Department of Agricultureconcepts. First, it affirms sustainability as the overall goal for national forest and grassland management in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield

Thursday,

November 9, 2000

Part III

Department ofAgricultureForest Service

36 CFR Parts 217 and 219National Forest System Land ResourceManagement Planning; Final Rule

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 18:52 Nov 08, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09NOR2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 09NOR2

67514 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Parts 217 and 219

RIN 0596–AB20

National Forest System Land andResource Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule describes theframework for National Forest Systemland and natural resource planning;reaffirms sustainability as the overallgoal for National Forest Systemplanning and management; establishesrequirements for the implementation,monitoring, evaluation, amendment,and revision of land and resourcemanagement plans; and guides theselection and implementation of site-specific actions. The intended effectsare to simplify, clarify, and otherwiseimprove the planning process; to reduceburdensome and costly proceduralrequirements; to strengthen and clarifythe role of science in planning, and tostrengthen collaborative relationshipswith the public and other governmententities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effectiveNovember 9, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert S. Cunningham, AssistantDirector, Ecosystem ManagementCoordination, Forest Service, USDA,P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C.20090–6090, (202) 205–2494.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thefollowing outline displays the contentsof 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 PublicComments

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 andcooperatively developed landscapegoals.

Proposed section 219.13 Coordinationamong federal agencies.

Proposed section 219.14 Involvement ofstate and local governments.

Proposed section 219.15 Interaction withAmerican Indian tribes and AlaskaNatives.

Proposed section 219.16 Relationships withinterested individuals and organizations.

Proposed section 219.17 Interaction withprivate landowners.

Proposed section 219.18 Role of advisorygroups and committees.

Ecological, Social, and EconomicSustainability

Proposed section 219.19 Ecological, social,and economic sustainability.

Proposed section 219.20 Ecologicalsustainability.

Proposed section 219.21 Social andeconomic sustainability.

The Contribution of Science

Proposed section 219.22 The role ofassessments, analyses, and monitoring.

Proposed section 219.23 The participationof scientists in planning.

Proposed section 219.24 Scienceconsistency evaluations.

Proposed section 219.25 Science advisoryboards.

Special Considerations

Proposed section 219.26 Identifying anddesignating suitable uses.

Proposed section 219.27 Specialdesignations.

Proposed section 219.28 Determination ofland suitable for timber removal.

Proposed section 219.29 Limitation ontimber removal.

Planning Documentation

Proposed section 219.30 Land and resourcemanagement plan documentation.

Proposed section 219.31 Maintenance of theplan and planning records.

Objections and Appeals

Proposed section 219.32 Objections toamendments 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 thePublic

Description of the Information Collection

Use of Comments—Federalism

General Background

The Forest Service is responsible formanaging the lands and resources of theNational Forest System, which includes192 million acres of land in 42 states,the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Thesystem is composed of 155 nationalforests, 20 national grasslands, andvarious other lands under thejurisdiction of the Secretary ofAgriculture (the Secretary).

On October 5, 1999, the Forest Servicepublished a proposed rule (64 FR54074) to revise the Land and ResourceManagement Planning rule at 36 CFRpart 219. The existing planning rule wasadopted on September 30, 1982 (47 FR43026) and amended in part on June 24,1983, (48 FR 29122), and September 7,1983 (48 FR 40383). The rule is requiredby the Forest and Rangeland RenewableResources Planning Act of 1974 (88 Stat.476 et seq.) as amended by the NationalForest Management Act of 1976, (90Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601–1614)(hereafter, NFMA).

This final rule will help the ForestService improve forest planning and on-the-ground management and enable theagency to improve the long-term healthof the national forests and grasslandswhile better meeting the needs of theAmerican people. Consistent with thestatutory mission of the Forest Serviceand applicable federal environmentallaws, the final rule emphasizes four keyconcepts. First, it affirms sustainabilityas the overall goal for national forestand grassland management inaccordance with the Multiple-UseSustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C.528 et seq.) (hereafter, MUSYA).Second, it requires extensivecooperation and collaboration with thepublic and other private and publicentities. Third, it integrates sciencemore effectively into the planning andmanagement of national forests andgrasslands. Finally, the rule eliminatesburdensome analytical requirements


67515Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

that were designed to govern the initialdevelopment of land and resourcemanagement plans and puts into placea new planning framework thataddresses problems, issues, andopportunities identified throughcollaboration with the public, throughmonitoring or other scientific analyses,or by other means.

The final rule is grounded in the lawsthat guide National Forest Systemmanagement. It also provides for theincorporation of significant newscientific information and other lessonsthe agency has learned since it beganimplementing NFMA planningregulations in 1982. Indeed, much hasbeen learned in developing,implementing, and litigating the originalnational forest and grassland plans andthe numerous plan amendments andrevisions that have been completedduring the past two decades.

Congress created the National ForestSystem ‘‘to improve and protect’’ federalforests (Act of June 4, 1897, ch. 2, 30Stat. 34–36). The Forest Service isvested with broad authority to makerules ‘‘to regulate [the Forests’]occupancy and use and to preserve theforests therein from destruction’’ 16U.S.C. 551.

Sustainability of these lands andresources is the essence of ForestService land and natural resourcemanagement from the very beginningsof the National Forest System. Over acentury ago, Congress authorized thePresident to reserve ‘‘public landbearing forests * * * whether ofcommercial value or not, as publicreservations,’’ Act of March 3, 1891, ch.561, 26 Stat. 1095, 1103, to protect themfrom unsustainable uses that haddamaged watersheds. Six years later inthe Organic Administration Act of 1897,Congress provided further direction andmanagement authority for these forestreserves and reaffirmed its intent toprovide for sustainable protection anduse of these forest reserves. That lawprovided for the establishment of forestreserves ‘‘to improve and protect theforest within the boundaries, or for thepurpose of securing favorableconditions of water flows, and tofurnish a continuous supply of timberfor the use and necessities of citizens ofthe United States * * *’’ 16 U.S.C. 475.

In the MUSYA, Congress againaffirmed the application ofsustainability to the broad range ofresources over which the Forest Servicehas responsibility. MUSYA confirms theForest Service’s authority to manage thenational forests and grasslands ‘‘foroutdoor recreation, range, timber,watershed, and wildlife and fishpurposes’’ (16 U.S.C. § 528), and does so

without limiting the Forest Service’sbroad discretion in determining theappropriate resource emphasis or levelsof use of the lands of each nationalforest and grassland.

Shortly after the passage of MUSYA,the public was becoming increasinglyconcerned about environmental declinethroughout the United States. Congressresponded to this concern by enactingseveral laws directed toward protectingor improving the natural environment,conserving natural resources to meet theneeds of the American people inperpetuity, and providing for greaterpublic involvement in agencydecisionmaking. Specifically regardingforest land and resource management,Congress enacted the NFMA (16 U.S.C.1660(6)), which requires the ForestService to manage the National ForestSystem lands according to land andresource management plans that providefor multiple-uses and sustained-yield inaccordance with MUSYA (16 U.S.C.1604(e) and (g)(1)). In developing andmaintaining these plans, NFMA calls for‘‘integrated consideration of physical,biological, economic and othersciences.’’ (16 U.S.C. 1604(b)). As Sen.Humphrey stated, in explaining thesignificance of the NFMA: ‘‘The dayshave ended when the forest may beviewed only as trees and trees viewedonly as timber. The soil and the water,the grasses and the shrubs, the fish andthe wildlife, and the beauty that is theforest must become integral parts ofresource managers’ thinking andactions’’ (122 Cong Rec. 5618–19(1976)). Similarly, federal courts haverecognized that NFMA and relatedstatutes represent a congressionaldelegation of broad authority that allowsthe Forest Service to address issues ofsustainability using an integratedecological and socio-economicframework. See, e.g., Seattle AudubonSociety v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 1291(W.D. Wash. 1994) aff’d 80 F.3d 1401(9th Cir. 1996) * * * ‘‘Given the currentcondition of the forests, there is no waythe agencies could comply with theenvironmental laws without planningon an ecosystem basis.’’

NFMA also requires the Secretary topromulgate regulations ‘‘that set out theprocess for the development andrevision of the land management plans’’for units of the National Forest System,and specifies certain procedures,guidelines and goals that should bediscussed in the regulations (16 U.S.C.1604). NFMA expanded on MUSYA andthe Endangered Species Act of 1973(ESA) authorities by including in therequirements for land use planningbroad discretion to provide for‘‘diversity of plant and animal

communities’’ and ‘‘to preserve thediversity of tree species similar to thatexisting in the region controlled by theplan’’ (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).Additionally, in response to publicconcerns regarding the sustainability ofcertain silvicultural techniques,Congress included several limitationsand analytical requirements for timberharvest (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(D) through(F), (k), and (m)). NFMA also requiresthe Secretary to appoint a ‘‘committee ofscientists’’ to assist in carrying out thetask of developing and promulgatingregulations in accordance with thepurposes of the statute (16 U.S.C.1604(h)).

Congress enacted the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), ‘‘topromote efforts which will prevent oreliminate damage to the environmentand biosphere and stimulate the healthand welfare of man, [and] enrich theunderstanding of the ecological systemsand natural resources important to theNation’’ (42 U.S.C. 4321). Under NEPA,all Forest Service proposals for majorfederal actions significantly affecting thequality of the human environment mustinclude detailed statements of theenvironmental effects and alternativesto proposals (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)).Environmental effects includeecological effects ‘‘such as the effects onnatural resources and on thecomponents, structures, and functioningof affected ecosystems’’ (40 CFR 1508.8).NEPA also requires the Forest Service to‘‘initiate and utilize ecologicalinformation in the planning anddevelopment of resource-orientedprojects’’ (42 U.S.C. 4332(H)).

In addition to NEPA, the ESA alsobounds the otherwise broad discretionthat the Forest Service has over landand resource management. One of thepurposes of the ESA is ‘‘to provide ameans whereby the ecosystems uponwhich endangered species andthreatened species depend may beconserved . . .’’ (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)).The ESA requires federal agencies suchas the Forest Service to ‘‘utilize theirauthorities in furtherance of thepurposes of this [Act] by carrying outprograms for the conservation ofendangered species and threatenedspecies’’ in consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and theNational Marine Fisheries Service (16U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)).

The 1982 Planning RuleIn accordance with NFMA’s direction

to develop regulations regarding thedevelopment, maintenance, andrevision of land and resourcemanagement plans for units of the



1 The Secretary had initially promulgated theserules in 1979, but no forest plans were evercompleted under the 1979 rules. Soon after a newAdministration took office, the USDA AssistantSecretary for Natural Resources and Environmentwithdrew these planning rules and sought to revisethem. Such controversy was generated as a result,that the Committee of Scientists involved in thedevelopment of the 1979 rules was reconvened andenlisted to work on what eventually became the1982 planning rules.

National Forest System, the Secretarypromulgated a rule for implementationof the planning requirements onSeptember 30, 1982 (47 FR 43026), asamended (48 FR 29122, June 24, 1983),and (48 FR 40383, Sep. 7, 1983).1 Therule is codified at 36 CFR part 219.

Many things have changed since thepublication of the 1982 rule. Ideas andconcepts, such as sustainability andecosystem management have becomemore adequately understood andincreasingly more important as humanuses of natural resources has grown. TheForest Service has also gained a greatdeal of experience developing,implementing, amending, and revisingthe existing 127 land and resourcemanagement plans under the rule. TheForest Service is now in the process ofrevising many of these plans inaccordance with NFMA’s requirementthat plans be revised at least once every15 years. The agency has also developedinnovative new planning tools, such asgeographical information systems and isengaged in increased collaboration withthe public and other federal agencies,tribes, state government, and otherinterested groups or persons, and usesindependent scientific review morefrequently.

The concept of sustainability hasbecome an internationally recognizedobjective for land and resourcestewardship. In 1987, the BrundtlandCommission Report (The WorldCommission on Environment andDevelopment) articulated in ‘‘OurCommon Future’’ the need forintergenerational equity in naturalresource management. The Commissiondefined sustainability as meeting theneeds of the present withoutcompromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs.During the last twenty years, the worldhas increasingly come to recognize thatthe functioning of ecological systems isa necessary prerequisite for strongproductive economies, enduring humancommunities, and the values peopleseek from wildlands.

Similarly, the Forest Service andscientific community have developedthe concepts of ecosystem managementand adaptive management. Scientificadvances and improved ecologicalunderstanding support an approach

under which forests and grasslands aremanaged as ecosystems rather thanfocusing solely on single species orcommodity output. Indeed, ecosystemmanagement places greater emphasis onassessing and managing broadlandscapes and sustaining ecologicalprocesses. Ecosystem managementfocuses on the cumulative effects ofactivities over time and over larger partsof the landscape. Planning andmanagement under ecosystemmanagement also acknowledge thedynamic nature of ecological systems,the significance of natural processes,and the uncertainty and inherentvariability of natural systems.Ecosystem management calls for moreeffective monitoring of managementactions and their effects to facilitateadaptive management, whichencourages changes in managementemphasis and direction as new,scientific information is developed. Inaccord with ecosystem management,regional ecosystem assessments havebecome the foundation for morecomprehensive planning, sometimesinvolving multiple forests and otherpublic land management units. TheNorthwest Forest Plan, for example,affects 17 national forests and 6 BLMdistricts in a three-state region. TheInterior Columbia Basin EcosystemProject encompasses 25 percent of theentire National Forest System and tenpercent of the public lands administeredby the BLM nationwide.

In the last 20 years, the number offederal, state and local agencies, Tribes,members of the public, and interestedgroups wanting to be involved inplanning decisions and sharestewardship responsibilities hasskyrocketed. In many cases, ForestService personnel have been able tolearn significant information, create newunderstanding, build trust, obtain newresources for implementation andmonitoring, and diffuse potentialconflicts by engaging these parties moreeffectively in the planning processthrough collaboration. Whilecollaborative approaches do not endconflict or necessarily result inconsensus, by engaging people andidentifying key issues early in theprocess, they enable the Forest Serviceto make better decisions and to manageconflict more effectively. Similarly, theForest Service has learned thatindependent scientific and publicreview can greatly enhance thecredibility of planning and validate thesoundness of stewardship decisions andthe reality of achievements.

Taken together, ecosystemmanagement, scientific reviews, andcollaboration enable the Forest Service

to identify key scientific and publicissues and to target its limited resourceson trying to resolve those issues at themost appropriate time and geographicscale. Based on these changes in thestate of scientific and technicalknowledge, the Forest Service’sextensive experience, and a series ofsystematic reviews, the Forest Servicehas concluded that 36 CFR part 219must be revised in order to better reflectcurrent knowledge and practices and tobetter meet the conservation challengesof the future. Indeed, while the 1982planning rule was appropriate fordeveloping the first round of plans fromscratch, it is no longer well suited forimplementing the NFMA or respondingto the ecological, social, and economicissues currently facing the nationalforests and grasslands.

The Forest Service has undertakentwo systematic reviews of the planningprocess mandated by the 1982 rules.The first began in 1989, when itconducted a comprehensive review ofits land management planning processin cooperation with the ConservationFoundation and Purdue University’sDepartment of Forestry and NaturalResources. The results of this review aredocumented in a summary report,Synthesis of the Critique of LandManagement Planning, Volume One andten accompanying detailed reports.Based in part on this review, the ForestService published an Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (56 FR 6508, Feb.15, 1991) regarding possible revisions tothe 1982 planning rule. The agencyconducted four public meetings toexplain and discuss ideas for revisingthe planning rule; and receivedcomments from over 600 individualsand groups. These comments were usedin the development of a proposed rulepublished on April 13, 1995 (60 FR18886). However, due to commentsreceived on the 1995 proposed rule andlessons learned from experiences indeveloping the Northwest Forest Plan,regional assessments, and other regionalecosystem management strategies, theSecretary elected not to proceed withthat proposal.

The second systematic review wasundertaken in December 1997, when theSecretary of Agriculture convened a 13-member Committee of Scientists toreview the Forest Service planningprocess and offer recommendations forimprovements within the statutorymission of the Forest Service and theestablished framework of environmentallaws. The members of this Committee ofScientists represented a diversity ofviews, backgrounds, and academicexpertise. The Committee’s charter wasto ‘‘provide scientific and technical



advice to the Secretary of Agricultureand the Chief of the Forest Service onimprovements that can be made in theNational Forest System Land andResource Management Planning Processand to address such topics as how toconsider the following in land andresource management plans: biologicaldiversity, use of ecosystem assessmentsin land and resource managementplanning, spatial and temporal scales forplanning, public participationprocesses, sustainable forestry,interdisciplinary analysis, and any otherissues that the Committee identifies thatshould be addressed in revised planningregulations.’’ The Committee was alsoasked to recommend improvements inForest Service coordination with otherfederal, state, and local agencies, andtribal governments while recognizingthe unique roles and responsibilities ofeach agency in the planning process.

The Committee held more than 20publicly noticed meetings andteleconferences across the country andheard from Forest Service employees,representatives of tribes, state and localgovernments and other federal agencies,members of the public, former Chiefs ofthe Forest Service, and members of theoriginal Committee of Scientistsregarding their concerns and ideas aboutthe current planning process and thecurrent management of national forestsand grasslands.

Following these meetings, theCommittee of Scientists issued a finalreport on March 15, 1999, entitledSustaining the People’s Lands. TheCommittee found that, through carefulmanagement, National Forest Systemlands can continue to provide manydiverse benefits to the American peoplein perpetuity. These benefits includeclean air and water, productive soils,biological diversity, a wide variety ofproducts and services, employment,community development opportunities,and recreation. The Committeerecognized that many Forest Servicemanagers have developed innovativeways to commingle science andcollaborative public processes toimprove land management decisions,and that these innovative strategiesprovided a good starting point fordeveloping a more integrated, long-lasting, and flexible planningframework. The Committee concludedthat the Forest Service can improve itsplanning and decisionmaking by relyingon the concepts and principles ofsustainable natural resourcestewardship; by applying the bestavailable scientific knowledge tomanagement choices; and by effectivelycollaborating with a broad array ofcitizens, other public servants, and

governmental and private entities.Accordingly, the Committeerecommended a planning frameworkthat would provide flexibility in dealingwith a multitude of resource issues atvarious scales across the landscape andwould require managers to integratepublic collaboration and science toidentify desirable outcomes andpromote sustainable management. Italso recommended use of adaptivepractices, monitoring, performancemeasures, and budgeting strategies.

