# National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-25666

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** October 5, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 54074

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Parts 217 and 219

RIN 0596-AB20

National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department requests comment on a proposed rule to guide
land and resource management planning for the National Forest System.
This proposed rule describes the framework for National Forest System
planning; makes sustainability the foundation for National Forest
System planning and management; and establishes requirements for
implementation, monitoring, evaluation, amendment, and revision of land
and resource management plans. The intended effects are to simplify,
clarify and otherwise improve the planning process; to reduce
burdensome and costly procedural requirements; and to strengthen
collaborative relationships with the public and other government
entities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing and received by January 4,
2000. Public meetings will be held at places and on dates yet to be
determined. Notice of the times, places, and locations will be
published in a future edition of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the CAET-USDA, Att. Planning Rule,
Forest Service, USDA, 200 East Broadway, Room 103, P.O. Box 7669,
Missoula, Montana 59807, via email at planreg/[email protected], or
FAX (406) 329-3021.
Comments, including names and addresses when provided, are subject
to public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments
received on this proposed rule in the Office of Deputy Chief, Third
Floor, Southwest Wing, Yates Building, 14th and Independence Avenue,
SW, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert S. Cunningham at (406) 329-
3388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline displays the contents
of the preamble to this proposed rule.
Background
National Forest Management Act Requirements
The Proposed Planning Process
Section-by-Section Description of the Proposed Rule

Purpose, Goals, and Principles

Proposed section 219.1--Purpose.
Proposed section 219.2--Goals and principles for planning.

The Framework for Planning

Proposed section 219.3--Overview.
Proposed section 219.4--Topics of general interest or concern.
Proposed section 219.5--Information development and interpretation.
Proposed section 219.6--Proposed actions.
Proposed section 219.7--Plan decisions that guide future actions.
Proposed section 219.8--Amendment.
Proposed section 219.9--Revision.
Proposed section 219.10--Site-specific decisions and authorized uses
of land.
Proposed section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability

Proposed section 219.12--Collaboration and cooperatively developed
landscape goals.
Proposed section 219.13--Coordination among federal agencies.
Proposed section 219.14--Involvement of state and local governments.
Proposed section 219.15--Interaction with American Indian Tribes and
Alaska.
Proposed section 219.16--Relationships with interested individuals
and organizations.
Proposed section 219.17--Interaction with private landowners.
Proposed section 219.18--Role of advisory groups and committees.

Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability

Proposed section 219.19--Ecological, social, and economic
sustainability.
Proposed section 219.20--Ecological sustainability.
Proposed section 219.21--Social and economic sustainability.

The Contribution of Science

Proposed section 219.22--The role of assessments, analyses, and
monitoring.
Proposed section 219.23--The participation of scientists in
planning.
Proposed section 219.24--Science consistency evaluations.
Proposed section 219.25--Science advisory boards.

Special Considerations

Proposed section 219.26--Identifying and designating suitable uses.
Proposed section 219.27--Special designations.
Proposed section 219.28--Determination of land suitable for timber
removal.
Proposed section 219.29--Limitation on timber removal.

Planning Documentation

Proposed section 219.30--Land and resource management plan
documentation.
Proposed section 219.31--Maintenance of the plan and planning
records.

Objections and Appeals

Proposed section 219.32--Objections to amendments or revisions.
Proposed section 219.33--Appeals of site-specific decisions.

Applicability and Transition

Proposed section 219.34--Applicability.
Proposed section 219.35--Transition.

Definitions

Proposed section 219.36--Definitions.
Public Comment Invited

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Impact
No Takings Implications
Civil Justice Reform Act
Unfunded Mandates Reform
Environmental Impact
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on The Public Description of the
Information Collection Use of Comments
Federalism

Background

The Forest Service is responsible for managing the lands and
resources of the National Forest System which includes 192 million
acres of land in 42 states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The
system is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and
various other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Agriculture (the Secretary). According to the Multiple-Use Sustained-
Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) (16 U.S.C. 528) and the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the National Forest
System lands are to be managed for a variety of uses on a sustained-
yield basis to ensure a continued supply of products and services in
perpetuity.
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) guides land management
planning for National Forest System lands. It directs the Secretary to
develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource
management plans for units of the National Forest System and sets forth
the requirements for doing so. During the 23 years since enactment of
NFMA, much has been learned about land and resource management
planning. Yet, many controversial issues regarding the appropriate
short- and long-term use of national forests and grasslands remain.
While some advocates of land and resource management planning
believed it would lead to resolution of the issues associated with the
management of natural resources, it has not. Difficult issues remain
among competing interests. Land and resource management planning and
attendant decisionmaking cannot be expected to resolve all problems;
however, improved planning procedures can more fully engage the public
and lead to mutually developed landscape goals and improved public
participation in

[[Page 54075]]

decisionmaking. The expanded requirements for collaboration and
scientific input in the proposed new planning process will result in
expanded management choices and more fully informed decisionmaking to
ensure the long-term sustainability and health of national forests and
grasslands.
In March 1989, the Forest Service initiated a comprehensive review
of its land and resource management planning process. Results of the
review were published in May 1990, in a summary report entitled
``Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management Planning'' (Vol. 1),
accompanied by ten other more detailed reports. The 1990 Critique
documented lessons learned since passage of the NFMA and adoption of
initial plans under that law. The Critique provided recommendations to
improve planning and the management of national forests and grasslands
and to more effectively engage the public in addressing future natural
resource management challenges.
On February 15, 1991, the Forest Service published an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 6508) which included preliminary
regulatory text revising the existing planning rule. Four public
informational meetings were held to explain and discuss ideas for
revising the planning procedure. Over 600 individuals and several
groups of people submitted written comments. These comments were used
in the development of a proposed rule published on April 13, 1995 (60
FR 18886).
A substantial number of public comments were received on the
proposed rule, generally expressing dissatisfaction with proposed
changes in the planning process. In part, as a result of public concern
with changes proposed, the Secretary elected not to proceed with this
proposal.
In order to take a fresh look at the issues associated with land
and resource management planning and to obtain an independent
perspective, in December 1997, the Secretary of Agriculture convened a
13-member Committee of Scientists to review the Forest Service planning
process and to offer recommendations for improvements. The Committee's
charter was to ``provide scientific and technical advice to the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service on
improvements that can be made in the National Forest System Land and
Resource Management Planning Process and to address such topics as how
to consider the following in land and resource management plans:
biological diversity, use of ecosystem assessments in land and resource
management planning, spatial and temporal scales for planning, public
participation processes, sustainable forestry, interdisciplinary
analysis, and any other issues that the Committee identifies that
should be addressed in revised planning regulations.'' USDA Under
Secretary Lyons noted at the Committee's initial meeting that the
Committee's challenge was to ``produce a set of recommendations that
will guide us in developing the next generation of forest plans.''
Following a series of meetings around the country with Forest
Service employees, representatives of tribes, state and local
governments, related federal natural resource agencies, and members of
the public, the Committee of Scientists issued a final report on March
15, 1999. The Committee recognized the extraordinary legacy that is the
National Forest System and characterized these lands as ``a grand
experiment in multiple-use management.'' The Committee concluded that,
through careful management, National Forest System lands can continue
to provide many and diverse benefits to the American people in
perpetuity. These benefits include clean air and water, productive
soils, biological diversity, a wide variety of products and services,
employment, community development opportunities, and recreation.
National Forest System lands also can provide incalculable benefits
such as beauty, inspiration, wonder, and a refuge for the renewal of
the human spirit. Finally, recognizing innovative efforts in the field,
the Committee concluded that the Forest Service, as the steward of the
people's lands, can improve its planning and decisionmaking by relying
on the concepts and principles of sustainable natural resource
stewardship, by applying the best available scientific knowledge to
management choices, and by effectively collaborating with a broad array
of citizens, other public servants, and governmental and private
entities.
Based on the Committee of Scientists' findings, the draft
regulatory text it contained, and over two decades of experience in
developing and implementing land and resource management plans, a team
of Forest Service employees, aided by an interagency steering
committee, prepared this proposed rule. The Forest Service rule writing
team was selected from different management levels within the
organization and included representation from the National Forest
System, Research, and State and Private program areas. In addition to
the Committee's report, in developing this proposed rule the team also
considered the 1990 Critique of land and resource management planning,
and the various laws, regulations, and reports influential in guiding
planning and management of the National Forest System, including, but
not limited to:
The National Forest Management Act;
The National Environmental Policy Act;
The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act;
The Endangered Species Act;
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act;
Administrative direction in the Forest Service Manual and
Handbooks;
The Council on Environmental Quality, ``The Cumulative Effects
Handbook''
The 1983 Bureau of Land Management Planning Regulations (40 CFR
Part 1600); and
The Council on Environmental Quality, ``The National Environmental
Policy Act: A Study of its Effectiveness After Twenty-five Years.''

National Forest Management Act Requirements

Section 6 of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) specifies
the requirements for the regulations that guide National Forest System
planning. A synopsis of those requirements follows, along with an
identification of the sections of the proposed planning rule where the
requirements are addressed.
Section 6(d) of NFMA requires public participation in the
development, review, and revision of land management plans. In response
to this provision and the Committee's strong recommendations on
collaborative planning, the proposed rule places increased emphasis on
the cooperative development of land management plans, requiring
planners and managers to provide the opportunity and motivation for
public participation in every phase of the planning process. In
Sec. 219.2(d)(1) of the proposed rule, the goal, as written by the
Committee of Scientists, specifically speaks to meaningfully engaging
the American people in the stewardship of their national forests and
grasslands to ``build stewardship capacity.'' Sections 219.12 through
219.18 (Collaborative planning for sustainability) would establish the
requirements for public involvement including consultation and
interaction with American Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives, adjacent
landowners and interested individuals as well as establishing the
requirements for involving state and local governments

