[Federal Register: November 9, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 218)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67513-67581]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09no00-25]
[[Page 67513]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
36 CFR Parts 217 and 219
National Forest System Land Resource Management Planning; Final Rule
[[Page 67514]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Parts 217 and 219
RIN 0596-AB20
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule describes the framework for National Forest
System land and natural resource planning; reaffirms sustainability as
the overall goal for National Forest System planning and management;
establishes requirements for the implementation, monitoring,
evaluation, amendment, and revision of land and resource management
plans; and guides the selection and implementation of site-specific
actions. The intended effects are to simplify, clarify, and otherwise
improve the planning process; to reduce burdensome and costly
procedural requirements; to strengthen and clarify the role of science
in planning, and to strengthen collaborative relationships with the
public and other government entities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective November 9, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert S. Cunningham, Assistant
Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, Forest Service, USDA, P.O.
Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 20090-6090, (202) 205-2494.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline displays the contents
of the preamble to this final regulation.
General Background
The 1982 Planning Rule
Summary of Public Comment
Today's Final Rule
Response to General Comments
Section by Section Response to Public Comments
Purpose, Goals, and Principles
Proposed section 219.1 Purpose.
Proposed section 219.2 Goals and principles for planning.
The Framework for Planning
Proposed section 219.3 Overview.
Proposed section 219.4 Topics of general interest or concern.
Proposed section 219.5 Information development and interpretation.
Proposed section 219.6 Proposed actions.
Proposed section 219.7 Plan decisions that guide future actions.
Proposed section 219.8 Amendment.
Proposed section 219.9 Revision.
Proposed section 219.10 Site-specific decisions and authorized uses
of land.
Proposed section 219.11 Monitoring and evaluation.
Collaborative Planning for Sustainability
Proposed section 219.12 Collaboration and cooperatively developed
landscape goals.
Proposed section 219.13 Coordination among federal agencies.
Proposed section 219.14 Involvement of state and local governments.
Proposed section 219.15 Interaction with American Indian tribes and
Alaska Natives.
Proposed section 219.16 Relationships with interested individuals
and organizations.
Proposed section 219.17 Interaction with private landowners.
Proposed section 219.18 Role of advisory groups and committees.
Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability
Proposed section 219.19 Ecological, social, and economic
sustainability.
Proposed section 219.20 Ecological sustainability.
Proposed section 219.21 Social and economic sustainability.
The Contribution of Science
Proposed section 219.22 The role of assessments, analyses, and
monitoring.
Proposed section 219.23 The participation of scientists in
planning.
Proposed section 219.24 Science consistency evaluations.
Proposed section 219.25 Science advisory boards.
Special Considerations
Proposed section 219.26 Identifying and designating suitable uses.
Proposed section 219.27 Special designations.
Proposed section 219.28 Determination of land suitable for timber
removal.
Proposed section 219.29 Limitation on timber removal.
Planning Documentation
Proposed section 219.30 Land and resource management plan
documentation.
Proposed section 219.31 Maintenance of the plan and planning
records.
Objections and Appeals
Proposed section 219.32 Objections to amendments or revisions.
Proposed section 219.33 Appeals of site-specific decisions.
Applicability and Transition
Proposed section 219.34 Applicability.
Proposed section 219.35 Transition.
Definitions
Proposed section 219.36 Definitions.
Regulatory Certification
Regulatory Impact
No Takings Implications
Civil Justice Reform Act
Unfunded Mandates Reform
Environmental Impact
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
Description of the Information Collection
Use of Comments--Federalism
General Background
The Forest Service is responsible for managing the lands and
resources of the National Forest System, which includes 192 million
acres of land in 42 states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The
system is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and
various other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Agriculture (the Secretary).
On October 5, 1999, the Forest Service published a proposed rule
(64 FR 54074) to revise the Land and Resource Management Planning rule
at 36 CFR part 219. The existing planning rule was adopted on September
30, 1982 (47 FR 43026) and amended in part on June 24, 1983, (48 FR
29122), and September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383). The rule is required by
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (88
Stat. 476 et seq.) as amended by the National Forest Management Act of
1976, (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614) (hereafter, NFMA).
This final rule will help the Forest Service improve forest
planning and on-the-ground management and enable the agency to improve
the long-term health of the national forests and grasslands while
better meeting the needs of the American people. Consistent with the
statutory mission of the Forest Service and applicable federal
environmental laws, the final rule emphasizes four key concepts. First,
it affirms sustainability as the overall goal for national forest and
grassland management in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-
Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) (hereafter, MUSYA). Second,
it requires extensive cooperation and collaboration with the public and
other private and public entities. Third, it integrates science more
effectively into the planning and management of national forests and
grasslands. Finally, the rule eliminates burdensome analytical
requirements
[[Page 67515]]
that were designed to govern the initial development of land and
resource management plans and puts into place a new planning framework
that addresses problems, issues, and opportunities identified through
collaboration with the public, through monitoring or other scientific
analyses, or by other means.
The final rule is grounded in the laws that guide National Forest
System management. It also provides for the incorporation of
significant new scientific information and other lessons the agency has
learned since it began implementing NFMA planning regulations in 1982.
Indeed, much has been learned in developing, implementing, and
litigating the original national forest and grassland plans and the
numerous plan amendments and revisions that have been completed during
the past two decades.
Congress created the National Forest System ``to improve and
protect'' federal forests (Act of June 4, 1897, ch. 2, 30 Stat. 34-36).
The Forest Service is vested with broad authority to make rules ``to
regulate [the Forests'] occupancy and use and to preserve the forests
therein from destruction'' 16 U.S.C. 551.
Sustainability of these lands and resources is the essence of
Forest Service land and natural resource management from the very
beginnings of the National Forest System. Over a century ago, Congress
authorized the President to reserve ``public land bearing forests * * *
whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations,'' Act of
March 3, 1891, ch. 561, 26 Stat. 1095, 1103, to protect them from
unsustainable uses that had damaged watersheds. Six years later in the
Organic Administration Act of 1897, Congress provided further direction
and management authority for these forest reserves and reaffirmed its
intent to provide for sustainable protection and use of these forest
reserves. That law provided for the establishment of forest reserves
``to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the
purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish
a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens
of the United States * * *'' 16 U.S.C. 475.
In the MUSYA, Congress again affirmed the application of
sustainability to the broad range of resources over which the Forest
Service has responsibility. MUSYA confirms the Forest Service's
authority to manage the national forests and grasslands ``for outdoor
recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes''
(16 U.S.C. Sec. 528), and does so without limiting the Forest Service's
broad discretion in determining the appropriate resource emphasis or
levels of use of the lands of each national forest and grassland.
Shortly after the passage of MUSYA, the public was becoming
increasingly concerned about environmental decline throughout the
United States. Congress responded to this concern by enacting several
laws directed toward protecting or improving the natural environment,
conserving natural resources to meet the needs of the American people
in perpetuity, and providing for greater public involvement in agency
decisionmaking. Specifically regarding forest land and resource
management, Congress enacted the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1660(6)), which
requires the Forest Service to manage the National Forest System lands
according to land and resource management plans that provide for
multiple-uses and sustained-yield in accordance with MUSYA (16 U.S.C.
1604(e) and (g)(1)). In developing and maintaining these plans, NFMA
calls for ``integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic
and other sciences.'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(b)). As Sen. Humphrey stated, in
explaining the significance of the NFMA: ``The days have ended when the
forest may be viewed only as trees and trees viewed only as timber. The
soil and the water, the grasses and the shrubs, the fish and the
wildlife, and the beauty that is the forest must become integral parts
of resource managers' thinking and actions'' (122 Cong Rec. 5618-19
(1976)). Similarly, federal courts have recognized that NFMA and
related statutes represent a congressional delegation of broad
authority that allows the Forest Service to address issues of
sustainability using an integrated ecological and socio-economic
framework. See, e.g., Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp.
1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994) aff'd 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996) * * * ``Given
the current condition of the forests, there is no way the agencies
could comply with the environmental laws without planning on an
ecosystem basis.''
NFMA also requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations ``that
set out the process for the development and revision of the land
management plans'' for units of the National Forest System, and
specifies certain procedures, guidelines and goals that should be
discussed in the regulations (16 U.S.C. 1604). NFMA expanded on MUSYA
and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) authorities by including
in the requirements for land use planning broad discretion to provide
for ``diversity of plant and animal communities'' and ``to preserve the
diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region
controlled by the plan'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). Additionally, in
response to public concerns regarding the sustainability of certain
silvicultural techniques, Congress included several limitations and
analytical requirements for timber harvest (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(D)
through (F), (k), and (m)). NFMA also requires the Secretary to appoint
a ``committee of scientists'' to assist in carrying out the task of
developing and promulgating regulations in accordance with the purposes
of the statute (16 U.S.C. 1604(h)).
Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), ``to promote efforts which will
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and
stimulate the health and welfare of man, [and] enrich the understanding
of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the
Nation'' (42 U.S.C. 4321). Under NEPA, all Forest Service proposals for
major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment must include detailed statements of the environmental
effects and alternatives to proposals (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)).
Environmental effects include ecological effects ``such as the effects
on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning
of affected ecosystems'' (40 CFR 1508.8). NEPA also requires the Forest
Service to ``initiate and utilize ecological information in the
planning and development of resource-oriented projects'' (42 U.S.C.
4332(H)).
In addition to NEPA, the ESA also bounds the otherwise broad
discretion that the Forest Service has over land and resource
management. One of the purposes of the ESA is ``to provide a means
whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened
species depend may be conserved . . .'' (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)). The ESA
requires federal agencies such as the Forest Service to ``utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this [Act] by carrying
out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened
species'' in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)).
The 1982 Planning Rule
In accordance with NFMA's direction to develop regulations
regarding the development, maintenance, and revision of land and
resource management plans for units of the
[[Page 67516]]
National Forest System, the Secretary promulgated a rule for
implementation of the planning requirements on September 30, 1982 (47
FR 43026), as amended (48 FR 29122, June 24, 1983), and (48 FR 40383,
Sep. 7, 1983).\1\ The rule is codified at 36 CFR part 219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Secretary had initially promulgated these rules in 1979,
but no forest plans were ever completed under the 1979 rules. Soon
after a new Administration took office, the USDA Assistant Secretary
for Natural Resources and Environment withdrew these planning rules
and sought to revise them. Such controversy was generated as a
result, that the Committee of Scientists involved in the development
of the 1979 rules was reconvened and enlisted to work on what
eventually became the 1982 planning rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many things have changed since the publication of the 1982 rule.
Ideas and concepts, such as sustainability and ecosystem management
have become more adequately understood and increasingly more important
as human uses of natural resources has grown. The Forest Service has
also gained a great deal of experience developing, implementing,
amending, and revising the existing 127 land and resource management
plans under the rule. The Forest Service is now in the process of
revising many of these plans in accordance with NFMA's requirement that
plans be revised at least once every 15 years. The agency has also
developed innovative new planning tools, such as geographical
information systems and is engaged in increased collaboration with the
public and other federal agencies, tribes, state government, and other
interested groups or persons, and uses independent scientific review
more frequently.