Based on scientific advances inforestry, forest management and rangescience, the 1990 Critique of land andresource management planning and theCommittee of Scientists’ findings andrecommendations as contained in its1999 report, the various laws andregulations that guide National ForestSystem planning and management, andover 17 years of experience indeveloping and implementing theexisting 127 land and resourcemanagement plans, a team of ForestService employees from national,regional, and local offices, aided by aninteragency steering committee,prepared the October 5, 1999, proposedrule to comprehensively revise the landand resource management planningregulation at 36 CFR part 219 (60 FR18886 Oct. 5, 1999).

Summary of Public Comment

In addition to the meetings held bythe Committee of Scientists, the ForestService conducted more than twentypublic town meetings to solicit input onthe proposed rule. At many of thelocations, the Forest Service alsoconducted meetings withrepresentatives from Tribes, state andlocal governments, and other federalagencies. The agency held townmeetings in both rural and urbancommunities across the country, at thefollowing locations:St. Louis, MO—Tuesday, October 26,

1999Hanover, NH—Tuesday, October 26,

1999Duluth, MN—Thursday, October 28,

1999Olympia, WA—Tuesday, November 2,

1999Boise, ID—Monday, November 1, 1999Juneau, AK—Thursday, November 4,

1999Salem, OR—Thursday, November 4,

1999Casper, WY—Tuesday, November 9,

1999Reno, NV—Wednesday, November 10,

1999Los Angeles, CA—Saturday, November

13, 1999

Denver, CO—Saturday, November 13,1999

Little Rock, AR—Tuesday, November16, 1999

Bozeman, MT—Tuesday, November 16,1999

Jackson, MS—Thursday, November 18,1999

Missoula, MT—Thursday, November 18,1999

Coeur d’Alene, ID—Saturday, November20, 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, December9, 1999

Phoenix, AZ—Thursday, December 9,1999Approximately 1339 people attended

the public meetings. The publiccomment period on the proposed ruleclosed on January 3, 2000, but wassubsequently extended to February 10,2000. Some 10,489 persons or entitiessubmitted written comments on theproposed rule. The respondentsconsisted of a wide array of individuals,businesses, government agencies, andorganizations. Most respondents agreedthat the planning regulations needed tobe revised and supported the objectivesthat the Forest Service proposed, butprovided numerous comments on howto better achieve those objectives.

Today’s Final Rule

Today’s final rule will help the ForestService improve forest planning and on-the-ground management and enable theagency to improve the long-term healthof the national forests and grasslandswhile better meeting the needs of theAmerican people. The final rule affirmsecological, social, and economicsustainability as the overall goal formanaging the National Forest Systemlands and makes the maintenance andrestoration of ecological sustainability afirst priority for management of thenational forests and grasslands so theselands can contribute to economic andsocial sustainability by providing asustainable flow of uses, values,products, and services.

The final rule published here todayalso is designed to facilitate greaterpublic collaboration in all phases of theplanning process. The rule expands onexisting requirements for collaborationto expand management choices, createnew understanding, build trust, obtain



new resources for implementation andmonitoring, manage conflict moreproductively, and more fully informeddecisionmaking to ensure the long-termsustainability of the multiple resourcesof national forests and grasslands. Therule encourages land managers to moreactively engage the American people,other federal, state and local agencies,Tribes, and interested groups in theplanning and management of thenational forests and grasslands. Incollaborative settings that provideopportunities for early, open, andfrequent public involvement,responsible Forest Service officials willplay many roles, including serving asprocess conveners, facilitators, leaders,participants, and decision makers, asappropriate.

The final rule creates opportunitiesfor people, communities, andorganizations to work together in theidentification of key issues, discussionsof opportunities for contributing tosustainability, and development andpromotion of landscape goals. Indeed,under the rule, improvements tomanagement practices would be madebased upon cooperatively developedlandscape goals and other issues whichcan emerge from a variety of sourcessuch as collaboration, monitoring,evaluation, broad-scale assessments,local analyses, new laws and policies, orsimply from discussions amonginterested persons. The proposedregulation would encourage the publicto be involved in identifying concernsand problems, considering availableinformation, assessing currentconditions, and identifying potentialsolutions even before a proposal foragency action is written. This earlypublic involvement would make moreinformation available to the public,enhance its ability to participate in theprocess, and lead to bettercommunication about expectations andoutcomes. To further enhance thecollaborative process, advisorycommittees could be used to assist theresponsible official in determiningwhether there is a reasonable basis forproposing an action to address an issue.

Additionally, the final rule wouldreplace the post-decision appeal processwith a pre-decisional objection process.The objection process would only applyto forest and grassland plan revisionsand amendments. Under a pre-decisional objection process, a personcould object to a pending decisionbefore the agency makes a finaldecision, a process very similar to theprotest procedures now in effect in theBureau of Land Management. The intentis to provide the reviewing official withan opportunity to work more closely

with the responsible official and thosefiling objections to resolve theobjections before a decision is made. Apre-decisional objection process alsowill enhance interagency collaborationby standardizing objection proceduresand will provide incentives to work outsubstantive differences rather than focuson procedural errors.

The emphasis on collaboration isconsistent with direction provided inNFMA and other statutes guiding landand resource management and inconcert with the underlying philosophyof national forest management. Asreflected in guidance provided byGifford Pinchot in the first ForestService administrative manual, Uses ofthe National Forests (1907), ‘‘NationalForests are made for and owned by thepeople. They should also be managed bythe people * * * If National Forests aregoing to accomplish anythingworthwhile the people must know allabout them and must take a very activepart in their management. What thepeople as a whole want, will be done.To do it, it is necessary that the peoplecarefully consider and plainly state justwhat they want and then take a veryactive part in seeing that they get it.’’

Another key element in the final ruleis greater emphasis on the use of sciencein planning. The final rule requires theuse of the best available science to givethe Forest Service and the people,communities, and organizationsinvolved in the planning process soundinformation on which to makerecommendations about the resourceconditions and outcomes they desire.The final rule incorporates science inthe planning and decisionmakingprocess in a number of ways.

First, the rule recognizes the lessonslearned in recent years about developingand analyzing information at theregional ecosystem level. Regionalecosystem assessments have proven tobe an extremely valuable and efficientmeans of understanding the scientific,ecological, social, and economic issuesand trends affecting national forests andgrasslands and generating baseline datafor use in planning and decisionmaking.

Second, consistent with the 1990Critique and the Committee of Scientistsreport, the final rule emphasizesmonitoring and evaluation of resourceconditions and trends over time so thatmanagement can be adapted asconditions change. Specifically, therequired monitoring and evaluation willassist in determining if desiredoutcomes are being achieved and how toadapt if they are not. This emphasis isin keeping with NFMA’s direction toensure research on evaluation of theeffects of each management system,

based on continuous monitoring andassessment in the field, to the end thatit will not produce substantial andpermanent impairment of theproductivity of the land (16 U.S.C.1604(g)(3)(C)). As noted by theCommittee of Scientists, ‘‘Monitoring isa key component of planning * * *Monitoring procedures need to beincorporated into planning proceduresand should be designed to be part of theinformation used to inform decisions.Adaptive management and learning arenot possible without effectivemonitoring of actual consequences frommanagement activities.’’

Third, the final rule provides for theestablishment of science advisoryboards to improve decision makers’ andplanners’ access to current scientificinformation and analysis. It alsoprovides for an independent scientificreview of the effectiveness of landmanagement plans in meeting the goalof sustainability during the revisionprocess, and, when appropriate, scienceconsistency evaluations to determinewhether the planning process isconsistent with the best availablescience. As the Committee of Scientistsobserved, ‘‘To ensure public trust andsupport innovation, scientific andtechnical review processes need tobecome essential elements ofmanagement and stewardship * * *The more that conservation strategiesand management actions are based onscientific findings and analysis, thegreater the need for an ongoing processto ensure that the most current andcomplete scientific and technicalknowledge is used.’’

Fourth, the proposed rule affirms theForest Service’s commitment to theviability of all species in accordancewith the NFMA requirement to providefor the diversity of plant and animalcommunities and recognizes the uniquecontributions national forest andgrassland stewardship can make inmaintaining species viability. At thesame time, the rule recognizes the limitsof our scientific understanding andfinancial and technical capability toconduct viability assessments. To assessthe viability of appropriate species offlora and fauna, the rule calls for the useof focal species as indicators ofecological conditions and the bestavailable science and information,including professional opinion and theprinciples of conservation biology.

Finally, the final rule provides aplanning framework that facilitates theidentification and responsive resolutionto emerging problems. The final rulesimplifies required planning steps toenable responsible officials to morereadily address emerging issues than is



possible under the 1982 rule. Forexample, the final rule would clarifythat, where appropriate, multipleplanning activities of one or morenational forests or grasslands can becombined along administrativeboundaries. Additionally, currentrequirements for detailed analyses, suchas those required for benchmarkanalyses, would be streamlined oreliminated. Moreover, planning wouldbe done at the most appropriate scale inorder to address key issues, and forestand grassland plans and projects woulduse the same planning framework. Thefinal rule also allows the steps in theplanning framework to be coordinatedwith the scoping requirements underthe Forest Service NEPA procedureswhen appropriate. This will reduceduplication in the preparation ofenvironmental documents associatedwith management of the National ForestSystem.

In summary, the final rule will enablethe Forest Service to make betterdecisions about the National ForestSystem and guide Forest Serviceplanning and management clearly andeffectively well into the 21st Century.Grounded in law and experience, thefinal rule affirms sustainability as theoverall goal for national forest andgrassland management, requires greatercooperation and collaboration with thepublic and other private and publicentities, and more effectively integratesscience into Forest Service planning andmanagement. At the same time, the rulealso includes the essential features ofNational Forest System planning thatChief Gifford Pinchot established almosta century ago and that the Forest Servicehas used throughout the history of theagency. These features include detailedinventories, monitoring of forestconditions, determination of sustainablelevels of uses, and exclusion of uses,where necessary, to protect watershedand other resources (1906 Use Book).

Response to General CommentsMany of the comments received did

not address specific sections of theproposed rule, but were more general innature. These comments and responsesare summarized below.

Comment: Committee of ScientistsReport. A common concern involved theincorporation of the Committee ofScientists’ report findings into theproposed planning rule. Some peoplefelt recommendations in the Committeeof Scientists report should lay thegroundwork for management and guidefuture management actions. Others,however, believed this report should besubject to peer review by other qualifiedscience professionals. Additionally,

some people proposed that theCommittee of Scientists’ report be opento public scrutiny, requiring publicmeetings and a public comment periodfor review of the report. Otherrespondents suggested that the proposedplanning rule include the names andqualifications of the Committee ofScientists’ members.

Response: The Committee ofScientists, established by the Secretaryof Agriculture under the FederalAdvisory Committee Act, represented aspectrum of disciplines and viewsrelated to planning for the NationalForest System. While formal, scientificpeer review of the recommendations ofthe Committee was not undertaken, theprocess used in the development of theCommittee’s report provided forexternal review and comment. Indeveloping its recommendations, theCommittee utilized a very open,deliberative process which includedopen public meetings, an internet website accessible to the public whichcontained its working drafts and relatedpapers, and public meetings. The namesand qualifications of the members of theCommittee are listed in the report andavailable on the Committee’s web site(www.cof.orst.edu/org/scicomm).

Comment: National ForestManagement Act requirements. Manyreviewers said that the proposed ruledid not clearly identify how it compliedwith NFMA requirements. Thesereviewers felt that the intent of NFMAcan be realized without revising thecurrent land and resource managementplanning process.

Response: The preamble of theproposed rule described how theplanning rule complied with specificsections of NFMA and reasons forrevising the existing planningregulations.

Comment: Need for revising theexisting rule. According to severalrespondents, the Forest Service shoulddemonstrate the need for revising theexisting planning rule. In particular,some believed that the length of timethe existing rule has been in effect is notjustification for implementing a newrule. Others argued that the existingsystem already fulfills NFMA and NEPArequirements and that some individualforest plans are very effective, and thereis no reason for changing the process.Several people argued that the proposedrule does not address deficiencies in theexisting rule. The Forest Service shoulddocument the inadequacies inherent inthe existing planning process. Somecommenters asserted that the existingrule should be improved before a newplanning rule is implemented.

Response: This comment haspreviously been addressed in thepreamble of the proposed rule and inthis final rule document.

Comment: Public trust and credibility.Many respondents expressed concernsregarding the purpose of the proposedplanning rule. Some felt the primaryobjective of the planning process was toestablish public trust and credibility.They believed that the trust in ForestService structure and management waswaning and recommended that theagency take steps to rectify this. Inaddition, the Forest Service shouldassume the leadership role in the effortto ensure healthy forests.

Response: The Department ofAgriculture (Department) is concernedwith the lack of trust expressed aboutthe Forest Service by the respondents.The revised planning process isdesigned to encourage effectivecommunication and cooperation amongdiverse national forest and grasslandusers. The Forest Service will continueto participate with others indevelopingmanagement strategies to conservehealthy forests and grasslands.

Comment: Discretionary authority.Some reviewers were concerned that theproposed regulations would broaden thediscretionary power of Forest Serviceofficials. These individuals asserted thatthe current discretionary authority ofthe Forest Service has resulted inincreased litigation. They wereconcerned that further increase inauthority could result in additionalappeals and lawsuits.

Response: The Department does notagree with the comment that increaseddiscretion creates increased litigation.Increased discretionary authority mayprovide the needed flexibility to craftappropriate solutions to complexnatural resource issues acceptable to awide variety of interests. It has been theexperience of the Forest Service andothers that inflexible policies are oftenthe genesis of misunderstandings andeventual litigation. The planning rule isintended to improve opportunities tocollaborate with a wide variety ofpeople and reach well-reasoned andsustainable solutions to natural resourceissues.

Comment: Statutory authority. Manypublic comments focused on thestatutory authority for the proposedplanning rule stating that the proposedrule should both recognize and complywith existing laws. Some people feltthat the proposed rule providedimproved integration of environmentallaws and regulations; while, others saidthat the proposed rule goes beyond legallimitations and that only Congress canmake such changes in national policy.



Response: The Department agrees thatthe planning rule improves theintegration of current laws andrecognizes it as consistent with the lawsthat guide all Forest Service activities. Afull discussion related to this concern isaddressed in this preamble under theheading statutory authority.

Comment: Public Lands Planning andManagement Improvement Act. Somereviewers noted that the Public LandsPlanning and ManagementImprovement Act (PLPMIA) offeredprovisions for meeting human andwildlife needs. They felt that act shouldbe used to help streamline themanagement process, resolvecontradictory laws, and modernize theland management laws.

Response: The Congress isconsidering the proposed legislation,but it is not law and therefore does notapply. Moreover, the Departmentbelieves human and wildlife needs areadequately represented in the finalplanning rule, see sections 219.20 and219.21, and the management process isstreamlined.

Comment: Conflicts over values. Inthe words of one respondent, ‘‘Most ofthe crises that beset the Forest Servicesince the age of environmentalism haveconcerned conflicts over values, notindividual land use decisions.’’ Valueconflicts can only be resolved througheffective policymaking, this personcontended, and the Forest Service’spolicymaking efforts are in need ofimprovement.

Response: The planning frameworkoutlined in the regulation is intended toprovide a flexible mechanism to identifyand solve issues before they mature intointractable problems pitting peopleagainst one another, rather than seekingmutually beneficial results. There is nointention to diminish the importance ofthe values people possess with regard tothe use and enjoyment of nationalforests and grasslands. Better policiesare the result of people working togetherto solve common problems.

Comment: Analysis of prior appeals.Some respondents suggested that theForest Service address prior appealsagainst Forest Service decisions as partof the proposed planning rule. Theybelieved that interviews with peoplewho filed appeals should beincorporated into the planning process.

Response: Appeals and the concernsof national forest and grassland userswere considered in development of theplanning rule. The team that developedthe proposed regulation and response topublic comment based their work onyears of experience in addressing theconcerns of interested citizens. Theincreased emphasis that the planning

rule places on collaboration is a directresponse to improve workingrelationships among interested citizens.

Comment: Vested water rights. Somerespondents are concerned thatdiscretionary authority granted to forestplanners in the proposed planning rulemay override states’ water rights. Theyasserted that no law allows ecologicalneeds to surpass vested state waterrights.

Response: The planning regulationdoes not override existing water rightsadjudication procedures.

Comment: Selling the national forests.One person suggested that the ForestService sell some of the national forestland back to United States citizens inorder to generate tax revenue.

Response: This rule addressesmanagement of lands in publicownership. Planning conducted inaccordance with this rule may addressland ownership adjustment needs wherethat is an issue. It is beyond theauthority of the Secretary of Agricultureto sell national forests and grasslands togenerate tax revenue.

Comment: Civil rights analysis. Onereviewer asked if the proposed rulewould require a civil rights impactanalysis, as required by DepartmentalRegulation 4300–4, ‘‘since the rule willaffect various publics.’’

Response: A civil rights impactanalysis has been prepared and isavailable upon request from the personlisted at the beginning of this finalrulemaking document under FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Theanalysis describes the increasedopportunities many people will have tobecome engaged in National ForestSystem planning under the new rule. Itconcludes that ‘‘no adverse civil rightsimpacts are anticipated on the deliveryof benefits or other program outcomeson an underrepresented population, toU.S. populations or communities, oremployees of USDA on a nationallevel.’’

Comment: General clarity. Manycomments reflected a need to reevaluatethe clarity of the language used in theproposed planning rule. Manycontended the generalcomprehensibility of the languageneeded to be improved to allow thepublic to better understand the conceptsof the rule. Many of the respondents feltthat the document was too verbose andredundant to understand. Further, somepeople argued that the proposed rulewas too complex for most citizens tocomprehend. In addition, somecontended that the format of theproposed rule inundated the reader witha multitude of long and tedious

subdivisions, which made the documentdifficult to follow.

Response: The Department has madea genuine effort to simplify the languageof the final rule. The length of the texthas been reduced, and several technicalterms (e.g. ecological integrity andwatershed integrity) have beeneliminated to improve readability. Thetext about sustainability has beenrearranged to combine analysisrequirements related to sustainabilitywith other analysis requirements. Inaddition, the goals and principles aresimplified in the final rule.

Comment: Discretionary versuscompulsory direction. Many peopleindicated that the language of theproposed planning rule was toodiscretionary. Words like ‘‘should’’ and‘‘may,’’ many believed, should bereplaced with more definitive wordingsuch as ‘‘shall’’ or ‘‘must.’’ Theserespondents asserted that the nebulousnature of the rule would weaken itsenforceability. By contrast, others saidthat the proposed regulation had toomany ‘‘must’’ and ‘‘shall’’ statementsand would, therefore, be impossible toimplement because of all the restrictionsimposed.