[[Page 54076]]

and coordinating planning with other federal agencies. The requirements
for public involvement described in these sections are a key feature in
the proposed planning rule.
Section 6(e) of NFMA requires plans to provide for: (1) The
multiple-use and sustained-yield of products and services from National
Forest System lands; and (2) the determination of forest silvicultural
systems, harvest levels and procedures, and the availability of lands
and their suitability for timber production.
The multiple-use, sustained-yield objective is embodied in the goal
at Sec. 219.2(b)(1). Sections 219.19 through 219.21 make ecological,
social, and economic sustainability the overall goal for National
Forest System management to provide for the multiple-use and sustained-
yield of the products and services derived there from. Additional
statutory requirements, including timber management systems
(Sec. 219.7), harvest levels, and availability and suitability of
lands, are incorporated in Secs. 219.26 through 219.29 (Special
considerations).
Section 6(f) of NFMA lists five requirements: (1) The development
of one integrated land and resource management plan for each unit of
the National Forest System; (2) the embodiment of the plan in
appropriate written material; (3) interdisciplinary plan development;
(4) amendment of the plan as needed; and (5) revision of the plan from
time to time or at least every 15 years. The requirements of this
section are addressed in Secs. 219.3 through 219.11 which describe the
proposed planning framework, in Secs. 219.30 and 219.31 (Planning
documentation) which describe the content of a land and resource
management plan, and in Sec. 219.8 (Amendment) and Sec. 219.9
(Revision).
Section 6(g) of NFMA requires the development of planning
regulations that are in compliance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-
Yield Act. Section 6(g) also requires: (1) Compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); (2) guidelines for the identification
of land suitability, gathering inventory data and the identification of
resource hazards; and (3) guidelines that ensure economic and
environmental aspects of resource management; ensure maintenance of the
diversity of plant and animal species; ensure that research is
conducted; permit increases in harvest based on specific requirements;
ensure the harvest of timber based on various resource conditions;
specify silvicultural requirements; identify riparian or wetland
protection needs; and describe specific harvest systems and size
limitations for fundamental resource protection.
In Sec. 219.12 (Collaboration and cooperatively developed landscape
goals), the proposed rule addresses application of the nation's
environmental policy as described in the NEPA. Compliance with the
procedural requirements of NEPA is addressed in Secs. 219.3 through
219.11 (The framework for planning). It is important to note that the
Forest Service NEPA procedures are to guide decisionmaking procedures
described in these sections.
Land suitability and the identification of special conditions and
resource hazards are addressed in Sec. 219.26 (Identifying and
designating suitable uses) and in Sec. 219.27 (Special designations).
Inventory data collection is addressed in Secs. 219.22 through 219.25
(The contribution of science) and Sec. 219.5 (Information development
and interpretation).
The economic and environmental aspects of resource management are
addressed in Secs. 219.19 through 219.21 (Ecological, social and
economic sustainability), Sec. 219.4 (Topics of general interest or
concern) and in Sec. 219.6 (Proposed actions). The diversity of plant
and animal species, protection of riparian or wetland resources, and
research needs are addressed indirectly in Secs. 219.22 through 219.25
(The contribution of science), and directly in Secs. 219.19 through
219.21 (Ecological, social and economic sustainability). Various
requirements for the management of timber resources are addressed in
Sec. 219.28 (Determination of land suitable for timber removal) and
Sec. 219.29 (Limitation on timber removal). Fundamental natural
resource protection is highlighted in Secs. 219.3 through 219.11 (The
framework for planning) and in Secs. 219.19 through 219.21 (Ecological,
social, and economic sustainability).
Sections 6(i) and (j) of NFMA require that resource management
actions be consistent with land management plan direction and define
when plans become effective. Consistency with land and resource
management plan decisions and the date when land and resource
management plans become effective are addressed in Secs. 219.3 through
219.11 (The framework for planning) and in Sec. 219.35 (Transition).
Section 6(k) of NFMA requires the identification of lands not
suitable for timber production. Section (6)(k)(1) requires a process
for estimating long-term costs and benefits related to timber
management; and section (6)(k)(2) requires a summary of this
information in the form of an annual report. The final part of Section
6(k)(2) requires standards to ensure that trees have reached the
culmination of mean annual increment, the use of sound silvicultural
practices, and that standards do not preclude salvage or sanitation
harvest. Exceptions to these standards include consideration of other
resource uses.
The requirement for the identification of lands not suitable for
timber production is included in Sec. 219.28 (Determination of land
suitable for timber removal). The process for estimating long-term
costs and benefits related to timber management is addressed in
Sec. 219.21 (Social and economic sustainability). The requirement for a
summary of information in the form of an annual report is included in
Secs. 219.30 and 219.31 (Planning documentation). The procedures to
ensure harvest of timber within the requirements of NFMA including the
mean annual increment, the practice of sound silvicultural systems, and
direction for salvage or sanitation harvests are included in the Forest
Service Directive System.

The Proposed Planning Process

Statutory Background and Overview

Under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA),
the Secretary of Agriculture is required to ``develop, maintain, and,
as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of
the National Forest System.'' 16 U.S.C. 1604(a). Land and resource
management plans, in large part, furnish overall programmatic guidance
for the management of individual national forests and grasslands and
the design of site-specific projects such as timber sales or watershed
restoration projects.
Currently, all national forests and grasslands are operating under
land and resource management plans developed under the existing forest
planning regulations. There are two ways that these plans can be
changed: revision and amendment. The NFMA requires revision of plans at
least every 15 years, and revision can also occur whenever
circumstances affecting the entire plan area or major portions of it
have changed significantly. The proposed rule will set standards for
the upcoming revision of most of the existing land and resource
management plans, which were adopted in the 1980's and early 1990's.
Amendment is a means of updating the forest plan's programmatic
direction between the periodic revisions that must occur every 15
years. The proposed rule provides for a flexible

[[Page 54077]]

ongoing process of investigating and responding to new information,
which can lead to either the revision or amendment of plans or the
development of appropriate site-specific projects to address changing
circumstances as they arise.

The Content of Plans

Under the proposed rule, land and resource management plans would
contain four categories of decisions (Sec. 219.7). First, they
establish desired resource conditions to achieve long-term
sustainability (which may include, but are not limited to, the desired
watershed and ecological conditions and aquatic and terrestrial habitat
characteristics). Second, the plans contain goals (statements of
intent), objectives (measurable results intended to achieve goals),
standards, and guidelines. The standards and guidelines provide
criteria for the design of site-specific projects that address such
important considerations as species and their habitat, timber harvest
guidelines, and watershed integrity. Third, plans include the
designation and identification of suitable uses within the plan area
(e.g., lands where timber production is an appropriate objective) and
designations of special areas. Finally, the plans contain monitoring
and evaluation requirements, which guide ongoing forest or grassland
management.
The addition, removal, or modification of any of these decisions
requires either revision or amendment of the plan.

Revision

Under the proposed planning rule, a land and resource management
plan must be revised whenever circumstances affecting the entire plan
area or major portions of the plan area have changed significantly or
the plan has reached its 15-year statutory age limit (Sec. 219.9). To
begin the revision process, the responsible officials would summarize
existing information and provide for scientific review of the
effectiveness of current management, among other steps, and make this
information available for public review. The responsible officials must
then publish a Notice of Intent to revise in the Federal Register, and
provide for a second opportunity for public comment for at least 45
days regarding the scope of the proposed revision. Following any
adjustment in the scope of the revision in response to these comments,
the responsible officials must prepare a NEPA document on the proposed
revision and provide at least a 90-day public comment period.
Any person may file objections to a proposed revision within 30
days of publication of the availability of the final NEPA document
(Sec. 219.32). The responsible official must prepare a written response
to the objection by the time a decision is reached. Any final decision
to revise plans will become effective 30 days after notice of the
decision is published in the Federal Register.

Amendment

In addition to revision, a land and resource management plan may
also be amended (Sec. 219.8) to add, remove, or modify one or more of
the decisions embodied in a forest plan.
Like other Forest Service actions, proposed amendments require
compliance with NEPA. As part of the NEPA process, the responsible
official must determine whether the significance of the proposed
amendment's impact on the environment, and whether an environmental
impact statement is required. The NFMA also requires that the Forest
Services determine whether amendments are significant under this
statute as well. The proposed rule simplifies this NFMA finding by
linking it to the required significance determination under NEPA. Thus,
the responsible official must make only one determination of
significance, under the well-known standards of NEPA. For significant
amendments, the preparation of an environmental impact statement and a
90-day public comment period are required. For non-significant
amendments, less detailed levels of NEPA compliance such as the
preparation of environmental assessments are appropriate. There is the
same opportunity for persons to file objections to proposed amendments
as there is for proposed revisions (Sec. 219.32). All decisions to
approve amendments become effective after the responsible official
gives notice of the proposed decision.

Site-Specific Projects

The NFMA provides that ``[r]esource plans and permits, contracts,
and other instruments for the use and occupancy of the National Forest
System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans.'' 16
U.S.C. 1604 (i). If a proposed site-specific activity is not consistent
with the land management plan, the responsible official may ``[m]odify
the proposal to make it consistent with the plan''; ``[r]eject the
proposal''; or ``[a]mend the plan to permit the proposal.'' 53 FR
26,836 (1988). However, the fact that a proposed activity is consistent
with the applicable land management plan does not mean that it will
actually go forward, or that it can be undertaken without further
scrutiny. Rather, when an individual project (such as a timber sale or
closure and obliteration of an unneeded road) is proposed, the agency
undertakes an individual study of its likely environmental effects and
renders a formal decision regarding it. The Forest Service is required
by statute to provide opportunities for public notice and comment,
along with a right of administrative appeal for all ``proposed actions
of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing
land and resource management plans.''

Ongoing Process

The proposed planning rule sets out an innovative planning
framework to update land and resource management plans. The goal is to
create a planning process that enables responsible officials to amend
their plans quickly and soundly in response to new information or
changed conditions.
Formally, the proposed planning process (Appendix A) for updating
plans begins with a topic(s) of general interest or concern
(Sec. 219.4). Sources for these topics of general interest or concern
may include new Forest Service conservation initiatives, enactment of
new laws or policies, discussions among people, organizations, or
governments, etc. or information generated from a later stage of the
planning process. For example, monitoring and evaluation plays a key
role in the proposed planning process. Under the proposed rule,
information from inventory and monitoring would feed back into the
proposed planning process at various points throughout the process and
could lead to the development of a topic of general interest or
concern. Information from a broad-scale assessment or local analysis
could also lead to the development of a topic of general interest or
concern.
Once a general topic of concern arises, the responsible official
would have to determine whether the topic should receive consideration
(Sec. 219.4). In so doing, the official would consider the criteria
listed in Sec. 219.4(b). If, after using these criteria, the
responsible official determined that a topic of general interest or
concern should receive further consideration, the responsible official
would then evaluate whether adequate information existed about the
topic (Sec. 219.5). Information could come from a number of existing
sources, including existing inventories, broad-scale assessments, local
analyses, or from information voluntarily submitted from interested
parties. If obtaining

