoration. The use of signal points could potentially make land managers more aware and responsive when monitoring results are outside of expected levels. However, the difficulty of establishing

statistically and temporally significant signal points related to restoration, especially where there is insufficient data and where conditions are changing, will increase the complexity of planning. The prescriptive nature of the monitoring requirements could increase the ability to aggregate and compare data between units or at higher scales but could also result in the costly collection of data that is not necessarily relevant to the management of particular individual units or ecological conditions.

Requirements to identify possible scenarios in assessments would have short-term cost increases with possible long-term gains in efficiency. Additional requirements regarding coordination in the assessment and monitoring process would increase initial costs, but consistent coordination might also result in more cost-effective long-term planning efforts to meet viability objectives. However, while additional requirements for standardized collaboration methods might work well for some units, other units might find that some required steps are not relevant to their local public involvement needs. Based on the analysis in the PEIS, collaboration strategies tailored to a unit's particular needs are often more effective than very prescriptive approaches to collaboration.

The PEIS points out potential benefits of more prescriptive requirements for assessment, monitoring, and collaboration. But, the PEIS also points out the drawbacks, particularly in trying to efficiently apply a “one-size-fits-all” approach to such things as monitoring or collaboration across highly diverse resources conditions and communities associated with NFS Units. This Alternative also has the highest implementation costs of all alternatives. The Department does not believe that the potential gains in effectiveness warrant the increased costs.

None of the individual elements of Alternative E are inconsistent with the final planning rule and any of them can be incorporated into plan direction where they are determined to be applicable and effective for those units. However, requiring incorporation of all elements of Alternative E does not provide enough flexibility for effective and efficient resource management on all units of the NFS. For these reasons Alternative E was not selected as the final rule.

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Under the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) NEPA regulation, the Department is required to identify the environmentally preferred alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This is interpreted to mean the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's section 101 and that would cause the least damage to the biological and physical components of the environment. The environmentally preferred alternative best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (46 FR 18026, 18028 (March 23, 1981)).

The two alternatives that best meet these criteria are Alternative D (if it could be fully implemented) and Modified Alternative A. Alternative D provides the highest level of resource protection, particularly for water and riparian resources. Some requirements of this alternative would be difficult to implement across the entire NFS, add increased cost and complexity to the planning process for little benefit, and may not always represent the best approach for the resource. The additional funds spent on the planning process would not be available for other management activities including restoration and habitat improvement.

Modified Alternative A also provides high levels of resource protection and can be effectively implemented across all units. It does not preclude incorporation of elements of Alternative D into plans where they are most suited to meet resource conditions.

The approval of a planning rule to guide development, revision, and amendment of land management plans is a broad policy decision. Accordingly, impacts described in the PEIS reflect issues concerning effects over a broad geographic and time horizon. The depth and detail of impact analysis is necessarily broad and general because a planning rule is two steps removed from site-specific projects and activities. Quantitative, site-specific effects can only be predicted with any certainty when site-specific actions are proposed.

Decision and Rationale

Decision

Modified Alternative A, with clarifications, is selected as the final planning rule. A few clarifications were made to better represent the Department's intent, and do not substantively change Modified Alternative A. They include:

(1) Changes made to § 219.7(e)(1)(iv) and § 219.15(d)(3) to clarify that compliance with both standards and guidelines is mandatory, with standards requiring strict adherence to their terms, while guidelines allow for flexibility so long as the purpose for the guideline is achieved.

(2) Changes made to § 219.9(b)(1) to clarify that the responsible official must determine whether the plan components of paragraph (a) provide the necessary ecological conditions, or whether additional, species-specific plan components must be included in the plan.

(3) Changes made to the definition of designated areas in § 219.19 to clarify that the examples of designated areas included in Modified Alternative A were not intended to be exclusive.

(4) Changes throughout Subpart B to clarify that organizations, States and Tribes are among the entities that may object, pursuant to the other requirements in Subpart B.

This decision is based on the

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement—National Forest System Land Management Planning,

USDA Forest Service, 2011, and its supporting record. This decision is not subject to Forest Service appeal regulations.

Nearly 300,000 comments were received on the DEIS and the proposed rule. The Agency also consulted with Indian Tribes, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Department has reviewed and considered these comments, the results of the consultations, and worked with Agency managers in concluding that the proposed rule would be improved by clarifying the proposed wording and incorporating the changes reflected in Modified Alternative A into the final rule.

This decision does not authorize any projects or activities. The planning rule describes the process the Forest Service will use for development, amendment, and revision of land management plans for national forests and grasslands, and includes requirements for the structure and content of those plans. Any commitment of resources takes place only after (1) a land management plan is approved under the provisions of the final rule (including the completion of the appropriate NEPA process), and (2) the Forest Service proposes projects or activities, analyzes their effects in the appropriate NEPA process, determines consistency with the applicable land management plan, and authorizes the final projects or activities.

Sometimes projects or activities may be authorized at the same time and in the same decision document when approving a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. One example might be opening or closing trails to the use of

off-highway vehicles. In these cases, the part of the decision associated with the project or activity would represent a commitment of resources.

Rationale for the Decision

The following paragraphs outline the rationale for the decision, including how Modified Alternative A meets the purpose and need and addresses the significant issues described in the final PEIS.

The Department determined Modified Alternative A best meets the purpose and need for a new planning rule. Modified Alternative A provides a process for planning that is adaptive and science-based, engages the public, and is designed to be efficient, effective, and within the Agency's ability to implement. It is designed to ensure that plans provide for the sustainability of ecosystems and resources; meet the need for forest restoration and conservation, watershed protection, and species diversity and conservation; and assist the Agency in providing a sustainable flow of benefits, services, and uses of NFS lands that contribute to the economic and social sustainability of communities.

The paragraphs below describe how Modified Alternative A meets the purpose and need for a new planning rule. Many of the requirements described for each element can be found in one or more of the alternatives analyzed in the PEIS. However, the Department concludes that the combination of requirements provided in Modified Alternative A provide the best approach for developing, amending, and revising plans. Modified Alternative A is clearer than Alternative A, better reflects the Department's intent as described in the preamble for the proposed rule, and reflects public comments and suggestions for improving the proposed rule. Unlike Alternative B, it meets the purpose and need for a new planning rule. It is also more implementable and less costly than Alternatives D and E, and allows greater flexibility to develop plans that best meet the ecological, social, and economic needs of units across the very diverse National Forest System. The Department concludes that the combination of provisions in Modified Alternative A best meets the purpose and need for a new planning rule and provides assurance that the Department's objectives will be met.

For those reasons, Modified Alternative A provides the best balance among the alternatives to meet the purpose and need for a new planning rule.

Response to Purpose and Need

All of the alternatives analyzed in detail, with the exception of Alternative B, meet the purpose and need to varying degrees. No single alternative can maximize all of the elements of the purpose and need. The Department finds that Modified Alternative A provides the best planning framework for meeting the various elements of the purpose and need by creating a rule that:

1. Emphasizes restoration of natural resources to make NFS lands more resilient to climate change, protect water resources, and improve forest health. The Department concludes that Modified Alternative A will result in plans that are adaptive and therefore more likely to remain relevant and implementable, including by providing an adaptive framework that will help responsible officials to respond to changing conditions and new information.

2. Contributes to ecological, social, and economic sustainability by ensuring that all plans will be responsive to issues such as the challenges of climate change; the need for forest restoration and conservation, watershed protection, and species conservation; and the sustainable use of public lands to support vibrant communities.