Response: The Department hascarefully considered which provisionsof the final planning regulation shouldbe discretionary versus compulsorydirection and the use of this languageshould not be viewed as eitherincreasing or decreasing the importanceof the planning procedures indeveloping sound solutions to naturalresource issues. The final rule does notcontain any ‘‘shall’’ statements.

Section-by-Section Response to PublicComments

The majority of comments addressedspecific sections of the proposed rule.These comments and responses aresummarized below.

Purpose, Goals, and PrinciplesIn the proposed rule this chapter is

named ‘‘Purpose, Goals, andPrinciples.’’ In the final rule, it isshortened to ‘‘ Purpose and Principles.’’Revisions were made to clarify andsimplify language in the final rule.

Proposed Section 219.1—Purpose.This section described the purpose ofthe proposed rule. The proposed ruleguides planning efforts toward theoverall goal of sustainability. Purposesare to: (1) Guide stewardship; (2) setforth a process for amending andrevising plans and for monitoring planimplementation; and (3) guide selectionand implementation of site-specificactions. The national forests were setaside and protected from exploitation to



embrace, as a matter of national policy,a system of sustainable forest reserves toprotect water resources and ensure acontinuous supply of timber for benefitof the American public. The proposedrule incorporated languagerecommended by the Committee ofScientists (see Chapter 8, ‘‘Sustainingthe People’s Lands’’).

Comment: Ecological Sustainabilityand Compliance with the Multiple-UseSustained-Yield Act of 1960 and theOrganic Administration Act. Manyrespondents felt that the agency erred inplacing ecological sustainability as thefirst priority. They felt that the agencywas ignoring its legislative mandates formultiple-use and had slighted theimportance of humans and their needsin the management of National ForestSystem lands.

According to some respondents,changing the emphasis of planning toecological sustainability would virtuallymake it impossible to comply with theMUSYA. They were concerned that theMUSYA requirement, to ensure acontinued supply of products andservices in perpetuity, would bejeopardized. Additional publiccomments expressed concern thatprovisions of the OrganicAdministration Act of 1897 could not beachieved with ecological sustainabilityas the primary objective.

Response: The proposed rule’s focuson sustaining ecosystems is fullycompatible with the Forest Service’sunderlying statutes. In order to ensurethat the multiple-uses can be sustainedin perpetuity, decisions must be madewith sustainability as the overallguiding principle. Ecologicalsustainability lays a necessaryfoundation for national forests andgrasslands to contribute to the economicand social needs of citizens. Withoutfirst maintaining, and where appropriaterestoring, ecologically sustainablesystems the productivity of the land forvarious social and economic uses couldbe impaired, therefore, planning formultiple-use, sustained-yieldmanagement of national forest andgrasslands must operate within abaseline level that ensures thesustainability of ecological systems.Although some respondents perceived aconflict between emphasis onsustainable ecosystems and legislativemandates, the Department does notbelieve this is true. Instead, theDepartment sees ecologicalsustainability not only as a complementto multiple-use, sustained-yieldmanagement, but also as a prerequisitefor it.

It is the Department’s view that therule is consistent with the Forest

Service’s conservation and legislativemandates. Contrary to some commentsreceived, the proposed rule did notchange the overarching purpose forplanning. Rather, it affirmed thedirection in the MUSYA. As used in thefinal rule, sustainability embodies thecongressional mandates of multiple-useand sustained-yield without impairingthe productivity of the land. In the finalrule, sustainability is described ascomprising three intricately linkedelements that integrate the ecological,social, and economic aspects of ourworld. It is virtually impossible toseparate one element from the other.

For example, without a sound socialand economic system in place, peopleare more likely to over-exploit thenatural world to meet basic humanneeds. At the same time, ecologicalresources constitute the foundationupon which our ability to meet otherneeds ultimately rests. Ecologicalelements are the capital, the investmentin our future. Sustainability provides formeeting needs of the present generationwithout compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their needs.In response to public comment,language is added at the end of section219.1 of the final rule to clarify therelationship among ecological, social,and economic sustainability.

Under the Organic AdministrationAct of 1897, the forest reserves were setaside and protected from exploitation,with the intention to embrace a systemof sustainable forest reserves that wouldprotect water resources and ensure acontinuous supply of timber for thebenefit of the American public. As theU.S. population grows and theenvironmental consequences of humanactivities are better understood, it is notonly logical, but it is imperative thatknowledge and skills are applied toensure the sustainable, continuous useand enjoyment of our natural resourcelegacy as described in the OrganicAdministration Act.

Ecological sustainability has alwaysbeen the linchpin of managing nationalforests and grasslands. The final ruleprovides for progressively improvingthe understanding of how to achievesustainable use and enjoyment of theNational Forest System throughmonitoring results and effectiveengagement of scientific knowledge andthe skills and interests of citizens,elected officials, and others. Theincreased use of national forests andgrasslands requires increasedknowledge and understanding ofsustainable multiple-uses. If theecological basis of the national forestsand grasslands is compromised inproviding products, services uses, and

values, then a ‘‘continuous supply ofproducts and services’’ will not beachieved in ‘‘perpetuity’’ as required byMUSYA.

Proposed Section 219.2—Goals andprinciples for planning. This section ofthe proposed rule identified five majorgoals for land and resource managementplanning, with each goal having a set ofsupporting principles. In the final rule,this section has been renamed‘‘Principles.’’

Comment: Quantifiable information.Many believed the proposed planningrule should include objective andquantifiable information. In particular,some respondents recommended thatthe proposed planning rule providestatistical data to support the need forthe plan revisions. They felt that accessto quantifiable information could allowthe public to offer more informedcomments. Others suggested that theproposed rule include measures toassess goal achievement in forestplanning. One respondent contendedthat beauty and inspiration are toosubjective to use as points ofconsideration in land resource andmanagement planning.

Response: A premise of the final ruleis science-based decisionmaking,including use of the best availableinformation. Sections 219.5, 219.20, and219.21 in the final rule describeappropriate assessments and analysesneeded prior to proposing a site-specificaction or a plan amendment or revision.The rule also stresses the developmentand implementation of monitoringstrategies to use in evaluating planimplementation and achievement ofsustainability (section 219.11). Thedevelopment of both qualitative andquantitative information described inthe planning rule will improve theoverall understanding and sustainableuse of the National Forest System.

Comment: Sampling interested partiesto determine resource objectives.Developing, achieving, and evaluatingplanning goals and objectives elicited anumber of comments. One recreationalorganization recommended that theForest Service survey a random sampleof parties interested in National ForestSystem lands when determining specificresource objectives. They suggested byusing a random sampling scheme, theagency could assure that all interestshave an opportunity to provide input inthe planning process.

Response: The final rule does notrequire specific tools or analyticalapproaches to sampling userpreferences. The information andanalysis described in section 219.21may be obtained through sampling inappropriate circumstances. The rule



also provides opportunities forinterested and affected people toparticipate in planning for the use andenjoyment of their national forests andgrasslands. While sampling methodsmay prove useful for many tasks, theDepartment believes it is imperative thatpeople participate with Forest Servicepersonnel in planning.

Comment: Long-term planning.Several respondents suggested that theproposed planning rule emphasize long-term planning. These people felt thatlong-term forest health should takeprecedence over short-term economicgains by resource extraction companies.

Response: While the planning ruledoes not set forth specific short-termversus long-term standards, theplanning rule is designed to ensure thatshort-term uses do not damage orotherwise harm the long-termsustainability of each national forest andgrassland.

Comment: Ecological values. Somerespondents believed that ecologicalvalues should be defined as intrinsicgoals rather than constraints. Theconservation of ecological values wasimportant for many who recommendedthat the proposed planning rule be usedas a guide in preserving national forests.They expressed concern that theincreasing human population willultimately encroach on the few naturalplaces left. They asserted preservationof National Forest System lands to offsetthis loss is imperative.

Response: The final planning rulestates that the first priority forstewardship of the national forests andgrasslands is to maintain or restoreecological sustainability. If thepreservation of a unit of land isnecessary to ensure long-termsustainability, that decision would bemade through the planning process in aplan amendment or revision receivingfull public review and comment withinthe Forest Service NEPA procedures.

Comment: Balancing economic andsocial needs. Several people expressedthe belief that balancing economic andsocial needs should be a priority innational forest planning. Specifically,one person suggested that balancingselective logging practices, roadmaintenance, and access to nationalforest lands is crucial for successfulforest management. Othersrecommended that the proposed rule’seffects on industries and communitiesbe evaluated prior to implementation.

Response: Balancing the productionof multiple values, uses, products, andservices from each national forest andgrassland is a continual processachieved through collaboration andplanning. The planning rule is intended

to enhance collaboration and thebalancing of social and economic needsin a sustainable environment. A cost-benefit analysis was done for theplanning rule and is available.Regulatory implications are discussedlater in this preamble.

Comment: Restricting corporateindustry. Some respondents felt thatrestricting corporate industry use ofnational forests and grasslands shouldbe a priority in planning. Respondentscontended that, relatively speaking,large corporations pose greaterdetrimental impacts to national foreststhan do recreational users. The ForestService should focus on improving andmaintaining forests, rather than, as oneperson commented, ‘‘catering todegrading commercial ventures.’’ Incontrast, others felt that the restorationof ecosystems as a guiding principle isnot a valid, achievable planning goal.

Response: The Department believesthat it is appropriate for both largecorporations as well as small companiesto have an active role in themanagement and stewardship ofnational forests and grasslands. In theplanning rule, no group is provided anunfair advantage or disadvantage insecuring use or access to naturalresources.

Comment: Balancing the world’sresource needs. Other respondentsasserted that Forest Service’s missionstatement should include balancing theworld’s resource needs. ‘‘With bothbalance and agreement, the ForestService can once again be the world’sleader in land and natural resourcemanagement,’’ they contended. Somecitizens feared the scope of theproposed planning effort might makethe United States dependent on othercountries for raw materials. ‘‘Since wehave some of the best environmentallaws to deal with,’’ they write, ‘‘it makeslittle sense globally to obtain rawmaterials from countries who do nothave adequate restrictions.’’

Response: As described in the NFMA,the Forest Service * * * ‘‘has both aresponsibility and an opportunity to bea leader in assuring that the Nationmaintains a natural resourceconservation posture that will meet therequirements of our people inperpetuity.’’ Regarding the global natureof today’s world, it is certainlyappropriate to consider the resourceneeds, uses, and practices of ournational trading partners and others.The planning rule sets the stage for thewise, sustained use of the nationalforests and grasslands, and provides alink to national level planning, thoughwhich national policy makers canconsider methods to improve the

production and use of renewable naturalresources in the United States andelsewhere.

Comment: Limiting planning tosmaller areas. Some people felt thatforest plans should be directed towardunit-sized planning efforts. Theserespondents believed that keepingplanning limited to smaller areasensures greater understanding by boththe public and forest managers.

Response: The planning regulationsprovide for adjusting the boundaries ofplanning based on the scope and scaleof issues addressed. In many places,planning and involvement with thepublic will take place in areas smallerthan a national forest or grassland. Onlyin the revision process is it required thatthe entire national forest or grassland beconsidered. Even in that circumstance,decisions may be made that apply onlyto geographic areas within or amongadministrative units.

Other changes. In the final rule, thissection has been reorganized andrestructured for clarity and readability.Goal statements have been removedfrom this section in the final rule toprevent confusion with the term ‘‘goal’’used in other contexts. Much of the textin the proposed rule providedbackground information regarding theprinciples of planning. The final ruleprovides more of an outline format tospecifically highlight six planningprinciples and their key characteristics.

Paragraph (a) of the proposed ruleprovided that ‘‘planning must bedirected toward assuring the ecologicalsustainability of our watersheds, forests,and rangelands.’’ The final rule hasadded language to maintain or restorethe ecological sustainability of nationalforests and grasslands. This change ismade to recognize the importance of‘‘restoration’’ of national forest andgrasslands.

Paragraph (a)(2) in the final ruleprovides that ‘‘scientifically basedstrategies for sustainability’’ benefitfrom independent scientific review.This change was made to this sectionfrom the proposed rule to acknowledgethe importance of independentscientific review in this new planningstructure.

The Framework for PlanningProposed Section 219.3—Overview.

This section of the proposed ruledescribed the overall framework forplanning, the levels of planning anddecisionmaking, and the key elementsof the planning framework.

Comment: Clarification of theplanning framework. Many respondentsfelt that the planning framework needsmore specific guidance and



requirements. Claiming that theframework will not assure consistencybetween different units of the NationalForest System, some peoplerecommended that the planning ruleinclude uniform guidance applicable toeach national forest and grassland.Other respondents asserted that theobjectives of the framework are toovague and should include specificobjectives for planning. Many peoplebelieved the planning rule inadequatelyaddresses standards and guidelines thatthey think could result in a lack ofagency accountability, inability toachieve planning goals, and inadequateprotection of the environment. Some ofthese respondents suggestedmaintaining the minimum managementrequirements of the current rule. Othersrecommended including specific andenforceable standards and guidelines inthe proposed planning rule, while someasked that these types of standards beestablished in individual national forestand grassland plans.

Response: The Department believesthat less specific planning guidance isneeded after almost two decades ofexperience implementing NFMA. Theplanning process included in the finalrule is essentially unchanged from theproposed rule, and provides a flexibleprocess that is responsive to issuesassociated with current conditions andexperience with implementing thecurrent plan. Standards required in allplans are addressed in section 219.7.Plan requirements for ecologicalsustainability are found in section219.20(b).

Comment: Decisionmaking authority.Some respondents felt that the ForestService is attempting to avoid itsresponsibility by emphasizingcollaborative processes andrecommended that the planning ruleshould further emphasize the agency’sdecisionmaking responsibility. Otherrespondents requested clarification ondecisionmaking. They suggested that theplanning rule describe national levelplanning processes as well asdecisionmaking authority on multi-forest or regional projects. Otherrespondents expressed general concernregarding the implementation of theproposed rule and recommendedmaking trial runs on a few forest plansbefore implementing the changessystem-wide.

Response: It is the responsibility ofthe Forest Service to encourageinvolvement with the public in themanagement of the public’s lands. TheForest Service is redeeming thisresponsibility by providing for earlyinvolvement and collaboration throughthe planning framework. Instead of

working in an isolated environment, theagency will openly address the issuesconfronting the national forests andgrasslands, enlisting the assistance ofinterested and affected parties throughexpanded public involvement andcollaboration. The intent is to foster agood faith effort to reach resolution onagreed upon problems before finaldecisions are made, and to hopefullyreduce the level of costly lawsuits.However, the definition of ‘‘responsibleofficial’’ makes it clear that thisindividual and the Forest Service havethe authority and responsibility tooversee the planning process and makedecisions on proposed actions.

Linkage to the national strategic planhas been added or clarified in severalplaces in the final rule, includingsection 219.3(b). Multiple-forest andregional decisions are also addressed inthis section.

Comment: Local-level planning anddecisionmaking. Several respondentsfelt that the planning rule shouldemphasize local-level planning anddecisionmaking, while others believedthe proposed rule places too muchresponsibility at the local level. Some ofthe people favored increased focus andresponsibility at the local levelcontended that the proposed rule’sprovisions not only are costly andinefficient, but also allow senior ForestService authorities to undermine localdecisions and planning efforts. Suchactions, they contended, will alienatethe public. These respondents suggestedthat the final rule limit national andregional level planning anddecisionmaking. Other people whosupport a local level focus believed thatlocal Forest Service officials are moreknowledgeable about their specificforest or grassland than nationalofficials and therefore are able to makebetter planning decisions. Theserespondents recommended increasingthe decisionmaking authority of localagency officials. In contrast to theseviews, some respondents believed theproposed rule would place excessiveauthority at the local level. Thesepeople primarily felt that eitheradditional requirements or higher levelsof oversight were necessary to ensureconsistency in planning among nationalforests or grasslands. Several of theserespondents recommended that theproposed rule provide specific rules andguidelines for Forest Supervisors, whileothers suggested that the proposed rulemaintain requirements for regionalguidance and oversight.

Response: Fundamental to this rule isthe notion that there is a hierarchy ofscale to be considered when addressingresource management issues, and that it

is the nature of the issue that guides theselection of the appropriate scale andlevel of the organization to address it.By not tying decisionmaking authorityto a specific organizational position, theDepartment is promoting flexibility todo what makes sense for the issues ripefor consideration. The National Forestor Grassland Supervisor is the personmost familiar with the resources andpublics interested in his or her forest orgrassland, and often the mostappropriate to make decisions affectingthose lands.

The rule should not be interpreted asexcluding higher-level officials fromdecisions made at the forest andgrassland level. If an issue warrantshigher-level study and decisionmaking,such tasks can be undertaken. Also,through the objection process (section219.32) the higher-level officialsactually join the problem-solvingprocess before an administrativedecision is adopted. Advisorycommittees (section 219.18) provide yetanother source of input to localdecisionmaking.

Comment: Adequacy of funding.Many respondents felt that theimplementation of the proposedplanning process will require significantadditional resources. They asserted thatfunding, staffing, and equipment needswill make the proposed planningprocesses prohibitively expensive.Several respondents believed that theproposed rule would restrict neededplanning proposals based on inadequatefunding. ‘‘Plans should identifynecessary actions even if adequatefunding does not exist,’’ wrote oneorganization. More specifically, otherrespondents focused more on fundingfor particular management actions. Onesuch person suggested that the proposedrule address funding to mitigatepotential damage from forestmanagement activities.

Response: The Department believesthat, rather than requiring significantadditional resources, the planningframework, as adopted in the final rule,will put more resource earlier in theplanning process and require less at theend of the process. This will shift theplanning process from one ofconfrontation to collaboration. Thescope of the planning effort will also bemore focused on the issues selected forevaluation.

While funding of planning andprojects remains an item under theprerogative of Congress, the Departmenthopes that Congress will supportprojects built using this collaborativeprocess. In addition, the revised rulewill promote a closer link to the budgetprocess through requirements for



ongoing consideration of budgetaryinformation (section 219.30). Byevaluating the alternatives at the currentor likely budgets, while consideringother spending levels, as appropriate,the analysis will be based on realisticexpectations and be more useful asstrategic documents.

Other changes. Paragraph (a) in theproposed rule included five premises ofthe planning framework. Premise (1) isfound in sections 219.5 and 219.12 ofthe final rule. Premise (2) is included as219.3(c) in the final rule. Premise (3) isincluded in section 219.30 ‘‘Plandocumentation’’ 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 planningframework and included in sections219.3–219.11 of the final rule.