[[Page 54078]]

more information was desirable and could be obtained at a reasonable
cost and in a timely manner, a broad-scale assessment or local analysis
could be developed or supplemented.
Broad-scale assessments provide information regarding ecological,
economic, or social topics that are broad in geographic scale. In most
cases, they go well beyond individual national forest and grassland
boundaries. The results from assessments are not proposed actions or
decisions subject to NEPA procedures. But under the proposed rule,
their findings and conclusions could be used to inform the planning
process and/or develop new topics of general interest or concern.
Similarly, local analyses provide information that aids in the
identification of possible actions or projects on a more local scale.
Depending on the situation, broad-scale assessments and local analyses
should provide information related to ecological factors set forth in
Sec. 219.20 and/or social and economic factors set forth in
Sec. 219.21. These assessments and analyses do not make decisions, but
instead provide information which may assist in subsequent decisions.
Although the assessments and analyses will often involve extensive
public participation, persons only have legal rights to comment or
participate if the responsible officials make actual decisions
regarding revisions, amendments, or site-specific projects. If the
assessments or analyses affect actual decisions, the public will
necessarily have an opportunity to comment before actual decisions are
made. Furthermore, there is no right to judicial review of the broad-
scale assessments and local analyses, which responsible officials are
encouraged rather than legally mandated to undertake to update their
knowledge of changing conditions.
Based on consideration of the criteria in Sec. 219.4(b) and
available information in Sec. 219.5, responsible officials could
propose to revise a plan, amend it, and/or propose a site-specific
project (Sec. 219.10). In each case, they would be required to analyze
alternatives and effects of the proposal in conformance with agency
NEPA procedures. A formal NEPA process would ensue, although, a
responsible official may use the above planning process to accomplish
the NEPA scoping process. These decisions all give the public
opportunities for input, either through objections (revision or
amendment), or notice and comment and administrative appeal (site-
specific projects).
Monitoring and evaluation assess the effectiveness of the plan
(Sec. 219.11). Under the proposed rule, monitoring and evaluation would
aid in identification of new topics of general interest or concern, the
development of new assessments, and the selection process for site-
specific projects.
Although monitoring and evaluation is the last step in describing
the planning process, it does not end the planning process. Indeed, in
practice these monitoring and evaluation requirements, like the broad-
scale assessments and local analyses described above, would provide
important feedback information that would continuously link planning to
plan implementation. Under the proposed planning rule, a national
forest or grassland, like a business or other large organization, would
always be ready to respond quickly to new information or changed
conditions.
Under the proposed rule, the exact planning process might be very
different on two different national forests or grasslands, depending on
the amount of monitoring and assessment information that exists, the
problems and opportunities facing the administrative units, the level
of public involvement in the planning process, etc. These differences
would enable National Forest and Grassland Supervisors to amend or
revise their land and resource management plans in ways that best match
the complex issues and conditions they face. It would also make
planning a meaningful exercise that better promotes the health of the
resources on our national forests and grasslands setting more realistic
expectations for the goods, services, and amenities the national
forests and grasslands can provide. Of course, plans would still have
to meet the broad framework goals and principles for planning and
specific requirements in the proposed rule.

Key Elements of Planning

The proposed planning process is built upon the fundamental
statutes that have guided national forest management for nearly a
century as well as the wealth of experience gained since the passage of
NFMA and the initiation of the land and resource management process.
The Committee of Scientists' report serves as a synthesis of this
information and provides valuable guidance in understanding the
successes and failures of forest planning to date.
The proposed rule sets forth a new collaborative, adaptable
planning process that fully engages the public and requires use of the
best available science to ensure informed decisionmaking. The process
set forth in the proposed rule creates opportunities for people,
communities, and organizations to work together to develop mutual
understanding regarding desired resource conditions and outcomes as
well as to develop multiple-use management options designed to achieve
desired resource conditions and outcomes in ways that respond to public
interests or concerns. Consistent with the 1990 Critique, as validated
by the Committee of Scientists' report, the proposed rule emphasizes
monitoring and evaluation so that managers and others can evaluate
management performance, determine if desired and/or anticipated
outcomes are achieved, and adapt as resource conditions change over
time. This emphasis is in keeping with NFMA's mandate to evaluate the
effects of management systems, based on continuous monitoring and
assessment in the field, to ensure that substantial and permanent
impairment of the productivity of the land will not result (16 U.S.C.
1604(g)(3)(C)).
The proposed rule would affirm ecological, social, and economic
sustainability as the overall goal for management of National Forest
System lands. To achieve sustainability, the first priority for
management is the maintenance and restoration of ecological
sustainability to provide a sustainable flow of products, services and
other values from these lands. As the Committee of Scientists
explained, making ecological sustainability the first priority does not
mean that the agency will maximize the protection of plant and animal
species to the exclusion of human values and uses. Rather, it means
that, without ecologically sustainable systems, other uses of the lands
and their resources would be impaired (Committee of Scientists' report,
page xvi.).
The proposed rule also would simplify required planning steps to
enable responsible officials to more readily address emerging issues
than is now possible with current required planning steps. For example,
the proposed rule would clarify that, where appropriate, multiple
planning activities of one or more national forests or grasslands can
be combined among administrative boundaries. Additionally, current
requirements for detailed analyses, such as those required for
benchmark analyses, would be streamlined or eliminated. The current
regulatory criteria for determining whether a proposed amendment would
result in a significant change in a plan, triggering requirements under
section 6(f)(4) of NFMA, would be revised. Under the proposed rule, the
significance of a

[[Page 54079]]

proposed amendment for NFMA purposes would be linked to the threshold
for significance under NEPA procedures. This will coordinate NFMA and
NEPA requirements, and eliminate confusion associated with having two
different thresholds for significance in the planning process. The
proposed rule also allows the steps in the planning framework to be
coordinated with the scoping requirements under the Forest Service NEPA
procedures when appropriate. This will reduce duplication when
preparing environmental documents associated with management of the
National Forest System.
A key element of the proposed rule is increased emphasis on
collaboration as a means to encourage broader public participation in
the planning process. The rules provide for regular and sustained
involvement of other federal natural resource agencies, tribal
governments, state and local governments, interested organizations, and
the public in a continuing process of discussion and collaboration.
The Committee of Scientists heard that many people are tired of the
demands placed on the public and the agency by the current planning
process. Many report that detailed analyses and seemingly endless
meetings have resulted in planning documents deemed obsolete before
their completion. Public concerns and events have sometimes overtaken
the Forest Service's ability to respond. In an effort to avoid this in
the future, the proposed rule provides a planning framework that
facilitates the identification and responsive resolution to emerging
problems such that plans ensure long-term sustainability and address
evolving conditions.
Under the proposed rule, improvements to management practices would
be made based upon cooperatively developed landscape goals and other
topics of general interest or concern which can emerge from a variety
of sources such as collaboration, monitoring, evaluation, broad-scale
assessments, local analyses, new laws and policies, or simply from
discussions among interested persons. The proposed planning process
would provide for consideration of identified topics of general
interest or concern, development of information as needed, and
proposals for agency action when appropriate for resolution.
Additionally, the proposed rule requires annually updated displays of
proposed, authorized, and completed actions, and annually updated 2-
year projections of anticipated outcomes, products, and services to
provide realistic estimates based upon on-the-ground analyses.
Through this collaborative approach, and by providing interested
publics with additional information regarding management direction,
outcomes, and accomplishments for each management unit, the proposed
planning process seeks to encourage the public's active involvement in
forest planning. This approach is not only consistent with the
direction provided in NFMA and other statutes guiding land and resource
management, but is also in concert with the underlying philosophy of
national forest management as reflected in guidance provided by Gifford
Pinchot in the first Forest Service administrative manual, ``Uses of
the National Forests'' (1907), in which he stated, ``National Forests
are made for and owned by the people. They should also be managed by
the people. * * * If National Forests are going to accomplish anything
worthwhile the people must know all about them and must take a very
active part in their management. What the people as a whole want will
be done. To do it, it is necessary that the people carefully consider
and plainly state just what they want and then take a very active part
in seeing that they get it.''

Emphasis on Science in Planning

Another key element in the proposed planning process is renewed
emphasis on the use of science in planning and the role of scientists
in the decisionmaking process. The proposed rule requires use of the
best available science to improve the ability of people, communities,
and organizations to work together to develop mutual understandings
about desired resource conditions and outcomes as well as to develop
multiple-use management options that respond to public interests or
concerns in the context of best available information and analysis.
The rule would incorporate science and scientists in the planning
and decisionmaking process in a number of ways.
First, the rule recognizes the lessons learned in recent years in
the development and analysis of scientific information as it affects
natural resource management on a regional basis. The use of regional
ecosystem assessment, as a basis for understanding the scientific,
ecological, social, and economic issues affecting resource conditions
and trends has proved extremely valuable as a means of generating
baseline data for use in planning and decisionmaking.
In addition, as efforts continue to adopt the principle of adaptive
management to guide natural resource stewardship, greater emphasis
needs to be placed on evaluating resource conditions and monitoring
trends over time. Consistent with the 1990 Critique as validated by the
Committee of Scientists' report, the proposed rule emphasizes
monitoring and evaluation so that management can be adapted as
conditions change over time. This emphasis is in keeping with NFMA's
direction to ensure research on evaluation of the effects of each
management system, based on continuous monitoring and assessment in the
field, to the end that it will not produce substantial and permanent
impairment of the productivity of the land (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C)).
As noted by the Committee, ``Monitoring is a key component of planning
* * *. Monitoring procedures need to be incorporated into planning
procedures and should be designed to be part of the information used to
inform decisions. Adaptive management and learning are not possible
without effective monitoring of actual consequences from management
activities.''
Finally, the proposed planning process provides for the
establishment of science advisory boards to improve access for
decisionmakers and planners to current scientific information and
analysis. The role of these science boards, and of scientists in the
planning process, in general, is emphasized by the following
observation of the Committee of Scientists, ``To ensure public trust
and support innovation, scientific and technical review processes need
to become essential elements of management and stewardship. * * * The
more that conservation strategies and management actions are based on
scientific findings and analysis, the greater the need for an ongoing
process to ensure that the most current and complete scientific and
technical knowledge is used.''

Learning and Improving Planning

In summary, the proposed planning process provides for a
continuous, collaborative approach to planning based upon best
available scientific information and analysis and the concepts of
ecological, social, and economic sustainability. This new and improved
approach to planning is consistent with the statutory foundations for
national forest and grassland management, experiences learned over the
course of two decades of land and resource management planning under
the NFMA, and the recommendations of the Committee of Scientists.
The proposed planning process is built upon the learning and
innovation that has occurred and continues to occur among
decisionmakers, scientists, and collaborators, as observed by the

[[Page 54080]]

Committee of Scientists. Thus, the proposed process is not a
``cookbook'' for making decisions, but a process that encourages
learning and the evolution of new ideas that will improve the planning
process over time.

Section-by-Section Description of the Proposed Rule

Purpose, Goals, and Principles

Proposed Section 219.1--Purpose.
This section describes the purpose of the proposed rule. The
proposed rule would (1) describe the framework for National Forest
System resource planning and decisionmaking; (2) encourage public
participation and collaboration in resource management decisionmaking;
(3) incorporate principles of sustainable resource management; and (4)
establish requirements for implementing, amending, revising,
monitoring, and evaluating land and resource management plans. Land and
resource management plans for all units of the National Forest System
have been developed under the existing rule. Therefore, the proposed
rule focuses on planning procedures and the amendment and revision of
the existing land and resource management plans.
Proposed Section 219.2--Goals and Principles for Planning.
This section of the proposed rule would establish five goals to be
considered in land and resource management planning and decisionmaking.
For each goal, this section sets out associated principles. The goals
and principles for planning are those recommended by the Committee of
Scientists, and emphasize the concepts of sustainable resource
management, collaboration, and stewardship of the National Forest
System and are intended to be statements of best planning practices.
The five goals of planning and management are, in the words of the
Committee of Scientists, (1) to strive to assure the ecological
sustainability of our watersheds, forests, and rangelands; (2) as part
of the overall goal of sustainability, promote economic and social
sustainability by providing for a wide variety of uses, values,
products, services, and community benefits; (3) to recognize and
efficiently integrate national forest and grassland management into the
broader geographic, legal, political, and social landscape within which
national forests and grasslands exist; and (4) to meaningfully engage
the American people in the stewardship of their national forests and
grasslands; and (5) to be at once visionary and pragmatic in guiding
decisionmaking.

