HOME | NEPANEWS | CITIZEN TOOL BOX | COMMENTARY
[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