Paragraph (b) in the proposed rule,described the levels at which planningmay occur, and who may be theresponsible official. In the final rule,paragraph (b) is restructured in outlineform. Planning will be conducted at theappropriate level depending on thescope and scale of the issues. Inaddition, the final rule specificallyrecognizes the role of the Forest Servicenational strategic plan required underthe Government Performance andResults Act of 1993 (GPRA). The GPRAdirects government agencies to establishnational long-term goals, outcomemeasures, and strategies. The final ruleclarifies that these are to be consideredin managing the National Forest System.In particular, it provides for thedevelopment of outcome measures toevaluate ecological, social, andeconomic impacts, accountability, andmanagement performance. Thedevelopment of outcome measures willbe included in the Forest Servicedirectives System.

Paragraph (c) in the proposed rulelists the key elements. The list in thefinal rule has been changed slightly toline up with the subsequent sections ofthe planning framework and useconsistent terminology. Cooperativelydeveloped landscape goals are no longerspecifically listed, however, they arestill included in section 219.12 and maybe considered as issues (section 219.4).This change was made to clarify the keyelements of planning.

Proposed Section 219.4—Topics ofgeneral interest or concern. This sectionof the proposed rule established aprocess for identifying, discussing, and,if appropriate, acting on topics ofgeneral interest or concern that mightemerge from a variety of sources. Theprocess for identifying these topics wasto be used for both plan amendmentsand revisions as well as for site-specific

plans. In the final rule, this section hasbeen renamed ‘‘Identification andconsideration of issues.’’

Comment: Identification of issues.Many respondents believed that theproposed rule should provide additionaldetails about how issues will beidentified. Specifically, some people feltthat current Forest Service publicinvolvement methods do not provide anaccurate representation of the interestedpublic. They recommended that theForest Service conduct unbiasedsampling to determine public opinionabout forest plans.

Response: The proposed ruleestablished a collaborative process thatwill be used in addition to currentpublic involvement methods. Thisapproach is retained in the final rule.This process will improve theidentification of issues. Also, theflexibility in approaches is veryimportant to the collaborative process.Sampling is addressed in section 219.1of the preamble.

Comment: Evaluation of topics. Manyrespondents expressed concern aboutthe evaluation of topics of concern.Most of these people felt that theproposed rule gives the responsibleofficial too much discretion inconsidering whether action will betaken on these topics. Many of theserespondents felt the discretion in therule could allow responsible officials toignore important concerns.

Response: The regulation actuallyincreases the accountability of theresponsible official for addressing issuesthat are ‘‘ripe’’ for resolution. As now,the decision to move an issue forwardfor resolution is an agency prerogative.Accountability is increased howeverthrough the more open andcollaborative process for identifyingissues.

Comment: Limiting discretion. Severalpeople advocated limiting discretionand suggested a number of remedies tothis perceived problem such asestablishing requirements forreasonableness and timeliness in theevaluation of topics of general concern,creating guidelines for the considerationand documentation of topics of generalconcern and requiring that theresponsible official’s decisions on topicsof concern should be subject toadministrative appeal or judicial review.

Response: The Department does notagree. It is imperative that theresponsible officials maintain soleresponsibility to review thecircumstances surrounding an issuebefore investing time and agencyresources in addressing one or moreaspects of the issue. Each day, eachresponsible official has a host of

possible issues pressed forward. It isthrough experience and collaborationwith others that the issues that shouldbe addressed are addressed. Asdescribed in the planning rule, there areseveral ways that a host of people,including higher-level officials, canbecome engaged in the identificationand potential resolution of issuesimportant in the plan area.

Other changes. The most noticeablechange in this section, as adopted in thefinal rule, is replacement of ‘‘topics ofgeneral interest or concern’’ with theterm ‘‘issues.’’ Although some membersof the Committee of Scientists found‘‘issues’’ to have a negative connotation,and to imply that some action must betaken, many found the terminology ofthe proposed rule to be vague andverbose. Therefore, the final rule refersto ‘‘issues.’’ This is consistent with thecurrent planning regulations and morefamiliar with the public and within theagency.

Editorial changes were made to theproposed rule, including changes interminology, to remain consistent withother parts of the rule (for example,‘‘ecological sustainability’’ and ‘‘rangeof expected variability’’). The words‘‘consistent’’ and ‘‘consistency’’ in theproposed rule are changed to avoidconfusion with the use of thatterminology in NFMA and section219.10.

Proposed Section 219.5—Informationdevelopment and interpretation. Thissection of the proposed rule describedinformation needed to further considera topic of general interest or concern. Itprovided direction on conductingbroad-scale assessments and localanalyses.

Comment: Discretion of responsibleofficial. Some respondents felt that thediscretionary authority given to theresponsible official in the proposed rulemay conflict with provisions for the useof scientific and collaborative input.These people recommended that theproposed rule limit the discretion of theresponsible official in determiningwhether the available information issufficient or additional data collection isneeded.

Response: Implementation of theplanning process of this rule promotescollaborative problem solving. Theresponsible official has access to a widevariety of information from staffspecialists and a knowledgeable andoften active national forest or grasslanduser community. A decision to initiatecollection of additional data is amanagerial choice that may be assistedby scientific review and scienceadvisory boards, as appropriate. Asmany years of experience have



demonstrated for many issues, whenauthorities closely matchresponsibilities, the quality of decisionsand overall public service improves.

Comment: Development ofinformation. Some peoplerecommended restricting large-scaleplanning to non-decisional, datacollection efforts. Still others believedaccurate data are essential for the ForestService to assess the need for actionsand to measure the effectiveness of itsactions in planning. These peoplesuggested that the proposed ruleemphasized collecting and maintainingsufficient natural resource data. Somecitizens asserted that the proposed ruleshould specify appropriate analysistools and models to ensure consistencybetween national forests and grasslands.

Response: The Department agreeswith the importance of applying the bestavailable data, and has emphasized thatneed in the final rule. It encouragesmulti-scale assessments and analysesprior to proposing any actions. The finalrule also promotes monitoring to obtaindata, and scientific review of its use. Inorder to be able to respond promptly toscientific advances, the Department hasavoided including specific analysistools or models in a regulation. TheDepartment believes that large-scaledecisions may be necessary to respondto some issues; however, it does notexpect every broad-scale assessment tolead to broad-scale decisions.

Comment: Public Involvement. Publicinvolvement in informationdevelopment and interpretation was asignificant concern for many people.These people contended that theproposed rule’s provisions oninformation development andinterpretation do not provide sufficientopportunities for public input or review.Some of these people suggested that theproposed rule include provisionsrequiring collaboration in informationdevelopment and interpretation, whileothers requested that the proposed rulecomply with NEPA requirements.Another respondent believed that thefinal planning regulations shouldincorporate the guidelines forinterdisciplinary planning teams fromthe 1982 planning regulations.

Response: The planning rule hasseveral provisions for encouraging thepublic to participate in theidentification and resolution of naturalresource management issues. Asdescribed in sections 219.12 to 219.18,it is the intent of the rule that the ForestService participate with others inbuilding stewardship capacity—theability to develop ideas, take action, andsolve problems (section 219.2). Theplanning framework is characterized by

an interdisciplinary collaborativeapproach (section 219.3). In addition,the NEPA process applied to planningmust be interdisciplinary. The final rulealso provides that each broad scaleassessment should be designed andconducted with the assistance ofscientists, resource professionals,government entities, and otherindividuals and organizationsknowledgeable of the assessment area(section 219.5(a)(2)).

Comment: Interest group involvement.Some respondents expressed concernsregarding what groups will be involvedin information development andinterpretation. Some of these people feltthat the Forest Service does notrecognize or respect the knowledge andpast stewardship of private propertyholders and lessees. These individualsrecommended that the proposed ruleemphasize the role of lessees andprivate property holders in informationdevelopment and interpretation. Otherrespondents specifically suggested thatthe Forest Service engage environmentalgroups in conducting ecologicalassessments.

Response: As described in theplanning rule, it is the intent of theDepartment and the Forest Service thata wide variety of people, includingproperty holders and lessees andenvironmental groups engage in theconsideration of their natural resourcesand in the stewardship of their nationalforests and grasslands (see sections219.16 and 219.17). The final rule alsoprovides that each broad scaleassessment be designed and conductedwith the assistance of scientists,resource professionals, governmententities, and other individuals andorganizations knowledgeable of theassessment area (section 219.5(a)(2)).

Comment: Consideration of activitiesoutside of national forest boundaries.Believing that the failure to addressnational supply and demand trendscould lead to an oversupply of specificresources, one respondentrecommended that the proposed rulerequire the consideration of these trendsin decisions specifically regardinggrazing permits. Another person felt thatconsideration of activities outsideNational Forest System unit boundariesin planning could restrict resourceextraction. This person suggested thatthe Forest Service be prohibited fromrestricting resource use on such a basis.Other respondents believed that theproposed rule fails to address the effectsof agency planning on lands outside ofNational Forest System lands. Thesepeople recommended that the proposedrule should explicitly recognize theseimpacts.

Response: The planning process isdesigned to enable the Forest Service toaddress each of the above comments atthe appropriate time and place. Forexample, if the supply and demand ofa particular natural resource is relevantat a national scale, the Chief of theForest Service, working with others,may address the concern. Likewise, ifthe supply of a local resource use is ofconcern to one or more communities,that may very well be an issue that isaddressed in the revision or amendmentto a plan. Planning is tailored to fit theneeds of people in the use andenjoyment of their national forests andgrasslands. Section 219.17(c) of the finalrule was changed to includeconsideration of the effects of managingNational Forest System lands onadjacent lands.

Comment: Use of broad-scaleassessments. Many respondentsexpressed preferences about the use ofbroad-scale assessments in nationalforest planning. Some people opposedthe use of broad-scale assessments,feeling that these efforts will beexcessively expensive and that thisexpense will hinder the implementationof project proposals. Some respondentssupported the use of broad-scaleassessments in planning, and theybelieve private lands adjacent tonational forests and grasslands shouldbe included in such assessments.Focusing more on who should overseethe development of assessmentprocesses, other respondentsrecommended that the final rule requirethe Forest Service to lead broad-scaleassessments. These people felt that theproposed rule allows unacceptableinfluence by nongovernmental entitiesand that this could lead to decisionsthat are not in the best public interest.

Response: The amount and level ofdata collection and synthesis neededvaries with the issue and the nature ofthe decision to be made. Theresponsible official is to determine if theinformation on hand is sufficient, or ifadditional information is desirable andcan be obtained at a reasonable cost andin a timely manner. Where the issue isbroad in scale, a broad-scale assessmentis often needed. Where the issue is morelimited in scale, local analyses are moreappropriate. The final planning ruleprovides a flexible process that yieldsthe data appropriate to address an issue,rather than mandating one approach.Information and data may be solicitedand accepted from a variety of sources,including broad-scale assessmentsprepared or led by others. Managersmust use their professional judgment togauge the usefulness, reliability, andvalue of the information received.



Comment: Broad-scale assessmentsand NEPA public involvementrequirements. Some respondents’comments focused on the proposedrule’s relationship with NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA)public input requirements. Theserespondents felt that the provisions ofthe proposed rule allow thedevelopment of large-scale or nationalplanning parameters outside the scopeof public scrutiny. These peoplesuggested that broad-scale assessmentsshould not be used in place of the NEPAscoping process.

Response: Broad-scale assessments donot constitute a decision point—they area source of data and information thatmay be used in later decisionmaking bythe agency or others. The preparation ofbroad-scale assessments is intended tobe an open and collaborative process,one that encourages participation byinterested and affected parties.Involvement in broad-scale assessmentsin no way supplants or eliminates therequirement for scoping under NEPA orother public involvement in otheraspects of the planning framework. Thetext of the regulation in section 219.6,Proposed actions, emphasizes thatNEPA requirements must be met forevery proposed action, and activitiesassociated with broad-scale assessmentsare intended to complement, rather thanreplace the scoping process of NEPA forsubsequent decisionmaking.

Comment: Adequacy of data in broad-scale assessments. Many respondentsexpressed concern regarding theadequacy of data used in broad-scaleassessments. Some of these people feltthat the proposed rule would allow theuse of inadequate or out-dated data.According to one person, the use of thisdata ‘‘leads to erroneous conclusions;these erroneous conclusions lead topoorly thought-out recommendations.’’Other respondents asserted that theproposed rule weakens existingrequirements for the use of current data.One respondent specifically requestedthat the agency seek additional funds toperform broad-scale assessments toavoid impacting Forest Service researchstation budgets.

Response: The planning rule hasseveral provisions for the inclusion ofthe best available science in allactivities associated with planning asdescribed in sections 219.22 to 219.25.Through science advisory boards andthe use of science consistencyevaluations, the best available science issought for each key step in the planningprocess.

Comment: Local analyses. A fewrespondents suggested that the proposedrule emphasize local analyses, while

others requested that the rule includeclarification on what local analysesentail. One person, claiming that theForest Service lacks the informationnecessary to make informed planningdecisions, recommended that theproposed rule require landscapeassessments be conducted on allnational forests and grasslands.

Response: The planning process isdesigned to ensure that the appropriateinformation is gathered and evaluatedbefore decisions are made. Theextensive collaboration amonginterested and affected people as well asthe increased involvement of science inthe planning process are intended tohighlight information needs and ensureappropriate consideration of allelements affecting sustainable use ofnational forests and grasslands. The ruleencourages the use of local analyses asa basis for proposals at a comparablescale.

Comment: Terminology to describespatial scales. One respondentquestioned the use of ‘‘broad’’ and‘‘local’’ to describe the scale of analysisin the proposed planning regulations.‘‘Coarse’’ and ‘‘fine filters’’ are thetechnical terms most often used inForest Service management plans andthis person felt these widely used andclearly defined terms should replace‘‘broad’’ and ‘‘local’’ in the final rule.

Response: Even though the terms‘‘coarse’’ and ‘‘fine’’ filters are usedfrequently among some natural resourceprofessionals, they are not identical toscale descriptors. We do refer to theseterms in our response to comments forsection 219.20. We believe that the useof the terms ‘‘broad’’ and ‘‘local’’ in thefinal rule describe the extent ofassessments and analyses to a largernumber of national forest and grasslandusers.

Comment: Scope of spatial andtemporal scales. Several respondentssupported the collection and analysis ofecological data on a variety of spatialand temporal scales. One respondentsuggested that the final rule expand thescale of analysis to include cumulativeeffects of global magnitude. Conversely,some individuals questioned the use ofa variety of spatial and temporal scales.Such a mandate requires funding andstaffing beyond the means of the currentForest Service structure, according tothese respondents. One citizenquestioned the utility of using varyingscales, asserting that such a hierarchicalapproach would lead to specific projectplans containing forgiving, defaultlanguage that lacks serious standardsand thresholds.

Response: The variable scale planningprocess envisioned by the planning rule

is intended to enable planners,managers, and the public to identify andact upon important issues at theappropriate scale for their resolution.Through the identification of issues thatmay cross many political boundaries,interested and affected people can worktogether to reach common solutionsamong many landowners and naturalresource users. Cumulative impacts willalso be addressed through agency NEPAprocedures. Appropriate analyses andmonitoring of results are used to ensurethat the cumulative effects of smallactions do not result in unwanted orunanticipated impacts. The responsibleofficial has the authority to determinethe appropriate scope and scale ofanalysis and data collection. In makingthis determination, the responsibleofficial appropriately appliescollaborative processes and uses thebest available science.

Other changes. The proposed rulestated that the Regional Forester isresponsible for National Forest Systemparticipation in broad-scaleassessments. The final rule requiresStation Directors and Regional Forestersto have joint responsibility for ForestService participation in broad-scaleassessments. It no longer addressesForest Service participation in broad-scale assessments led by others. TheDepartment believes it is not necessaryto address the possible actions of othersin this rule.

The requirement to use the bestavailable scientific information andanalysis is moved to sections 219.22 and219.23 in the final rule. Examples ofpossible uses of assessment informationin the proposed rule are generalized to‘‘other purposes’’ in the final rule, andthe language made consistent with thedescription of uses of local analysis. Thefinal rule clarifies that assessments beused to evaluate the factors thatcontribute to the conditions and trendsobserved and is important in gainingunderstanding of issues.

The proposed rule stated that thepurpose of local analyses was to provideinformation to aid in the identificationof possible actions or projects to achievedesired conditions. The final ruleexpands the use of local analyses so thatan analysis could be tailored to thescope of issues rather than potentialactions. Similarly, the final ruleprovides for the use of social oreconomic analysis units for localanalyses if warranted by the scope andcontext of the issues underconsideration.

The components of both broad-scaleassessments and local analyses weredescribed as mandatory in the proposedrule. The amount and level of data



collection and synthesis needed variedwith the issue and the nature of thedecision to be made. The responsibleofficial was to determine if theinformation on hand was sufficient, orif additional information was desirableand could be obtained at a reasonablecost and in a timely manner. Where theissue was broad in scale, a broad-scaleassessment was often needed. Where theissue was more limited in scale, localanalyses were more appropriate. Thefinal rule provides for a flexible processthat yields the data appropriate toaddress an issue, eliminatingunnecessary analysis requirements.Information and data can be solicitedand accepted from a variety of sources,including broad-scale assessmentsprepared or led by others. Managersmust use their professional judgment togauge the usefulness, reliability, andvalue of the information received.

Proposed Section 219.6—Proposedactions. This section identifies the pointat which a responsible official initiatesa decisionmaking process to resolve anissue, based on the information that hasbeen developed and interpreted. Nopublic concerns explicitly related to thissection were identified in the analysis ofpublic comment. Paragraph (b) wasredrafted in the final rule to make itclear that public involvement andcollaborative activities, related to issueidentification and analyses ofinformation, can be used as part of thescoping process required in the ForestService NEPA procedures.

Proposed Section 219.7—Plandecisions that guide future actions. Thissection of the proposed rule describedcategories of decisions in land andresource management plans that wouldguide future agency actions. The titlewas changed in the final rule to ‘‘Plandecisions.’’

Comment: Consistency of plandecisions among plan areas. Somepeople question how the Forest Servicewill maintain consistency betweennational forests if regional guides areeliminated as indicated in the proposedrule

Response: The proposed rule allowedthe scope of decisions to be tailored tothe scope of the issues relevant to theplan area. Decisions may be madesimultaneously for multipleadministrative units, in a mannersimilar to what has occurred withregional guide amendments under thecurrent rule. Section 219.3 of the finalrule authorizes and encourages jointplanning on multiple administrativeunits. In addition, the objection process(section 219.32), the addition of scienceconsistency evaluations (section219.24), and the requirement to

incorporate regional guide direction intoagency procedures or plan decisions(section 219.35) ensure consistencyamong national forests and grasslands.