The Framework for Planning

Proposed Section 219.3--Overview.
Paragraph (a) of this section lays out the conceptual foundation of
the proposed rule. Rather than viewing planning as an activity with a
fixed beginning and ending, with rigid procedural steps and somewhat
artificial analytical requirements, the proposed rule recognizes
planning as a continuous, dynamic process that is driven by public
interests or concerns about National Forest System resources or
management, the results of monitoring and evaluation, or other new
information. One of the underlying concepts is that now that the first
round of plans are in place, the process should not focus on how to
create new plans, but rather on how to improve upon the plans that are
in effect. Thus, the proposed rule focuses on amending and revising
plans and gathering better and more comprehensive information on which
to base plan decisions. The key to gathering better information is
through conducting broad-scale assessments and ensuring independent
reviews and advice from scientists.
Another important conceptual difference between this proposed rule
and the existing planning rule is the emphasis on collaborative
planning. Under the proposed rule, the responsible official is expected
to actively seek and encourage citizens, organizations, and governments
to participate fully in identifying topics of general interest or
concern that may require some action and to participate in deciding
whether an interest or concern is ready to be addressed. This is a
fundamentally different approach than that in the existing rule. The
existing rule requires input from others less frequently and more
formally than anticipated under the proposed rule.
Another significant addition to the planning process under this
proposed rule is the integration of site-specific, project-level
analysis and decisionmaking into the planning framework. The current
planning rule is limited to forest planning at the programmatic level;
no direction is given on planning, analyzing, and approving site-
specific actions that apply the decisions adopted in plans or that
achieve the desired conditions, goals, or objectives established in
plans.
In addition, another significant change from the existing rule is
the recognition that a meaningful forest or grassland plan cannot be
bound between two covers, but must allow for the continuous changes
anticipated by this proposed rule. Thus, the plan is a repository of
the information and decisions required by the proposed rule.
Paragraph (b) describes the levels of planning at the national,
regional, or national forest or grassland level depending on the nature
and scope of topics of general interest or concern. This paragraph also
establishes the Forest or Grassland Supervisor as the responsible
official for the land and resource management plan. Under the existing
rule, the Regional Forester is the responsible official for land and
resource management plans. This proposed change in responsibility is
based on the changing nature of the planning process. The existing rule
was designed for the initial development of land and resource
management plans and, because such plans had never been prepared, it
was decided that the Regional Forester should be the responsible
official. However, now that the first iteration of plans has been
adopted, a revised planning rule should focus on the revision,
amendment, and implementation of the existing land and resource
management plans. The proposed rule would allow for one or more
Regional Foresters or the Chief of the Forest Service to undertake
planning which would amend simultaneously several relevant land and
resource management plans for needs affecting a larger geographic area
than that covered by a single national forest or grassland. Issues that
might warrant such a regional approach include the recovery of an
endangered species or regional forest health issues.
The proposed rule provides for linkage of various planning
processes and levels. In the proposed rule, resource management plans
would be related in substantive and meaningful ways to the long-term
goals and objectives of the Forest Service to ensure progress toward
those national-level goals and objectives. Proposed paragraph (b) would
establish the context for land and resource management plans and the
need for consideration of the Forest Service's national strategic,
long-term goals, objectives, and outcome measures in resource
management planning.
Proposed paragraph (c) identifies the key elements in land and
resource management planning and the decisionmaking process: (1) Broad-
scale assessments (Sec. 219.4(b)) and Cooperatively developed landscape
goals (Sec. 219.12(b)); (2) Topics of general interest or concern; (3)
Information development and interpretation; (4) Proposed actions; (5)
Plan decisions that guide future actions; (6) Amendment; (7) Revision;
(8) Monitoring and

[[Page 54081]]

evaluation; and (9) Site-specific decisions and authorized uses of
land.
Proposed Section 219.4--Topics of General Interest or Concern
This section would establish a process for identifying, discussing,
and, if appropriate, acting on topics of general interest or concern
that may emerge from a variety of sources, such as the results of
monitoring and evaluation, new information, collaboratively developed
landscape goals, or discussions with those interested in National
Forest System management.
Paragraph (a) describes topics of general interest or concern.
These topics may originate from many sources. The existing rule refers
to ``issues'' in a similar context; however, the Committee of
Scientists viewed the word ``issue'' as having a negative connotation,
referring to a problem that needs to be solved or something that
required action. A topic of general interest or concern is a broader
concept than an issue in that it includes any subject of interest or
concern to any of the many partners and individuals interested in how
the National Forest System is managed. A topic of general interest or
concern may not require immediate action; it may simply spur discussion
or the need for better understanding among the public and interested
individuals.
To help determine when action on a topic of general interest or
concern is needed rather than just discussion and better understanding,
paragraph (b) includes several factors for the responsible official to
consider. These factors include the level of public interest generated
by the topic of interest or concern, the opportunities to contribute to
ecological, social and economic sustainability by resolving the issue,
the opportunities to improve ecological conditions or contribute to
social or cultural values, the capability and resources to act, and
other factors such as the potential for disproportionally high or
adverse environmental effects on minority populations.
In the past, the agency often has been either too quick to act in
initiating procedural requirements of NEPA to resolve potential
problems or too slow. With regard to the former, acting too quickly
without all of the information needed to properly define and resolve
the issue, and without initially involving the public, has made issues
more controversial and less clear, and resolutions harder to reach. The
proposed rule would provide the agency with the framework and direction
to move forward in addressing topics of interest or concern so that the
public has confidence that the agency is taking appropriate action when
and where it is needed.
Proposed Section 219.5--Information Development and Interpretation
This section describes information needed to further consider a
topic of general interest or concern and provides direction on
conducting broad-scale assessments and local analyses. When the
responsible official determines that readily available scientific
information is not adequate, a broad-scale assessment or local analysis
should be conducted to obtain the needed information. The proposed rule
makes clear that the findings and reports from assessments and analyses
are not proposed actions or decisions subject to NEPA analyses and
documentation.
Broad-scale assessments would be conducted to provide information
specific to identified topics of general interest or concern with a
broad geographic scale. Broad ecological boundaries or a broad social
or economic community of interest would define the geographic scale.
Agency personnel and other individuals and organizations that have
knowledge or interest in the assessment area would collaboratively
develop broad-scale assessments. These assessments would use the best
available scientific information and analysis in describing the
historic and current biological, physical, social, and economic
conditions. The assessments would present findings and conclusions that
describe the status and trends of ecological, social, and economic
conditions and their relation to sustainability, and whether additional
research is needed.
Section 219.5(a)(2) would establish a connection to nationwide
Forest Service assessments, as they provide the context for broad-scale
assessments. Nationwide Forest Service assessments and strategies
provide a national portrait of the status and trends in supply, demand,
and resource conditions for various natural resources on all forest and
range lands within the United States and are useful in the preparation
of broad-scale assessments. Other sources of information are also
available to aid in the preparation of broad-scale assessments.
Local analyses are conducted at a geographic scale that is smaller
than the area covered in a broad-scale assessment. A local analysis
focuses on an aquatic or terrestrial ecological unit or a social or
economic community that is appropriate for the type and complexity of
the topic of general interest or concern under consideration. Local
analyses use the best available scientific information and analysis,
and may be used to collect additional information, such as inventory
data or current conditions.

Comparison of the Components of Broad-Scale Assessments and Local
Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broad-scale
Components assessment Local analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose..................... Gathering and Gathering existing
synthesizing information and/or
existing collecting new
information for information that is
identified issues. synthesized.
Who does it................. Scientists and Forest Service
managers together. managers with input
A Regional Forester from scientists.
and Research
Station Director
share the lead.
Scale....................... Broad and Usually a watershed
appropriate to within a subpart of
address identified a plan area. May be
issues. Usually a subpart of a
greater than or broad-scale
equal to one or assessment area and
more plan areas. often used for site-
specific projects.
Information source.......... Usually existing Existing information
information, and/or new
including inventory data.
monitoring data.
Conclusion.................. Findings. Recommendations.
Use......................... Development of Development of
proposed management project proposals
direction, necessary to carry
conservation out decisions of a
strategies, land and resource
policies, or management plan.
programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 54082]]

Proposed Section 219.6--Proposed Actions
In this section, the concept of a proposal for Forest Service
action is described. Under this proposed rule, the agency would not
initiate the NEPA procedures until the agency has determined it is
appropriate to propose an action based on the consideration of factors
in Sec. 219.4, available information and analyses (Sec. 219.5), and the
ability to meaningfully evaluate the effects of one or more alternative
actions. The intent here is to require more up-front thought when
considering and framing proposals for action. Paragraph (b) explains
that the responsible official may use the planning framework to
accomplish the scoping process described in Forest Service NEPA
procedures. This is a more inclusive, collaborative approach to scoping
than the agency has used in the past, and would streamline the planning
process.
Proposed Section 219.7--Plan Decisions That Guide Future Actions
This section describes the decisions that would be made through the
planning process of the proposed rule. The existing rule does not
precisely address the nature of land and resource management plan
decisions and the appropriate scope of environmental analyses.
Confusion over the nature of the decisions embodied in a land and
resource management plan has been a principal source of controversy.
Initially, many people believed land and resource management plans
would lead to irretrievable resource commitments for all projects
necessary to fully achieve the goals and objectives of the plan. It was
often argued that land and resource management plans irretrievably
committed the Forest Service to individual projects but failed to
provide the analysis and documentation required by statutes such as
NEPA.
Under the proposed rule, each land and resource management plan
would include four categories of decisions that would guide future
agency actions: (1) Desired conditions which describe the long-term
sustainability sought over a period of time; (2) goals, objectives,
standards, and guidelines applicable to all or a portion of the plan
area; (3) identification and designation of suitable uses and
designation of special areas; and (4) identification of required
monitoring and evaluation. The environmental document accompanying an
amendment or revision to a land and resource management plan, usually a
broad statement (45 CFR Part 1502.20), would identify the scope of the
federal action and associated environmental impacts. The environmental
reviews of pending site-specific actions within a watershed could then
tier to existing environmental documents to reduce unnecessary
paperwork as described in NEPA procedures (45 CFR part 1500.4).
The proposed rule is significantly different from the existing rule
with regard to the linking of different levels of planning. The
proposed rule is responsive to the Committee of Scientists' report in
terms of connections between planning levels and the roles of the
National Assessment and the RPA Program, each required by the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. Sections
219.7(b)(1) and 219.9(d)(1) address how decisions made for land and
resource management plans and decisions to change such plans would be
linked to the Forest Service strategic plan goals and objectives (Table
1).