3. Is consistent with NFMA and MUSYA. The Department intends that the requirements of Modified Alternative A will be integrated into the development or revision of a plan in a manner that provides for the long-term ecological sustainability of the plan area while sustaining ecosystem services and providing for multiple uses.

4. Is consistent with Federal policy on the use of scientific information and the Agency's expertise and experience gained in more than 30 years of land management planning. Responsible officials will use the best available scientific information to inform the plan components and the monitoring program. The Department concludes that Modified Alternative A requires a planning process that is science-based and additionally recognizes the value of local knowledge, the Agency experience, knowledge, and information of other land managers, and indigenous knowledge.

5. Provides for a transparent, collaborative process that allows effective public participation. Modified Alternative A includes requirements to engage the public, Tribes, other government agencies, and groups and communities that have been at times under-represented in planning, such as youth and minorities, throughout the planning process. The Department concludes that the collaborative approach required by Modified Alternative A will result in improved relationships and plans that better meet the needs of diverse communities, which in turn will translate into more successful projects and activities developed under the plans.

6. Ensures planning takes place in the context of the larger landscape by taking an “all-lands approach.” Modified Alternative A uses an “all-lands approach” to consider conditions beyond the plan area and how they might influences resources within the plan area as well as how actions on the NFS might affect resources and communities outside of the plan area. It also requires that responsible officials coordinate with entities with equivalent and related planning efforts.

7. Is within the Agency's capability to implement on all NFS units. It is clear and provides an efficient framework for planning, and is able to be implemented within the financial capacity of the Agency.

The Department concludes that Modified Alternative A provides an appropriate balance between the flexibility needed to address issues unique to the plan area and the need for consistent requirements and a consistent approach. Modified Alternative A reduces planning costs and the time needed for a plan revision from current levels.

Response to the Issue of Ecosystem Restoration

As many respondents correctly noted, not all NFS lands are in need of restoration and, in fact, NFS lands often provide among the highest quality habitat and the cleanest water of all lands in the country. The final rule provides for the maintenance of those lands. There is also widespread consensus that some NFS lands are degraded or are at risk of becoming degraded. From large scale pine beetle outbreaks in the Intermountain West to watersheds across NFS lands with poorly sited or maintained roads that cause sedimentation or block the movement of fish and aquatic organisms, there are many restoration needs on NFS lands. Modified Alternative A addresses the need for ecosystem maintenance and restoration.

Modified Alternative A incorporates the concept of ecological integrity. This concept is defined in the scientific literature as a means of evaluating ecological conditions in terms of their sustainability. The concept of ecological integrity is also used by the U.S. Department of the Interior's National

Park Service and Bureau of Land Management. Aligning approaches across the broader landscape will facilitate an all-lands approach to ecological sustainability.

Under Modified Alternative A, information relevant for ecosystem maintenance and restoration will be identified and evaluated during the assessment phase. Plan components are required for the maintenance and restoration of the ecological integrity of riparian areas and air, soil, and water resources. Responsible officials will consider opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems and for landscape scale restoration. The monitoring program will track ecological and watershed conditions and measure progress towards meeting desired conditions and objectives.

Modified Alternative A captures many of the concepts of “best practices” in restoration that are already occurring on NFS lands. Examples of such best practice efforts include the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program established under section 4003(a) of Title IV of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, (

http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml

), which promotes healthier, safer, and more productive public lands through partnership efforts, and the Four Forest Restoration Initiative to accomplish landscape scale restoration of ponderosa pine ecosystems in the Southwest. These restoration efforts bring people together to work across ownerships, restore ecosystems, increase organizational capacity, and in the process create jobs and economic opportunities that contribute to sustainable economies. Modified Alternative A provides a platform for working with the public and other land managers to identify restoration needs across the landscape and manage NFS lands to support meeting shared restoration objectives.

Response to the Issue of Watershed Protection

Watersheds and water resources on NFS lands are important for many reasons: For example, they are the source of drinking water for one in five Americans, provide important species habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species, and support recreation opportunities in the plan area.

Modified Alternative A includes a strong set of requirements associated with maintaining and restoring watersheds and aquatic ecosystems, water resources, and riparian areas in the plan area. It incorporates the protection or mitigation requirements of the 1982 rule, but goes beyond the 1982 rule in requiring a proactive approach for maintaining or restoring terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area.

Under Modified Alternative A, information relevant to watersheds, aquatic ecosystems, and water resources will be identified and evaluated during the assessment phase. Plans will be required to identify priority watersheds for maintenance or restoration. Plan components are required for the maintenance and restoration of the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems and watersheds, water quality, and water resources in the plan area, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and sources of drinking water.

Plan components are also required for the maintenance and restoration of the ecological integrity of riparian areas, including structure, function, composition, and connectivity; taking into account a number of factors; and plan components must establish widths for riparian management zones. Because riparian resources across NFS units are very diverse, Modified Alternative A retains the 1982 rule requirements to give special attention to land and vegetation within approximately 100 feet of all perennial streams and lakes and prevent management practices that have serious or adverse impacts, but does not require a single national width for riparian management zones. Riparian areas may be forested or open, they are connected with all types of streams, lakes and wetlands, and they vary widely in existing condition and types of use. Modified Alternative A allows for the requirements to be tailored to specific conditions on the plan area. The set of requirements included in Modified Alternative A for riparian areas is more implementable and less costly than the requirements in Alternative D, and will lead to a more effective and appropriate set of plan components across a diverse system.

Under Modified Alternative A, responsible officials must ensure that projects and activities in riparian areas are consistent with plan requirements for maintaining or restoring riparian areas, do not seriously or adversely affect water resources, are suitable uses, and are compatible with desired conditions for those lands. The consistency requirement places the decision about what types of projects or activities may or may not be allowed and what management direction will guide these activities at the plan level. The Department concludes that this is the appropriate level at which to make these decisions.

NFS lands provide some of the highest quality water in the country and are important sources of drinking water, but there are streams that do not meet State water quality standards. Modified Alternative A requires that the Chief of the Forest Service establish requirements for best management practices for water quality, and that plans ensure implementation of those practices.

The Department concludes that Modified Alternative A appropriately elevates the emphasis on the conservation of water and riparian resources, can be implemented on all NFS units, and is soundly supported by recent advances in conservation biology and ecology.

Response to the Issue of Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities

Perhaps no other aspect of the proposed planning rule has sparked as much interest or generated as much debate as the requirement to provide for plant and animal diversity. In particular, there is disagreement between those who believe that without strong, specific requirements in the rule for maintaining species diversity and viability, the persistence of many species will be at increased risk, and those who believe that putting specific requirements in the rule will result in endless litigation that will keep the Agency from moving forward with planning and with projects and activities.

The Department's intent is to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities, and keep common native species common, contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain species of conservation concern within the plan area, within Agency authority and the inherent capability of the land.

Modified Alternative A requires that future plans be based on a complementary ecosystem and species-specific approach to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities in the plan area and the long-term persistence of native species in the plan area. This approach is often referred to as the coarse-filter/fine-filter approach.

The ecosystem integrity and diversity requirements in Modified Alternative A are meant to provide a coarse-filter designed to maintain biological diversity. By working toward diverse, connected ecosystems with ecological integrity, the Agency expects that over time, management will create ecological conditions which support the abundance, distribution, and long-term

persistence of most native species within a plan area, as well as provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. The fine-filter provisions are intended to provide a safety net for those species whose specific habitat needs or other influences on their life requirements may not be fully met under the coarse-filter provisions.