Comment: Desired conditions. Manypeople commented on the proposedplanning rule’s emphasis on desiredconditions. Some contended that theemphasis on desired conditions was animprovement over the Forest Service’sperceived current focus on products andservices. One respondent recommendedthat specific requirements for detaileddescriptions of desired futureconditions be included in plans. Somerespondents believed that the proposedrule did not clearly define how ‘‘desiredfuture conditions’’ would be developed.

Response: The Department agrees thatemphasis on the desired conditions,rather than an estimate of what may ormay not be produced from a unit ofland, provides a more meaningful basisfor people to discuss suitable andunsuitable uses of specific areas withinnational forests and grasslands. Theplanning rule uses the term ‘‘desiredcondition’’ rather than ‘‘desired futurecondition’’ to stress the point that thereare many areas of national forests andgrasslands that are now in a ‘‘desiredcondition’’ and that use of the term‘‘future’’ was not necessary. In addition,the term ‘‘goal’’ was removed as aplanning decision. A clear explanationof a desired condition for all or a partof a plan area included statements thatdescribe the conditions sought or the‘‘goals’’ of the area. Therefore, it is notnecessary to have a category of plandecisions that are called ‘‘goals.’’ TheDepartment believes that theresponsible official should evaluate andaddress conditions relevant to the issuesand the scope of the decision beingmade, and does not feel it is appropriateto include in the rule more specificrequirements for how to develop desiredconditions.

Comment: Standards and guidelines.Some respondents asserted that theexisting rule is unclear about thedifference between standards andguidelines and that this has ‘‘caused alot of confusion, false expectations, andconflict.’’ These people recommendedclarifying the difference betweenguidelines and standards in theproposed rule. Others believed that theproposed planning regulations shouldestablish enforceable criteria for thedevelopment of objectives, standards,and guidelines in forest planning ratherthan relegating such criteria to theForest Service Manual.

Response: This concern is addressedin the final rule by modifying thedefinition for standards (section 219.7)and by removing the term ‘‘guidelines.’’

This was done because the use of bothterms, standards and guidelines, wasconfusing. In the proposed rule, themandatory or discretionary nature of aprovision was contained in thedescription of that provision, not bywhether it was labeled a standard or aguideline. In the final rule, a provisionthat is labeled as a standard in a plancan be either mandatory or discretionarydepending upon the language of thestandard and the scope of itsrequirements.

Comment: Range of managementalternatives. Of those respondents whoaddress requirements for forest plans inthe proposed rule, many felt that‘‘consideration of a full range ofmanagement alternatives’’ will ‘‘allowplanners to identify importantmanagement options, thresholds, andtrade-offs.’’ These people suggested theproposed rule include provisionsrequiring the Forest Service to developa full range of management alternativesin its forest plans. One organizationcontended that the proposed planningregulations should retain programmaticconsultation as a means to challengeland and resource management plans.

Response: The Department believesthat the collaboration emphasized bythis rule will lead to a thoroughexamination of the options and tradeoffsrelevant to the issues that have beenidentified. A full range of managementalternatives that meets the purpose andneed for changes in the proposed planis required in accordance with ForestService NEPA procedures. Neither theproposed nor final rule directlyaddressed Endangered Species Actconsultation procedures, which aredescribed in 50 CFR part 402. The finalrule does require the incorporation ofnon-discretionary terms of biologicalopinions into plans (section219.20(b)(3)).

Comment: Preservation of ecologicaldiversity. Several respondents cited thecurrent rule’s requirements for theprevention of ‘‘large-scale conversionsof national forest lands to a single-treespecies’’ as an example of theimperative language they would like tosee retained in the final rule.

Response: The final rule provides forecological diversity in section 219.20,wherein plan decisions must provide forecosystem composition and structuresimilar to that which would be expectedunder natural disturbance regimes. TheDepartment believes that large-scaletype conversions would not meet thisrequirement and that more imperativelanguage is not necessary.

Comment: Preservation of scenicbeauty. One person requested that theproposed rule require specific



guidelines for the preservation of scenicbeauty. Asserting that one of theprimary values of national forestsmentioned by the public is scenicbeauty, this respondent feels the ForestService should address this concern inthe final rule.

Response: The final rule requires thatstandards be developed for each planthat includes methods of achievingaesthetic objectives.

Comment: Watershed restoration.Several individuals felt the proposedrule needed to include specificguidelines for restoring and protectingwater resources. Some suggested thatthe criteria for watershed restorationand protection be expanded. Severalindividuals believed the properfunctioning of all the physicalcomponents of watersheds is anessential prerequisite to attainingecological sustainability.

Response: The Department believesthat it has given high priority towatershed restoration by includingaquatic and riparian systems as acomponent of ecological sustainability(section 219.20(a)(1)(i)(B)), and focusingon ecological sustainability. In addition,watershed condition is one of the factorsin section 219.28 used for theidentification of lands were timber maynot be harvested.

Comment: Restorative employment.One individual believed that the ForestService should shift emphasis fromfostering an extractive economy tochampioning restorative employment onnational forests.

Response: This rule establishesecological sustainability as the firstpriority for stewardship of the nationalforests and grasslands (section 219.19).It also requires the Forest Service toconsider opportunities to provide socialand economic benefits to communitiesthrough natural resource restorationstrategies (section 219.21).

Comment: Invasive species. Believingthat invasive species disrupt expectedecosystem functions, several citizensfelt that the failure to sufficientlyaddress this concern was a major flawin the proposed rule. One respondentasserted that roads are the major vectorsfor the spread of noxious weedsthroughout national forests. Roadconstruction and off-road vehicle useneed to be restricted, this individualasserted, if the spread of noxious weedsis to be slowed. Conversely, anotherindividual believed the proposedplanning regulations should qualify themandate to control the spread of non-native species. Although this personstated that the Forest Service should notknowingly spread invasive species, thisindividual believed that there are

situations where these processes occurnaturally and therefore it would be‘‘extremely expensive if not impossiblefor the agency to prevent thephenomena.’’ Another respondentrequested that the proposed planningregulations address the ecological andhuman health impacts of chemicalapplications to control invasive species.

Response: The final rule includesinvasive or noxious plant or animalspecies as factors to consider inevaluating and providing for ecosystemdiversity (section 219.20). Where suchfactors are contributing to loss ofecological sustainability, theDepartment expects invasive species tobe an issue that is sufficientlyaddressed. Use of chemicals or otherkinds of treatments would not normallybe determined as part of a plan decision,as described by this rule. Separatenational road management and roadlessarea policy initiatives are addressingroad construction and management. Off-road vehicle use would be addressedthrough the planning process at a locallevel.

Comment: Fire managementstrategies. Some respondents felt thatthe Forest Service should suppress fires.Allowing forests to burn was seen as awaste of resources to these people.Others asserted that the Forest Serviceshould allow fires to burn, proposingthat restoring fire disturbance regimeswill, in turn, help restore ecologicalsustainability. One respondentquestioned how the Forest Servicewould prescribe fire to restoreecosystems while maintaining the airresource value of visibility. Thisindividual felt that the proposedplanning regulations should clarify howthis conflict will be resolved.

Response: The Department does notbelieve that this rule is the appropriateplace to resolve questions of firemanagement policy. However, theplanning framework provided by thisrule will facilitate resolving them at theappropriate scale. Fire may be an issuehandled at the national or regionalscale. For example, the Forest Servicehas recently developed new informationabout the risk of catastrophic fires thatmay be useful for planning at a nationalor regional level. Planning could alsohappen at the forest plan or landscapelevel if scientific information or a localcommunity suggested that fire was anissue that should be addressed througha specific project or series of projectsand the responsible official determinedthat the issue should be considered andsufficient information existed to addressit. The collaborative and flexibleplanning process outlined in this finalrule is fully consistent with ongoing

efforts at the Forest Service to addressfire risks to communities and theenvironment.

Comment: Wildlife on grazingallotments. Believing that hunting hasgreater economic potential than that ofgrazing, another person suggested thatgame species be given priority overcattle in management area allocations.Elk and bison are not only endemic, butthey would also provide huntingrevenues according to this individual.

Response: The Department does notbelieve that this rule is the appropriateplace to resolve questions of livestockand big game conflicts. However, theplanning framework provided by thisrule will facilitate resolving conflicts atthe appropriate scale.

Other changes. The introductoryparagraph in the final rule differs in twoways from the proposed rule. Theparagraph clarifies that decisions mayapply to all or parts of a plan area andmust reflect the ongoing and anticipatedactions of landowners adjacent andwithin national forest and grasslandboundaries. It acknowledges thepossibility that plan decisions maycommit resources to site-specific uses insome cases.

The proposed rule described fourcategories of decisions. The final rulelists five and shortens the descriptionsof each. Standards are separated fromobjectives because these are consideredto be different types of decisions.Objectives describe intended resultsover a projected period of time.Standards describe the limitationsnecessary to achieve objectives.Standards are adopted, when needed, toachieve objectives and desiredconditions.

In paragraph (c) of the final rule,standards have been defined morespecifically than in the proposed rule toemphasize that they are requirements,rather than statements of intent, andthat they apply to land uses andmanagement actions rather thanoutcomes. The proposed rule includedthree standards required by NFMA. Thefinal rule adds a fourth general categoryof standards that must be included toensure achievement of sustainedmultiple-use of national forests andgrasslands.

Paragraph (d) in the final rule wasparagraph (c) in the proposed rule andaddresses suitable land uses. Livestockgrazing is added to the list of suitableland uses within the National ForestSystem based on comments received forsection 219.26. Paragraph (e) in the finalrule was paragraph (d) in the proposedrule. This section requires anidentifiable monitoring and evaluation



strategy that is required by each plan insection 219.11.

Proposed Section 219.8—Amendment. This section of theproposed rule addressed amendments toplans as an addition to or themodification or deletion of one or moreof the decisions listed in section 219.7.An amendment to a plan was defined asa plan decision. It also addressed theprocess through which amendmentsmust be made. There were no additionalrequirements beyond those presented inthe rest of the planning framework andForest Service NEPA procedures.

Comment: Timeframes. Manyrespondents expressed concernsregarding the time period of ForestService planning efforts. Some of thesepeople felt that the proposed rule’sprovisions allow for various parties todelay amendment and revisionprocesses. Some of these respondentsrecommended that the proposed ruleinclude specific time limitations onrevisions and amendments, while oneperson suggested that the proposed ruleinclude provisions allowing ongoingactivities to continue during planamendments. Some believed theproposed planning regulations shouldrequire consideration of impacts to theentire planning area during amendment,revision, and objection procedures.

Response: The Department envisionsthat proposed amendments andrevisions be completed in a timelymanner considering the complexity ofthe issues and public interest inpending proposals. Ongoing activitiesmay continue while an existing plan isbeing amended or revised (40 CFR1506.1(c)). Impacts must be consideredin accordance with NEPA procedures.

Comment: Significant planamendments. One person felt that theproposed rule circumvents the criteriafor determining ‘‘significantamendments’’ described in the NFMA.In the proposed and final rule, aproposed plan amendment that maycreate significant environmental impactis deemed to be a significantamendment as described in NFMA. Thisperson suggested that the proposed ruledoes not comply with the NFMArequirements in that a plan amendmentthat may create large social or economiceffects should require a significant planamendment. However, a planamendment that would create onlysocial or economic effects would notnecessarily require preparation of anenvironmental impact statement. Achange in the projected level of timberproduction was cited as an example ofsuch a situation.

Response: The Department believesthat any plan amendment that may

create significant environmental effectsshould be considered as a significantamendment as described in the NFMA.It is unreasonable to conclude that aplan amendment may create only socialor economic effects apart from physicalor biological effects. The proposedamendment that may create significantenvironmental effects would requirepreparation of an environmental impactstatement and a 90-day public reviewperiod for the draft environmentalimpact statement. Such an amendmentwould be a significant amendment to aplan.

Comment: Provisions related toamendments and revisions needadditional requirements. A few peoplerecommended the proposed ruleinclude specific criteria for initiatingamendments and revisions. Anotherrespondent recommended that theproposed rule include specificprovisions for the review ofenvironmental impact statementsgenerated by other federal agencies foractions impacting national forest plans.

Response: The Department expectsthat amendments will occur frequentlyin response to new information andnewly identified issues. If conditionshave changed significantly throughoutthe plan area, the responsible officialmay revise the plan. In the final rule,the decision to propose an amendmentor a revision, if under the legal timelimit, remains discretionary, as in boththe current and proposed rules. Thisenables the responsible official toconsider resource and administrativefactors, and other applicableinformation prior to proposing to amenda plan. While not specificallymentioned in the rule, the Departmentexpects the Forest Service to considerenvironmental impact statementsprepared by other agencies as potentialsources of issues to be addressed.

Other changes. The final rulereferences other applicable sections ofthe rule for additional requirements toconsider in making an amendment. Thefinal rule changes the focus of paragraph(b) from addressing ‘‘Plan amendmentsin conjunction with site-specificdecisions’’ to ‘‘Environmental review ofa proposed plan amendment.’’

Proposed Section 219.9—Revision.This section of the proposed ruledescribed the process to be usedperiodically to review the plan.Paragraph (a) of this section of the ruledescribes revision as a process that isrequired in accordance with 16 U.S.C.1604(f)(5).

Comment: Adaptability. Contendingthat the current planning process is soslow that it produces obsolete plans,some respondents supported the

proposed rule’s emphasis onadaptability. One person even assertedthat, given ongoing updates, therequirement for revisions every fifteenyears is unnecessary and should beeliminated.

Response: The fifteen-year timeframefor revisions is a statutory requirement.The final rule has been changed,however, so that it does not incorporatea specific timeframe. Rather, it allowsthe timeframe to be governed byapplicable law. Under the rule, thescope of revision is not open-ended, butfocuses on the identified issues. If thereare few issues, the process should befocused and simplified accordingly.

Comment: Relationship to theproposed Roadless Area ConservationRule. Some individuals explicitlyrequested that the Forest Service clarifythe relationship between the proposedRoadless Area Conservation Rule(proposed roadless rule) and theplanning rule and how the planningrule will account for the proposedroadless rule through the planningprocess. In addition, some respondentssuggested that the local planningprocess is better suited to determinefuture management direction thannational rulemaking for roadless areas,particularly for those roadless areas notyet identified.

Response: The final rule clarifies therelationship of the planning rule withthe proposed Roadless AreaConservation Rule (proposed roadlessrule) described in Forest ServiceRoadless Area Conservation, DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement,Volume 2, dated May, 2000 and 65 FR30276, May 10, 2000. The terms‘‘inventoried roadless areas’’ and‘‘unroaded areas’’ are described in theplanning rule to clarify the relationshipof the final planning rule to theproposed roadless rule and the ForestService’s recently proposed roadmanagement policy. The proposed roadmanagement policy describes analysismethods and procedures that wouldcomplement the planning-relatedactivities of national forests andgrasslands. The proposed rule regardingroadless areas would prohibit roadconstruction and reconstruction ininventoried roadless areas. It would alsorequire land managers to considercertain roadless area characteristicsduring plan revision and to then decidein the context of overall multiple-useobjectives whether additionalprotections should be affordedinventoried roadless areas or otherunroaded areas. Similarly, the proposedplanning rule would require theresponsible official to considerdesignating roadless areas during plan



revision along with any needed plandecisions related to such areas. Thefinal planning rule clarifies thatanalyses and decisions regardinginventoried roadless areas and otherunroaded areas, other than the nationalprohibitions that may be established inthe final Roadless Area ConservationRule, will be made through the planningprocess articulated in this final rule.Under this final rule, the responsibleofficial is required to evaluateinventoried roadless areas and unroadedareas and identify areas that warrantprotection and the level of protection tobe afforded.

Public comments suggested, and theDepartment agrees, that the proceduresdescribed in the proposed roadless rulewere very similar to those outlined inthe proposed planning rule. Moreover,comments suggested that appropriateroadless area protections could be bestconsidered using the explicitcollaboration, science, sustainability,and planning requirements of theplanning rule.

The Department has determined thatthe review of the roadless characteristicscontemplated by the proposed roadlessrule is an explicit function of landmanagement planning and should beaddressed through this rule. Moreover,

most of the roadless area characteristicsidentified in section 294.13 of theproposed roadless rule arecharacteristics otherwise required to beanalyzed during plan revision or atother times as deemed appropriate bythe responsible official. In the finalplanning rule, the requirements foridentifying roadless areas andadditional roadless area protections arean explicit part of the plan revisionprocess as described in section219.9(b)(8). The analysis and treatmentof characteristics of roadless areas asidentified in the proposed roadless ruleare listed below as they compare to therequirements of the final planning rule.

Proposed roadless rule Final planning rule

294.13(a) At the time of plan revision, the qual-ity and importance of nine characteristics ofinventoried roadless areas and unroadedareas must be evaluated.

Section 219.9(b)(8) requires the responsible official to consider inventoried roadless areas andunroaded areas in all plan revisions and at other times as appropriate through the criteria insection 219.20(a) and 219.21(a). Those sections require development and analysis of infor-mation at a variety of spatial and temporal scales.

294.13(a)(1) Soil, water, and air; and ................294.13(a)(2) Sources of public drinking water

219.20(a)(1)(i)(B) Water resources: the diversity, abundance, and distribution of aquatic and ri-parian systems including streams, stream banks, coastal waters, estuaries, groundwater,lakes, wetlands, shorelines, riparian areas, and floodplains; stream channel morphology andcondition, and flow regimes.

219.20(a)(1)(i)(C) Soil resources: soil productivity; physical, chemical, and biological prop-erties; 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 supportthose uses and contribute to ecological sustainability.

294.13(a)(3) Diversity of plant and animal com-munities.

219.20(a)(2)(ii) Evaluations of species diversity must include, as appropriate, assessments ofthe risks to species viability and the identification of ecological conditions needed to main-tain species viability over time.

219.36 Ecological conditions: Components of the biological and physical environment that canaffect the diversity of plant and animal communities, including species viability, and the pro-ductive capacity of ecological systems. These could include the abundance and distributionof aquatic and terrestrial habitats, roads and other structural developments, human uses,and invasive and exotic species.

294.13(a)(4) Habitat for threatened, endan-gered, proposed, candidate, and sensitivespecies and for those species dependent onlarge, undisturbed areas of land.

219.20(a)(2)(ii)(A) The viability of each species listed under the Endangered Species Act asthreatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed species must be assessed. Individualspecies assessments must be used for these species.

219.20(a)(2)(ii)(B) For all other species, including other species-at-risk and those species forwhich there is little information, a variety of approaches may be used, including individualspecies assessments and assessments of focal species or other indicators used as surro-gates in the evaluation of ecological conditions needed to maintain species viability.