Table 1.--The Planning and Decisionmaking Levels of the Existing and
Proposed Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing rule Proposed rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levels of Information National, Regional, Broad-scale
Collection and and national forest assessment--the
Interpretation. and grassland--the scope and scale of
scope of information
information set by gathering is based
administrative unit. on the scope and
scale of
information needs.
Other information Local Analysis--
needs based on provides
issues. information for
site-specific
projects such as a
timber sale or
watershed
improvement project
and, if
appropriate, ties
to the findings of
a broad-scale
assessment.
Required Plans.............. Regional Guide--one No Regional Guide
per Region. after 3 years--The
direction for
management would
reside in the
applicable LRMP.
One land and Same.
resource management
plan (LRMP) per
national forest and
grassland (units
can be combined
when under the
jurisdiction of a
Forest Supervisor).
Responsible Official........ Regional Guide-- Regional Guide--
Chief. Eliminated.
LRMP--Regional LRMP--Forest
Forester for Supervisor with
adoption, authority for a
significant higher-level
amendment and official to amend
revision. Forest or revise as
Supervisor for non- needed.
significant
amendment.
Amendment................... Large amendments Only one type of
(significant) amendment. The
similar to revision scope of the change
while less in the plan
extensive dictates the
amendments (non- appropriate public
significant) are review and
possible for necessary steps in
changes in the agency NEPA
content of a plan. procedures.
Revision.................... Start as if no plan Evaluate plan,
existed and project provide for public
high and low output review, and make
and budget options. appropriate changes
to plan following
agency NEPA
procedures. All
national forests
and grasslands now
have plans in
effect.
Site-specific projects...... Not addressed....... The planning
framework is used
to guide project
identification and
authorization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 219.7(b) describes the goals, objectives, standards, and
guidelines which are applicable to all or a portion of the plan area.
Goals link Forest Service policies, procedures, laws, Executive Orders,
regulations and applicable Forest Service strategic plans with specific
measurable objectives. Objectives describe measurable results intended
to achieve one or more goals. Examples might include obliterating roads
to improve watershed health or treating forested areas to reduce fuels
and associated wild fire risks. Standards and guidelines describe the
criteria

[[Page 54083]]

needed to achieve objectives and promote compliance with applicable
laws and regulations. These would include, but are not limited to, the
identification of focal species, standards and guidelines for
management activities and land use, and preferred practices. This
section includes the NFMA requirement (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)) that guidance
be provided for timber harvest and regeneration methods, maximum
harvest size openings, and techniques for achieving aesthetic
objectives by blending the boundaries of vegetation treatments.
In the proposed rule, standards and guidelines are to be
implemented according to the criteria they establish. Each provides
criteria, within the authority of the Forest Service, on management
activities within the plan area to ensure compliance with applicable
laws and regulations or regulate management activities. Standards and
guidelines may describe required or preferred or advisable courses of
action. The specific requirement of each standard or guideline would
dictate its specific application to an on-the-ground situation.
Paragraph (c) directs the responsible official to identify the
suitability of lands for specific uses as described in Sec. 219.26,
including identification of the necessary transportation system and
special areas such as research natural areas, geologic areas, reference
landscapes, and botanical areas as described in Sec. 219.27.
Proposed Section 219.8--Amendment
This section addresses amendments to land and resource management
plans. The process for amendments would follow the planning framework
(Secs. 219.3 thorough 219.11) and agency NEPA procedures. While the
proposed process for amendment is similar to that of the existing rule,
amendments to land and resource management plans under the proposed
rule would be based on the scope and scale of the issues selected for
resolution from collaboration, new information, monitoring and
evaluation, and appropriate broad-scale assessments and local analyses.
For example, if a management strategy to protect a group of wide-
ranging species is needed, several responsible officials for units of
the National Forest System could combine their planning efforts to make
broad-scale plan decisions through amendments to their land and
resource management plans. These decisions would be further refined
through on-the-ground analyses, site-specific projects, and monitoring
and evaluation of actual results on each unit.
Proposed Section 219.9--Revision
The concept of revision under the existing rule in Sec. 219.10(g)
and Sec. 219.12 would be substantially streamlined and improved by the
proposed rule. Rather than being a zero-based event as envisioned in
the existing rule, revision becomes a time for review in the planning
framework (Secs. 219.3 through 219.11). The responsible official would
conduct a public review of the overall outcomes of a land and resource
management plan to determine if corrections in the plan decisions or
changes in management direction are needed. The findings from
monitoring and evaluation, new data, new or revised policy, and changes
in circumstances affecting the entire or large portion of the plan area
would all be considered at the time of revision. The results of the
review would be used to identify issues for further consideration in
the planning process, and could lead the responsible official to
proposing one or more changes to the plan decisions. Plans that have
been actively amended consistent with the proposed rule may not require
many changes at the time of revision. Also, at the time of revision the
responsible official must adjust the next decade estimates of outcomes
and outputs (Sec. 219.9(b)(6)).
Proposed Section 219.10--Site-Specific Decisions and Authorized Uses of
Land
In paragraph (a), the responsible official is directed to conduct
planning within the framework described in Secs. 219.3 through 219.11
to make site-specific project decisions. This is a significant shift
from the approach of the existing rule, which is limited to the
preparation of forest plans. Under the proposed rule, the same basic
steps and requirements apply to land and resource management planning
as to planning for a site-specific project. The only differences
between the decisions embodied within a land and resource management
plan and those related to a site-specific project plan are the scope,
breadth, specificity, and commitment of resources.
As in the existing rule, this proposed paragraph requires the
decision to select a site-specific project to be consistent with
decisions in the applicable land and resource management plan. If a
proposed action were found to be not consistent with the land and
resource management plan, the responsible official, subject to valid
existing rights, would have several options: modify the proposal to
make it consistent with the direction in the land and resource
management plan; reject the proposal; or amend the land and resource
management plan so that the proposed site-specific project is
consistent.
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 219.10 implements the NFMA requirement that
permits, contracts, or other authorizing instruments must be consistent
with the management direction in the applicable land and resource
management plan. This proposal seeks to remedy some of the confusion
and inconsistent interpretation that has occurred under the existing
planning rule. The proposed rule clearly requires that an authorization
for occupancy and use be consistent with the plan at the time of its
issuance. This policy is well established and understood. The more
difficult matter is what to do with permits, etc. when plans are
amended or revised. The proposed rule makes clear the options available
to the responsible official. First, the responsible official must
consider the effect of an amendment or revision on ongoing permits and
contracts, etc. Ongoing activities or uses may be exempt from
provisions of a plan amendment or revision. Second, the responsible
official can require changes in the authorized use, subject to valid
existing rights and applicable statutes, to make the activity
consistent with the plan. Or, the amendment or revision can exempt the
authorization from conformance with the new amendment or revision.
However, the proposed rule provides a safeguard or condition regarding
waivers; namely that consistency cannot be waived if the authorized use
would prevent achievement of the desired condition of the plan area.
The proposed rule also provides that should an authorized use not be
exempted from application of a new plan amendment or revision, the
decision document must include a schedule for compliance.
Proposed Section 219.11--Monitoring and Evaluation
While monitoring and evaluation are addressed in the existing rule,
the emphasis has been on developing and amending plans. Attention to
monitoring and evaluation has been sporadic or inconsistent. For
planning to provide for adaptive management and achieve the desired
conditions that the public supports, monitoring and evaluation must
receive careful attention.
Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 219.11 would require land and
resource management plans to establish monitoring requirements. At a
minimum, this would require that plans identify the actions, effects,
resources to be measured; the frequency of measurement; the method of

[[Page 54084]]

monitoring; and the appropriate reporting intervals. Under the proposed
rule, monitoring and evaluation would be used to determine if actions
are being implemented in accordance with applicable plan direction; if
the aggregated outcomes and effects of actions are sustainable and are
achieving desired conditions; and if key assumptions underlying
management direction are valid.
Paragraph (b) would require the responsible official to provide
opportunities for the involvement of others in monitoring and
evaluation, and actively promote and seek stronger coordination with
other federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments;
scientific and academic communities; and other interested parties.
Paragraph (c) addresses monitoring at the site-specific project
level. This paragraph would require that when monitoring and evaluation
are required in conjunction with a site-specific project, the
monitoring requirements must be identified in the project decision
document. Moreover, in such a case, subject to valid existing rights
and other statutory requirements, the project could not be initiated,
unless there is a reasonable expectation that adequate funding will be
available to complete the required monitoring and evaluation.
Paragraph (d) would require the development of an annual monitoring
and evaluation report. The report would become part of the land and
resource management plan. It would include the following: a list of
required monitoring; a summary of the results of monitoring performed
during the previous fiscal year; a description of achievement toward
desired conditions and sustainability as identified in the land and
resource management plan; identification of any new topics of general
interest or concern arising from monitoring and evaluation; a list of
amendments made to the plan in the previous year; and a summary of
outputs, outcomes, and budgetary trends related to the achievement of
desired conditions.
Paragraphs (e) and (f) would describe the specific monitoring and
evaluation requirements necessary for assessing achievement of
ecological, social, and economic sustainability which is described in
Secs. 219.19 through 219.21.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability

Proposed Section 219.12--Collaboration and Cooperatively Developed
Landscape Goals
Paragraph (a) describes the collaborative relationships of land and
resource management planning that enhances the ability of people to
work together, build their capacity for stewardship, and achieve
ecological, economic, and social sustainability. The responsible
official, functioning as a leader, convener, facilitator, or
participant, as appropriate, should foster positive relationships with
people interested in and/or affected by the management of the National
Forest System lands, as well as with other federal agencies and state,
local, and tribal governments that wish to participate in defining the
future of the National Forest System. The responsible official should
provide opportunities for early, open, and frequent meaningful
participation in planning.
Traditionally, the relationship between the national forests and
grasslands and the broader society was primarily viewed as a one-way
street--goods flowed from federal lands to numerous beneficiaries and
public servants made choices based on their best judgments about what
was best for society. To achieve long-term sustainability, the
relationship between the public and the agency in managing these
forests must be a two-way relationship. The existing rule and planning
process has the Forest Service positioned as an arbiter in the middle
of the conflict. The proposed rule recognizes that the responsible
official may play several roles, such as convener, facilitator, leader,
or participant, in achieving collaboration and understanding regarding
conditions and needed actions or outcomes. The current planning process
is designed to solicit input and then criticism from non-agency groups
and individuals. It does not create a process for constructive dialogue
leading to the resolution of problems. The proposed rule calls for
collaboration in resolving issues of mutual concern in a manner that
best fits the needs of the people concerned, the place, and the issues
at hand.
The Committee of Scientists stated that the planning process should
provide for recognizing, enhancing, and capitalizing upon the capacity
of interested and affected people to engage in stewardship activities
and the achievement of sustainability.
Building stewardship capacity to enhance achievement of
sustainability is grounded on the following eight core elements:
(1) Trust. For the planning process to be trusted, planning must be
perceived to be legitimate, credible, and fair to the diverse groups,
individuals, and communities who care about national forests and
grasslands. To achieve legitimacy, planning must be sanctioned by
administrative procedures, have the support and commitment of agency
officials, and recognize other rights and authorities. Planning, to be
credible, must have a sound and complete base of knowledge to inform
decisionmaking. To be fair, planning must be inclusive and
representative, with mutually agreeable criteria for decisionmaking and
equal access to information.
(2) Collaborative relationships. To effectively pursue
sustainability, planners and managers must engage those who:
(i) have information, knowledge, and expertise to contribute to
developing courses of action;
(ii) have sole control or authority over lands and activities
adjacent to national forests and grasslands:
(iii) have the skills, energy, time, and resources to carry out
stewardship activities;
(iv) can help monitor and assess on-the-ground consequences of
management actions to better inform future decisions; and
(v) can independently validate the credibility of stewardship
decisions and the reality of achievements.
(3) Understanding. To achieve effective stewardship, the planners
and managers must build broad-based understanding and engage those who
can provide a voice for the interests that must be recognized and
understood. Planning must provide opportunities and incentives for
people to come together and strengthen a community's ability to chart
and pursue a common future course and to be able to assist in the
pursuit of sustainability for public lands.
(4) Joint fact finding. When planning and assessment processes are
viewed as joint-inquiry processes between the agency and the public,
then the attitudes of both are aimed toward mutual learning, issue
identification, and problem solving, thereby enhancing the ability of
the process to promote effective stewardship.
(5) Dealing with conflict. Planners and managers must recognize the
inevitability of legitimate, yet competing, values in National Forest
System management and must encourage divergent interests to
collectively deal with their differences

[[Page 54085]]

while pursuing shared goals for the national forests and grasslands.
(6) Capabilities. Planners and managers must ensure that the Forest
Service takes an active role in considering the types of communities
and business capabilities necessary for effective stewardship. In
addition, the planning process should foster the development and
awareness of the relationship of local entrepreneurship and the
capability to treat vegetation, restore watersheds, and other tasks
necessary to achieve sustainability.
(7) Will. By providing encouragement, flexibility, support,
resources, skills, training, and rewards, planners and managers should
provide a supportive agency environment to build the internal
stewardship capacity needed to achieve sustainability.
(8) A learning organization. The internal capacity for stewardship
within the Forest Service is effectively established within an
organization that promotes learning and appropriate change in behavior.
The planners and mangers should foster appropriate change in
organizational behavior and promote the development of several key
indicators of a learning organization. These indicators of a learning
organization include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) A recognized need for learning and action to achieve it;
(ii) Learning from results and modifying successive steps
accordingly;
(iii) Team approaches that bridge skills, expertise, and interests
and provide helping hands with shared ideas and responsibilities;
(iv) Flexibility that prompts creativity and innovation;
(v) Learning from what did or did not work;
(vi) Use of constructive feedback loops and mechanisms for external
reviews; and
(vii) Champions who provide leadership and enthusiasm for the
learning process. Paragraph (b) provides direction that the responsible
official, using information from available broad-scale assessments or
other available information, should seek to join in or initiate
collaborative efforts to develop or propose landscape goals for
ecological units. In addition, responsible officials, managers, and
planners should strive to communicate and foster understanding of the
nation's declaration of environmental policy expressed, in part, by
section 101(b) of NEPA. The national declaration of environmental
policy provides a common focus from which people of potentially
differing views can consider mutually beneficial goals within their
areas of interest. The establishment of collaboratively developed
landscape goals among interests may identify a topic of general
interest or concern which could lead to proposals for action by the
Forest Service or others.
Proposed Section 219.13--Coordination Among Federal Agencies
This section addresses the special relationship the responsible
official must develop with other federal agencies in recognition of the
fact that many issues affecting the national forests and grasslands can
only be resolved through the collaborative efforts of federal agencies.
Under the proposed rule, responsible officials must provide
opportunities for other agencies to participate in identification of
topics of general interest or concern and the formulation of proposed
actions, and resolution of inconsistencies among policies, plans, or
programs. To further solidify the cooperative effort among federal
agencies, the responsible official is urged to develop joint plans
where appropriate and practicable.
Proposed Section 219.14--Involvement of State and Local Governments
This section addresses the special relationship the responsible
official must develop with state and local governments. Much has been
accomplished during the first round of planning, but better interaction
with state and local governments is needed. The proposed rule provides
for more involvement. Under the proposed rule, the responsible official
must provide opportunities for early involvement of state and local
governments in the discussion and resolution of issues related to land
and resource management planning. The responsible official is called
upon to recognize the unique jurisdiction, expertise, and role these
governments play on lands both affected by and affecting the national
forests and grasslands.
Proposed Section 219.15--Interaction With American Indian Tribes and
Alaska Natives
This section requires the responsible official to recognize the
government-to-government relationship that the Forest Service has with
American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. It requires the early
identification of treaty rights, treaty protected resources, and other
tribal concerns during the planning process. Responsible officials must
invite American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives to participate
throughout the planning process and consider tribal data and resource
knowledge provided by tribal and village representatives in the
planning process.
Proposed Section 219.16--Relationships With Interested Individuals and
Organizations
A central function of the planning process is to facilitate
community building by providing the opportunity and incentives for
people to come together. This section acknowledges both communities of
place and interest. One goal of land and resource management planning
is to enhance the capacity of diverse communities and people to work
together and work with the agency, and in so doing, facilitate their
ability to constructively contribute to national forest and grassland
management.
Collaboration with scientific experts and knowledgeable persons is
emphasized as a way to bring the best available scientific and other
information into the planning and decisionmaking process. Finally, this
paragraph requires the responsible official to collaborate with a broad
spectrum of individuals and entities to gain information about current
and past public uses of the assessment area.
Proposed Section 219.17--Interaction With Private Landowners
This section highlights the need for the Forest Service to be a
good neighbor and to consider the overall context in which the national
forests and grasslands exist. Nothing in this section should be
interpreted as any desire to infringe upon or limit private property
rights. Rather, this section would direct the responsible official to
consider the pattern and distribution of land ownership in the plan
area and to consider the conditions and activities on adjacent lands in
evaluating the cumulative effects of management decisions. It would
also direct the responsible official to actively seek the involvement
of individuals who control or have authority over lands near or
adjacent to national forests and grasslands.
Proposed Section 219.18--Role of Advisory Groups and Committees
This section of the proposed rule describes the formal and informal
role of advisory groups. Paragraph (b) describes the use of advisory
committees to assist the responsible official in determining whether
there is a reasonable basis for proposing an action to address a topic
of general interest or concern. Each Forest or Grassland Supervisor
would be required to have access to an advisory committee that can
address local conditions and

[[Page 54086]]

topics of general interest or concern. The committees would consist of
a diverse cross-section of knowledgeable persons interested in the
planning for and management of National Forest System lands.

Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability

Proposed Section 219.19--Ecological, Social, and Economic
Sustainability
This section would confirm ecological, social and economic
sustainability as the foundation for National Forest System management.
The first priority for management is the maintenance and restoration of
ecological sustainability which is consistent with laws guiding use and
enjoyment of National Forest System lands. These laws clearly proclaim
a national policy to provide for sustainability of these lands in
perpetuity. The MUSYA directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop
and administer the renewable surface resources of the National Forest
System for multiple-use and sustained-yield of the several products and
services obtained there from (16 U.S.C. 528, 529). The NFMA affirms
this statutory policy by directing the Secretary, among other things,
to assure that the development and administration of the renewable
resources of the National Forest System are in full accord with the
concepts for multiple-use and sustained-yield of products and services
as set forth in the MUSYA (16 U.S.C. 1600, 1607).
In developing and maintaining land and resource management plans
for units of the National Forest System, NFMA mandates use of a
systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated
consideration of physical, biological, economic and other sciences (16
U.S.C. 1604(b)). Moreover, NFMA requires consideration of the economic
and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource
management to provide for multiple-use and sustained-yield of the
National Forest System products and services. In fulfilling the
policies articulated by the Congress, it is paramount that the units of
the National Forest System sustain their capacity for renewal to
continue their ability to provide for various multiple-use benefits.
Proposed Section 219.20--Ecological Sustainability
This section of the proposed rule would establish that it is
necessary to maintain and restore ecological integrity to achieve
ecological sustainability. Sustaining the integrity of ecological
systems increases their resistance to natural disturbance events,
allows for renewal following use or degradation, and preserves options
for future generations.
The concept of managing the national forests and grasslands in an
ecologically sustainable manner can be traced back over 100 years. As
early as 1897, the Congress directed that national forests would be
established to improve and protect the forests * * * or for the purpose
of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a
continuous supply of timber * * * (16 U.S.C. 473-82 & 551). To carry
out this mission, Congress vested the Secretary of Agriculture with
broad authority to make rules needed to regulate occupancy and use of
national forests and to preserve the forests therein from destruction
(16 U.S.C. 551).
In 1960, Congress enacted the MUSYA, which expressly directs the
Forest Service to manage the national forests and grasslands for
multiple uses under the balance the agency deems will best meet the
needs of the American people and make the most judicious use of the
forest resources under its jurisdiction (16 U.S.C. 528-531). In MUSYA
Congress declared that the national forests are established and shall
be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and
wildlife and fish purposes (16 U.S.C. 528). The Act calls for the
harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources * * *
without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration
being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not
necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar
return or greatest unit output (16 U.S.C. 532(a)).
In the late 1960's and 1970's, Congress enacted several statutes
applicable to all federal agencies which significantly expanded public
participation in federal decisionmaking and provided procedures for
consideration and disclosure of the effects of Federal actions upon the
environment. The enactment of these environmental laws has greatly
influenced the process of National Forest System management. These laws
augment the multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate and reinforce
ecological sustainability as the first priority of National Forest
System management. Examples of these statutes include: the National
Environmental Policy Act (wherein Congress: (1) declared a national
policy to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment and biosphere and * * * enrich the understanding of
ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; (2)
recognized the critical importance of restoring and maintaining
environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man;
and (3) directed the Federal Government, among other things, to use all
practicable means to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation * * * (42 U.S.C. 4321,4331); the
Endangered Species Act which provides a means whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be
conserved (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)); the Clean air Act which seeks to protect
and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources, with a primary
goal of promoting reasonable federal, state and local government
actions * * * for pollution prevention (42 U.S.C. 7401); and the Clean
Water Act the objective of which is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters (33
U.S.C. 1251).
In 1976, Congress enacted the NFMA, continuing the long line of
statutory direction to provide for ecological sustainability in the
management of the national forests and grasslands. The Committee of
Scientists and the agency believe NFMA's direction to provide species
diversity and maintain ecological productivity is consistent with the
concept of ecological sustainability (Committee of Scientists' report,
p. xvi). Senator Humphrey described NFMA as: ``an Act designed to build
our forests as a bulwark of renewable resources. It is a full
storehouse, providing a perpetual high yield of multiple-use benefits.
It is a managed system of forest and rangeland with the water,
wildlife, soil, and beauty maintained. This is an Act that assures that
our public forests are managed with advice from the several publics,
and managed in a framework that makes ecological and environmental
sense'' (Compilation of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (as amended) August 20, 1979, Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, p. 768).
In NFMA, the Congress directed promulgation of regulations that
specify forest planning guidelines that ensure consideration of the
economic as well as environmental aspects of various systems of
renewable resource management, including the related systems of
silviculture and protection of forest resources * * * for multiple use
management (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(A)). Similarly, the regulatory
guidelines for planning are to provide for diversity of plant and
animal communities based on