The coarse-filter/fine-filter approach is a well-developed concept in the scientific literature and has broad support from the scientific community and many stakeholders. It incorporates the considerable advances of the past three decades in understanding of biological and conservation science. The coarse-filter/fine-filter approach is already incorporated into many recently revised plans and is yielding positive results. For example, restoration of longleaf pine in the South is resulting in increases in red-cockaded woodpecker populations, and restoration of watersheds and instream habitat in the Pacific Northwest is yielding benefits for salmon.

The provisions in Modified Alternative A recognize the importance of maintaining biological diversity of native species on each national forest and grassland, and the compositional, structural, and functional components that comprise the biological diversity on each NFS unit, and recognize the importance of native species and their contributions to maintaining the ecological integrity of ecosystems.

Considering habitat needs for non-vertebrates is not new to the Forest Service. Non-vertebrate species can be federally recognized as threatened or endangered. In addition, the Agency has developed and maintained a list of regional forester sensitive species (RFSS) for over two decades. An RFSS list can include any native plant or animal species. RFSS are those plant and animal species identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. RFSS are thus similar to species of conservation concern. The conservation and management of many RFSS has been a part of many land management plans and projects and activities for decades.

The Department intends to provide for the persistence of all native species by the use of the coarse-filter/fine-filter approach, within Forest Service authority and the inherent capability of the plan area. Modified Alternative A provides a three-fold treatment of all native species.

First, Modified Alternative A requires coarse-filter plan components for the maintenance and restoration of the ecological integrity and diversity of ecosystems in the plan area. Plan components will support the long-term persistence of most native species in the plan area, including providing for species that are common or secure.

Second, species that are federally recognized species under ESA (threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species) may not have viable populations on NFS lands and whose recovery, in most cases, cannot be achieved on a single NFS plan area. Modified Alternative A requires the responsible official to develop coarse-filter plan components, and fine-filter plan components where necessary, to contribute to the recovery of listed species and conserve proposed and candidate species.

Third, Modified Alternative A requires the responsible official to develop coarse-filter plan components, and fine-filter plan components where necessary, to provide the desired ecological conditions necessary to maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern within the plan area, or to contribute to maintaining a viable population of a species of conservation concern across its range where it is not within the Agency's authority or is beyond the inherent capability of the plan area to provide the ecological conditions to maintain a viable population of that species within the plan area.

Species of conservation concern are those plant and animal species whose long-term persistence within the plan area is of known conservation concern. The rule requires that species of conservation concern must be “known to occur in the plan area” and that the regional forester identify the species of conservation concern for which “the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species' capability to persist over the long term in the plan area.”

The Department has considered the concerns raised by many that the requirement for maintaining viable populations of species of conservation concern on the plan area is an impossible task and that attempting to meet this requirement will come at the cost of all other management of the NFS lands. The Department concludes that Modified Alternative A provides a more holistic, consistent, realistic, and effective approach to maintaining native fish, wildlife, and plant species on national forests and grasslands than provided under the 1982 rule, while meeting restoration goals and the mandate of multiple use.

Modified Alternative A recognizes that there are limits to the Agency's authority and the inherent capability of the land, whereas the 1982 rule required management prescriptions to “[p]rovide for adequate fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of [all] existing native vertebrate species,” (See 1982 rule at § 219.27 (a)(6)) regardless of whether there are circumstances outside of the authority or the control of the Agency. Examples of circumstances that may be outside of the Agency's authority or the inherent capability of the plan area are provided above in the rationale for non-selection of Alternative B.

The Department concludes the management emphasis on species of conservation concern is more focused than the viability provisions under the 1982 rule, which included all vertebrate species whether there was concern about their persistence in the plan area or not. Since these species may be wide ranging or may occur on multiple units, the regional forester, in coordination with the responsible official, will identify species of conservation concern. Requiring that the regional forester identify species of conservation concern will increase consistency across units and build efficiency into the Agency's collective efforts to maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities.

The Department also considered the challenges the Forest Service has faced in monitoring management indicator species (MIS) under the 1982 rule. MIS monitoring has been the subject of much of the legal debate around the species provisions of the 1982 rule. Modified Alternative A does not include requirements to designate MIS or monitor their population trends. The concept of MIS as a surrogate for the status of other species is not supported by current science, and population trends are difficult and sometimes impossible to determine within the lifespan of a plan.

In the final rule, MIS monitoring has been replaced with monitoring of focal species. The concept of focal species is well supported in the scientific literature and community. Focal species are not surrogates for the status of other species. Focal species monitoring provides information regarding the effectiveness of the plan in providing the ecological conditions necessary to maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of native species in the plan area. Modified Alternative A does not require

or prohibit monitoring of population trends of focal species. Instead, it allows the use of any existing or emerging approaches for monitoring the status of focal species that are supported by current science. Monitoring methods for evaluating the status of focal species may include measures of abundance, distribution, reproduction, presence/absence, area occupied, survival rates, or others.

The Department expects that monitoring key ecosystem and watershed conditions along with monitoring the status of a set of well-chosen focal species will provide timely information regarding the effectiveness of plan components related to plant and animal diversity.

The requirements in Modified Alternative A regarding sustainability and diversity of plant and animal communities are part of the planning framework cycle that requires public participation, assessments, and monitoring. Additionally, provisions in these sections require the responsible official to coordinate with other land owners. These requirements support cooperation and an all-lands approach to ecosystem and species diversity and conservation.

Under plans developed under Modified Alternative A, the Department expects NFS lands to more consistently provide the ecological conditions necessary to maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of native species. Over time, the Department expects habitat quantity to increase and habitat quality to improve for most native species across the NFS including aquatic and riparian species. The Department also expects ecological conditions for many federally listed species, species proposed, and candidates for listing and species of conservation concern to improve within and among plan areas because Modified Alternative A gives emphasis to maintaining and restoring ecological conditions needed by these species. The final rule provides for collaborative approaches to addressing the range-wide concerns of species whose range and long term viability is associated with lands beyond the plan area.

The Department concludes that the combination of requirements in Modified Alternative A reflects a strong, implementable approach to providing for the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of native species in the plan area, and is supported by the scientific literature and community. This approach meets the requirements of NFMA and MUSYA, and provides a holistic, consistent, realistic, and effective approach to providing for diversity of plant and animal communities on national forests and grasslands, while meeting restoration goals and the mandate of multiple use and sustained yield.

Response to the Issue of Climate Change

Consideration of changing conditions including climate in planning is not new to the Forest Service. The Climate Change Resource Center has been developed as a reference for Forest Service resource managers and decision makers who need information and tools to address climate change in planning and project implementation on NFS lands. For more than 20 years, Forest Service scientists have been studying and assessing climate change effects on forests and rangelands. Forest Service Research and Development provides long term research, scientific information, and tools that can be used by managers and policymakers to address climate change impacts to forests and rangelands. Climate change-related activities are carried out within research stations covering the whole country. In 2009, the Agency issued guidance for climate change considerations to provide the Agency with the support needed to incorporate climate change into land management planning and project-level NEPA documentation. Recent plan revisions include consideration of climate change.

Modified Alternative A incorporates a strategic framework for adaptive management: assess conditions on the ground using readily available information, build plan components recognizing that conditions may be changing, and monitor to determine if there are measurable changes related to climate change and other stressors on the plan area.