219.36 Species-at-risk: Federally listed endangered, threatened, candidate, and proposed spe-cies and other species for which loss of viability, including reduction in distribution or abun-dance, is a concern within the plan area. Other species-at-risk may include sensitive speciesand state listed species. A species-at-risk also may be selected as a focal species.

294.13(a)(5) Primitive, semi-primitive non-mo-torized, and semi-primitive motorized classesof dispersed recreation.

Section 219.27(c) The consideration of recreation-related uses of land is addressed in theplanning framework and within administratively designated areas that may include inven-toried roadless areas and unroaded areas as well as motorized and non-motorized publicuse areas.

294.13(a)(6) Reference landscapes ................... 219.20(a)(2)(i)(H) An identification of reference landscapes to provide for evaluation of the ef-fects of actions.

294.13(a)(7) Landscape character and scenicintegrity.

The consideration of landscapes and scenic integrity is within the development of landscapegoals (section 219.12(b)) and consideration of issues.

294.13(a)(8) Traditional cultural properties andsacred sites.

219.21(a) For plan revisions, and to the extent the responsible official considers to be appro-priate for plan amendments or site-specific decisions, the responsible official must developor supplement the information and analyses related to the following:

219.21(a)(1) Describe and analyze, as appropriate.219.21(a)(1)(i) Demographic trends; * * * cultural and American Indian tribe land settlement

patterns; social and cultural history; * * * and other appropriate social and cultural informa-tion.



Proposed roadless rule Final planning rule

294.13(a)(9) Other locally identified uniquecharacteristics.

219.5 The responsible official, in his or her discretion, may choose the methods and determinethe scope of information development and interpretation for an issue under consideration. Abroad-scale assessment or a local analysis may be developed or supplemented if appro-priate to the scope and scale of an issue.

219.5(b) Local analyses. Local analyses provide ecological, social, or economic information asdeemed appropriate by the responsible official. Local analyses may cover watersheds, eco-logical units, and social and economic units, and may tier to or provide information to updatea broad-scale assessment. Local analyses should provide the following, as appropriate.

219.5(b)(6) Recommendations for proposals (§ 219.6(a)) or identification of other issues(§ 219.4).

Other changes. The final rule clarifiesthat the revision process is completedwhen the responsible official signs arecord of decision for a plan revision.Language to this effect was in paragraph(a) of the proposed rule and is found inthe final rule in paragraph (e). Paragraph(b) lists steps to be taken to initiate therevision process. A number of clarifyingchanges were made in these steps. Inparagraph (b)(2), issues were added tothe list of information sources to besummarized. Paragraph (b)(2) in theproposed rule was separated into twoparts, (b)(3) and (b)(4). Between them,they make it clear that the evaluationsof sustainability presented in sections219.20 and 219.21 must be performedon the current plan prior to revision, inorder to assess the plan’s contribution tosustainability.

Paragraph (b)(3) of the proposed ruleis renumbered (b)(5) in the final rule.Based on response to public commentsthe text in (b)(3) of the proposed rule ismoved to (b)(8) and revised to includethe identification and evaluation ofinventoried roadless areas and unroadedareas. A sentence requiring thedetermination of warranted protectionsof these areas during the revisionprocess or at other appropriate times isadded to this section to ensure that plandecisions address these areas. Paragraph(b)(4) of the proposed rule isrenumbered (b)(6) in the final rule andthe term ‘‘priority’’ is deleted to avoidthe appearance of decisions being madeat this early stage of the process.Regarding paragraph (b)(9) in the finalrule, outcomes are to be projected forthe 15-year the life of the plan, ratherthan 10 years, which is consistent withsection 219.30.

Paragraphs (c) and (d) in the proposedrule are reorganized. As mentionedabove, the meaning of revision isclarified. The only substantive change isthe removal of specific requirements forthe content of the Notice of Intent torevise plan decisions, and therequirement for a 45-day review periodthat were included in the proposed rule,paragraph (d). Because paragraph (e) inthe final rule requires each plan revision

to have an environmental impactstatement that in turn requires anaccompanying Notice of Intent, thecontent of the Notice of Intent would begoverned by Forest Service NEPAprocedures.

Paragraph (e) of the final rule waschanged to be consistent with the intentof section 219.32, which prohibits theresponsible official from approving aplan amendment until the conclusion ofthe objection process.

Paragraph (h) of the proposed rulerequired establishment of a revisionschedule. This requirement is moved tosection 219.35, as part of the transitionprocess.

Proposed Section 219.10—Site-specific decisions and authorized usesof land. This section of the proposedrule described the basic steps andrequirements that apply to planning forsite-specific decisions. It also addressedthe statutory requirement betweenpermits, contracts, and otherinstruments be considered with theapplicable land and resourcemanagement plan. In the final rule, thissection has been renamed ‘‘Site-specificdecisions.’’

Comment: Site-specific amendments.Many respondents felt that the proposedplanning rule should clarify howamendments to approve site-specificdecisions will apply to national forestand grassland plans. They asserted thatinconsistencies between site-specificplans and national forest plans beclarified in the final rule. Oneorganization recommended that theForest Service develop and includespecific criteria and guidelines pursuantto determining the appropriate actionregarding site-specific decisions.

Response: Detailed guidance foraddressing potential inconsistencieswith the plan has been provided byForest Service directives. TheDepartment intends to streamline theplanning process, and therefore does notbelieve there is a need to add moredetailed information to the finalplanning regulation to address thisconcern.

Comment: Appropriateness ofincluding site-specific decisions. Somerespondents believed that the proposedplanning rule should emphasize site-specific planning actions on nationalforests. Specifically, unique ecosystemscontained within broad-scale analysisareas, they contended, needed to beaddressed independently in forestplanning efforts. Conversely, othersbelieved the proposed planning ruleshould not address project-levelplanning. ‘‘Requiring that projectplanning follow the same process as setforth for forest plans,’’ one personasserted, ‘‘will essentially mean an endto project planning, as it will be entirelytoo cumbersome, time-consuming, andexpensive.’’

Response: The Department believesthat joining site-specific planning andforest planning into one sharedplanning framework will result in betterproject integration and an increasedmeasure of efficiency, both in terms ofthe planning process and in achievingresource objectives. One framework willmake it easier for the public tounderstand and participate in ForestService planning at all levels. Sectionsof the framework applicable to site-specific planning have been specificallyidentified in the final rule to ensure thatproject planning will be conductedefficiently. The Department believesthat this approach will encourageappropriate treatment of uniqueecosystems through planning at anappropriate scale.

Comment: Exemptions. Somerespondents felt that the proposedplanning rule should provide specificcriteria for granting exemptions to forestplans. An appeals process for exemptiondecisions, they asserted, should also beincluded. The proposed planning ruleshould include reasonable andnegotiated schedules for compliance fornon-exempted authorized uses, somecontended.

Response: The NFMA requires thatauthorized uses be consistent withapplicable plans. It provides foramendment of plans, but not forexemptions from them. The proposed



rule provided for an exemption process.The Department now believes that thesame purposes can be achieved throughan amendment or revision process thataddresses issues related to ongoingauthorized uses.

Other changes. Paragraph (a) of theproposed rule required the applicationof the planning requirements of theentire subpart to site-specific decisions.The final rule clarifies which sectionsare relevant to project decisions.Paragraph (a) of the proposed ruledescribes the options available to aresponsible official if a proposed site-specific decision is not consistent withan applicable land and resourcemanagement plan. Similar guidance iscurrently found in the Forest Servicedirective system and is not included inthe final rule.

Paragraph (b) of the proposed rulecontained extensive directions on whatto do with existing permits, contracts,and other instruments authorizing theuse and occupancy of National ForestSystem lands when a plan is amendedor revised, including an exemptionprocess. Many people are distrustful ofexemptions from plan decisions. NFMAexplicitly provides for amendment ofplans, but not for exemptions fromthem. The same purposes can beachieved through an amendment orrevision process that addresses issuesrelated to ongoing authorized uses. Theparagraph is not included in the finalrule. For such authorizations, paragraph(b) also requires consistency withexisting plans at the time of theirissuance. In the final rule, authorizeduses of land are included as site-specificdecisions. The title of this section waschanged to reflect the relationship ofauthorizations and site-specificdecisions.

Proposed Section 219.11—Monitoringand evaluation. This section of theproposed rule described the monitoringand evaluation requirements for site-specific actions and land and resourcemanagement plans. To more accuratelyreflect the use of monitoringinformation in developing appropriateadjustments to ongoing and plannedactions, this section of the final rule isrenamed ‘‘Monitoring and evaluation foradaptive management’’.

Comment: Monitoring for site-specificdecisions. Many respondents felt thatmonitoring and evaluation is essentialto assess the effectiveness ofmanagement activities. Theyrecommended that the planning ruleemphasize monitoring and evaluation,especially for site-specific decisions.

Response: The proposed ruleemphasized the importance ofmonitoring in achieving sustainability.

The final rule retains this emphasis.Monitoring and evaluation is a keycomponent of adaptive management anddealing with uncertainty and risk inmanaging complex natural systems.

Comment: Monitoring and evaluationrequirements. Many people wereconcerned with the flexibility of themonitoring and evaluationrequirements, and some respondentsbelieved that the proposed rule shouldinclude criteria for developingmonitoring strategies.

Others felt that the proposed rule’srequirements are too restrictive.‘‘Research demonstrates thatdetermining sample size, samplingfrequency, and even sampling methodsis an adaptive process,’’ one personwrote, ‘‘therefore, including details onfrequency of sampling and samplingprotocols in the land and resourcemanagement plan will constrain themonitoring system such that effectivemonitoring will be less likely.’’

Response: The Department does notbelieve there was unwarrantedflexibility in the requirements formonitoring and evaluation in theproposed rule. There was a lack of cleardescriptions of monitoring requirementsin this section of the proposed rule. Thissection is revised to improve its clarityand readability.

For ecological sustainability, the finalrule requires the monitoring strategy toinclude an assessment of the status andtrend of selected physical and biologicalcharacteristics of ecosystem diversity(section 219.20(a)(1)). It must also assessthe status and trends of ecologicalconditions known or suspected tosupport focal species and selectedspecies-at-risk including populationmonitoring for some species. For socialand economic sustainability, the finalrule requires the monitoring strategy toinclude periodic review of national,regional, and local supply and demandfor products, services, and values, withspecial consideration given to thoseuses, values, products, and services thatthe Forest Service is uniquely poised toprovide.

The proposed rule required themonitoring strategy to include thefrequency of measurement and samplingprotocols. In the final rule, the selectionof monitoring methods, as well asreasons for selection of themethodologies, must be documented aspart of the monitoring strategy. Inaddition, the final rule provides that,unless required by the monitoringstrategy, monitoring methods may bechanged to reflect new informationwithout plan amendment or revision.The Department does not believe thatincluding details on frequency of

sampling and sampling protocols in themonitoring strategy will constrain themonitoring system.

Comment: Specific monitoringrequirements. One person contended,‘‘No level of monitoring, linked withcurrent understanding of ecologicalsystems, can provide the informationnecessary to determine, unequivocally,long-term sustainability.’’ This personrecommended the elimination ofmonitoring requirements for differentmanagement practices. Others suggestedthat the planning rule specificallyaddress water quality monitoringmethods in the proposed rule.

Response: The proposed rule does notprovide for the information necessary todetermine, unequivocally, long-termsustainability. Rather, it viewsmonitoring and evaluation as a keycomponent of adaptive management,enabling the Forest Service to deal withuncertainty and risk in managingcomplex natural systems. The final ruleretains this emphasis on monitoring andevaluation.

The proposed rule did not specificallyaddress methods for monitoring forwater quality. The final rule requiresassessment of the status and trend ofselected physical and biologicalcharacteristics of ecosystem diversity(section 219.20(a)(1)). These include thediversity, abundance, and distributionof aquatic and riparian systemsincluding streams, stream banks, coastalwaters, estuaries, groundwater, lakes,wetlands, shorelines, riparian areas, andfloodplains; stream channel morphologyand condition, and flow regimes. TheDepartment believes that methods forwater resource monitoring are bestdocumented in the monitoring strategyfor a plan rather than included in theplanning rule.

Comment: Quality and type of datacollected. Some people felt that poorquality data will continue to impact theagency’s ability to conduct adequateassessments. They recommended thatthe proposed rule require the collectionof adequate monitoring data. Otherrespondents addressed concernsregarding the use of models as tools formonitoring. One person asserted that‘‘all models are inherently wrong andsimilarly the assumptions of models arealways violated.’’ Several peoplesuggested that the planning rulerecognize the limitations of planningmodels and emphasize provenmonitoring methods, especially fieldmonitoring.

Response: The primary focus ofmonitoring and evaluation is basedupon on-the-ground results andmeasures of how well activities providefor sustainability and fulfill desired



conditions and objectives. In the finalrule, each plan must contain apracticable, effective, and efficientmonitoring strategy. Data and modelsused to address the monitoringrequirements are to use the best scienceavailable. Under the adaptive approachto management described by theplanning framework, many managementactivities are continually tested againstplanned and actual results. Appropriateadjustments can be made as newinformation becomes available.

Comment: Coordination amonginterested groups. Some recommendedthat the proposed rule be strengthenedto ensure that monitoring efforts arecoordinated with appropriate andinterested parties. Some respondentsspecifically suggested that state andlocal government representatives beinvolved in monitoring activities.Various respondents expressedpreferences about who should conductor assist with monitoring efforts. Somepeople felt that monitoring activitiesshould be restricted to qualified parties,while others recommended theinclusion of diverse interests in theseactivities.

Response: In the proposed rule,monitoring and evaluation iscoordinated and, to the extentpracticable, conducted jointly withother federal agencies, state, local, andtribal governments, scientific andacademic communities, or otherinterested parties. In addition, theproposed rule required the responsibleofficial to provide appropriateopportunities for the public to beinvolved in monitoring and evaluation.The final rule retains only the formerprovision as the latter provision wasviewed as redundant.

The Department believes thatmonitoring is an important opportunityfor the public to become directlyinvolved with the conservation andstewardship of their national forests andgrasslands. As in other steps of theplanning framework, the expectation isthat responsible officials will ensureopportunities are provided forappropriate collaboration.

Comment: Adequacy of funding tosupport the monitoring and evaluationrequirements. Some respondents did notfavor the requirement that theresponsible official shall ensure thatadequate funding is available formonitoring specifically required inproject-level decision documents. Manypeople feared that inadequate fundingcould hinder the implementation ofnecessary projects. The Congressionalbudget process, they asserted, needs tobe considered in developing theproposed rule. Other respondents,

concerned about the adequacy offunding for monitoring, believed thatthe proposed rule’s monitoringrequirements will be excessivelyexpensive and suggested that the ruleemphasize that monitoring should notrequire significant additional costs.

Response: The Department believesthat it is reasonable to expect theresponsible official to make a fairlyaccurate prediction of future funding.First, the responsible official has thebudget history of the unit and should beable to make a reasonable estimate onfunding availability. Second, theresponsible official has the flexibility toadjust the size and complexity ofprojects to reduce funding. Finally, theresponsible official sets the stage formonitoring by documenting what isneeded for specific projects inpreliminary budget proposals. As notedby the Committee of Scientists,monitoring is an indispensable part ofland and resource stewardship. To date,it has not been integrated into theplanning and implementation process.Yet, including monitoring within theplanning process may be the single mostimportant shift that can happen in foreststewardship. The monitoring processcreates the information necessary forfuture decisions, reduces the cost offuture inventory analysis, and lessensthe likelihood of management mistakes.

Comment: Linkage of project approvalto monitoring funding. Many peoplevoiced general support for the proposedrule’s provisions requiring adequatefunding for monitoring as a conditionfor project approval. Conversely, severalother respondents felt that projectapproval should not be connected tofunding for monitoring. These peopleasserted that this condition will hinderproject implementation and conflictswith congressional budgetary authority.Focusing more on accountability, a fewrespondents suggested that the proposedrule require that responsible officialsinclude their rationale for supportingexpectations of adequate funding formonitoring in decision documents.

Response: The Department hasretained language in the final ruleconcerning adequate funds formonitoring and evaluation of site-specific decisions. It is important toclarify that monitoring is not requiredfor all site-specific projects. Where it isidentified as important to understandingand ensuring sustainability, monitoringis considered as part of the project inthe decision process.

Comment: Mechanisms for fundingmonitoring. Several respondents feltthat it is unfair to require industrialinterests to fund monitoring for projectsthat these interests propose. These

people asserted that the proposed ruleshould not include such provisions.Other respondents recommended thatthe Forest Service seek legislativeapproval to establish a fund specificallyfor monitoring.

Response: The Department hasretained language in the final ruleconcerning adequate funds formonitoring and evaluation of site-specific decisions. References were notmade to industrial or non-industrialinterests funding monitoring in theproposed or final rule. Monitoring isconsidered as part of the cost of doingthe project where it is required.

Comments: Monitoring andevaluation of social and economicsustainability. Some respondentsbelieved that the proposed rule hasinadequate requirements for theevaluation of economic and socialsustainability and recommended anexpansion of the evaluation criteria inthe final rule. Other respondentsrequested clarification of therequirements for review of national,regional, and local supply and demandfor products, services, and values. Oneorganization believed that the proposedrule should emphasize monitoring andevaluation processes that focus on theproducts, services, and values that boththe Forest Service and localgovernments specifically provide. Oneperson explicitly suggested that theForest Service remove the term ‘‘values’’from the proposed rule’s items forconsideration when monitoring foreconomic and social sustainabilitybecause it ‘‘will allow a manager to usea variety of undefined and arbitrary‘values’ to counteract a demand forproducts or services.’’ Another personasked the Forest Service to requireinventories of timber resources.Inventories of areas not suited for timberproduction, this person contended, areessential to gauge economicsustainability.

Response: The requirements forevaluating economic and socialsustainability are identified in sections219.5 and 219.21. Coordination ofmonitoring with partners is encouragedin section 219.11(e). The requirementsfor evaluating ecological, economic, andsocial sustainability have beenincreased in the final rule. The planmonitoring strategy must provideperiodic reviews of national, regional,and local supply and demand forproducts, services, and values. Itrequires the responsible official toevaluate the effectiveness of informationand analyses described in 219.21 (a) inproviding reliable information regardingsocial and economic sustainability. This



provides an adaptive approach toaddress many of the concerns made bythe respondents, including inventoriesof areas not suited for timber productionand assessing supply and demand forproducts, services, and values.