The concept of sustainability has become an internationally
recognized objective for land and resource stewardship. In 1987, the
Brundtland Commission Report (The World Commission on Environment and
Development) articulated in ``Our Common Future'' the need for
intergenerational equity in natural resource management. The Commission
defined sustainability as meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
During the last twenty years, the world has increasingly come to
recognize that the functioning of ecological systems is a necessary
prerequisite for strong productive economies, enduring human
communities, and the values people seek from wildlands.
Similarly, the Forest Service and scientific community have
developed the concepts of ecosystem management and adaptive management.
Scientific advances and improved ecological understanding support an
approach under which forests and grasslands are managed as ecosystems
rather than focusing solely on single species or commodity output.
Indeed, ecosystem management places greater emphasis on assessing and
managing broad landscapes and sustaining ecological processes.
Ecosystem management focuses on the cumulative effects of activities
over time and over larger parts of the landscape. Planning and
management under ecosystem management also acknowledge the dynamic
nature of ecological systems, the significance of natural processes,
and the uncertainty and inherent variability of natural systems.
Ecosystem management calls for more effective monitoring of management
actions and their effects to facilitate adaptive management, which
encourages changes in management emphasis and direction as new,
scientific information is developed. In accord with ecosystem
management, regional ecosystem assessments have become the foundation
for more comprehensive planning, sometimes involving multiple forests
and other public land management units. The Northwest Forest Plan, for
example, affects 17 national forests and 6 BLM districts in a three-
state region. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project encompasses
25 percent of the entire National Forest System and ten percent of the
public lands administered by the BLM nationwide.
In the last 20 years, the number of federal, state and local
agencies, Tribes, members of the public, and interested groups wanting
to be involved in planning decisions and share stewardship
responsibilities has skyrocketed. In many cases, Forest Service
personnel have been able to learn significant information, create new
understanding, build trust, obtain new resources for implementation and
monitoring, and diffuse potential conflicts by engaging these parties
more effectively in the planning process through collaboration. While
collaborative approaches do not end conflict or necessarily result in
consensus, by engaging people and identifying key issues early in the
process, they enable the Forest Service to make better decisions and to
manage conflict more effectively. Similarly, the Forest Service has
learned that independent scientific and public review can greatly
enhance the credibility of planning and validate the soundness of
stewardship decisions and the reality of achievements.
Taken together, ecosystem management, scientific reviews, and
collaboration enable the Forest Service to identify key scientific and
public issues and to target its limited resources on trying to resolve
those issues at the most appropriate time and geographic scale. Based
on these changes in the state of scientific and technical knowledge,
the Forest Service's extensive experience, and a series of systematic
reviews, the Forest Service has concluded that 36 CFR part 219 must be
revised in order to better reflect current knowledge and practices and
to better meet the conservation challenges of the future. Indeed, while
the 1982 planning rule was appropriate for developing the first round
of plans from scratch, it is no longer well suited for implementing the
NFMA or responding to the ecological, social, and economic issues
currently facing the national forests and grasslands.
The Forest Service has undertaken two systematic reviews of the
planning process mandated by the 1982 rules. The first began in 1989,
when it conducted a comprehensive review of its land management
planning process in cooperation with the Conservation Foundation and
Purdue University's Department of Forestry and Natural Resources. The
results of this review are documented in a summary report, Synthesis of
the Critique of Land Management Planning, Volume One and ten
accompanying detailed reports. Based in part on this review, the Forest
Service published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 6508,
Feb. 15, 1991) regarding possible revisions to the 1982 planning rule.
The agency conducted four public meetings to explain and discuss ideas
for revising the planning rule; and received comments from over 600
individuals and groups. These comments were used in the development of
a proposed rule published on April 13, 1995 (60 FR 18886). However, due
to comments received on the 1995 proposed rule and lessons learned from
experiences in developing the Northwest Forest Plan, regional
assessments, and other regional ecosystem management strategies, the
Secretary elected not to proceed with that proposal.
The second systematic review was undertaken in December 1997, when
the Secretary of Agriculture convened a 13-member Committee of
Scientists to review the Forest Service planning process and offer
recommendations for improvements within the statutory mission of the
Forest Service and the established framework of environmental laws. The
members of this Committee of Scientists represented a diversity of
views, backgrounds, and academic expertise. The Committee's charter was
to ``provide scientific and technical
[[Page 67517]]
advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest
Service on improvements that can be made in the National Forest System
Land and Resource Management Planning Process and to address such
topics as how to consider the following in land and resource management
plans: biological diversity, use of ecosystem assessments in land and
resource management planning, spatial and temporal scales for planning,
public participation processes, sustainable forestry, interdisciplinary
analysis, and any other issues that the Committee identifies that
should be addressed in revised planning regulations.'' The Committee
was also asked to recommend improvements in Forest Service coordination
with other federal, state, and local agencies, and tribal governments
while recognizing the unique roles and responsibilities of each agency
in the planning process.
The Committee held more than 20 publicly noticed meetings and
teleconferences across the country and heard from Forest Service
employees, representatives of tribes, state and local governments and
other federal agencies, members of the public, former Chiefs of the
Forest Service, and members of the original Committee of Scientists
regarding their concerns and ideas about the current planning process
and the current management of national forests and grasslands.
Following these meetings, the Committee of Scientists issued a
final report on March 15, 1999, entitled Sustaining the People's Lands.
The Committee found that, through careful management, National Forest
System lands can continue to provide many diverse benefits to the
American people in perpetuity. These benefits include clean air and
water, productive soils, biological diversity, a wide variety of
products and services, employment, community development opportunities,
and recreation. The Committee recognized that many Forest Service
managers have developed innovative ways to commingle science and
collaborative public processes to improve land management decisions,
and that these innovative strategies provided a good starting point for
developing a more integrated, long-lasting, and flexible planning
framework. The Committee concluded that the Forest Service can improve
its planning and decisionmaking by relying on the concepts and
principles of sustainable natural resource stewardship; by applying the
best available scientific knowledge to management choices; and by
effectively collaborating with a broad array of citizens, other public
servants, and governmental and private entities. Accordingly, the
Committee recommended a planning framework that would provide
flexibility in dealing with a multitude of resource issues at various
scales across the landscape and would require managers to integrate
public collaboration and science to identify desirable outcomes and
promote sustainable management. It also recommended use of adaptive
practices, monitoring, performance measures, and budgeting strategies.
Based on scientific advances in forestry, forest management and
range science, the 1990 Critique of land and resource management
planning and the Committee of Scientists' findings and recommendations
as contained in its 1999 report, the various laws and regulations that
guide National Forest System planning and management, and over 17 years
of experience in developing and implementing the existing 127 land and
resource management plans, a team of Forest Service employees from
national, regional, and local offices, aided by an interagency steering
committee, prepared the October 5, 1999, proposed rule to
comprehensively revise the land and resource management planning
regulation at 36 CFR part 219 (60 FR 18886 Oct. 5, 1999).
Summary of Public Comment
In addition to the meetings held by the Committee of Scientists,
the Forest Service conducted more than twenty public town meetings to
solicit input on the proposed rule. At many of the locations, the
Forest Service also conducted meetings with representatives from
Tribes, state and local governments, and other federal agencies. The
agency held town meetings in both rural and urban communities across
the country, at the following locations:
St. Louis, MO--Tuesday, October 26, 1999
Hanover, NH--Tuesday, October 26, 1999
Duluth, MN--Thursday, October 28, 1999
Olympia, WA--Tuesday, November 2, 1999
Boise, ID--Monday, November 1, 1999
Juneau, AK--Thursday, November 4, 1999
Salem, OR--Thursday, November 4, 1999
Casper, WY--Tuesday, November 9, 1999
Reno, NV--Wednesday, November 10, 1999
Los Angeles, CA--Saturday, November 13, 1999
Denver, CO--Saturday, November 13, 1999
Little Rock, AR--Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Bozeman, MT--Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Jackson, MS--Thursday, November 18, 1999
Missoula, MT--Thursday, November 18, 1999
Coeur d'Alene, ID--Saturday, November 20, 1999
Montrose, CO--Tuesday, November 30, 1999
Grayling, MI--Wednesday, December 1, 1999
Albuquerque, NM--Thursday, December 2, 1999
Asheville, NC--Saturday, December 4, 1999
Salt Lake, UT--Tuesday, December 7, 1999
Sacramento, CA--Thursday, December 9, 1999
Phoenix, AZ--Thursday, December 9, 1999
Approximately 1339 people attended the public meetings. The public
comment period on the proposed rule closed on January 3, 2000, but was
subsequently extended to February 10, 2000. Some 10,489 persons or
entities submitted written comments on the proposed rule. The
respondents consisted of a wide array of individuals, businesses,
government agencies, and organizations. Most respondents agreed that
the planning regulations needed to be revised and supported the
objectives that the Forest Service proposed, but provided numerous
comments on how to better achieve those objectives.
Today's Final Rule
Today's final rule will help the Forest Service improve forest
planning and on-the-ground management and enable the agency to improve
the long-term health of the national forests and grasslands while
better meeting the needs of the American people. The final rule affirms
ecological, social, and economic sustainability as the overall goal for
managing the National Forest System lands and makes the maintenance and
restoration of ecological sustainability a first priority for
management of the national forests and grasslands so these lands can
contribute to economic and social sustainability by providing a
sustainable flow of uses, values, products, and services.
The final rule published here today also is designed to facilitate
greater public collaboration in all phases of the planning process. The
rule expands on existing requirements for collaboration to expand
management choices, create new understanding, build trust, obtain
[[Page 67518]]
new resources for implementation and monitoring, manage conflict more
productively, and more fully informed decisionmaking to ensure the
long-term sustainability of the multiple resources of national forests
and grasslands. The rule encourages land managers to more actively
engage the American people, other federal, state and local agencies,
Tribes, and interested groups in the planning and management of the
national forests and grasslands. In collaborative settings that provide
opportunities for early, open, and frequent public involvement,
responsible Forest Service officials will play many roles, including
serving as process conveners, facilitators, leaders, participants, and
decision makers, as appropriate.
The final rule creates opportunities for people, communities, and
organizations to work together in the identification of key issues,
discussions of opportunities for contributing to sustainability, and
development and promotion of landscape goals. Indeed, under the rule,
improvements to management practices would be made based upon
cooperatively developed landscape goals and other issues which can
emerge from a variety of sources such as collaboration, monitoring,
evaluation, broad-scale assessments, local analyses, new laws and
policies, or simply from discussions among interested persons. The
proposed regulation would encourage the public to be involved in
identifying concerns and problems, considering available information,
assessing current conditions, and identifying potential solutions even
before a proposal for agency action is written. This early public
involvement would make more information available to the public,
enhance its ability to participate in the process, and lead to better
communication about expectations and outcomes. To further enhance the
collaborative process, advisory committees could be used to assist the
responsible official in determining whether there is a reasonable basis
for proposing an action to address an issue.
Additionally, the final rule would replace the post-decision appeal
process with a pre-decisional objection process. The objection process
would only apply to forest and grassland plan revisions and amendments.