Under Modified Alternative A, responsible officials will identify and evaluate information relevant to understanding ecological conditions and trends and to forming a baseline assessment of carbon stocks. Plans will include plan components to maintain or restore ecological integrity, so that ecosystems can resist change, are resilient under changing conditions, and are able to recover from disturbance. Modified Alternative A also requires monitoring measurable changes on the plan area related to climate change and other stressors that may be affecting the plan area. Taken together, the planning framework and these requirements will ensure that information related to climate change will be addressed in a consistent and strategic fashion.

Modified Alternative A is consistent with and complements the Agency's climate change National Roadmap and Performance Scorecard, the Watershed Condition Framework and ecological restoration and sustainability policies. The climate change roadmap directs national forests and grasslands to develop climate change vulnerability assessments and identifies monitoring strategies. Elements in the scorecard will help the Agency to determine whether assessments and monitoring are being developed in a way that will help inform decisionmaking at the unit level. The scorecard includes requirements that complement or are complemented by requirements in Modified Alternative A. The climate change roadmap and scorecard are available online at

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/advisor/.

The national watershed condition framework (WCF) approach uses an annual outcome-based performance system to measure progress toward improving watershed condition on NFS lands. The WCF improves the way the Forest Service approaches watershed restoration by targeting the implementation of integrated suites of activities in those watersheds that have been identified as priorities for restoration. A short description of the framework is discussed in Chapter 3 of the final PEIS under watershed protection and a Forest Service publication is available at

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/Watershed_Condition_Framework.pdf.

Modified Alternative A capitalizes on existing Agency work such as the baseline carbon assessments conducted under the Climate Change Scorecard, the assessment and monitoring conducted under the Watershed Condition Framework, and the monitoring of climate change indicators occurring in the Forest Inventory and Analysis program, by ensuring integration of these activities into the land management planning process.

In selecting Modified Alternative A, the Department considered the present capability of the Agency to address climate change in planning. The Department also considered existing Agency policy on climate change and the ways in which the different alternatives could be integrated effectively with those policies. The Department concludes that the requirements for addressing climate change in the final rule can be carried out on all NFS units.

Response to the Issue of Multiple Uses

Modified Alternative A embraces the multiple use mandate of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and recognizes the importance of multiple uses in many

sections of the alternative. Recreation, timber, grazing, and other multiple uses provide jobs and income to local communities, help to maintain social cultures and long standing traditions, connect people to the land, and contribute to the quality of life for many Americans.

The Agency has reported that spending by recreation visitors in areas within 50 miles of national forests and grasslands amounts to nearly $13 billion each year. Those dollars sustain more than 224,000 full and part-time jobs. Recreation accounts for more than half of all job and income effects attributable to Forest Service programs. Harvest of timber and other forest products from NFS lands contributed to more than 44,000 full- and part-time jobs with labor income totaling more than $2 billion in 2009. Livestock grazing on NFS lands contributes to an estimated 3,695 jobs and labor income totaling $91.9 million per year.

Timber harvest on NFS lands has declined from over 12 billion board feet in 1985 to approximately 2 billion board feet in 2009. In 1985, there were over 8 million cattle, sheep, and other domestic animals grazing on NFS lands. In 2009, this number dropped to approximately 6 million. In contrast, recreation visits to NFS lands have increased over this same period. There are many factors that influence the levels of timber harvest, grazing, and recreation, as well as other individual multiple uses of the NFS. These factors include increasing population, changing cultural and social values, greater access to NFS lands, changing rural and global economies, NFS budgets, and competing resource concerns. It is difficult to predict at this programmatic level the extent to which a new planning rule is likely to affect specific multiple uses in the future. As a result, the Department considered how each of the alternatives in the PEIS provides a framework for supporting the continued delivery of ecosystem services and multiple uses from the NFS.

Modified Alternative A considers ecological, economic, and social sustainability as equal and interdependent factors. Modified Alternative A emphasizes restoration of ecosystems so that they are capable of sustaining multiple uses over time. Restoration activities will produce jobs and income; at the same time; restored, functioning ecosystems can support species diversity while allowing multiple uses to continue. Under Modified Alternative A, timber production and grazing will continue to provide jobs, income, and ways of life for many Americans. Modified Alternative A emphasizes the importance of the continued delivery of sustainable recreation. Providing high quality recreation opportunities and a range of access to NFS lands creates jobs and income and connects people to the land.

Under Modified Alternative A, plans must contribute to economic and social sustainability and must provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses in the plan area. Responsible officials will use an integrated resource management approach to provide for multiple uses and ecosystem services in the plan area, considering a full range of resources, uses, and benefits relevant to the unit, as well as stressors and other important factors. As part of the multiple use requirements, Modified Alternative A will require plan components for sustainable recreation, including recreation settings, opportunities, access, and scenic character. Modified Alternative A also includes requirements for plan components for timber management, consistent with the requirements of NFMA.

Information relevant to multiple uses and their contributions to local, regional, and national economies, along with information about the benefits (ecosystem services) people obtain from the plan area, will be identified and evaluated in the assessment phase.

Monitoring will track progress towards meeting desired conditions and objectives for recreation and other multiple uses. Broad and unit scale monitoring may provide information on resource and social concerns and conflicts before they result in insurmountable challenges. Most importantly, the Department concludes that the requirements in Modified Alternative A for encouraging public participation, working across boundaries, and engaging other Federal agencies, State, local, and Tribal governments, will help identify multiple uses in the plan area, resolve conflicts, and facilitate the forward movement of effective land management activities.

The Department concludes that Modified Alternative A meets the Agency's multiple-use and sustained-yield obligations under MUSYA and provides an effective framework for sustaining the flow of goods and services from NFS lands over time.

Response to the Issue of Efficiency and Effectiveness

Under Modified Alternative A, the Department expects that individual plan revisions will cost less money and consume less time than they do under the 1982 rule procedures. The 1982 rule procedures are considered the baseline for comparing changes in cost and time for plan revisions because, until a new planning rule is in place, the 1982 rule procedures are being used as permitted by the transition provision of the 2000 rule to develop, revise, and amend all plans.

According to the Agency's regulatory impact analysis and cost-benefit analysis under Modified Alternative A, the Agency estimates that land management planning will cost an estimated $97.7 million per year, which is $6.3 million per year less than it currently costs to conduct planning under the 1982 procedures. More significantly, under Modified Alternative A, the Agency estimates that plan revisions will take, on average, 3 to 4 years as compared to 5 to 7 years under Alternative B, and will cost, on average, $3 to $4 million as compared to $5 to $7 million. As a result of these savings and efficiencies, the Forest Service will be able to revise significantly more plans during the 15-year revision cycle, than under the current planning structure.

Beyond cost and time savings, there are important ancillary benefits to increasing the efficiency of the planning revision process. Under shorter time frames it will be easier for the public to remain engaged throughout the revision process. One of the common concerns expressed by members of the public is that there is a significant amount of turnover in key Agency staff during the long timeframes required for plan revision under the current planning process. This can cause disruption and confusion as established relationships are severed and time and effort is needed to develop new relationships.