Other changes. The monitoring andevaluation section of the final rule isreorganized to more clearly describe thestrategy of monitoring plan decisionsand characteristics of sustainabilityrequired by each plan. Each plan willcontain a practicable, effective, andefficient monitoring strategy to evaluatesustainability by monitoring appropriateplan decisions and characteristics ofsustainability. Section 219.5 providesthat this type of information will beprepared within ‘‘reasonable costs andin a timely manner.’’

In the proposed rule paragraph (a),‘‘Monitoring and evaluationrequirements,’’ is reorganized andrenamed ‘‘Plan monitoring strategy’’ tomore accurately describe requirements.To simplify the presentation of requiredinformation, specific requirements forthe use of monitoring information listedin paragraph (a) of the proposed rule aremoved to paragraph (d), ‘‘use ofmonitoring information,’’ in the finalrule. Monitoring methods described inparagraph (a) of the proposed rule aremoved to paragraph (c) of the final ruleto distinguish these requirements fromthe monitoring strategy, thus ensuringthat appropriate adjustments insampling frequencies and technicalmethods are implemented as monitoringprogresses. The final rule clarifies thatchanges in monitoring methods are notplan decisions unless they arespecifically required within themonitoring strategies described in aplan.

Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule,‘‘Coordination,’’ described the need forcollaboration and coordination in thedevelopment and implementation ofmonitoring programs. This paragraph isrenumbered as paragraph (e) of the finalrule, simplified, and renamed,‘‘Coordination of monitoring andevaluation.’’

Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule,‘‘Project monitoring,’’ is renamed‘‘Monitoring of site-specific actions’’and renumbered paragraph (b) in thefinal rule. The text of the paragraph ismodified to specify that the responsibleofficial must determine funding will beadequate to complete specificallydescribed monitoring and evaluationbefore authorizing a site-specific action.The proposed rule is not specificregarding who is responsible for adetermination of the appropriatefunding prior to authorization of anaction.

Paragraph (d) in the proposed rule,‘‘Monitoring and evaluation report,’’ ismoved to paragraph (f) in the final rule,‘‘A summary of the results ofmonitoring.’’ Two items required for‘‘Identification of topics of generalinterest or concern,’’ and ‘‘A list ofamendments, revisions and summariesof outcomes,’’ are removed from thissection in the final rule. These items arerequired by section 219.30, ‘‘Plandocumentation,’’ and not necessary torepeat as a requirement in themonitoring and evaluation report.

Paragraphs (e) and (f), ‘‘Monitoring ofecological, social, and economicsustainability’’ in the proposed rule, areredrafted to follow the content ofsections 219.20 and 219.21 of the finalrule. They are incorporated intoparagraph (a), ‘‘Plan monitoringstrategy,’’ in the final rule. Becausesustainability is the foundation forproviding multiple uses of nationalforest and grasslands and monitoringactivities are directed toward effectiveand efficient strategies to evaluatesustainability, it is appropriate that thecharacteristics of sustainability aredescribed in conjunction withdevelopment of the plan monitoringstrategy.

Collaborative Planning forSustainability

In the proposed rule, sections 219.12to 219.18 outlined the opportunities forthe public and others to be activelyengaged in the Forest Service’s landmanagement planning process.Collaboration with the public is one ofthe overriding themes of this rule. Theagency recognizes that these are the‘‘people’s lands’’ and the public shouldbe actively involved in their planningand management. These sectionsidentify multiple opportunities for earlyand continuous involvement by thepublic.

Proposed Section 219.12—Collaboration and cooperativelydeveloped landscape goals. This sectiondetailed opportunities for the public tobecome involved in the development oflandscape goals for national forests andgrasslands. This section also detailedthe role the responsible official will playin fostering an understanding of thepurposes of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act.

Comment: Resolving conflicts. Somepeople suggested that the proposed ruleinclude guidelines regarding whatshould be involved in collaboration andhow potential conflicts among differentparties will be handled. The responsibleofficial, one business contended, needsto ensure that the parties involved incollaboration are all interested in

problem solving. ‘‘The collaborativeapproach only works when you have agroup that is interested in the solutionsto the problems,’’ wrote this businessrepresentative. ‘‘It is a disaster whenonly part of the group wants to findsolutions.’’ One person addressed adifferent perceived shortcoming ofcollaboration. ‘‘When the outcome ofcollaboration is different from whatparticipants want,’’ this person wrote,‘‘they often distrust the Forest Serviceand choose not to participate in futurecollaborate efforts.’’

Response: Based on comments,section 219.12(a) of the final rule hasbeen strengthened to provide that the‘‘responsible official’’ must seek to‘‘actively engage’’ the public and othersin stewardship and planning of NationalForest System lands. This change wasmade to emphasize the importance ofactively working with the public andother agencies in forest planning. Asnoted in the Committee of ScientistsReport, collaboration is about workingtogether on issues of mutual concern ina manner that best fits the needs ofpeople, place, and issues of concern.

In response to the comment on thecommitment of parties to resolveproblems, the final rule does not list anyspecific criteria for participation in thecollaborative process. It is incumbent onthe responsible official to identify theparties that will be ‘‘actively engaged’’in the planning process. Section219.12(a) of the final rule states that‘‘the responsible official shall considerthe distinct roles, jurisdictions, andrelationships of interested and affectedgovernments, organizations, groups, andindividuals.’’

In regard to the comment on theForest Service’s role in the outcome ofcollaboration, the final rule providesthat the ‘‘responsible official shallprovide early and frequentopportunities for people to participateopenly and meaningfully in planningand has discretion to determine how toprovide these opportunities.’’ Theoverall intent of this rule is to have theForest Service working together withothers to cooperatively resolve naturalresource issues.

Collaborative planning is not a stop-and-start activity but rather an ongoingeffort, with varying levels of intensity.Its purpose is to reach out tocommunities and other stakeholdersand build stewardship relationshipsneeded to achieve an integratedlandscape for planning to achieve goalsof sustainability.

Comment: Discretionary authority.The discretionary authority of the ForestService was another source of concernfor many respondents. Specifically, the



proposed provision stating that, ‘‘Theresponsible official has full discretion todetermine how and to what extent touse the collaborative process’’ evokedfears that the decision maker will beable to, in the words of one respondent,‘‘manipulate the process to achieve apredetermined target under thecollaborative decisions label.’’ Toprevent this perceived abuse ofdiscretionary power, several peoplerecommended that the proposedplanning rule require the responsibleofficial to adhere to certain proceduressuch as documenting the rationale forchoosing a given collaborative processand specifying when and how publicinput will be solicited. Others suggestedthat the proposed planning regulationsretain current requirements forcollaboration because they believeexisting guidelines are more stringent inrequiring opportunities for involvementwith the public.

Response: The proposed ruleprovided that the responsible officialhas ‘‘full discretion * * * to determinehow and to what extent’’ to use thecollaborative processes outlined incertain sections of the proposed rule.Based on comments, this provision inthe final rule has been changed insection 219.12(a) to provide theresponsible official ‘‘has discretion todetermine how to provide theseopportunities.’’ The language ‘‘to whatextent’’ has been removed from the finalrule. The Department made this changeto emphasize that the agency would usecollaborative techniques in planningand stewardship of national forests andgrasslands. Section 219.12(a) of the finalrule recognizes that the responsibleofficial may play several roles, such asleader, organizer, facilitator, orparticipant, in achieving collaboration.

In addition, discretion of the agencyto consider ‘‘cooperatively developedlandscape goals’’ has been modified inthe final rule. Section 219.12(b)(3)provides that the responsible official‘‘shall consider’’ (emphasis added) thecooperatively developed landscapegoals as an issue for planning.

In regard to the comment oninvolvement with the publicrequirements, the rule does not conflictwith any other public involvementprocesses the agency currently uses. Infact, the rule complements the existingpublic involvement requirements andincreases opportunities for collaborationwith the public throughout the planningprocess.

Comment: Implementation. Theproposed planning rule, severalbelieved, should clarify howcollaborative planning goals relate toNEPA requirements and other goals

proposed in the planning rule. Inparticular, the Forest Service must notsubstitute proposed collaborativeprocesses for NEPA analysis, accordingto one organization. Clarification is alsoneeded, one person wrote, regardinghow the proposed collaborativeplanning process is different from thescoping process under NEPA. Otherpeople suggested that the planning ruleinclude recognition of the fact thatcollaboratively developed goals may notbe consistent with other proposed goalssuch as ecological sustainability oremphasis on science. Some respondentsagreed that collaborative planning is alaudable goal but, doubt that it will berealized. Citing a variety of pastexamples in which the Forest Serviceperceivably discounted local interests,several respondents wondered whetherthe Forest Service will actually adoptmanagement directions developedthrough collaborative efforts. The ForestService, others suggested, shoulddisclose how public comments are usedin forest planning.

Response: The proposed ruleprovided that the responsible officialshould use collaboration to developlandscape goals for ‘‘ecological units’’that may be associated with NationalForest System lands. In the final rule,this provision has been changed tousing collaborative efforts ‘‘to developor propose landscape goals for areas thatinclude National Forest System lands.’’The Department made this change tobroaden the use of collaborativelydeveloped landscape goals, not just toecological units, but to all landsassociated with the National ForestSystem. With respect to the comment onconsistency of collaborativelydeveloped landscape goals andecological sustainability, Section 219.4of the final rule provides that theresponsible official should consider theextent to which addressing the issuesrelates to or provides an opportunity tocontribute to the ‘‘restoration ormaintenance of ecologicalsustainability.’’

In regard to landscape goals andNEPA, the language in section219.12(b)(2) in the proposed rule hasbeen retained in the final rule thatrecognized the importance andunderstanding of collaborative effortsand the National Environmental PolicyAct. Section 219.12(b)(2) of the finalrule explicitly recognizes the linkbetween NEPA and collaborativeplanning. In section 219.5 of the finalrule, the Department has clarified that‘‘the results from broad-scaleassessments, local analyses, monitoringactivities, and other studies that are notplan or site-specific decisions or

proposals . . . are not subject to ForestService NEPA procedures.’’ TheDepartment made this change to clarifythat these landscape goals are broadlandscape goals and not decisionsrequiring NEPA analysis. With respectto public comments during the planningprocess, all public comments areavailable for review. In regard toscoping and collaborative planning, theDepartment views collaborativeplanning as complementary to theNEPA scoping process. This is one moreavenue for the agency to actively engagethe public in land and resourceplanning.

In regard to the comments about theForest Service adopting managementdirections developed in collaborativeefforts, the overall intent and emphasisin the rule is for the Forest Service,along with other parties, to ‘‘activelyengage’’ in a collaborative planningprocess to problem solve and identifymutual goals and interests. Thecollaborative process does not ensurewhat decision will be made by theresponsible official.

Comment: Efficiency. Other peopleworried that the involvement of‘‘uninformed’’ parties, single-issueorganizations, or individuals or groupsthat cannot demonstrate a ‘‘relevantrelationship to the subject matter of aproposed plan’’ results in an inefficientand laborious collaborative process.Similarly, some respondents assertedthat if the Forest Service were requiredto consider all landscape goals initiatedby various individuals and groups,decisionmaking would be slowedconsiderably. One organizationcautioned, ‘‘Decisions not incorporatingall the conflicting goals will end up inlitigation and further waste of taxpayerresources.’’

Response: The proposed ruleprovided that collaboration in land andresource management planning‘‘enhances the ability of people to worktogether, build their capacity forstewardship, and achieve ecological,economic, and social sustainability.’’ Insection 219.12(a) of the final rule, theDepartment has strengthened thisprovision by stating ‘‘to promotesustainability, the responsible official,must seek to actively engage theAmerican public, interestedorganizations, private landowners, state,local, and Tribal governments, and otherfederal agencies in the stewardship ofNational Forest System Lands byproviding early and frequentopportunities for people to participateopenly and meaningfully in planning.’’The Department continues to believethat meaningful collaboration by theagency with all interested parties is the



best way to manage the national forestand grasslands. With respect topotential litigation and collaborativelydeveloped landscape goals, section219.4(b) of the final rule provides thatthe responsible official has thediscretion to determine ‘‘whether and towhat extent an issue is appropriate forconsideration.’’ Litigation risks cannotbe determined at this time.Collaboratively developed landscapegoals are not subject to Forest ServiceNEPA procedures. Section 219.12(b)(3)of the final rule provides thatcooperatively developed landscapegoals are considered as an issue withinthe framework of planning. Section219.12 of the final rule encourages anefficient and effective approach amonginterests to utilize limited human andfinancial resources that enable use ofthe latest technology and adoption ofcreative approaches to collaboration. Itpositions the agency in a leadership roleand commits, as appropriate andpractical, the responsible official to usecreative collaborative approaches tosupplement traditional NEPA processes.

Comment: Local Groups. Some peopleworried that Forest Supervisors mayinterpret the guidance in the proposedrule encouraging responsible officials to‘‘initiate or seek to join ongoingcollaborative efforts to develop orpropose landscape goals’’ as a mandateto rely on local groups such as theQuincy Library Group. These people didnot want the Forest Service to givespecial consideration to localcollaborative groups and recommendedthat the proposed rule explicitly statethat input from collaborative groupswill be considered equally with inputfrom other sources.

Response: The proposed ruleprovided that the responsible officialand those involved in planning shouldinvite and encourage others to engage inthe collaborative development oflandscape goals. Section 219.12(b)(1) ofthe final rule retains this language. TheDepartment believes that this languageis broad enough to ensure that onegroup does not have specialconsideration during the planningprocess. The intent of this section is toprovide opportunities for all partiesinterested in forest planning to have anactive role in the development oflandscape goals and the collaborativeprocess. As noted in the Committee ofScientists Report, collaborative planningis a shared process within whichagencies cooperate with one another,work with other public and privateorganizations, and engage communitiesand citizens in envisioning and workingtoward a sustainable future of thenational forests and grasslands.

Proposed Section 219.13—Coordination among federal agencies.This section of the proposed ruleaddressed coordination with otherfederal agencies in national forest andgrassland planning and decisionmaking.

Comment: Sentiments were mixedamong those respondents whospecifically addressed coordinationamong federal agencies in nationalforest planning. While some supportedthe proposed planning rule’s emphasison participation and coordination ofvarious federal agencies in forestplanning, others were concerned thatthis focus on coordination might undulyinfluence other agencies’ managementactions.

Response: Section 219.13 of theproposed rule provided that theresponsible official must provide ‘‘earlyand continuous coordination’’ for otherinterested or affected federal agencies toparticipate in identification of issuesand formulation of proposed actionsthat may affect their programs. Section219.13 of the final rule changed thelanguage from ‘‘continuouscoordination’’ to ‘‘frequentcoordination’’ for working with otherfederal agencies. This change was madeto clarify that there would be multipleopportunities for other federal agenciesto participate in planning. Agencies arealso urged to contribute to streamlinedcoordination of federal agency policies,resource management plans, orprograms. Other federal agencies mayfurther engage in a variety of tasksthroughout the NEPA process, examplesinclude: assist the agency in EA and EISdevelopment, participate in publicscoping, develop information andanalyses in which they have specialexpertise, contribute staff and resourcesupport, participate on interdisciplinaryplanning teams, and share informationand data. These actions strengthen thefinal outcome for sound management ofpublic resources.

In regard to the comment on theinfluence of the Forest Service to otheragency management actions, section219.12 of the final rule recognizes thedistinct jurisdictions, policies andlegislative mandates of the other federalagencies. This language was retainedfrom the proposed regulations.

Proposed Section 219.14—Involvement of state and localgovernments. This section of theproposed rule described theinvolvement of state and localgovernments in the land and resourcemanagement planning anddecisionmaking.

Comment: Suggestions for creating auseful collaboration process. Manypeople who responded to the proposed

planning regulations support the ideathat the Forest Service should activelycollaborate with state and localgovernments. Forest Service officials,several respondents claimed, oftenrequire state and local governments toparticipate in planning in the samemanner as members of the public ratherthan create specific outreachmechanisms for these governmentalentities. These people offered a varietyof suggestions for creating a usefulcollaboration process designed for stateand local governments. These includedrequiring early and continuouscoordination with state and localgovernments, consulting with state andlocal government officials, establishingstate and local agencies as cooperatingagencies under NEPA, obtaining theconsensus of local governments beforeestablishing topics of concern,providing documented rationale for theacceptance or rejection of localgovernmental concerns and suggestions,and establishing a process forintergovernmental informationexchange.

Response: Section 219.14 of theproposed rule stated that theresponsible official must provideopportunities for involvement of stateand local governments in the planningprocess, including opportunities toparticipate in identification of topics ofinterest or concern related to theplanning area. Based on comments, theDepartment has strengthened section219.14 of the final rule to provide ‘‘earlyand frequent’’ opportunities for stateand local governments to be activelyinvolved in the planning process. Inaddition, the Department has alsoincluded language in section 219.14(b)of the final rule that acknowledges theneed to coordinate resourcemanagement plans and programs withstate and local governments. The finalrule directs the continued building andfostering of these relationships.

Comment: Resolving conflict. Somerespondents expressed reservationsregarding the potential success ofcollaborative efforts with local and stategovernments. ‘‘Local governments,’’ oneorganization claims, ‘‘may exercise theirrights to maintain roads and trailscounter to the desires of other interestswithin the ‘collaborative’decisionmaking process—leading toadditional conflict, litigation, andwasted resources.’’

Response: Section 219.12(a) of thefinal rule provides that the responsibleofficial should recognize the ‘‘distinctroles, jurisdictions, and relationships ofinterested and affected governments,organizations, groups and individuals.’’The Forest Service will conduct



collaborative planning consistent withall applicable federal laws andregulations. This rule does not abrogateany federal responsibility to stategovernment.

Comment: Discretionary authority.Although many respondents like theproposed planning rule’s generalemphasis on collaboration with stateand local governments, several arguedthat the rule does not provide adequateassurance that these governments willbe meaningfully involved incollaborative efforts. These peoplesuggested that the Forest Service clarifyhow local and state governments will beengaged in forest planning byeliminating discretionary language andproviding more specific direction in theproposed planning regulations. Inparticular, the proposed rule, oneperson suggested, should specify thatmunicipalities and special districtswould be consulted in forest planning.This respondent asserted that nationalforest management often affects waterand sewage districts; thus, the ForestService should involve these affectedparties.

Response: Section 219.14 of the finalrule identifies some of the key stepswhere state and local governments willbe engaged in planning. State and localgovernments will be involved in theidentification of issues as described insection 219.4(a) of the final rule.Further, section 219.14 in the final ruleprovides that the responsible officialmust provide early and frequentopportunities for state and localgovernments to participate in theplanning process. This languagestrengthens the intent of the rule to havethe agency work with state and localgovernments in planning. In additionthe rule recognizes the need for theForest Service and state and localgovernments to coordinate plans andprograms.