Under a pre-decisional objection process, a person could object to a
pending decision before the agency makes a final decision, a process
very similar to the protest procedures now in effect in the Bureau of
Land Management. The intent is to provide the reviewing official with
an opportunity to work more closely with the responsible official and
those filing objections to resolve the objections before a decision is
made. A pre-decisional objection process also will enhance interagency
collaboration by standardizing objection procedures and will provide
incentives to work out substantive differences rather than focus on
procedural errors.
The emphasis on collaboration is consistent with direction provided
in NFMA and other statutes guiding land and resource management and in
concert with the underlying philosophy of national forest management.
As reflected in guidance provided by Gifford Pinchot in the first
Forest Service administrative manual, Uses of the National Forests
(1907), ``National Forests are made for and owned by the people. They
should also be managed by the people * * * If National Forests are
going to accomplish anything worthwhile the people must know all about
them and must take a very active part in their management. What the
people as a whole want, will be done. To do it, it is necessary that
the people carefully consider and plainly state just what they want and
then take a very active part in seeing that they get it.''
Another key element in the final rule is greater emphasis on the
use of science in planning. The final rule requires the use of the best
available science to give the Forest Service and the people,
communities, and organizations involved in the planning process sound
information on which to make recommendations about the resource
conditions and outcomes they desire. The final rule incorporates
science in the planning and decisionmaking process in a number of ways.
First, the rule recognizes the lessons learned in recent years
about developing and analyzing information at the regional ecosystem
level. Regional ecosystem assessments have proven to be an extremely
valuable and efficient means of understanding the scientific,
ecological, social, and economic issues and trends affecting national
forests and grasslands and generating baseline data for use in planning
and decisionmaking.
Second, consistent with the 1990 Critique and the Committee of
Scientists report, the final rule emphasizes monitoring and evaluation
of resource conditions and trends over time so that management can be
adapted as conditions change. Specifically, the required monitoring and
evaluation will assist in determining if desired outcomes are being
achieved and how to adapt if they are not. This emphasis is in keeping
with NFMA's direction to ensure research on evaluation of the effects
of each management system, based on continuous monitoring and
assessment in the field, to the end that it will not produce
substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land
(16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C)). As noted by the Committee of Scientists,
``Monitoring is a key component of planning * * * Monitoring procedures
need to be incorporated into planning procedures and should be designed
to be part of the information used to inform decisions. Adaptive
management and learning are not possible without effective monitoring
of actual consequences from management activities.''
Third, the final rule provides for the establishment of science
advisory boards to improve decision makers' and planners' access to
current scientific information and analysis. It also provides for an
independent scientific review of the effectiveness of land management
plans in meeting the goal of sustainability during the revision
process, and, when appropriate, science consistency evaluations to
determine whether the planning process is consistent with the best
available science. As the Committee of Scientists observed, ``To ensure
public trust and support innovation, scientific and technical review
processes need to become essential elements of management and
stewardship * * * The more that conservation strategies and management
actions are based on scientific findings and analysis, the greater the
need for an ongoing process to ensure that the most current and
complete scientific and technical knowledge is used.''
Fourth, the proposed rule affirms the Forest Service's commitment
to the viability of all species in accordance with the NFMA requirement
to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities and
recognizes the unique contributions national forest and grassland
stewardship can make in maintaining species viability. At the same
time, the rule recognizes the limits of our scientific understanding
and financial and technical capability to conduct viability
assessments. To assess the viability of appropriate species of flora
and fauna, the rule calls for the use of focal species as indicators of
ecological conditions and the best available science and information,
including professional opinion and the principles of conservation
biology.
Finally, the final rule provides a planning framework that
facilitates the identification and responsive resolution to emerging
problems. The final rule simplifies required planning steps to enable
responsible officials to more readily address emerging issues than is
[[Page 67519]]
possible under the 1982 rule. For example, the final rule would clarify
that, where appropriate, multiple planning activities of one or more
national forests or grasslands can be combined along administrative
boundaries. Additionally, current requirements for detailed analyses,
such as those required for benchmark analyses, would be streamlined or
eliminated. Moreover, planning would be done at the most appropriate
scale in order to address key issues, and forest and grassland plans
and projects would use the same planning framework. The final rule also
allows the steps in the planning framework to be coordinated with the
scoping requirements under the Forest Service NEPA procedures when
appropriate. This will reduce duplication in the preparation of
environmental documents associated with management of the National
Forest System.
In summary, the final rule will enable the Forest Service to make
better decisions about the National Forest System and guide Forest
Service planning and management clearly and effectively well into the
21st Century. Grounded in law and experience, the final rule affirms
sustainability as the overall goal for national forest and grassland
management, requires greater cooperation and collaboration with the
public and other private and public entities, and more effectively
integrates science into Forest Service planning and management. At the
same time, the rule also includes the essential features of National
Forest System planning that Chief Gifford Pinchot established almost a
century ago and that the Forest Service has used throughout the history
of the agency. These features include detailed inventories, monitoring
of forest conditions, determination of sustainable levels of uses, and
exclusion of uses, where necessary, to protect watershed and other
resources (1906 Use Book).
Response to General Comments
Many of the comments received did not address specific sections of
the proposed rule, but were more general in nature. These comments and
responses are summarized below.
Comment: Committee of Scientists Report. A common concern involved
the incorporation of the Committee of Scientists' report findings into
the proposed planning rule. Some people felt recommendations in the
Committee of Scientists report should lay the groundwork for management
and guide future management actions. Others, however, believed this
report should be subject to peer review by other qualified science
professionals. Additionally, some people proposed that the Committee of
Scientists' report be open to public scrutiny, requiring public
meetings and a public comment period for review of the report. Other
respondents suggested that the proposed planning rule include the names
and qualifications of the Committee of Scientists' members.
Response: The Committee of Scientists, established by the Secretary
of Agriculture under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, represented a
spectrum of disciplines and views related to planning for the National
Forest System. While formal, scientific peer review of the
recommendations of the Committee was not undertaken, the process used
in the development of the Committee's report provided for external
review and comment. In developing its recommendations, the Committee
utilized a very open, deliberative process which included open public
meetings, an internet web site accessible to the public which contained
its working drafts and related papers, and public meetings. The names
and qualifications of the members of the Committee are listed in the
report and available on the Committee's web site (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cof.orst.edu/org/scicomm).
Comment: National Forest Management Act requirements. Many
reviewers said that the proposed rule did not clearly identify how it
complied with NFMA requirements. These reviewers felt that the intent
of NFMA can be realized without revising the current land and resource
management planning process.
Response: The preamble of the proposed rule described how the
planning rule complied with specific sections of NFMA and reasons for
revising the existing planning regulations.
Comment: Need for revising the existing rule. According to several
respondents, the Forest Service should demonstrate the need for
revising the existing planning rule. In particular, some believed that
the length of time the existing rule has been in effect is not
justification for implementing a new rule. Others argued that the
existing system already fulfills NFMA and NEPA requirements and that
some individual forest plans are very effective, and there is no reason
for changing the process. Several people argued that the proposed rule
does not address deficiencies in the existing rule. The Forest Service
should document the inadequacies inherent in the existing planning
process. Some commenters asserted that the existing rule should be
improved before a new planning rule is implemented.
Response: This comment has previously been addressed in the
preamble of the proposed rule and in this final rule document.
Comment: Public trust and credibility. Many respondents expressed
concerns regarding the purpose of the proposed planning rule. Some felt
the primary objective of the planning process was to establish public
trust and credibility. They believed that the trust in Forest Service
structure and management was waning and recommended that the agency
take steps to rectify this. In addition, the Forest Service should
assume the leadership role in the effort to ensure healthy forests.
Response: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is concerned
with the lack of trust expressed about the Forest Service by the
respondents. The revised planning process is designed to encourage
effective communication and cooperation among diverse national forest
and grassland users. The Forest Service will continue to participate
with others indeveloping management strategies to conserve healthy
forests and grasslands.
Comment: Discretionary authority. Some reviewers were concerned
that the proposed regulations would broaden the discretionary power of
Forest Service officials. These individuals asserted that the current
discretionary authority of the Forest Service has resulted in increased
litigation. They were concerned that further increase in authority
could result in additional appeals and lawsuits.
Response: The Department does not agree with the comment that
increased discretion creates increased litigation. Increased
discretionary authority may provide the needed flexibility to craft
appropriate solutions to complex natural resource issues acceptable to
a wide variety of interests. It has been the experience of the Forest
Service and others that inflexible policies are often the genesis of
misunderstandings and eventual litigation. The planning rule is
intended to improve opportunities to collaborate with a wide variety of
people and reach well-reasoned and sustainable solutions to natural
resource issues.
Comment: Statutory authority. Many public comments focused on the
statutory authority for the proposed planning rule stating that the
proposed rule should both recognize and comply with existing laws. Some
people felt that the proposed rule provided improved integration of
environmental laws and regulations; while, others said that the
proposed rule goes beyond legal limitations and that only Congress can
make such changes in national policy.
[[Page 67520]]
Response: The Department agrees that the planning rule improves the
integration of current laws and recognizes it as consistent with the
laws that guide all Forest Service activities. A full discussion
related to this concern is addressed in this preamble under the heading
statutory authority.
Comment: Public Lands Planning and Management Improvement Act. Some
reviewers noted that the Public Lands Planning and Management
Improvement Act (PLPMIA) offered provisions for meeting human and
wildlife needs. They felt that act should be used to help streamline
the management process, resolve contradictory laws, and modernize the
land management laws.
Response: The Congress is considering the proposed legislation, but
it is not law and therefore does not apply. Moreover, the Department
believes human and wildlife needs are adequately represented in the
final planning rule, see sections 219.20 and 219.21, and the management
process is streamlined.
Comment: Conflicts over values. In the words of one respondent,
``Most of the crises that beset the Forest Service since the age of
environmentalism have concerned conflicts over values, not individual
land use decisions.'' Value conflicts can only be resolved through
effective policymaking, this person contended, and the Forest Service's
policymaking efforts are in need of improvement.
Response: The planning framework outlined in the regulation is
intended to provide a flexible mechanism to identify and solve issues
before they mature into intractable problems pitting people against one
another, rather than seeking mutually beneficial results. There is no
intention to diminish the importance of the values people possess with
regard to the use and enjoyment of national forests and grasslands.
Better policies are the result of people working together to solve
common problems.
Comment: Analysis of prior appeals. Some respondents suggested that
the Forest Service address prior appeals against Forest Service
decisions as part of the proposed planning rule. They believed that
interviews with people who filed appeals should be incorporated into
the planning process.
Response: Appeals and the concerns of national forest and grassland
users were considered in development of the planning rule. The team
that developed the proposed regulation and response to public comment
based their work on years of experience in addressing the concerns of
interested citizens. The increased emphasis that the planning rule
places on collaboration is a direct response to improve working
relationships among interested citizens.
Comment: Vested water rights. Some respondents are concerned that
discretionary authority granted to forest planners in the proposed
planning rule may override states' water rights. They asserted that no
law allows ecological needs to surpass vested state water rights.
Response: The planning regulation does not override existing water
rights adjudication procedures.
Comment: Selling the national forests. One person suggested that
the Forest Service sell some of the national forest land back to United
States citizens in order to generate tax revenue.