The new rule's requirements for increased collaboration and monitoring will lead to higher costs than are projected under Alternative B, but are expected to increase the effectiveness and relevance of land management plans. Increased collaboration provides benefits throughout the planning process and well into implementation. Analysis time may be shortened, administrative objections and the time needed to resolve them may be reduced, and projects developed under the resulting plans may be better understood and supported. Monitoring is important for adaptive management, and can help the Agency to test assumptions, track changing conditions, and measure management effectiveness over time. However, the Agency has long recognized that monitoring efforts when viewed across the Agency as a whole have often lacked consistency and, at times, credibility. The

monitoring requirements of Modified Alternative A complement broader Agency efforts to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its inventory, monitoring and assessment programs, and make better use of the money currently spent on monitoring.

While the cost of each requirement is included in the total cost estimate of Modified Alternative A, many of the requirements involve work that is already occurring and that will continue to occur regardless of whether this, or another alternative is selected as the final rule. Modified Alternative A was developed as part of an integrated Agency framework to manage the NFS lands more efficiently. Other initiatives and Agency priorities that will complement and support the implementation of the new land management planning process and address critical NFS resource issues include the Watershed Condition Framework, Climate Change Scorecard, landscape scale restoration, an all lands approach, and a new system for inventory, monitoring, and assessment work that addresses core resource information and data needs at all levels of the Agency.

Modified Alternative A is neither the least nor the most costly of the alternatives the Department considered. Modified Alternative A reduces the costs and time required for plan development, amendment, and revision. However, the Department does not believe that selecting the least costly alternative should be the overriding criterion. Planning is an important investment. The requirements in Modified Alternative A are designed to lead to more effective plans, to yield greater efficiencies over time by ensuring a consistent approach to planning, to build on existing information, to facilitate adaptive management, and to allow the use of amendments and administrative changes to keep plans current so that future revisions are less costly.

The Department recognizes that some of the definitions, concepts, and terms used in Modified Alternative A are new or broadly worded. This Alternative sets forth process and content requirements to guide the development, amendment, and revision of land management plans across very diverse national forests and grasslands and over a long period of time. By setting out substantive and procedural requirements, the rule establishes the decision space within which the planning process is to be carried out and within which plan content must fit. The Forest Service will develop directives (the Forest Service Manual and Handbook) that will provide additional guidance and more detailed interpretation to ensure consistent and effective implementation of the rule. These directives will be available for public review and comment before they are finalized. Plans developed, revised and amended under the rule will be consistent with the rule and the directives.

Response to the Issue of Transparency and Collaboration

Modified Alternative A supports a transparent and collaborative approach to planning. As described in the PEIS, best practices in public involvement and collaboration emphasize the importance of engaging a broad spectrum of participants. Participants might live close to a plan area or not. What matters is they care about that area for some reason, can contribute to an understanding of relevant issues, can help get planning or project work done, and can help increase organizational and community capacity. A plan revision or amendment process that offers a broad spectrum of participation opportunities is much more likely to produce a meaningful, shared understanding of the social, economic, or ecological factors of importance in the plan area. Forests and grasslands that already engage a broad spectrum of public interests early and often report that their proposed projects and plans more accurately incorporate public vision and interests. They further report that upfront public involvement builds more understanding of proposed actions, and that people typically respond more positively to these proposals.

Under Modified Alternative A, responsible official will be required to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation in each phase of the planning framework. Modified Alternative A includes requirements for outreach, Tribal consultation, and coordination with other planning efforts. Responsible officials will continue to engage State and local governments, Tribes, private landowners, other Federal agencies, and the public at large, but additionally will encourage participation by youth, low-income and minority populations, who have traditionally been underrepresented in the planning process. Having the forest or grassland supervisor as the responsible official provides greater opportunity for people to interact directly with the decision maker than under current rule procedures. Use of a pre-decisional review (objection) process is also consistent with a more collaborative approach.

Modified Alternative A allows flexibility at the local level to determine the most appropriate method and scale of the public involvement. Much of the literature on building effective collaboration discusses the need for flexibility to select public involvement methods appropriate for the unique needs of specific situations and participants.

Modified Alternative A is consistent with current practice on effective public engagement and incorporates approaches that have proven successful and implementable on NFS units.

The requirements for public participation, notification, and documentation required in Modified Alternative A support transparency in planning. This alternative's requirements to consider the accessibility of the process and of information, to use contemporary tools to engage the public and to post all notifications online further increase transparency.

Response to the Issue of Coordination and Cooperation Beyond NFS Boundaries

Ecological and social systems are not confined within NFS unit boundaries. Ecosystem services produced by national forests and grasslands affect and are affected by land management activities on adjacent private, State, local, and other Federal Government lands.

Under Modified Alternative A, the responsible official will consider the landscape-scale context for management and will look across boundaries throughout the assessment, plan development/revision, and monitoring phases of the planning process. The assessment phase will provide information about conditions and trends relevant to management of the plan area in the context of the broader landscape. Responsible officials will take an all-lands approach into account when developing plan components for ecological sustainability and multiple uses and ecosystem services. Plan and broader-scale monitoring, along with direction to engage the public and other land managers in each phase, will also support an all-lands approach. Responsible officials will leverage their resources and knowledge with those of other agencies to increase effectiveness and gain efficiency in planning and future implementation of their plans.

The PEIS includes several examples of landscape scale planning, projects, and assessments that are currently using an all-lands approach in planning, assessment and monitoring. They have resulted from an increased recognition

that NFS land management must be considered in the broader landscape and that only this kind of approach can address problems such as maintaining watershed conditions, conserving wide-ranging species, and providing for effective transportation and infrastructure on and off NFS lands. The Department concludes that Modified Alternative A incorporates these best practices and provides a framework for continuing and expanding them.

Compliance With the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended

Beginning in September, 2010 and continuing through the development of the final rule and its accompanying final programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS), representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (the reviewing agencies) met regularly with members of the Forest Service to discuss Endangered Species Act of 1973 issues related to the final rule. During that time, the three agencies worked closely together to identify the relevant issues and appropriate level of analysis associated with this rule and the environmental analysis for it. They collaborated on a consultation process and on the biological assessment (BA). The Agency requested consultation under section 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 with the reviewing agencies in July, 2011. Additionally, the Agency requested conferencing on the potential effects of the rule on all species that are proposed for Federal listing and currently occur on NFS lands, and those that are candidates for Federal listing that occur on or are suspected to occur on NFS lands. A summary of the consultation meetings between the Forest Service, NOAA Fisheries, and the USFWS can be found in Appendix E of the final PEIS.

NOAA Fisheries and USFWS have each prepared a biological opinion pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act including a conservation review pursuant to section 7(a)(l) Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1) and (2)). Each agency issued a biological opinion that adoption of the final planning rule is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered or threatened species under its jurisdiction and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify any of those species' critical habitat. Each agency's biological opinion also concluded that the planning rule would set forth a system for land use plans that would further the conservation purposes of the Endangered Species Act under section 7(a)(1).

Copies of the biological assessment, its addendum, and the biological opinions are in the project record and can be viewed online at:

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

Response to Comments

The following is a description of specific comments received on the proposed rule, responses to comments, and changes made in response to comments. Each comment received consideration in the development of the final rule. In addition, following the publication of the PEIS, the Department received comments on the PEIS and the preferred alternative. These comments were also considered by the Department in the development of the final rule, and any changes made in response to those comments are described below. A response to comments on the draft EIS and the proposed rule may be found in the response to comments appendix of the EIS located online (see

ADDRESSES

).

General Comments

The Department received the following comments not specifically tied to a particular section of the 2011 proposed rule.

General Comments on Rulemaking Effort

Comment: Use of public forums for rule development and meeting locations.