[[Page 54087]]

the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to
meet overall multiple-use objectives * * * (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).
In sum, the first priority for management, to achieve
sustainability through the maintenance or restoration of ecological
integrity of national forests and grasslands, affirms Congressional
direction. Perhaps Judge Dwyer said it best in his opinion reviewing a
challenge to Forest Service efforts to conduct inter-agency, ecosystem-
based planning associated with the Northern Spotted Owl: ``Given the
current condition of the forests, there is no way the agencies could
comply with the environmental laws without planning on an ecosystem
basis'' (Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 1291 (W.D.
Wash. 1994) aff'd 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996)).
Ecosystem integrity, defined in Sec. 219.36, refers to the
completeness of an ecosystem that, at multiple geographic and temporal
scales, maintains its characteristic diversity of biological and
physical components, spatial patterns, structure, and functional
processes within its approximate range of historic variability. These
processes include disturbance regimes, nutrient cycling; hydrologic
functions, vegetation succession, and species adaptation and evolution.
Ecosystems with integrity are resilient and capable of self-renewal in
the presence of the cumulative effects of human and natural
disturbances.
Section 219.20 would provide a more explicit, comprehensive, and
ecologically integrated framework for ecological sustainability than
the existing regulation. The existing rule entails program-specific
direction for different resources, such as soil and water, wildlife and
fish, and so on. Under the existing rule, the NFMA requirement to
provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities is met
primarily through the requirement to provide habitat to maintain viable
populations of native and desired non-native vertebrate species. To
achieve ecological sustainability it is necessary to maintain and
restore ecosystem integrity. The proposed rule would add an ecological
systems approach that focuses on ecosystem integrity to complement the
existing focus on species viability in assessment and management.
Paragraph (a) describes information necessary to assess ecological
sustainability. Maintaining ecological integrity provides for
resiliency to environmental change and disturbance occurring within the
historical range of natural variability. The species component requires
the maintenance of ecological conditions necessary to provide for a
high likelihood of maintaining species viability over time in the plan
area. Together, these approaches are presumed to address and sustain
ecosystem productivity as required in the MUSYA and provide for the
diversity of plant and animal communities as required in NFMA (16
U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).
This section incorporates the key principles and desired outcomes
for ecological sustainability that were outlined in the Committee of
Scientists' report. The Committee acknowledged that providing for
sustainability of ecological systems on national forests and grasslands
is an imprecise process with many unknowns and potential pitfalls that
are not under the control of resource managers. Therefore, this section
of the regulation would:
Acknowledge the dynamic nature of ecological systems
(Sec. 219.20(a)). Maintaining composition, structure, and processes
within the expected bounds of variation is proposed as an approach to
sustain ecological diversity and productivity for future generations
(Sec. 219.20(b)(1), (2), and (3)).
Acknowledge the uncertainty and inherent variability of
ecological systems (Secs. 219.20(a)(10) and 219.20(b)(1)). Uncertainty
and variability are acknowledged in decisionmaking, monitoring and
adaptive management so change is incorporated into the dynamics of
stewardship.
Acknowledge the significance of natural processes
(Sec. 219.20(b)(3)) by requiring responsible officials to make
decisions that provide for ecosystem integrity at appropriate planning
levels.
Acknowledge cumulative effects (Sec. 219.20(a)(8)).
Preserve options as a way of explicitly acknowledging our
incomplete knowledge of complex ecological systems (Sec. 219.20(b)(4)).
Conserve habitat for native species (Sec. 219.20(b)(8))
and productivity of ecological systems in order to maintain ecological
sustainability. The productivity of an ecosystem can be sustained over
the long term only if species that provide the appropriate structure
and function for the system are maintained.
Recognize the special role that national forests and
grasslands play in regional landscapes (Sec. 219.20(b)(10)).
Analyze issues at the appropriate scale (Sec. 219.20(a)).
Three major components are included in this section. The first is
paragraph (a), ecological information and analysis, which outlines the
underlying information needed to support and develop scientifically
sound management approaches to ecological sustainability. The second
paragraph, management decisions, identifies specific components and
actions that direct management activities to meet the objective of
ecological sustainability. Monitoring is the third paragraph
(Sec. 219.20(c)). It outlines a framework to assess the effectiveness
of management action in maintaining or restoring ecosystem integrity.
Sections 219.20(a) describes the ecological information and
analysis that would be needed to support the goal of ecological
sustainability. This includes the information necessary to characterize
the current biological and physical environment (Sec. 219.20(a)(1)) and
principle ecological processes (Sec. 219.20(a)(2)) within the planning
area and is similar in some respects to the analysis of the management
situation in the current regulations.
The concept of the historical range of variability
(Sec. 219.20(a)(4)) is used as an ecological context to assess
ecosystem integrity. The historic range of variability describes the
limits of change in composition, structure, and processes of the
biological and physical components of an ecosystem resulting from
variations in the frequency, magnitude, and patterns of natural and
human disturbance and ecological processes characteristic of an area
before European settlement. Measures of the historical range of
variability could include the forest types and the proportion of
successional stages represented in an area, the size and return
intervals of stand replacing fires, or the variability in instream
flows and associated periodicity and effects of major flood events. The
effects of pre-Europeans are considered as factors when estimating the
historical range of variability and human disturbance. The effects of
post-European settlement activity are also described. Historical pre-
European settlement conditions are compared to current conditions to
estimate the degree of ecosystem integrity. Ecosystems whose current
range of variability, through space and time, approximates the
historical range are considered to have high integrity and to be in a
sustainable condition since biotic components had theoretically adapted
to ecological conditions occurring within that range.
Focal species (Sec. 219.20(a)(7)(i)) would be identified and used
as surrogate measures in assessing ecological integrity, including the
diversity of native and desirable non-native species, in evaluating
differences in effects between alternatives, and in monitoring

[[Page 54088]]

and assessing the effects of management activities on ecological
sustainability. Focal species are expected to convey information about
the status of the larger ecological system in which they reside or
about the integrity of specific ecosystem components or processes.
Focal species would include those which play key roles in maintaining
community structure or processes, serve an umbrella function in terms
of encompassing habitats needed for many other species, or whose
population status and habitat relationships serve to convey information
about the status and integrity of the larger ecosystem in which they
occur. These species could be used to evaluate conditions needed to
provide for the viability of other species and in monitoring the
effectiveness of plan decisions for maintaining or restoring ecosystem
integrity.
Focal species should not be confused with the concept of
``management indicator species'' under the existing rule. The existing
rule uses population trends of management indicator species to evaluate
the effects of management activities and indicate the status of other
species with similar habitat needs. The concept of management indicator
species has been the subject of substantial criticism and would not be
adopted in the proposed regulation.
Procedures will be developed for evaluating species viability
(Sec. 219.20(a)(7)(i)) under current and proposed strategies on all
lands in the assessment area. These analyses will highlight risks to
species viability, document cumulative effects, and identify ecological
conditions needed to maintain species viability over time.
Additional indicators of ecosystem integrity
(Sec. 219.20(a)(7)(iii)) would be identified, such as air quality,
water quality, soil quality, fire and water flow regimes, plant growth
and the variety and distribution of forest and grasslands. Ecosystem
integrity (Sec. 219.20(a)(7)(ii)) will be evaluated using measures of
species viability and the condition of other indicators under current
and proposed management strategies on all lands within the assessment
area. These measures and indicators may be valuable in providing
feedback within a shorter timeframe than that needed to determine
status and trend of populations.
In addition to focal species, species at risk would be identified
as indicators of ecological integrity. Species at risk
(Sec. 219.20(a)(8)(ii)) are those species for which viability is a
concern, including endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate
species as described by the Endangered Species Act as well as species
for which there is a viability concern throughout the species' range,
or species for which there are concerns about distribution in the plan
area.
In addition to the above indicators of ecological integrity, demand
species will be identified and their status evaluated. Demand species
(Sec. 219.20(a)(9)) are plant and animal species with high social,
cultural, or economic values.
Proposed section 219.20(b) requires the responsible official to
make decisions that provide for maintenance and restoration of
ecosystem integrity, including species viability, at the appropriate
planning level. Decisions made at subsequent levels would have to be
consistent with decisions at higher levels. Decisions should either
maintain conditions within the historical range of variability or
provide for restoration toward conditions within that range. The intent
is to manage for the historical range of conditions of key ecological
attributes across the landscape rather than for a single point within
that range such as the upper or lower extreme.
The proposed regulation would clearly articulate expectations
relative to maintaining species viability (Sec. 219.20(b)(8)).
Decisions, at the appropriate levels of planning, would provide
ecological conditions such that there is high likelihood of maintaining
species viability over time. The proposed regulation clarifies the
requirement of maintaining well-distributed and interacting populations
and clarifies the objective for viability given different patterns of
overlap between species range and the planning area. The proposed
regulation also clarifies that rigor in the analysis of viability
should be commensurate with the level of knowledge available about a
species, including its demographic and genetic characteristics
(Sec. 219.20(a)(8)(i)).
The concept of ecological conditions (Sec. 219.20(b)(8)) is used to
denote a broad array of factors that can affect species persistence and
viability. The current regulation requires that fish and wildlife
habitat shall be managed to support viable populations of native and
desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. The
proposed rule provides the concept that habitat includes an array of
ecological conditions that are under control of management and that may
influence species viability (Sec. 219.20(b)(8)(i)). These may include
roads, conditions that contribute to spread of invasive species, and
human uses as factors that must be managed to provide species
viability.
The proposed rule implements the NFMA requirement to provide for
the diversity of plant and animal communities by expressly defining
species to include any taxon of the plant or animal kingdom
(Sec. 219.36). The existing rule only requires that viable populations
of vertebrate fish and wildlife be maintained. Furthermore, in an
attempt to more effectively meet the agency's commitment to avoid
actions that would contribute to the need to list species under the
Endangered Species Act, the definition of species and level of
biological organization for which viability is assessed and managed is
intended to match the listable entities concept used by the Departments
of the Interior and Commerce in execution of their Endangered Species
Act requirements to include the concept of subspecies, distinct
population segments, and significant evolutionary units. Objectives,
standards, and guidelines would include measures such that Forest
Service actions, within conditions or events under its control, would
not contribute to the need to list species (Sec. 219.20(b)(10)).
The proposed rule would maintain the current cooperative
relationship with state fish and wildlife agencies
(Sec. 219.20(b)(11)). The Forest Service role has traditionally been to
address habitat rather than population management and to work
cooperatively with states to resolve issues involving fish and wildlife
management. States generally exercise jurisdiction over hunting and
fishing on National Forest System lands. Objectives for sustainable use
levels of demand species would be jointly developed with states,
American Indians, and Alaska Natives (Sec. 219.20(b)(11)). Management
decisions must provide the ecological conditions needed to achieve
these sustainable use levels.
Proposed Sec. 219.11(e) and Sec. 219.20(c) require the
implementation of a monitoring strategy that would provide an
evaluation of the effectiveness of management decisions toward
achieving ecological sustainability. The existing rule only requires
monitoring population trends of management indicator species. The
proposed rule includes a comprehensive monitoring approach that
requires monitoring for focal species, species at risk, demand species
and selected indicators of ecosystem integrity and incorporates an
adaptive management framework.
Expectations for monitoring of focal species and species at risk
(Sec. 219.11(e)(2)) would be described to permit varying levels of
intensity and differing methodology, depending on several factors. Most
importantly, where