Response: This rule addresses management of lands in public
ownership. Planning conducted in accordance with this rule may address
land ownership adjustment needs where that is an issue. It is beyond
the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to sell national forests
and grasslands to generate tax revenue.
Comment: Civil rights analysis. One reviewer asked if the proposed
rule would require a civil rights impact analysis, as required by
Departmental Regulation 4300-4, ``since the rule will affect various
publics.''
Response: A civil rights impact analysis has been prepared and is
available upon request from the person listed at the beginning of this
final rulemaking document under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The
analysis describes the increased opportunities many people will have to
become engaged in National Forest System planning under the new rule.
It concludes that ``no adverse civil rights impacts are anticipated on
the delivery of benefits or other program outcomes on an
underrepresented population, to U.S. populations or communities, or
employees of USDA on a national level.''
Comment: General clarity. Many comments reflected a need to
reevaluate the clarity of the language used in the proposed planning
rule. Many contended the general comprehensibility of the language
needed to be improved to allow the public to better understand the
concepts of the rule. Many of the respondents felt that the document
was too verbose and redundant to understand. Further, some people
argued that the proposed rule was too complex for most citizens to
comprehend. In addition, some contended that the format of the proposed
rule inundated the reader with a multitude of long and tedious
subdivisions, which made the document difficult to follow.
Response: The Department has made a genuine effort to simplify the
language of the final rule. The length of the text has been reduced,
and several technical terms (e.g. ecological integrity and watershed
integrity) have been eliminated to improve readability. The text about
sustainability has been rearranged to combine analysis requirements
related to sustainability with other analysis requirements. In
addition, the goals and principles are simplified in the final rule.
Comment: Discretionary versus compulsory direction. Many people
indicated that the language of the proposed planning rule was too
discretionary. Words like ``should'' and ``may,'' many believed, should
be replaced with more definitive wording such as ``shall'' or ``must.''
These respondents asserted that the nebulous nature of the rule would
weaken its enforceability. By contrast, others said that the proposed
regulation had too many ``must'' and ``shall'' statements and would,
therefore, be impossible to implement because of all the restrictions
imposed.
Response: The Department has carefully considered which provisions
of the final planning regulation should be discretionary versus
compulsory direction and the use of this language should not be viewed
as either increasing or decreasing the importance of the planning
procedures in developing sound solutions to natural resource issues.
The final rule does not contain any ``shall'' statements.
Section-by-Section Response to Public Comments
The majority of comments addressed specific sections of the
proposed rule. These comments and responses are summarized below.
Purpose, Goals, and Principles
In the proposed rule this chapter is named ``Purpose, Goals, and
Principles.'' In the final rule, it is shortened to `` Purpose and
Principles.'' Revisions were made to clarify and simplify language in
the final rule.
Proposed Section 219.1--Purpose. This section described the purpose
of the proposed rule. The proposed rule guides planning efforts toward
the overall goal of sustainability. Purposes are to: (1) Guide
stewardship; (2) set forth a process for amending and revising plans
and for monitoring plan implementation; and (3) guide selection and
implementation of site-specific actions. The national forests were set
aside and protected from exploitation to
[[Page 67521]]
embrace, as a matter of national policy, a system of sustainable forest
reserves to protect water resources and ensure a continuous supply of
timber for benefit of the American public. The proposed rule
incorporated language recommended by the Committee of Scientists (see
Chapter 8, ``Sustaining the People's Lands'').
Comment: Ecological Sustainability and Compliance with the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the Organic Administration
Act. Many respondents felt that the agency erred in placing ecological
sustainability as the first priority. They felt that the agency was
ignoring its legislative mandates for multiple-use and had slighted the
importance of humans and their needs in the management of National
Forest System lands.
According to some respondents, changing the emphasis of planning to
ecological sustainability would virtually make it impossible to comply
with the MUSYA. They were concerned that the MUSYA requirement, to
ensure a continued supply of products and services in perpetuity, would
be jeopardized. Additional public comments expressed concern that
provisions of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 could not be
achieved with ecological sustainability as the primary objective.
Response: The proposed rule's focus on sustaining ecosystems is
fully compatible with the Forest Service's underlying statutes. In
order to ensure that the multiple-uses can be sustained in perpetuity,
decisions must be made with sustainability as the overall guiding
principle. Ecological sustainability lays a necessary foundation for
national forests and grasslands to contribute to the economic and
social needs of citizens. Without first maintaining, and where
appropriate restoring, ecologically sustainable systems the
productivity of the land for various social and economic uses could be
impaired, therefore, planning for multiple-use, sustained-yield
management of national forest and grasslands must operate within a
baseline level that ensures the sustainability of ecological systems.
Although some respondents perceived a conflict between emphasis on
sustainable ecosystems and legislative mandates, the Department does
not believe this is true. Instead, the Department sees ecological
sustainability not only as a complement to multiple-use, sustained-
yield management, but also as a prerequisite for it.
It is the Department's view that the rule is consistent with the
Forest Service's conservation and legislative mandates. Contrary to
some comments received, the proposed rule did not change the
overarching purpose for planning. Rather, it affirmed the direction in
the MUSYA. As used in the final rule, sustainability embodies the
congressional mandates of multiple-use and sustained-yield without
impairing the productivity of the land. In the final rule,
sustainability is described as comprising three intricately linked
elements that integrate the ecological, social, and economic aspects of
our world. It is virtually impossible to separate one element from the
other.
For example, without a sound social and economic system in place,
people are more likely to over-exploit the natural world to meet basic
human needs. At the same time, ecological resources constitute the
foundation upon which our ability to meet other needs ultimately rests.
Ecological elements are the capital, the investment in our future.
Sustainability provides for meeting needs of the present generation
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs. In response to public comment, language is added at the end of
section 219.1 of the final rule to clarify the relationship among
ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
Under the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the forest reserves
were set aside and protected from exploitation, with the intention to
embrace a system of sustainable forest reserves that would protect
water resources and ensure a continuous supply of timber for the
benefit of the American public. As the U.S. population grows and the
environmental consequences of human activities are better understood,
it is not only logical, but it is imperative that knowledge and skills
are applied to ensure the sustainable, continuous use and enjoyment of
our natural resource legacy as described in the Organic Administration
Act.
Ecological sustainability has always been the linchpin of managing
national forests and grasslands. The final rule provides for
progressively improving the understanding of how to achieve sustainable
use and enjoyment of the National Forest System through monitoring
results and effective engagement of scientific knowledge and the skills
and interests of citizens, elected officials, and others. The increased
use of national forests and grasslands requires increased knowledge and
understanding of sustainable multiple-uses. If the ecological basis of
the national forests and grasslands is compromised in providing
products, services uses, and values, then a ``continuous supply of
products and services'' will not be achieved in ``perpetuity'' as
required by MUSYA.
Proposed Section 219.2--Goals and principles for planning. This
section of the proposed rule identified five major goals for land and
resource management planning, with each goal having a set of supporting
principles. In the final rule, this section has been renamed
``Principles.''
Comment: Quantifiable information. Many believed the proposed
planning rule should include objective and quantifiable information. In
particular, some respondents recommended that the proposed planning
rule provide statistical data to support the need for the plan
revisions. They felt that access to quantifiable information could
allow the public to offer more informed comments. Others suggested that
the proposed rule include measures to assess goal achievement in forest
planning. One respondent contended that beauty and inspiration are too
subjective to use as points of consideration in land resource and
management planning.
Response: A premise of the final rule is science-based
decisionmaking, including use of the best available information.
Sections 219.5, 219.20, and 219.21 in the final rule describe
appropriate assessments and analyses needed prior to proposing a site-
specific action or a plan amendment or revision. The rule also stresses
the development and implementation of monitoring strategies to use in
evaluating plan implementation and achievement of sustainability
(section 219.11). The development of both qualitative and quantitative
information described in the planning rule will improve the overall
understanding and sustainable use of the National Forest System.
Comment: Sampling interested parties to determine resource
objectives. Developing, achieving, and evaluating planning goals and
objectives elicited a number of comments. One recreational organization
recommended that the Forest Service survey a random sample of parties
interested in National Forest System lands when determining specific
resource objectives. They suggested by using a random sampling scheme,
the agency could assure that all interests have an opportunity to
provide input in the planning process.
Response: The final rule does not require specific tools or
analytical approaches to sampling user preferences. The information and
analysis described in section 219.21 may be obtained through sampling
in appropriate circumstances. The rule
[[Page 67522]]
also provides opportunities for interested and affected people to
participate in planning for the use and enjoyment of their national
forests and grasslands. While sampling methods may prove useful for
many tasks, the Department believes it is imperative that people
participate with Forest Service personnel in planning.
Comment: Long-term planning. Several respondents suggested that the
proposed planning rule emphasize long-term planning. These people felt
that long-term forest health should take precedence over short-term
economic gains by resource extraction companies.
Response: While the planning rule does not set forth specific
short-term versus long-term standards, the planning rule is designed to
ensure that short-term uses do not damage or otherwise harm the long-
term sustainability of each national forest and grassland.
Comment: Ecological values. Some respondents believed that
ecological values should be defined as intrinsic goals rather than
constraints. The conservation of ecological values was important for
many who recommended that the proposed planning rule be used as a guide
in preserving national forests. They expressed concern that the
increasing human population will ultimately encroach on the few natural
places left. They asserted preservation of National Forest System lands
to offset this loss is imperative.
Response: The final planning rule states that the first priority
for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands is to maintain
or restore ecological sustainability. If the preservation of a unit of
land is necessary to ensure long-term sustainability, that decision
would be made through the planning process in a plan amendment or
revision receiving full public review and comment within the Forest
Service NEPA procedures.
Comment: Balancing economic and social needs. Several people
expressed the belief that balancing economic and social needs should be
a priority in national forest planning. Specifically, one person
suggested that balancing selective logging practices, road maintenance,
and access to national forest lands is crucial for successful forest
management. Others recommended that the proposed rule's effects on
industries and communities be evaluated prior to implementation.
Response: Balancing the production of multiple values, uses,
products, and services from each national forest and grassland is a
continual process achieved through collaboration and planning. The
planning rule is intended to enhance collaboration and the balancing of
social and economic needs in a sustainable environment. A cost-benefit
analysis was done for the planning rule and is available. Regulatory
implications are discussed later in this preamble.
Comment: Restricting corporate industry. Some respondents felt that
restricting corporate industry use of national forests and grasslands
should be a priority in planning. Respondents contended that,
relatively speaking, large corporations pose greater detrimental
impacts to national forests than do recreational users. The Forest
Service should focus on improving and maintaining forests, rather than,
as one person commented, ``catering to degrading commercial ventures.''
In contrast, others felt that the restoration of ecosystems as a
guiding principle is not a valid, achievable planning goal.
Response: The Department believes that it is appropriate for both
large corporations as well as small companies to have an active role in
the management and stewardship of national forests and grasslands. In
the planning rule, no group is provided an unfair advantage or
disadvantage in securing use or access to natural resources.