A respondent was critical of the public forums, as the forum they attended was full of private sector representatives and not members of the public. Another respondent felt there were not enough public meetings held on the East Coast. A respondent felt after scoping, the proposed rule was developed “behind closed doors.” The respondent felt the meetings on the proposed rule were not opportunities to discuss specific rule wording.

Response:

The public engagement effort prior to development of the proposed rule was the most extensive, transparent and participatory process ever used to develop a proposed planning rule. The Department began by using the Notice of Intent (NOI) to solicit initial public input, rather than going out with an already developed proposal. This decision was made in recognition of the level of public interest in this rule-making effort, and in a desire to build a proposed rule based on public input. The Department received 26,000 comments on the NOI. Following the NOI, the Department hosted a science forum, 4 national roundtables, and 9 regional roundtables which reached 35 locations around the country, using an independent facilitator to run the roundtables and capture public feedback.

The purpose of the public forums before publication of the proposed rule was to openly and transparently discuss possible content of the proposed rule. Participants in the meetings were invited to suggest specific topics and specific wording during the sessions. Materials and summaries from the roundtables were posted online. Many roundtables used video teleconferencing or Webcasts to provide for participation by members of the public unable to attend in person. This use of technology also provided opportunities for the public to participate from their local Forest Service office. The Agency also hosted a blog site for people to engage in dialogue and provide feedback, as well as participate remotely in the national roundtables. More than 3,000 members of the public participated in these sessions and provided important feedback that the Agency used in developing the proposed rule.

After the proposed rule was published, the Agency hosted 28 regional public forums and one national public forum to answer questions and help the public understand what was in the proposed rule. These sessions were attended by more than 1,350 people and reached 72 satellite locations across the country. These forums were intended to help the public submit informed comments during the comment period for the proposed rule, but the Agency did not accept public comments directly at the forums because of the need to have a consistent way of accepting and recording comments.

After the public comment period closed, the Agency used the more than 300,000 comments received to inform development of this final rule.

Comment: Proposed rule commenting process.

A respondent felt there was no convenient way for the everyday person to provide comments on the proposed rule.

Response:

Multiple avenues for the public to submit comments on the proposed rule were provided, including submitting comments electronically via the respondent's choice of two Web sites, or submitting comments using mail or fax. Information on how to submit comments was posted on the Forest Service Web site, distributed at public meetings, and published in the

Federal Register

notice. Additionally, interested parties could sign up for a listserv that provided updates via email.

Comment: Lack of responses.

A respondent felt the 26,000 comments received during the comment period for the notice of intent (NOI) to develop a

new planning rule meant the Department must undertake further efforts to ensure the public is sufficiently involved in the planning process and further ensure that actions taken as a result of the rule are supported and understood by the public.

Response:

In addition to the 26,000 comments received in response to the NOI, the Department engaged more than 3,000 people around the country in public forums to receive input between the NOI and the proposed rule, and received more than 300,000 public comments during the 90-day comment period for the proposed rule. After publication of the final rule, public participation in planning at the unit level is mandated by § 219.4, which requires the responsible official to offer meaningful opportunities for public involvement and participation early and throughout the development of a land management plan or plan revision. The Agency is also exploring ways to engage more broadly with the public to implement this final rule.

Comment: Cooperating status for rulemaking.

Some respondents expressed concern that their requests for cooperating agency status were not granted by the Department.

Response:

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) allows for cooperating agency status for States, local governments, and Tribes with jurisdiction or special expertise for the development of an environmental document. Several States or local governments requested cooperating agency status. However, a national rule requires a broader look beyond an individual State's or local government's expertise. The Agency also took a unique and unprecedented collaborative and open approach in reaching out to the public, governments, and Tribal entities in developing the rule. Therefore, requests for cooperating agency status during development of the planning rule were not granted. The Department recognizes the valuable role of local and State governments and Tribes in the planning process and provided multiple opportunities for their involvement throughout the country during the collaboration efforts for the planning rule, in addition to the formal public comment periods.

Comment: Oral comments.

Several respondents felt oral comments during the public forums on the proposed rule should have been allowed.

Response:

When applicable, the Administrative Procedures Act directs that agencies provide an opportunity for written comment, but allows agencies the discretion whether or not to allow oral presentation of data or views. The Forest Service hosted open public forums in Washington, DC, and across the country to answer questions about the proposed rule during the public comment period. The Forest Service held these forums to help the public understand the content of the proposed rule. The Forest Service did not, however, accept written formal public comments at the forums or provide an opportunity to record oral comments, due to the anticipated volume of public comments, to ensure proper documentation and consideration of all comments, and in the interest of efficiency and accuracy in accepting and reviewing comments. All comments on the proposed rule and DEIS had to be submitted in writing during the 90-day comment period by postal system, fax, or one of two Web sites.

Comment: Personal comments.

A respondent expressed concern that their scoping comments were not incorporated into the proposed rule.

Response:

No rule can satisfy the entire spectrum of opinion. The final rule seeks to balance different, and often competing, public needs and perspectives on planning into a process that is practical, workable, based on science, and reflective of overall public and Agency values and input.

Comment: Incorrect or missing address for submission of comments, phone contact, and Web site utility.

Some respondents expressed confusion on why the Department did not provide an email address for comments to be sent to. Others expressed frustration that the contact phone number was published incorrectly in the DEIS, and expressed a desire to submit comments or ask questions by phone. Some wanted a better sitemap on the Forest Service planning Web site to help navigation through the site.

Response:

Instead of an email address, the Department provided the addresses of two Web sites the public could choose from to submit comments, in addition to mail or fax options. Because of the volume of anticipated comments, the Department concluded that comments submitted via a Web site would be more efficient to manage than an electronic mail in-box, and would reduce costs and the risk of human error. In addition, comments are more efficiently and rapidly placed in the record and made available for public inspection when submitted via a Web site rather than email.

After being made aware of the incorrect phone number published in the DEIS, the Department corrected the contact information immediately. The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to “give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation” (5 U.S.C. 553(c)). Due to the anticipated volume of public comments, and in the interest of efficiency and accuracy in accepting and reviewing comments, the Department did not accept comments over the telephone. It is not standard practice to accept telephone comments. Opportunities to provide comment were amply provided through the respondent's choice of two Web sites, mail or fax.

The planning rule Web site does contain a site map link on the left-hand menu on the main page. The Department appreciates feedback on our Web design and seeks to continuously improve our Web presence.

Comment: Verification comments received.

Some respondents wanted to verify that their comments on the planning rule were received.

Response:

Respondents are able to verify that their comments were received by reviewing the public reading room for the planning rule at

http://contentanalysisgroup.com/fsrd/

. To ensure transparency, comments submitted during the comment period were posted to the reading room for public review.

Comment: List serv.

A respondent felt the Department should use a listserv to keep the public apprised of the status of the planning rule.

Response:

A planning rule listserv was announced in June 2010, and has been used since then to communicate with the public. Members of the public may request to be added to the planning rule listserv on the planning rule Web site, or directly at

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/pr-listserv-subscribe.html

.

Comment: Requests for extension of the comment period.

Some respondents requested an extension of the comment period because some members of the public were not able to participate in Agency meetings addressing the proposed rule. Other respondents requested an extension of the comment deadline because of the late release of a scientific review. Some respondents said that the public did not have enough time to comment on the science review before the comment period closed.