[[Page 54089]]

risks to species viability are high or there is great uncertainty about
ecological conditions needed for viability, monitoring requires actual
estimates of population trends and status through efficient population
sampling or habitat relationships studies. It would provide the
opportunity to estimate population status and trend using
scientifically credible species-habitat relationships based on
empirical data collected through time under the monitoring program. A
broader array of methodology, including a variety of population indices
or presence/absence information, may be used to assess population
status where ecological risks to species are lower.
Where risks to species are lower or there are well-established
relationships between population status and habitat conditions, habitat
monitoring alone may be used to infer species status. Habitat
conditions and trends would be monitored for all focal species and
species at risk.
The monitoring program would develop methods for measuring all
selected indicators of ecosystem integrity and designate critical
values that would trigger reviews or possible amendments to management
direction (Sec. 219.11(e)(3)). This is the essence of adaptive
management.
The conceptual models that focal species and other selected
ecological indicators serve to indicate the status and integrity of the
ecological system to which they belong must be validated
(Sec. 219.11(e)(4)).
Proposed Section 219.21--Social and Economic Sustainability
Prosperous communities and economies may remain healthy and vibrant
if their foundation is ecologically sustainable. Although the Forest
Service cannot solely sustain existing communities, the National Forest
System lands nonetheless contribute many values, services, outputs, and
uses that help enable economies and communities to persist, prosper,
and evolve. This section details a process for developing comprehensive
understanding of sustainable social and economic environments.
Paragraph (a) describes the role of national forests and grasslands
in promoting social and economic sustainability. The management of
National Forest System lands promotes economic and social
sustainability through involvement of interested and/or affected
people, development and consideration of relevant social and economic
information, and by providing a range of products, services, and
values.
Paragraph (b) describes that social and economic analyses are
important in gaining understanding of the relationships among
ecological, social, and economic sustainability. Social analyses
address human life-styles, attitudes, beliefs, values, demographic
characteristics, and land-use patterns of human communities and their
capacity to adapt to changing conditions. Economic analyses identify
and evaluate an area's economy. The responsible official, in conducting
broad-scale assessments or local analyses, should consider the best
available information to consider a variety of social and economic
factors.
Paragraph (c) describes an appropriate social analysis that may
rely upon quantitative, qualitative, and participatory methods for
gathering and analyzing data. Social analyses are often undertaken at
varying spatial scales to improve understanding and the description of
the potential consequences to communities and regions from changes in
land management. Social analyses may include a regional analysis, a
risk and vulnerability analysis, or other appropriate analyses.
Paragraphs (d) and (e) describe economic analyses and local social
and economic analysis that provide information and may include a
quantitative, qualitative, and historical analysis of the effects of
National Forest System management on national, regional, and local
economies. Local analyses should provide refinement of larger-scale
analyses and of regional data and information as related to the area
under consideration. A local analysis may also provide a context for
other analyses and prove useful in evaluating a proposed action or
monitoring results.
Paragraph (f) would require that analyses and decisions regarding
social and economic sustainability are to be made at the appropriate
planning level, and that decisions made at subsequent levels must be
consistent with higher-level decisions.
Monitoring of social and economic effects is addressed in
Sec. 219.11(f). Monitoring and evaluation of social and economic
sustainability should include periodic review of national, regional,
and local supply and demand for products, services, and values. Special
consideration should be given to those products, services, and values
that the Forest Service is uniquely poised to provide. Monitoring
should improve the understanding of the National Forest System
contributions to human wants and values and to social and economic
sustainability.

The Contribution of Science

Proposed Section 219.22--The Role of Assessments, Analyses, and
Monitoring
This section describes the proposed role of broad-scale
assessments, local analyses, and monitoring and evaluation efforts.
Scientists from within and outside the agency would be involved in
broad-scale assessments to help identify, integrate, and evaluate the
best available scientific and other information. Scientists would be
involved in the design, evaluation, and peer review of monitoring and
inventory strategies and protocols.
Proposed Section 219.23--The Participation of Scientists in Planning
This section describes the participation of scientists in planning.
Like the existing rule, the proposed rule would require the use of the
best available scientific information in the formulation of land and
resource management. The proposed rule adds the term ``and analysis''
to ``best available scientific information.'' The proposed addition is
deemed to be an equivalent concept to the existing rule within the
meaning of its application in the planning process. However, unlike the
existing rule that is ambiguous about the use of scientists in the
planning process, the proposed rule describes the critical role science
and scientists will play in nearly every stage of the land and resource
management planning. Scientists will be involved in helping to identify
new issues and translate new information about the conditions of
forests and grasslands; conducting appropriate broad-scale assessments
and local analyses; and in helping managers and the public formulate
potential solutions to issues by analyzing management options. The
proposed rule provides for an independent scientific review of the
effectiveness of land management plans in meeting the goal of
ecological sustainability during the revision process. The proposed
rule also provides for the establishment of a National Science Advisory
Board and access for each national forest and grassland region to a
science advisory board. The science advisory boards would provide
science consistency evaluations when necessary to determine whether the
planning process is consistent with the best available science; and
when appropriate and practicable, independent scientific peer reviews
of the findings and conclusions originating from a broad-scale
assessment.

[[Page 54090]]

Proposed Section 219.24--Science Consistency Evaluations
This section would allow for the scientific review of planning
processes to ensure consistency in the application and interpretation
of the best available scientific information and analysis.
Proposed Section 219.25--Science Advisory Boards
This section would provide for the establishment of science
advisory boards, which provide scientific advice to the responsible
official. Board membership would include scientists representing a
broad range of disciplines.

Special Considerations

These sections provide direction to fulfill statutory planning
requirements that affect the management and use of National Forest
System lands, including timber harvest, livestock grazing, oil and gas
leasing, recreation and other uses.
Proposed Section 219.26--Identifying and Designating Suitable Uses
This section would provide that during amendment or revision of a
land and resource management plan the suitability of various uses would
be determined within the planning framework.
The suitability of various uses is determined, as appropriate,
within the proposed planning framework (Secs. 219.3 through 219.11) and
includes plan decisions related to uses that would be permitted within
specific areas. It is anticipated that the suitability of uses will be
the subject of considerable debate. Suitability identifications would
be applied to areas that are large enough to provide sufficient
latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs
and conditions. The proposed planning process would include broad-scale
assessments, local analyses, or other analytical methods that
facilitate collaboration with the public to identify lands that are
suitable for certain management practices such as recreation, timber
production, livestock grazing, mineral development, or other uses.
Proposed Section 219.27--Special Designations
The existing rule specified only two special designations,
wilderness and research natural areas. The proposed rule would expand
special designations to include but not be limited to: wilderness;
research natural areas; geological areas; reference areas; scenic by-
ways; unroaded areas; roadless areas; national scenic areas; national
recreational areas; national natural landmarks; and wild, scenic, and
recreation rivers.
The purpose of this change is to ensure that land and resource
management plans include all the relevant direction for lands within
the plan area, including those with special designations which may have
been evaluated through other planning processes as required by statute.
The proposed rule seeks to integrate direction for all specially
designated areas into land and resource management plans to the extent
possible.
This section further proposes that amendment or revision of a land
and resource management plan is the mechanism by which the Forest
Service establishes management direction for such special designations.
Paragraph (a) states that, unless otherwise directed, all
undeveloped roadless areas must be evaluated for wilderness designation
at the time of land and resource management plan revision.
The proposed rule removes the four categories of lands considered
for wilderness established in the existing rule at Sec. 219.17(a)(1),
and the five evaluation criteria for evaluating lands for wilderness
designation found at Sec. 219.17(a)(2). The agency believes such
detailed procedural instructions are better suited for the Forest
Service Directives System.
It should be noted that nothing in paragraph (a) precludes
consideration of roadless areas for the full range of management
options. Although wilderness designation must be one of the options
considered, roadless areas are also subject to consideration for
various other uses or degrees of protection, not unlike the case for
most other portions of the plan area.
Paragraph (b) would reinforce the central role of land and resource
management plans by requiring that any requirements for additional
planning for special areas must be met through the land and resource
management planning framework, unless certain identified exceptions
exist. This is comparable to Sec. 219.2 of the existing rule and is
intended to assure that special area planning is integrated with the
land and resource management plan. The proposed rule would specifically
require that the goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines in special
area plans be incorporated into the land and resource management plans
as plan decisions.
Section 219.25 of the existing rule contains direction for research
natural areas and is not repeated in the proposed rule. Rather,
direction for special designations including natural areas are
incorporated in a new section Sec. 219.27 of the proposed rule.
Proposed Section 219.28--Determination of Land Suitable for Timber
Removal
Under the proposed rule, vegetation management, such as timber
harvest, is implemented for stewardship of natural resources, the
production of wood fiber, and to provide for the use and enjoyment of
public lands. The proposed rule would establish two classifications of
land suitability for timber harvest. The first is the classification of
lands not suited for timber production. The second is the
classification of lands where timber harvest would be permitted to
maintain or restore ecological integrity of the land, or to protect or
achieve other multiple-use values. Within the second classification,
the responsible official also would identify those lands where timber
production is a land management objective.
Proposed Section 219.29--Limitation on Timber Removal
This section requires the estimation of the long-term sustained
yield of timber on the land area where the production of timber is
identified as a preliminary objective

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-25666. Public record. Not legal advice.