Comment: Balancing the world's resource needs. Other respondents
asserted that Forest Service's mission statement should include
balancing the world's resource needs. ``With both balance and
agreement, the Forest Service can once again be the world's leader in
land and natural resource management,'' they contended. Some citizens
feared the scope of the proposed planning effort might make the United
States dependent on other countries for raw materials. ``Since we have
some of the best environmental laws to deal with,'' they write, ``it
makes little sense globally to obtain raw materials from countries who
do not have adequate restrictions.''
Response: As described in the NFMA, the Forest Service * * * ``has
both a responsibility and an opportunity to be a leader in assuring
that the Nation maintains a natural resource conservation posture that
will meet the requirements of our people in perpetuity.'' Regarding the
global nature of today's world, it is certainly appropriate to consider
the resource needs, uses, and practices of our national trading
partners and others. The planning rule sets the stage for the wise,
sustained use of the national forests and grasslands, and provides a
link to national level planning, though which national policy makers
can consider methods to improve the production and use of renewable
natural resources in the United States and elsewhere.
Comment: Limiting planning to smaller areas. Some people felt that
forest plans should be directed toward unit-sized planning efforts.
These respondents believed that keeping planning limited to smaller
areas ensures greater understanding by both the public and forest
managers.
Response: The planning regulations provide for adjusting the
boundaries of planning based on the scope and scale of issues
addressed. In many places, planning and involvement with the public
will take place in areas smaller than a national forest or grassland.
Only in the revision process is it required that the entire national
forest or grassland be considered. Even in that circumstance, decisions
may be made that apply only to geographic areas within or among
administrative units.
Other changes. In the final rule, this section has been reorganized
and restructured for clarity and readability. Goal statements have been
removed from this section in the final rule to prevent confusion with
the term ``goal'' used in other contexts. Much of the text in the
proposed rule provided background information regarding the principles
of planning. The final rule provides more of an outline format to
specifically highlight six planning principles and their key
characteristics.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule provided that ``planning must be
directed toward assuring the ecological sustainability of our
watersheds, forests, and rangelands.'' The final rule has added
language to maintain or restore the ecological sustainability of
national forests and grasslands. This change is made to recognize the
importance of ``restoration'' of national forest and grasslands.
Paragraph (a)(2) in the final rule provides that ``scientifically
based strategies for sustainability'' benefit from independent
scientific review. This change was made to this section from the
proposed rule to acknowledge the importance of independent scientific
review in this new planning structure.
The Framework for Planning
Proposed Section 219.3--Overview. This section of the proposed rule
described the overall framework for planning, the levels of planning
and decisionmaking, and the key elements of the planning framework.
Comment: Clarification of the planning framework. Many respondents
felt that the planning framework needs more specific guidance and
[[Page 67523]]
requirements. Claiming that the framework will not assure consistency
between different units of the National Forest System, some people
recommended that the planning rule include uniform guidance applicable
to each national forest and grassland. Other respondents asserted that
the objectives of the framework are too vague and should include
specific objectives for planning. Many people believed the planning
rule inadequately addresses standards and guidelines that they think
could result in a lack of agency accountability, inability to achieve
planning goals, and inadequate protection of the environment. Some of
these respondents suggested maintaining the minimum management
requirements of the current rule. Others recommended including specific
and enforceable standards and guidelines in the proposed planning rule,
while some asked that these types of standards be established in
individual national forest and grassland plans.
Response: The Department believes that less specific planning
guidance is needed after almost two decades of experience implementing
NFMA. The planning process included in the final rule is essentially
unchanged from the proposed rule, and provides a flexible process that
is responsive to issues associated with current conditions and
experience with implementing the current plan. Standards required in
all plans are addressed in section 219.7. Plan requirements for
ecological sustainability are found in section 219.20(b).
Comment: Decisionmaking authority. Some respondents felt that the
Forest Service is attempting to avoid its responsibility by emphasizing
collaborative processes and recommended that the planning rule should
further emphasize the agency's decisionmaking responsibility. Other
respondents requested clarification on decisionmaking. They suggested
that the planning rule describe national level planning processes as
well as decisionmaking authority on multi-forest or regional projects.
Other respondents expressed general concern regarding the
implementation of the proposed rule and recommended making trial runs
on a few forest plans before implementing the changes system-wide.
Response: It is the responsibility of the Forest Service to
encourage involvement with the public in the management of the public's
lands. The Forest Service is redeeming this responsibility by providing
for early involvement and collaboration through the planning framework.
Instead of working in an isolated environment, the agency will openly
address the issues confronting the national forests and grasslands,
enlisting the assistance of interested and affected parties through
expanded public involvement and collaboration. The intent is to foster
a good faith effort to reach resolution on agreed upon problems before
final decisions are made, and to hopefully reduce the level of costly
lawsuits. However, the definition of ``responsible official'' makes it
clear that this individual and the Forest Service have the authority
and responsibility to oversee the planning process and make decisions
on proposed actions.
Linkage to the national strategic plan has been added or clarified
in several places in the final rule, including section 219.3(b).
Multiple-forest and regional decisions are also addressed in this
section.
Comment: Local-level planning and decisionmaking. Several
respondents felt that the planning rule should emphasize local-level
planning and decisionmaking, while others believed the proposed rule
places too much responsibility at the local level. Some of the people
favored increased focus and responsibility at the local level contended
that the proposed rule's provisions not only are costly and
inefficient, but also allow senior Forest Service authorities to
undermine local decisions and planning efforts. Such actions, they
contended, will alienate the public. These respondents suggested that
the final rule limit national and regional level planning and
decisionmaking. Other people who support a local level focus believed
that local Forest Service officials are more knowledgeable about their
specific forest or grassland than national officials and therefore are
able to make better planning decisions. These respondents recommended
increasing the decisionmaking authority of local agency officials. In
contrast to these views, some respondents believed the proposed rule
would place excessive authority at the local level. These people
primarily felt that either additional requirements or higher levels of
oversight were necessary to ensure consistency in planning among
national forests or grasslands. Several of these respondents
recommended that the proposed rule provide specific rules and
guidelines for Forest Supervisors, while others suggested that the
proposed rule maintain requirements for regional guidance and
oversight.
Response: Fundamental to this rule is the notion that there is a
hierarchy of scale to be considered when addressing resource management
issues, and that it is the nature of the issue that guides the
selection of the appropriate scale and level of the organization to
address it. By not tying decisionmaking authority to a specific
organizational position, the Department is promoting flexibility to do
what makes sense for the issues ripe for consideration. The National
Forest or Grassland Supervisor is the person most familiar with the
resources and publics interested in his or her forest or grassland, and
often the most appropriate to make decisions affecting those lands.
The rule should not be interpreted as excluding higher-level
officials from decisions made at the forest and grassland level. If an
issue warrants higher-level study and decisionmaking, such tasks can be
undertaken. Also, through the objection process (section 219.32) the
higher-level officials actually join the problem-solving process before
an administrative decision is adopted. Advisory committees (section
219.18) provide yet another source of input to local decisionmaking.
Comment: Adequacy of funding. Many respondents felt that the
implementation of the proposed planning process will require
significant additional resources. They asserted that funding, staffing,
and equipment needs will make the proposed planning processes
prohibitively expensive. Several respondents believed that the proposed
rule would restrict needed planning proposals based on inadequate
funding. ``Plans should identify necessary actions even if adequate
funding does not exist,'' wrote one organization. More specifically,
other respondents focused more on funding for particular management
actions. One such person suggested that the proposed rule address
funding to mitigate potential damage from forest management activities.
Response: The Department believes that, rather than requiring
significant additional resources, the planning framework, as adopted in
the final rule, will put more resource earlier in the planning process
and require less at the end of the process. This will shift the
planning process from one of confrontation to collaboration. The scope
of the planning effort will also be more focused on the issues selected
for evaluation.
While funding of planning and projects remains an item under the
prerogative of Congress, the Department hopes that Congress will
support projects built using this collaborative process. In addition,
the revised rule will promote a closer link to the budget process
through requirements for
[[Page 67524]]
ongoing consideration of budgetary information (section 219.30). By
evaluating the alternatives at the current or likely budgets, while
considering other spending levels, as appropriate, the analysis will be
based on realistic expectations and be more useful as strategic
documents.
Other changes. Paragraph (a) in the proposed rule included five
premises of the planning framework. Premise (1) is found in sections
219.5 and 219.12 of the final rule. Premise (2) is included as 219.3(c)
in the final rule. Premise (3) is included in section 219.30 ``Plan
documentation'' of the final rule. Premise (4) is included as
219.3(b)(4) and 219.10 of the final rule. Premise (5) is a general
description of the planning framework and included in sections 219.3-
219.11 of the final rule.
Paragraph (b) in the proposed rule, described the levels at which
planning may occur, and who may be the responsible official. In the
final rule, paragraph (b) is restructured in outline form. Planning
will be conducted at the appropriate level depending on the scope and
scale of the issues. In addition, the final rule specifically
recognizes the role of the Forest Service national strategic plan
required under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA). The GPRA directs government agencies to establish national
long-term goals, outcome measures, and strategies. The final rule
clarifies that these are to be considered in managing the National
Forest System. In particular, it provides for the development of
outcome measures to evaluate ecological, social, and economic impacts,
accountability, and management performance. The development of outcome
measures will be included in the Forest Service directives System.
Paragraph (c) in the proposed rule lists the key elements. The list
in the final rule has been changed slightly to line up with the
subsequent sections of the planning framework and use consistent
terminology. Cooperatively developed landscape goals are no longer
specifically listed, however, they are still included in section 219.12
and may be considered as issues (section 219.4). This change was made
to clarify the key elements of planning.
Proposed Section 219.4--Topics of general interest or concern. This
section of the proposed rule established a process for identifying,
discussing, and, if appropriate, acting on topics of general interest
or concern that might emerge from a variety of sources. The process for
identifying these topics was to be used for both plan amendments and
revisions as well as for site-specific plans. In the final rule, this
section has been renamed ``Identification and consideration of
issues.''
Comment: Identification of issues. Many respondents believed that
the proposed rule should provide additional details about how issues
will be identified. Specifically, some people felt that current Forest
Service public involvement methods do not provide an accurate
representation of the interested public. They recommended that the
Forest Service conduct unbiased sampling to determine public opinion
about forest plans.
Response: The proposed rule established a collaborative process
that will be used in addition to current public involvement methods.
This approach is retained in the final rule. This process will improve
the identification of issues. Also, the flexibility in approaches is
very important to the collaborative process. Sampling is addressed in
section 219.1 of the preamble.
Comment: Evaluation of topics. Many respondents expressed concern
about the evaluation of topics of concern. Most of these people felt
that the proposed rule gives the responsible official too much
discretion in considering whether action will be taken on these topics.
Many of these respondents felt the discretion in the rule could allow
responsible officials to ignore important concerns.
Response: The regulation actually increases the accountability of
the responsible official for addressing issues that are ``ripe'' for
resolution. As now, the decision to move an issue forward for
resolution is an agency prerogative. Accountability is increased
however through the more open and collaborative process for identifying
issues.
Comment: Limiting discretion. Several people advocated limiting
discretion and suggested a number of remedies to this perceived problem
such as establishing requirements for reasonableness and timeliness in
the evaluation of topics of general concern, creating guidelines for
the consideration and documentation of topics of general concern and
requiring that the responsible official's decisions on topics of
concern should be subject to administrative appeal or judicial review.