Response:

The Department went through extraordinary lengths to facilitate the ability of the public to understand and comment on the proposed rule and proposed environmental impact statement. In fact, the Administration identified this rule as a flagship for open government

within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Department published in the

Federal Register

a notice of intent to propose a new rule and prepare its accompanying environmental impact statement on December 18, 2009, and took public comment on that notice for 60 days. The proposed rule was informed by approximately 26,000 comments to the notice of intent, a science forum, regional and national roundtables held in 35 locations with over 3,000 people in attendance, national and regional Tribal roundtables, 16 Tribal consultation meetings, Forest Service employee feedback, and over 300 comments posted to the planning rule blog. Throughout that process, the Agency shared a clear timeline with the public, including our intent to publish the final rule by the end of 2011.

The Department considered all the public input, science, and the Agency's expertise to develop the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The proposed rule and notice of availability for the DEIS were published in the

Federal Register

and included a 90-day comment period ending on May 16, 2011. A 90-day comment period was used because of the importance of the proposed planning rule. This was 30 days more than the Agency's customary comment period for rulemaking and is 45 days more than the review and comment period for draft environmental impact statements required by National Environmental Policy Act regulations.

The Department reached well beyond its normal practices to provide the public with information to assist in the public comment phase of this rulemaking. During March and April, 2011, after the notices were published in the

Federal Register

, the Forest Service hosted 29 national and regional public forums to provide stakeholders with information about the proposed rule and respond to questions. The forums were attended by almost 1,350 members of the public and reached 74 locations across the country through video and teleconferencing. The National Forum was held within 3 weeks of the opening of the comment period and a video of the forum and forum materials were posted on the planning rule Web site. The regional forums were also held early in the comment period. While the forums were designed to assist the public in understanding the proposed rule and foster informed comments, it was not necessary for any member of the public to attend a forum to develop and submit comments. The Forest Service ensured that the planning rule Web site contained background information on the proposed rule as well as summaries of the various collaboration and public involvement activities held during the preparation of the proposed rule. Also, the DEIS was posted on that Web site, as published in the

Federal Register

notification. In order to proactively facilitate commenting, the Forest Service provided multiple options for members of the public to submit comments: two Web sites, by hard copy mail, and by facsimile.

In addition, the Department contracted with a neutral third party to arrange an independent review of the DEIS by respected and well known scientists outside of the Forest Service to ensure that the science behind the proposed rule and environmental analysis is current, relevant, accurate, and appropriately applied. In order to ensure the integrity and independence of the review process, the identity of the reviewers and the content of their individual analysis were kept confidential by the third party, until the review was completed. In keeping with our open and transparent process, the Agency committed to make the reviews in their entirety public and did so within 3 business days of receiving them. The Agency posted the reviews on the Internet on April 26, 2011. The summary of the reviews and each independent review can be found on the Internet at

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

. Neither requesting the review nor sharing the result of the review was legally required. The Forest Service considered the science reviews, along with public comments, in preparing the final programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) and final rule.

The Department believes the public had sufficient time to review these materials and consider them when commenting on the proposed planning rule. The Department decided not to extend the 90-day comment period because extra time had been provided for comments beyond the customary practices and an unprecedented amount of information and access to the Agency employees to assist the public in understanding that information was provided to the public via Web site and public meetings.

Comment: External science review and Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Some respondents were concerned that the external science review of the DEIS violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) because they believed the Agency set up an advisory committee but did not follow the FACA requirements. Some respondents were concerned that the Agency did not follow the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements in setting up a committee of scientists.

Response:

The external science review of the DEIS did not violate FACA. FACA applies when a Federal agency establishes, controls, or manages a group that provides the Agency with consensus advice or recommendations. The external science review of the DEIS was conducted by seven non-Federal scientists, each of whom separately conducted an independent evaluation of whether appropriate scientific information, content, and rigor had been considered, analyzed, and synthesized in the DEIS. These scientists did not operate as a group; they were not established, controlled or managed as a group by the Agency; and they did not provide the Agency with consensus advice or recommendations. Accordingly, the external science review was not subject to FACA's requirements.

A committee of scientists was not required for this rulemaking effort under the NFMA: a committee of scientists was required only for the 1979 planning rule, and that committee terminated upon promulgation of that regulation. The NFMA states that the Secretary may, from time to time, appoint similar committees when considering revisions of the regulations, but the Secretary need not do so (16 U.S.C. 1604(h)(1)).

Comment: External science review and public comment.

Some respondents were concerned that science review meetings of the external reviewers were not open to the public, and that the documents considered and produced were not available to the public. Some respondents were concerned that the Agency did not make the reviews public when the proposed rule was published for comment on February 14, 2011.

Response:

There were no “science review” meetings held by the external reviewers. The Agency did not provide the external reviewers with any documents that were not available to the public. Neither the public nor the Department knew the identities of the reviewers, nor was there interaction between Department personnel and the reviewers during the review phase. It was only after the reviews were completed, during the public comment phase, that the Department learned the identities of the reviewers and the substance of their reviews. Within 3 business days of the Department's receipt of that information, each of the reviews (unedited), the contractor's summary of the reviews, and the identities of the reviewers were made public. The reviews were not available in February because the reviewers

received the DEIS for review at the same time as the rest of the public.

Comment: External science review and the rule.

Some respondents were concerned that the scientists reviewed the rule and not the DEIS, as appeared evident from their reviews.

Response:

The basic charge to the science reviewers was to evaluate how well the proposed planning rule's draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) considered the best available science. The contractor gave each science reviewer three key questions to address, regarding scientific caliber, treatment of uncertainty, and comprehensiveness of the DEIS. The reviewers were not asked to review the proposed planning rule or to comment on the alternatives. However, the text of the proposed planning rule and alternatives was included in the appendices of the DEIS that was posted online and made available to the public as well as the science reviewers. Some of the reviewers chose to provide feedback on the proposed rule and alternatives, although they were not asked to comment on those parts.

Comment: External science reviewers.

Some respondents were concerned that the background of the reviewers did not include expertise that they felt was important to include, including mining, timber, or recreation. Some suggested that the reviewers were biased in their reviews.

Response:

The Department contracted with RESOLVE to administer the science reviews to ensure the independence of the reviews. RESOLVE is a non-partisan organization that serves as a neutral, third-party in policy decisionmaking. One of RESOLVE's specialties is helping to incorporate technical and scientific expertise into policy decisions. The Agency provided the contractor with a draft of the DEIS and required it to select the reviewers and provide their responses to the Agency.

Comment: External science review and CEQ documents.

Some respondents commented that the CEQ report from 1982 should not be used because it is too old. Also, some respondents suggested that other references used in the DEIS were too old to use.

Response:

The references to which the comment referred were the “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations,” which was published in the

Federal Register

in 1981 (46 FR 18026 (March 23, 1981)) and the April 30, 1981 memorandum from the Executive Office of the President on scoping. Both are current and still relevant; see the CEQ Web site on NEPA guidance at

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/guidance.html.

Furthermore, scientific literature from decades ago may still be relevant and even considered the best science that is available on some topics. Some classic literature from well known scientists still is used frequently (for example, Pickett et al. 1978) and was used in the DEIS.

Comment:

Some respondents commented that a concerted effort be made to address the issues raised by the science reviewers.

Response:

The planning rule team considered and responded to the comments made by the science reviewers, along with other comments submitted by the public. The issues raised in the reviews informed the final PEIS, along with the other feedback received during the public comment period.

Comment:

Some respondents were concerned that only the Science Review summary was posted online.