Response: The Department does not agree. It is imperative that the
responsible officials maintain sole responsibility to review the
circumstances surrounding an issue before investing time and agency
resources in addressing one or more aspects of the issue. Each day,
each responsible official has a host of possible issues pressed
forward. It is through experience and collaboration with others that
the issues that should be addressed are addressed. As described in the
planning rule, there are several ways that a host of people, including
higher-level officials, can become engaged in the identification and
potential resolution of issues important in the plan area.
Other changes. The most noticeable change in this section, as
adopted in the final rule, is replacement of ``topics of general
interest or concern'' with the term ``issues.'' Although some members
of the Committee of Scientists found ``issues'' to have a negative
connotation, and to imply that some action must be taken, many found
the terminology of the proposed rule to be vague and verbose.
Therefore, the final rule refers to ``issues.'' This is consistent with
the current planning regulations and more familiar with the public and
within the agency.
Editorial changes were made to the proposed rule, including changes
in terminology, to remain consistent with other parts of the rule (for
example, ``ecological sustainability'' and ``range of expected
variability''). The words ``consistent'' and ``consistency'' in the
proposed rule are changed to avoid confusion with the use of that
terminology in NFMA and section 219.10.
Proposed Section 219.5--Information development and interpretation.
This section of the proposed rule described information needed to
further consider a topic of general interest or concern. It provided
direction on conducting broad-scale assessments and local analyses.
Comment: Discretion of responsible official. Some respondents felt
that the discretionary authority given to the responsible official in
the proposed rule may conflict with provisions for the use of
scientific and collaborative input. These people recommended that the
proposed rule limit the discretion of the responsible official in
determining whether the available information is sufficient or
additional data collection is needed.
Response: Implementation of the planning process of this rule
promotes collaborative problem solving. The responsible official has
access to a wide variety of information from staff specialists and a
knowledgeable and often active national forest or grassland user
community. A decision to initiate collection of additional data is a
managerial choice that may be assisted by scientific review and science
advisory boards, as appropriate. As many years of experience have
[[Page 67525]]
demonstrated for many issues, when authorities closely match
responsibilities, the quality of decisions and overall public service
improves.
Comment: Development of information. Some people recommended
restricting large-scale planning to non-decisional, data collection
efforts. Still others believed accurate data are essential for the
Forest Service to assess the need for actions and to measure the
effectiveness of its actions in planning. These people suggested that
the proposed rule emphasized collecting and maintaining sufficient
natural resource data. Some citizens asserted that the proposed rule
should specify appropriate analysis tools and models to ensure
consistency between national forests and grasslands.
Response: The Department agrees with the importance of applying the
best available data, and has emphasized that need in the final rule. It
encourages multi-scale assessments and analyses prior to proposing any
actions. The final rule also promotes monitoring to obtain data, and
scientific review of its use. In order to be able to respond promptly
to scientific advances, the Department has avoided including specific
analysis tools or models in a regulation. The Department believes that
large-scale decisions may be necessary to respond to some issues;
however, it does not expect every broad-scale assessment to lead to
broad-scale decisions.
Comment: Public Involvement. Public involvement in information
development and interpretation was a significant concern for many
people. These people contended that the proposed rule's provisions on
information development and interpretation do not provide sufficient
opportunities for public input or review. Some of these people
suggested that the proposed rule include provisions requiring
collaboration in information development and interpretation, while
others requested that the proposed rule comply with NEPA requirements.
Another respondent believed that the final planning regulations should
incorporate the guidelines for interdisciplinary planning teams from
the 1982 planning regulations.
Response: The planning rule has several provisions for encouraging
the public to participate in the identification and resolution of
natural resource management issues. As described in sections 219.12 to
219.18, it is the intent of the rule that the Forest Service
participate with others in building stewardship capacity--the ability
to develop ideas, take action, and solve problems (section 219.2). The
planning framework is characterized by an interdisciplinary
collaborative approach (section 219.3). In addition, the NEPA process
applied to planning must be interdisciplinary. The final rule also
provides that each broad scale assessment should be designed and
conducted with the assistance of scientists, resource professionals,
government entities, and other individuals and organizations
knowledgeable of the assessment area (section 219.5(a)(2)).
Comment: Interest group involvement. Some respondents expressed
concerns regarding what groups will be involved in information
development and interpretation. Some of these people felt that the
Forest Service does not recognize or respect the knowledge and past
stewardship of private property holders and lessees. These individuals
recommended that the proposed rule emphasize the role of lessees and
private property holders in information development and interpretation.
Other respondents specifically suggested that the Forest Service engage
environmental groups in conducting ecological assessments.
Response: As described in the planning rule, it is the intent of
the Department and the Forest Service that a wide variety of people,
including property holders and lessees and environmental groups engage
in the consideration of their natural resources and in the stewardship
of their national forests and grasslands (see sections 219.16 and
219.17). The final rule also provides that each broad scale assessment
be designed and conducted with the assistance of scientists, resource
professionals, government entities, and other individuals and
organizations knowledgeable of the assessment area (section
219.5(a)(2)).
Comment: Consideration of activities outside of national forest
boundaries. Believing that the failure to address national supply and
demand trends could lead to an oversupply of specific resources, one
respondent recommended that the proposed rule require the consideration
of these trends in decisions specifically regarding grazing permits.
Another person felt that consideration of activities outside National
Forest System unit boundaries in planning could restrict resource
extraction. This person suggested that the Forest Service be prohibited
from restricting resource use on such a basis. Other respondents
believed that the proposed rule fails to address the effects of agency
planning on lands outside of National Forest System lands. These people
recommended that the proposed rule should explicitly recognize these
impacts.
Response: The planning process is designed to enable the Forest
Service to address each of the above comments at the appropriate time
and place. For example, if the supply and demand of a particular
natural resource is relevant at a national scale, the Chief of the
Forest Service, working with others, may address the concern. Likewise,
if the supply of a local resource use is of concern to one or more
communities, that may very well be an issue that is addressed in the
revision or amendment to a plan. Planning is tailored to fit the needs
of people in the use and enjoyment of their national forests and
grasslands. Section 219.17(c) of the final rule was changed to include
consideration of the effects of managing National Forest System lands
on adjacent lands.
Comment: Use of broad-scale assessments. Many respondents expressed
preferences about the use of broad-scale assessments in national forest
planning. Some people opposed the use of broad-scale assessments,
feeling that these efforts will be excessively expensive and that this
expense will hinder the implementation of project proposals. Some
respondents supported the use of broad-scale assessments in planning,
and they believe private lands adjacent to national forests and
grasslands should be included in such assessments. Focusing more on who
should oversee the development of assessment processes, other
respondents recommended that the final rule require the Forest Service
to lead broad-scale assessments. These people felt that the proposed
rule allows unacceptable influence by nongovernmental entities and that
this could lead to decisions that are not in the best public interest.
Response: The amount and level of data collection and synthesis
needed varies with the issue and the nature of the decision to be made.
The responsible official is to determine if the information on hand is
sufficient, or if additional information is desirable and can be
obtained at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. Where the issue
is broad in scale, a broad-scale assessment is often needed. Where the
issue is more limited in scale, local analyses are more appropriate.
The final planning rule provides a flexible process that yields the
data appropriate to address an issue, rather than mandating one
approach. Information and data may be solicited and accepted from a
variety of sources, including broad-scale assessments prepared or led
by others. Managers must use their professional judgment to gauge the
usefulness, reliability, and value of the information received.
[[Page 67526]]
Comment: Broad-scale assessments and NEPA public involvement
requirements. Some respondents' comments focused on the proposed rule's
relationship with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public input
requirements. These respondents felt that the provisions of the
proposed rule allow the development of large-scale or national planning
parameters outside the scope of public scrutiny. These people suggested
that broad-scale assessments should not be used in place of the NEPA
scoping process.
Response: Broad-scale assessments do not constitute a decision
point--they are a source of data and information that may be used in
later decisionmaking by the agency or others. The preparation of broad-
scale assessments is intended to be an open and collaborative process,
one that encourages participation by interested and affected parties.
Involvement in broad-scale assessments in no way supplants or
eliminates the requirement for scoping under NEPA or other public
involvement in other aspects of the planning framework. The text of the
regulation in section 219.6, Proposed actions, emphasizes that NEPA
requirements must be met for every proposed action, and activities
associated with broad-scale assessments are intended to complement,
rather than replace the scoping process of NEPA for subsequent
decisionmaking.
Comment: Adequacy of data in broad-scale assessments. Many
respondents expressed concern regarding the adequacy of data used in
broad-scale assessments. Some of these people felt that the proposed
rule would allow the use of inadequate or out-dated data. According to
one person, the use of this data ``leads to erroneous conclusions;
these erroneous conclusions lead to poorly thought-out
recommendations.'' Other respondents asserted that the proposed rule
weakens existing requirements for the use of current data. One
respondent specifically requested that the agency seek additional funds
to perform broad-scale assessments to avoid impacting Forest Service
research station budgets.
Response: The planning rule has several provisions for the
inclusion of the best available science in all activities associated
with planning as described in sections 219.22 to 219.25. Through
science advisory boards and the use of science consistency evaluations,
the best available science is sought for each key step in the planning
process.
Comment: Local analyses. A few respondents suggested that the
proposed rule emphasize local analyses, while others requested that the
rule include clarification on what local analyses entail. One person,
claiming that the Forest Service lacks the information necessary to
make informed planning decisions, recommended that the proposed rule
require landscape assessments be conducted on all national forests and
grasslands.
Response: The planning process is designed to ensure that the
appropriate information is gathered and evaluated before decisions are
made. The extensive collaboration among interested and affected people
as well as the increased involvement of science in the planning process
are intended to highlight information needs and ensure appropriate
consideration of all elements affecting sustainable use of national
forests and grasslands. The rule encourages the use of local analyses
as a basis for proposals at a comparable scale.
Comment: Terminology to describe spatial scales. One respondent
questioned the use of ``broad'' and ``local'' to describe the scale of
analysis in the proposed planning regulations. ``Coarse'' and ``fine
filters'' are the technical terms most often used in Forest Service
management plans and this person felt these widely used and clearly
defined terms should replace ``broad'' and ``local'' in the final rule.
Response: Even though the terms ``coarse'' and ``fine'' filters are
used frequently among some natural resource professionals, they are not
identical to scale descriptors. We do refer to these terms in our
response to comments for section 219.20. We believe that the use of the
terms ``broad'' and ``local'' in the final rule describe the extent of
assessments and analyses to a larger number of national forest and
grassland users.
Comment: Scope of spatial and temporal scales. Several respondents
supported the collection and analysis of ecological data on a variety
of spatial and temporal scales. One respondent suggested that the final
rule expand the scale of analysis to include cumulative effects of
global magnitude. Conversely, some individuals questioned the use of a
variety of spatial and temporal scales. Such a mandate requires funding
and staffing beyond the means of the current Forest Service structure,
according to these respondents. One citizen questioned the utility of
using varying scales, asserting that such a hierarchical approach would
lead to specific project plans containing forgiving, default language
that lacks serious standards and thresholds.
Response: The variable scale planning process envisioned by the
planning rule is intended to enable planners, managers, and the public
to identify and act upon important issues at the appropriate scale for
their resolution. Through the identification of issues that may cross
many political boundaries, interested and affected people can work
together to reach common solutions among many landowners and natural
resource users. Cumulative impacts will also be addressed through
agency NEPA procedures. Appropriate analyses and monitoring of results
are used to ensure that the cumulative effects of small actions do not
result in unwanted or unanticipated impacts. The responsible official
has the authority to determine the appropriate scope and scale of
analysis and data collection. In making this determination, the
responsible official appropriately applies collaborative processes and
uses the best available science.
Other changes. The proposed rule stated that the Regional Forester
is responsible for National Forest System participation in broad-scale
assessments. The final rule requires Station Directors and Regional
Foresters to have joint responsibility for Forest Service participation
in broad-scale assessments. It no longer addresses Forest Service
participation in broad-scale assessments led by others. The Department
believes it is not necessary to address the possible actions of others
in this rule.
The requirement to use the best available scientific information
and analysis is moved to sections 219.22 and 219.23 in the final rule.
Examples of possible uses of assessment information in the proposed
rule are generalized to ``other purposes'' in the final rule, and the
language made consistent with the description of uses of local
analysis. The final rule clarifies that assessments be used to evaluate
the factors that contribute to the conditions and trends observed and
is important in gaining understanding of issues.
The proposed rule stated that the purpose of local analyses was to
provide information to aid in the identification of possible actions or
projects to achieve desired conditions. The final rule expands the use
of local analyses so that an analysis could be tailored to the scope of
issues rather than potential actions. Similarly, the final rule
provides for the use of social or economic analysis units for local
analyses if warranted by the scope and context of the issues under
consideration.
The components of both broad-scale assessments and local analyses
were described as mandatory in the proposed rule. The amount and level
of data
[[Page 67527]]
collection and synthesis needed varied with the issue and the nature of
the decision to be made. The responsible official was to determine if
the information on hand was sufficient, or if additional information
was desirable and could be obtained at a reasonable cost and in a
timely manner. Where the issue was broad in scale, a broad-scale
assessment was often needed. Where the issue was more limited in scale,
local analyses were more appropriate. The final rule provides for a
flexible process that yields the data appropriate to address an issue,
eliminating unnecessary analysis requirements. Information and data can
be solicited and accepted from a variety of sources, including broad-
scale assessments prepared or led by others. Managers must use their
professional judgment to gauge the usefulness, reliability, and value
of the information received.
Proposed Section 219.6--Proposed actions. This section identifies
the point at which a responsible official initiates a decisionmaking
process to resolve an issue, based on the information that has been
developed and interpreted. No public concerns explicitly related to
this section were identified in the analysis of public comment.
Paragraph (b) was redrafted in the final rule to make it clear that
public involvement and collaborative activities, related to issue
identification and analyses of information, can be used as part of the
scoping process required in the Forest Service NEPA procedures.
Proposed Section 219.7--Plan decisions that guide future actions.
This section of the proposed rule described categories of decisions in
land and resource management plans that would guide future agency
actions. The title was changed in the final rule to ``Plan decisions.''
Comment: Consistency of plan decisions among plan areas. Some
people question how the Forest Service will maintain consistency
between national forests if regional guides are eliminated as indicated
in the proposed rule
Response: The proposed rule allowed the scope of decisions to be
tailored to the scope of the issues relevant to the plan area.
Decisions may be made simultaneously for multiple administrative units,
in a manner similar to what has occurred with regional guide amendments
under the current rule. Section 219.3 of the final rule authorizes and
encourages joint planning on multiple administrative units. In
addition, the objection process (section 219.32), the addition of
science consistency evaluations (section 219.24), and the requirement
to incorporate regional guide direction into agency procedures or plan
decisions (section 219.35) ensure consistency among national forests
and grasslands.
Comment: Desired conditions. Many people commented on the proposed
planning rule's emphasis on desired conditions. Some contended that the
emphasis on desired conditions was an improvement over the Forest
Service's perceived current focus on products and services. One
respondent recommended that specific requirements for detailed
descriptions of desired future conditions be included in plans. Some
respondents believed that the proposed rule did not clearly define how
``desired future conditions'' would be developed.
Response: The Department agrees that emphasis on the desired
conditions, rather than an estimate of what may or may not be produced
from a unit of land, provides a more meaningful basis for people to
discuss suitable and unsuitable uses of specific areas within national
forests and grasslands. The planning rule uses the term ``desired
condition'' rather than ``desired future condition'' to stress the
point that there are many areas of national forests and grasslands that
are now in a ``desired condition'' and that use of the term ``future''
was not necessary. In addition, the term ``goal'' was removed as a
planning decision. A clear explanation of a desired condition for all
or a part of a plan area included statements that describe the
conditions sought or the ``goals'' of the area. Therefore, it is not
necessary to have a category of plan decisions that are called
``goals.'' The Department believes that the responsible official should
evaluate and address conditions relevant to the issues and the scope of
the decision being made, and does not feel it is appropriate to include
in the rule more specific requirements for how to develop desired
conditions.
Comment: Standards and guidelines. Some respondents asserted that
the existing rule is unclear about the difference between standards and
guidelines and that this has ``caused a lot of confusion, false
expectations, and conflict.'' These people recommended clarifying the
difference between guidelines and standards in the proposed rule.
Others believed that the proposed planning regulations should establish
enforceable criteria for the development of objectives, standards, and
guidelines in forest planning rather than relegating such criteria to
the Forest Service Manual.
Response: This concern is addressed in the final rule by modifying
the definition for standards (section 219.7) and by removing the term
``guidelines.'' This was done because the use of both terms, standards
and guidelines, was confusing. In the proposed rule, the mandatory or
discretionary nature of a provision was contained in the description of
that provision, not by whether it was labeled a standard or a
guideline. In the final rule, a provision that is labeled as a standard
in a plan can be either mandatory or discretionary depending upon the
language of the standard and the scope of its requirements.
Comment: Range of management alternatives. Of those respondents who
address requirements for forest plans in the proposed rule, many felt
that ``consideration of a full range of management alternatives'' will
``allow planners to identify important management options, thresholds,
and trade-offs.'' These people suggested the proposed rule include
provisions requiring the Forest Service to develop a full range of
management alternatives in its forest plans. One organization contended
that the proposed planning regulations should retain programmatic
consultation as a means to challenge land and resource management
plans.
Response: The Department believes that the collaboration emphasized
by this rule will lead to a thorough examination of the options and
tradeoffs relevant to the issues that have been identified. A full
range of management alternatives that meets the purpose and need for
changes in the proposed plan is required in accordance with Forest
Service NEPA procedures. Neither the proposed nor final rule directly
addressed Endangered Species Act consultation procedures, which are
described in 50 CFR part 402. The final rule does require the
incorporation of non-discretionary terms of biological opinions into
plans (section 219.20(b)(3)).
Comment: Preservation of ecological diversity. Several respondents
cited the current rule's requirements for the prevention of ``large-
scale conversions of national forest lands to a single-tree species''
as an example of the imperative language they would like to see
retained in the final rule.
Response: The final rule provides for ecological diversity in
section 219.20, wherein plan decisions must provide for ecosystem
composition and structure similar to that which would be expected under
natural disturbance regimes. The Department believes that large-scale
type conversions would not meet this requirement and that more
imperative language is not necessary.
Comment: Preservation of scenic beauty. One person requested that
the proposed rule require specific
[[Page 67528]]
guidelines for the preservation of scenic beauty. Asserting that one of
the primary values of national forests mentioned by the public is
scenic beauty, this respondent feels the Forest Service should address
this concern in the final rule.
Response: The final rule requires that standards be developed for
each plan that includes methods of achieving aesthetic objectives.
Comment: Watershed restoration. Several individuals felt the
proposed rule needed to include specific guidelines for restoring and
protecting water resources. Some suggested that the criteria for
watershed restoration and protection be expanded. Several individuals
believed the proper functioning of all the physical components of
watersheds is an essential prerequisite to attaining ecological
sustainability.
Response: The Department believes that it has given high priority
to watershed restoration by including aquatic and riparian systems as a
component of ecological sustainability (section 219.20(a)(1)(i)(B)),
and focusing on ecological sustainability. In addition, watershed
condition is one of the factors in section 219.28 used for the
identification of lands were timber may not be harvested.
Comment: Restorative employment. One individual believed that the
Forest Service should shift emphasis from fostering an extractive
economy to championing restorative employment on national forests.
Response: This rule establishes ecological sustainability as the
first priority for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands
(section 219.19). It also requires the Forest Service to consider
opportunities to provide social and economic benefits to communities
through natural resource restoration strategies (section 219.21).
Comment: Invasive species. Believing that invasive species disrupt
expected ecosystem functions, several citizens felt that the failure to
sufficiently address this concern was a major flaw in the proposed
rule. One respondent asserted that roads are the major vectors for the
spread of noxious weeds throughout national forests. Road construction
and off-road vehicle use need to be restricted, this individual
asserted, if the spread of noxious weeds is to be slowed. Conversely,
another individual believed the proposed planning regulations should
qualify the mandate to control the spread of non-native species.
Although this person stated that the Forest Service should not
knowingly spread invasive species, this individual believed that there
are situations where these processes occur naturally and therefore it
would be ``extremely expensive if not impossible for the agency to
prevent the phenomena.'' Another respondent requested that the proposed
planning regulations address the ecological and human health impacts of
chemical applications to control invasive species.
Response: The final rule includes invasive or noxious plant or
animal species as factors to consider in evaluating and providing for
ecosystem diversity (section 219.20). Where such factors are
contributing to loss of ecological sustainability, the Department
expects invasive species to be an issue that is sufficiently addressed.
Use of chemicals or other kinds of treatments would not normally be
determined as part of a plan decision, as described by this rule.
Separate national road management and roadless area policy initiatives
are addressing road construction and management. Off-road vehicle use
would be addressed through the planning process at a local level.
Comment: Fire management strategies. Some respondents felt that the
Forest Service should suppress fires. Allowing forests to burn was seen
as a waste of resources to these people. Others asserted that the
Forest Service should allow fires to burn, proposing that restoring
fire disturbance regimes will, in turn, help restore ecological
sustainability. One respondent questioned how the Forest Service would
prescribe fire to restore ecosystems while maintaining the air resource
value of visibility. This individual felt that the proposed planning
regulations should clarify how this conflict will be resolved.
Response: The Department does not believe that this rule is the
appropriate place to resolve questions of fire management policy.
However, the planning framework provided by this rule will facilitate
resolving them at the appropriate scale. Fire may be an issue handled
at the national or regional scale. For example, the Forest Service has
recently developed new information about the risk of catastrophic fires
that may be useful for planning at a national or regional level.
Planning could also happen at the forest plan or landscape level if
scientific information or a local community suggested that fire was an
issue that should be addressed through a specific project or series of
projects and the responsible official determined that the issue should
be considered and sufficient information existed to address it. The
collaborative and flexible planning process outlined in this final rule
is fully consistent with ongoing efforts at the Forest Service to
address fire risks to communities and the environment.