Response:

The Science Review report included a summary of the science review and the full and unedited reviews of each of the science reviewers. The report was prepared by RESOLVE and was posted on the Forest Service Web site without any changes or omissions.

General Proposed Rule Comments

Comment: Degree of compliance or restriction.

Some respondents said the rule should provide more discretion and flexibility to develop a forest plan by reducing the use of “shalls” and “musts.” Other respondents felt phases “take into account” and “consider” should be removed and replaced with more prescriptive terminology as these terms left implementation largely to the discretion of the responsible official.

Response:

The wording in the final rule was chosen to reflect the degree of structure the Department decided as appropriate for various aspects of the rule. The Department's goal in creating the final rule was to create an implementable framework for planning along with a structure and set of requirements for plan components and other plan content that would support the purpose of the final rule. In addition, the Department allows flexibility for plans to reflect the different unique circumstances across the National Forest System (NFS), including in response to best available scientific information, public input, and information about changing conditions at the unit level. The Department believes that the final rule strikes a good balance.

The Department recognizes that there may be significant differences in circumstances across the NFS that make specific national standards unworkable or not reflective of the best available scientific information for a given plan area. The final rule balances the need for national consistency with the need for local flexibility to reflect conditions and information on each unit. Additional direction will be included in the Forest Service Directives System, and a new requirement was added to § 219.2 that requires the Chief to establish a national oversight process for accountability and consistency of planning under this part.

Comment: Advocacy for a particular outcome or regulatory wording.

Some respondents expressed general support for or opposition to the proposed rule. Among the items respondents supporting the proposed rule listed are the following: the use of larger ecological regions to provide context for forest, grassland and prairie units; cooperation between the Agency and adjacent governmental entities in planning and plan revision processes; public participation opportunities in the decision making process; the approach on ecological sustainability, watershed restoration and protection, and recognition of ecosystem services. Supportive respondents also were in favor of the emphasis on recreational uses and users; the streamlining and simplifying of the planning process the use of active management techniques; the continued emphasis on multiple use purposes including economic impacts and benefits; the use of best available science; and the appropriate use of regulations and management strategies to mitigate climate change effects. Those respondents expressing a general opposition to the proposed rule felt the way it was written and the requirements it contained were vague, complex, unrealistic, and needed clarification. They felt it would invite litigation; would not provide adequate protection for wildlife and resources; or would limit public access, use, rights, and participation. Some felt the proposed rule was inappropriate because they felt it allowed for continued timber, livestock, mining, and special interest groups' use; wasted tax dollars; would harm economic benefits for rural communities; failed to incorporate the multiple use mandate; failed to include sound science in planning and measurable tools for management; failed to incorporate and analyze Tribal interests and activities; allowed too much discretion to the responsible official; failed to give recreational uses

a greater priority; or failed to address cumulative effects these regulations would cause. Additionally, they expressed concerns over inclusion of climate change requirements. Some respondents expressed endorsement of comments submitted by other organizations or individuals, or referred to attachments submitted in support of their comments.

Response:

The Department has reviewed all of these comments and enclosures, and appreciates the degree of public interest in the proposed rule. Where changes have been made in the final rule, these discussions can be found in the following section-by-section discussions. Responses to these comments and their relationship with the supporting final programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) can be found in Appendix M of the final PEIS.

Comment: Preservation of the national forests for future generations.

Some respondents stated a desire for the rule to mandate stronger standards to ensure wildlife and wildlife habitats are healthy and resilient; for greater forests protections, and better integration of environmental, economic, and/or social sustainability into future plans and future generations. Some wanted inclusion of guidelines for responsible/sustainable recreation, more restrictions on mining and logging activities, and provisions to limit access to preserve land.

Response:

The Department agrees that the preservation of our national forests and grasslands is vital to meet the needs of present and future generations. These comments were reviewed and changes are discussed in the section-by-section responses below. The final rule sets the stage for a planning process that can be responsive to the desires and needs of present and future generations of Americans for the multiple uses of NFS lands. The final rule does not make choices between the multiple uses of a plan area. The unit plans developed under the final rule will provide guidance for future projects and activities.

Comment: General action to protect national forests and grasslands.

Some respondents expressed the need for the Forest Service to protect and not destroy the national forests. They expressed the importance of protection for wildlife, diverse ecosystems, riparian areas, priority watersheds, aquatic resources, clean drinking water, endangered species, climate change and air pollution, access for socioeconomic purposes, cultural and traditional resource use, and the natural beauty of the land. They suggested strengthening the wording of the proposed rule for forest protection, compliance, and consistency; inclusion of protection of access to land for recreation; and allowing natural processes to occur. They felt an effective planning rule will reflect the aspirations of diverse communities.

Response:

The Department has revised the proposed wording on sustainability, diversity of plant and animal communities, multiple uses, and timber requirements as well as wording in other sections of the final rule to reflect public comments and better ensure the needs of present and future generations. See discussions under the section-by-section response to comments.

Comment: References to individual forests, projects, and individuals.

Some respondents commented on issues important to them, but not related to this rulemaking effort. Examples of such concerns include the use of DDT, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, issues with rental housing, sustainable living, a tornado in southeast Tennessee, a vital wildlife crossing in Montana, Willamette National Forest timber harvest levels, and a suggested wolf/gorilla/elephant/chimpanzee/lion/giraffe sanctuary.

Response:

These and other similar comments have been determined to be outside the scope of the development of a planning rule, because they discuss aspects unique to specific forests, grasslands, or municipalities. Many of the concerns raised would be more properly addressed in specific forest and grassland plans themselves, or in the subsequent decisions regarding projects and activities on a particular national forest, grassland, prairie, or other administrative unit, or may be outside the scope of NFS planning.

Comment: Wilderness evaluation procedures.

Several respondents felt “sights and sound” should be removed Forest Service directives as a criterion for wilderness inventories.

Response:

Criteria for the evaluation of areas for wilderness recommendations are in Forest Service directives, which are in the process of being revised. There will be an opportunity for public comment on the directives before they are finalized. The Department encourages members of the public to provide comment on issues specific to the directives during their revision.

Comment: Changes to other Forest Service regulations.

Some respondents commented about which resource uses or activities should be supported or not supported by the Department on NFS lands. They requested requiring, changing, or eliminating regulations for specific activities. These activities included, but are not limited to, NEPA implementation, grazing, mining, logging, road construction and maintenance, special use permits, hunting, certain recreational activities, trail use conflicts, wildland fire suppression, fuels management, educational opportunities, cultural and historic resources, as well as protections for wild horses and burros.

Response:

The Department agrees the issues raised are important. However, these comments have been determined to be outside the scope of development of a planning rule. The final rule is intended to provide overall direction for how plans are developed, revised, and amended and for required plan components and other plan content. The final rule and alternatives found in the supporting final PEIS do not provide regulatory direction for the management of any specific resource, except for the NFMA timber requirements. Agency regulations for specific uses can be found in other sections of 36 CFR parts 200-299, which govern management of the national forests, grasslands, and prairie. For example, part 212 regulates administration of the forest transportations system (roads and trails), part 222 regulates range management, including wild horses and burros, and part 223 regulates the sale and disposal of NFS timber. Additional direction may be found in individual plans or in project or activity decision documents. Those communities, groups, or persons interested in these important issues can influence plan components, plan monitoring programs, or subsequent projects or activities by becoming involved in unit planning efforts throughout the pro

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