Comment: Wildlife on grazing allotments. Believing that hunting has
greater economic potential than that of grazing, another person
suggested that game species be given priority over cattle in management
area allocations. Elk and bison are not only endemic, but they would
also provide hunting revenues according to this individual.
Response: The Department does not believe that this rule is the
appropriate place to resolve questions of livestock and big game
conflicts. However, the planning framework provided by this rule will
facilitate resolving conflicts at the appropriate scale.
Other changes. The introductory paragraph in the final rule differs
in two ways from the proposed rule. The paragraph clarifies that
decisions may apply to all or parts of a plan area and must reflect the
ongoing and anticipated actions of landowners adjacent and within
national forest and grassland boundaries. It acknowledges the
possibility that plan decisions may commit resources to site-specific
uses in some cases.
The proposed rule described four categories of decisions. The final
rule lists five and shortens the descriptions of each. Standards are
separated from objectives because these are considered to be different
types of decisions. Objectives describe intended results over a
projected period of time. Standards describe the limitations necessary
to achieve objectives. Standards are adopted, when needed, to achieve
objectives and desired conditions.
In paragraph (c) of the final rule, standards have been defined
more specifically than in the proposed rule to emphasize that they are
requirements, rather than statements of intent, and that they apply to
land uses and management actions rather than outcomes. The proposed
rule included three standards required by NFMA. The final rule adds a
fourth general category of standards that must be included to ensure
achievement of sustained multiple-use of national forests and
grasslands.
Paragraph (d) in the final rule was paragraph (c) in the proposed
rule and addresses suitable land uses. Livestock grazing is added to
the list of suitable land uses within the National Forest System based
on comments received for section 219.26. Paragraph (e) in the final
rule was paragraph (d) in the proposed rule. This section requires an
identifiable monitoring and evaluation
[[Page 67529]]
strategy that is required by each plan in section 219.11.
Proposed Section 219.8--Amendment. This section of the proposed
rule addressed amendments to plans as an addition to or the
modification or deletion of one or more of the decisions listed in
section 219.7. An amendment to a plan was defined as a plan decision.
It also addressed the process through which amendments must be made.
There were no additional requirements beyond those presented in the
rest of the planning framework and Forest Service NEPA procedures.
Comment: Timeframes. Many respondents expressed concerns regarding
the time period of Forest Service planning efforts. Some of these
people felt that the proposed rule's provisions allow for various
parties to delay amendment and revision processes. Some of these
respondents recommended that the proposed rule include specific time
limitations on revisions and amendments, while one person suggested
that the proposed rule include provisions allowing ongoing activities
to continue during plan amendments. Some believed the proposed planning
regulations should require consideration of impacts to the entire
planning area during amendment, revision, and objection procedures.
Response: The Department envisions that proposed amendments and
revisions be completed in a timely manner considering the complexity of
the issues and public interest in pending proposals. Ongoing activities
may continue while an existing plan is being amended or revised (40 CFR
1506.1(c)). Impacts must be considered in accordance with NEPA
procedures.
Comment: Significant plan amendments. One person felt that the
proposed rule circumvents the criteria for determining ``significant
amendments'' described in the NFMA. In the proposed and final rule, a
proposed plan amendment that may create significant environmental
impact is deemed to be a significant amendment as described in NFMA.
This person suggested that the proposed rule does not comply with the
NFMA requirements in that a plan amendment that may create large social
or economic effects should require a significant plan amendment.
However, a plan amendment that would create only social or economic
effects would not necessarily require preparation of an environmental
impact statement. A change in the projected level of timber production
was cited as an example of such a situation.
Response: The Department believes that any plan amendment that may
create significant environmental effects should be considered as a
significant amendment as described in the NFMA. It is unreasonable to
conclude that a plan amendment may create only social or economic
effects apart from physical or biological effects. The proposed
amendment that may create significant environmental effects would
require preparation of an environmental impact statement and a 90-day
public review period for the draft environmental impact statement. Such
an amendment would be a significant amendment to a plan.
Comment: Provisions related to amendments and revisions need
additional requirements. A few people recommended the proposed rule
include specific criteria for initiating amendments and revisions.
Another respondent recommended that the proposed rule include specific
provisions for the review of environmental impact statements generated
by other federal agencies for actions impacting national forest plans.
Response: The Department expects that amendments will occur
frequently in response to new information and newly identified issues.
If conditions have changed significantly throughout the plan area, the
responsible official may revise the plan. In the final rule, the
decision to propose an amendment or a revision, if under the legal time
limit, remains discretionary, as in both the current and proposed
rules. This enables the responsible official to consider resource and
administrative factors, and other applicable information prior to
proposing to amend a plan. While not specifically mentioned in the
rule, the Department expects the Forest Service to consider
environmental impact statements prepared by other agencies as potential
sources of issues to be addressed.
Other changes. The final rule references other applicable sections
of the rule for additional requirements to consider in making an
amendment. The final rule changes the focus of paragraph (b) from
addressing ``Plan amendments in conjunction with site-specific
decisions'' to ``Environmental review of a proposed plan amendment.''
Proposed Section 219.9--Revision. This section of the proposed rule
described the process to be used periodically to review the plan.
Paragraph (a) of this section of the rule describes revision as a
process that is required in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5).
Comment: Adaptability. Contending that the current planning process
is so slow that it produces obsolete plans, some respondents supported
the proposed rule's emphasis on adaptability. One person even asserted
that, given ongoing updates, the requirement for revisions every
fifteen years is unnecessary and should be eliminated.
Response: The fifteen-year timeframe for revisions is a statutory
requirement. The final rule has been changed, however, so that it does
not incorporate a specific timeframe. Rather, it allows the timeframe
to be governed by applicable law. Under the rule, the scope of revision
is not open-ended, but focuses on the identified issues. If there are
few issues, the process should be focused and simplified accordingly.
Comment: Relationship to the proposed Roadless Area Conservation
Rule. Some individuals explicitly requested that the Forest Service
clarify the relationship between the proposed Roadless Area
Conservation Rule (proposed roadless rule) and the planning rule and
how the planning rule will account for the proposed roadless rule
through the planning process. In addition, some respondents suggested
that the local planning process is better suited to determine future
management direction than national rulemaking for roadless areas,
particularly for those roadless areas not yet identified.
Response: The final rule clarifies the relationship of the planning
rule with the proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule (proposed
roadless rule) described in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation,
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated May, 2000 and 65
FR 30276, May 10, 2000. The terms ``inventoried roadless areas'' and
``unroaded areas'' are described in the planning rule to clarify the
relationship of the final planning rule to the proposed roadless rule
and the Forest Service's recently proposed road management policy. The
proposed road management policy describes analysis methods and
procedures that would complement the planning-related activities of
national forests and grasslands. The proposed rule regarding roadless
areas would prohibit road construction and reconstruction in
inventoried roadless areas. It would also require land managers to
consider certain roadless area characteristics during plan revision and
to then decide in the context of overall multiple-use objectives
whether additional protections should be afforded inventoried roadless
areas or other unroaded areas. Similarly, the proposed planning rule
would require the responsible official to consider designating roadless
areas during plan
[[Page 67530]]
revision along with any needed plan decisions related to such areas.
The final planning rule clarifies that analyses and decisions regarding
inventoried roadless areas and other unroaded areas, other than the
national prohibitions that may be established in the final Roadless
Area Conservation Rule, will be made through the planning process
articulated in this final rule. Under this final rule, the responsible
official is required to evaluate inventoried roadless areas and
unroaded areas and identify areas that warrant protection and the level
of protection to be afforded.
Public comments suggested, and the Department agrees, that the
procedures described in the proposed roadless rule were very similar to
those outlined in the proposed planning rule. Moreover, comments
suggested that appropriate roadless area protections could be best
considered using the explicit collaboration, science, sustainability,
and planning requirements of the planning rule.
The Department has determined that the review of the roadless
characteristics contemplated by the proposed roadless rule is an
explicit function of land management planning and should be addressed
through this rule. Moreover, most of the roadless area characteristics
identified in section 294.13 of the proposed roadless rule are
characteristics otherwise required to be analyzed during plan revision
or at other times as deemed appropriate by the responsible official. In
the final planning rule, the requirements for identifying roadless
areas and additional roadless area protections are an explicit part of
the plan revision process as described in section 219.9(b)(8). The
analysis and treatment of characteristics of roadless areas as
identified in the proposed roadless rule are listed below as they
compare to the requirements of the final planning rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed roadless rule Final planning rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
294.13(a) At the time of plan Section 219.9(b)(8) requires the
revision, the quality and responsible official to consider
importance of nine inventoried roadless areas and unroaded
characteristics of areas in all plan revisions and at other
inventoried roadless areas times as appropriate through the
and unroaded areas must be criteria in section 219.20(a) and
evaluated. 219.21(a). Those sections require
development and analysis of information
at a variety of spatial and temporal
scales.
294.13(a)(1) Soil, water, and 219.20(a)(1)(i)(B) Water resources: the
air; and. diversity, abundance, and distribution
294.13(a)(2) Sources of of aquatic and riparian systems
public drinking water. including streams, stream banks, coastal
waters, estuaries, groundwater, lakes,
wetlands, shorelines, riparian areas,
and floodplains; stream channel
morphology and condition, and flow
regimes.
219.20(a)(1)(i)(C) Soil resources: soil
productivity; physical, chemical, and
biological properties; soil loss; and
compaction.
219.20(a)(1)(i)(D) Air resources: air
quality, visibility, and other air
resource values.
219.20(a)(2)(i)(F) An evaluation of the
effects of air quality on ecological
systems including water.
219.20(a)(2)(i)(G) An estimation of
current and foreseeable future Forest
Service consumptive and non-consumptive
water uses and the quantity and quality
of water needed to support those uses
and contribute to ecological
sustainability.
294.13(a)(3) Diversity of 219.20(a)(2)(ii) Evaluations of species
plant and animal communities. diversity must include, as appropriate,
assessments of the risks to species
viability and the identification of
ecological conditions needed to maintain
species viability over time.
219.36 Ecological conditions: Components
of the biological and physical
environment that can affect the
diversity of plant and animal
communities, including species
viability, and the productive capacity
of ecological systems. These could
include the abundance and distribution
of aquatic and terrestrial habitats,
roads and other structural developments,
human uses, and invasive and exotic
species.
294.13(a)(4) Habitat for 219.20(a)(2)(ii)(A) The viability of each
threatened, endangered, species listed under the Endangered
proposed, candidate, and Species Act as threatened, endangered,
sensitive species and for candidate, and proposed species must be
those species dependent on assessed. Individual species assessments
large, undisturbed areas of must be used for these species.
land.
219.20(a)(2)(ii)(B) For all other
species, including other species-at-risk
and those species for which there is
little information, a variety of
approaches may be used, including
individual species assessments and
assessments of focal species or other
indicators used as surrogates in the
evaluation of ecological conditions
needed to maintain species viability.
219.36 Species-at-risk: Federally listed
endangered, threatened, candidate, and
proposed species and other species for
which loss of viability, including
reduction in distribution or abundance,
is a concern within the plan area. Other
species-at-risk may include sensitive
species and state listed spec