Comment: Coordination. Severalpeople suggested this is a criticalcomponent of effective collaborationprocedures. Whether they want theForest Service to retain existingrequirements for coordination andreview procedures or adopt the Bureauof Land Management’s coordinationrequirements, these people generallybelieved that the rule must be explicitin requiring the Forest Service to strivefor consistency among various plansand policies.

Response: Based on comments, theDepartment has added section 219.14(b)that recognizes the need for the ForestService to coordinate resourcemanagement plans and programs withstate and local governments. Inaddition, section 219.13 of the final rule

describes the process for the ForestService to coordinate their plans andprograms with other federal agencies.

Proposed Section 219.15—Interactionwith American Indian Tribes andAlaska Natives. This section of theproposed rule described the interactionwith American Indian Tribes andAlaska Natives in National ForestSystem planning and decisionmaking.

Comment: Several people believedthat the proposed planning rule shouldmore explicitly recognize the ForestService’s responsibility to consult withAmerican Indian tribes and AlaskaNatives in forest planning. Theproposed rule, one respondent asserted,must require that Forest Servicedecisions that may potentially impacttribal trust resources be specificallyanalyzed for compliance with fiduciaryobligations of the United States.According to this respondent, ‘‘Moreemphasis needs to be placed on therecommendations and desires ofAmerican Indian Tribes and AlaskaNatives through the planning processbecause much of these lands involveaboriginal and ancestral lands ofAmerican Indian Tribes and AlaskaNatives.’’ The involvement of tribes andnatives in forest planning was importantfor several respondents who do notthink tribes should be treated in thesame manner as members of the publicor state agencies are treated. AmericanIndian Tribes and Alaska Natives, thesepeople asserted, must be partners in theinitial, pre-scoping stages of ForestService planning. Another respondentrecommended that formal agreements bedeveloped with tribal governmentsregarding planning priorities and jointmanagement in areas where commonboundaries exist.

Response: Section 219.15 of the finalrule retains language from the proposedrule declaring that the Forest Serviceshares in the federal government’soverall trust responsibilities andrecognizes the government-to-government relationships withAmerican Indian Tribes and AlaskaNatives. It also retains language callingfor collaboration in the earlyidentification of treaty rights, treaty-protected resources, tribal trustresources, and other tribal consultationand participation. Section 219.3(c) ofthe final rule provides that AmericanIndian tribes and Alaska Natives are tobe engaged in an ‘‘interdisciplinary,collaborative approach to planning.’’The Department believes that section219.15(c) of the proposed rule, which isretained in the final rule, providesexplicit language for the Forest Serviceto consult with American Indian tribes.

There is no discretionary language inthis section of the rule.

Comment: Tribal treaty requirements.In order to exercise their rights, onetribal organization asserted that theForest Service must acknowledge thesignificant treaty requirements forprotection of fish, wildlife, and plants.This organization claimed that nationalforest lands must be managed for aproductive yield to allow tribes toexercise their preexisting legal rights.

Response: Section 219.15 of the finalrule emphasizes identification of treatyrights and treaty and trust resources.The planning regulations provide forearly and frequent communicationamong Forest Service personnel andAmerican Indians and Alaska Natives.The planning rule does not modifytribal treaty requirements.

Proposed Section 219.16—Relationships with interestedindividuals and organizations. Thissection of the proposed rule addressedrelationships with interestedindividuals and organizations innational forest and grassland planningand decisionmaking.

Comment: Encouraging publicinvolvement. Many people whocommented on the proposed planningrule agreed that public involvementshould be an integral part of forestplanning. However, respondents’perceptions varied as to whether theproposed planning regulations will, ineffect, increase or decrease publicinvolvement opportunities.Nevertheless, the Forest Service, theycontended, should encourage morepublic involvement throughout theentire forest planning process to accountfor the needs and wants of differentforest users. Some further suggested thatthe Forest Service clarify whatincentives will be offered to encouragepeople to become involved early in theplanning process.

Response: Section 219.16 of theproposed rule, which is retained in thefinal rule, described a process for theresponsible official to involve the publicin the planning process. Based oncomments, the Department hasstrengthened this section in the finalrule by describing specific steps whereinterested individuals and organizationswill be ‘‘actively’’ engaged in planning.As noted in the Committee of ScientistsReport, multiple mechanisms of publicdialogue need to be devised to enhancethe capacity of the American people toeffectively engage in the planningprocess. The Committee of Scientistsalso wrote that planning must providemechanisms for broad-based, vigorous,and ongoing opportunities for openpublic dialogue. These dialogues must



be open to any person, conducted innon-technical terms, and structured toaccommodate differing schedules,capabilities, and interests. TheDepartment continues to support acomprehensive public involvementprocess that has multiple opportunitiesfor diverse interests to participate in theforest planning process. It recognizesthat the planning process must be fair,meaningful, and open to persons withdiverse opinions and values. Throughthis process, the responsible officialmust provide early and frequentopportunities for interested parties toparticipate, work together, andcollaborate to improve understanding. Acentral function of the planning processaims at facilitating community buildingby providing opportunities for people tocome together. There are not explicitincentives to participate in thecollaborative planning process in therule; however, the rule does ensure theopportunity for the agency andinterested parties to collaborativelydevelop plans for our national forestsand grasslands.

Comment: Reducing bias indecisionmaking. Many people assertedthat when the Forest Service developspublic outreach strategies, it must bothengage a broad range of constituents inthe collaborative process and equallyconsider the diverse interests of theseconstituents. Whether they believe theForest Service may give unduepreference to the views of localresidents, logging companies, orenvironmentalists, many respondentsstrongly insisted that the proposedplanning rule should reduce bias indecisionmaking by requiring equaloutreach and consideration processesfor different stakeholders. The ForestService, some contended, must clarifyhow collaborative processes will weighthe input from different interests.Offering a specific suggestion forreducing bias in forest planning, oneperson proposed ‘‘each national forestbe governed by a set of elected officialswho would be responsible to the publicfor the management of the nationalforests.’’ By electing designatedrepresentatives, the Forest Service, thisperson contended, would be able tobalance non-local interests and localinterests as well as the interests of thosewho have the time and resources toparticipate and those that do not.

Response: The final rule retains thelanguage in section 219.16 of theproposed regulations that recognizedthe need for engaging diverse interestsin collaborative planning. As noted inthe Committee of Scientists Report,collaborative planning must recognizethe inevitability of legitimate, yet

competing, values in National ForestSystem management. It must encouragedivergent interests to collectively dealwith their differences while pursuingshared goals for the national forests andgrasslands. With respect to thecomments on bias of planning, this ruleprovides a framework for developingplans that provides equal opportunitiesfor all interested parties to participate ina meaningful and open collaborativeplanning process.

Comment: Involvement incollaborative planning. Somerespondents offered specific ideasregarding who should or should not beinvolved in collaborative efforts. Severalpeople argued that the Forest Servicemust focus collaboration at the locallevel and give priority consideration tolocal concerns. In the words of oneperson, the Forest Service should‘‘listen to the local people who use theforests.’’ Others did not want corporateinterests involved in collaboration;these ‘‘faceless corporate giants,’’ theyperceived, used money and well-spokenrepresentatives to unjustly influence thedecisionmaking process. Similarly,some people suggested that paidlobbyists be excluded from thecollaborative process as well. Sometown meeting attendees felt that theForest Service should clarify thedifference between interested andaffected parties in the collaborationprocess.

Response: The proposed ruleprovided language that would‘‘encourage participants to workcollaboratively and directly with oneanother to improve understanding.’’ Inthe final rule, the Department hasexpanded the language to ‘‘encourageinterested individuals and organizationsto work collaboratively and directlywith one another to improveunderstanding.’’ In addition, section219.16(b) of the final rule includeslanguage that directs the responsibleofficial to initiate a planning processthat is ‘‘fair, meaningful, and open topersons with diverse opinions.’’ TheDepartment believes that this languageencompasses not only local citizens andinterest groups, but a nationalconstituency as well. The Departmentrecognizes that all Americans own thenational forests. The language in thefinal rule provides a framework for allinterested parties to actively participatein the planning process. Section 219.12of the final rule provides that theresponsible official has the authority toconsider the distinct roles, jurisdictions,and relationships in identifyingparticipants in the collaborative process.

Comment: Outreach methods forsoliciting public comment. Some

respondents asserted that the ForestService does not currently do enough toencourage involvement of all interestedparties and should explore morecreative ways of informing people aboutpublic involvement opportunities.Several people offered a variety ofdifferent suggestions for improvingForest Service outreach efforts. Theseincluded using different media todisseminate information such as thetelephone, internet sites, industry-specific newsletters, radio programs,and bulletin boards, providing adequatenotice and time for public commentopportunities, holding meetings withinlocal communities and at convenienttimes, using neutral group facilitatorsand a small group format for publicmeetings, incorporating funding foroutreach efforts in the annual ForestService budget, maintaining databasesof people who have expressed interestin forest planning, establishingpartnerships with interested groups andindividuals, and training Forest Servicepersonnel in collaboration procedures.Regardless of which specific outreachmethod the Forest Service uses inplanning, some respondents asked thatthe proposed rule include the NFMAmandate that requires the Forest Serviceto ‘‘hold public meetings or comparableprocesses at locations that foster publicparticipation in the review of such plansand revisions.’’

Response: The proposed ruleprovided a framework to actively engagethe public in a meaningful collaborativeplanning process. The Departmentcontinues to support that framework inthe final rule. The Departmentacknowledges that the agency hasmultiple roles in the collaborativeprocess including leader, organizer,facilitator, or participant. As noted inthe Committee of Scientists Report,information is a key element in buildingan accessible planning process and anhonest relationship between the agencyand communities. The Committeefurther noted that where keyinformation about the resources andmanagement of national forests andgrasslands is readily available in a rangeof locations and formats, openinformation policies could provide anyinterested individual the ability tounderstand, critique, and participate inplanning processes. The Departmentagrees with the respondents about usingdifferent media and requires alternativeformats for persons with disabilitieswhen disseminating information to thepublic. The planning frameworkoutlined in the final rule requires theForest Service to use a variety of mediato engage the public and tribal



governments in planning. The overallintent of the rule is to ‘‘actively engage’’the public in collaborative planning.The rule emphasizes the need to utilizemultiple methods to disseminateplanning information.

In regard to the comment aboutholding public meetings on changes inthe plans, the agency will continue tohave public involvement in accordancewith Forest Service NEPA procedures.There is no intent to eliminate theserequirements from Forest Serviceplanning.

Comment: Role as an educator. TheForest Service’s role as an educatorevoked comments from severalrespondents. These people believed theForest Service should establisheducational programs that provide thepublic with both environmental andforest management planninginformation. These people contendedthat informed stakeholders will helpexpedite the planning process andcontribute to improved forest plans.

Response: The proposed ruleacknowledged the multiple roles theagency has in the collaborative planningprocess. The final rule retains themultiple roles for the agency in thecollaborative planning process. TheDepartment acknowledges that theagency will not only be a convener,facilitator, leader, or participant, butwill also be an educator. The principlesin the final rule provide that ‘‘planningmeaningfully engages the Americanpeople in the stewardship of theirnational forests and grasslands.’’ TheDepartment believes that the agencywill be learning along with the public ina collaborative planning process. One ofthe themes of the rule is to inform andeducate the public about the ForestService’s planning process. Section219.16(e) of the final rule provides forthe Forest Service to work with partiesto identify information needs forplanning. The rule provides aframework for the Forest Service to bean educator as well as a participant inthe planning process.

Proposed Section 219.17—Interactionwith private landowners. This section ofthe proposed rule described theinteraction with private landowners inNational Forest System planning anddecisionmaking.

Comment: Few people specificallyaddressed this section. One individualbelieved that the language of theproposed rule is too discretionary aboutrequirements for engaging privatelandowners in forest planning.

Response: Section 219.17 of the finalrule describes the process for theresponsible official to engage privatelandowners in the planning process.

The final rule provides that the ForestService will work with adjacentlandowners on issues of mutual concernthat may affect them or management ofNational Forest System lands.

The final rule retains the requirementthat the responsible official seek toengage private landowners. Theinformation to be requested is expandedby the Department to include localknowledge, potential actions andpartnerships, potential conditions andactivities on National Forest Systemlands that may affect adjacent privatelands, and issues relating to the planarea. The Department added theseprovisions to more clearly identify thetypes of information that were beingsought from private landowners.

The Department has removed thephrase in the proposed regulations‘‘consideration of the pattern anddistribution of land ownership inassessment and plan areas is critical’’ inthe final rule. The Department isconfident that the language in the finalrule adequately recognizes theinterrelationships between privatelandowners and the Forest Service. TheDepartment has added a new item (b) inthe final rule that recognizesopportunities for partnerships betweenForest Service and private landowners.

Proposed Section 219.18—Role ofadvisory groups and committees. Thissection of the proposed rule describedthe role of advisory committees andgroups in land and resourcemanagement and decisionmaking. Thissection has been renamed in the finalrule to ‘‘Role of advisory committees.’’

Comment: Influence of local interests.Many who wanted the proposedprovision for advisory groupseliminated from the planningregulations claim that local commodityor economic interests will dominatethese groups. Advisory groupscomposed of mostly local interests,these people argued, will likelyadvocate damaging land managementpractices rather than emphasizing theneeds and desires of a broad spectrumof interests. In contrast, somerespondents believed that local advisorygroups are long overdue in nationalforest planning. They contended thatthese groups are needed to provide ameans for rural communities to voiceconcerns about Forest Service projectsthat may have local impacts. Informalizing the concept of the proposedadvisory groups, several peoplesuggested that the Forest Serviceestablish the groups as permanentcommittees accountable to the ForestService leadership team.

Response: Because the Forest Servicecannot carry out the mission of

sustainability alone, the Committee ofScientists recommended that it developboth formal and informal collaborativestructures that engage the broadercommunity of interests and responsiblegovernments to work together.Mechanisms for ensuring ongoing, long-term, broadly inclusive publicrelationships that build the capacity forcreating effective collaborativestewardship are necessary for effectiveplanning. It is the obligation of everyline officer to build and maintain strongrelationships with members of thepublic, interested organizations, othergovernments, and appropriate federalagencies. In some areas, especially whencommunities are spread over a largearea, multiple, informal, localizednetworks can be a useful approach tomaintaining these relationships. In othercases, especially when large landscapeplans cross multiple social communitiesand other political boundaries, formaladvisory boards may be the appropriatemechanism for ensuring full andrepresentative participation. Section219.18 of the final rule describes theroles and responsibilities of advisorycommittees in the planning process. TheDepartment believes that Forest orGrassland Supervisors must have accessto an advisory committee. These groupscan raise issues and communicate otherinformation vital to the planningprocess. They should not be construedto only allow local participation.Effective committees will respect all ofthose interested in or affected bynational forest system management. TheDepartment believes these groups willprovide important information forplanning and decisionmaking.

Comment: Composition of advisorygroups. Whether they explicitlyexpressed support of or opposition tothe proposed advisory groups, manyrespondents asked that the groupsrepresent diverse interests. Fearing thatthese advisory groups may be biasedtoward one particular interest group,these people requested that specificguidance be included in the planningregulations directing the Forest Serviceto create well-balanced committees.Several respondents offered suggestionsfor the specific guidance they wantedincluded in the regulations. Theseincluded criteria for selection ofcommittee members, requirements toensure that groups represent diversevalues, and clarification regarding therelationship between proposed advisorygroups and the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act. In addition, somepeople made specific requests for thecomposition of these groups such asexcluding vested financial interests



from participating and ensuringAmerican Indian and Alaska Nativerepresentation.

Response: As noted by the Committeeof Scientists, formal advisory boards,chartered under the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act and appointed by theSecretary of Agriculture, can provide animmediate, legitimate, representative,and predictable structure within whichpublic dialogue can occur so that ForestService relationships with a broad anddispersed community of interests can beefficiently maintained. The NFMAauthorizes the formation of suchadvisory committees. These committeesshould contain representatives of thediversity of interested institutions andindividuals, as currently required in thelaw. Thus, when they are theappropriate mechanism, the ForestService should not hesitate to formallycharter advisory boards at theindividual national forest level or at thelarge landscape level, whicheverprovides the greatest opportunity to gainrepresentative, structured, and focusedpublic interactions through which thekey issues can be most effectively andmeaningfully addressed. Section 219.18also provides for the Forest Service toutilize groups already established byother governmental agencies. Inaddition, the Department has added anew subparagraph (c) that provides forthe responsible official to emphasize theimportance of Forest Serviceparticipation in community basedgroups such as local watershedcouncils. With respect to the concernabout providing specific guidance in theplanning regulations, the rule providesonly the framework for establishingadvisory committees. It does not includespecific language for representation onthese advisory committees. This will bedetermined by the specificcircumstances and needs for an advisorycommittee.


Section 219.19—Ecological, social,and economic sustainability. Thissection of the proposed rule describedgoals and priorities for sustainablemanagement of National Forest Systemlands.

Comment: Definition of sustainability.The definition of sustainability evokednumerous concerns from the peopleresponding to the proposed planningregulation. Some believed that theambiguity of the term needed to beaddressed. Because there are manydifferent meanings of sustainability, itsuse created confusion throughout theproposed rule, according to onerespondent. Many felt that the term

should be used consistently throughoutnot only the proposed planningregulations but also the entire federalplanning process.

Response: The Department agrees thatthe inconsistent use of sustainability inthe proposed rule was a source ofpotential confusion. A definition ofsustainability has been included in thefinal rule. Section 1(b)(3) definessustainability as being composed ofinterdependent ecological, social, andeconomic elements, embodying theprinciples of multiple-use andsustained-yield without impairment tothe productivity of the land, andmeeting needs of the present generationwithout compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their needs.Impairment of the productivity of theland means managing lands in a mannerinconsistent with the requirements ofecological sustainability in section219.20. It is beyond the scope of thecurrent rule-making effort to proposeconsistent treatment of sustainability inall federal planning processes.

Comment: Implications for resourcemanagement. Some respondents wereconcerned that the adoption of thesustainability goal will prescribeactivities on national forests that areconsidered nonrenewable. They felt theproposed rule should address howactions such as mining can beconducted in a sustainable manner.Others were equally concerned thattheir personal access to national forestswill be limited by the proposed rule.They questioned what activities wouldbe allowed and feared their activity onnational forests might be excluded bythe attempt to attain the goal ofsustainability. These respondentssought reassurances that such a scenariowill be avoided.

Response: The proposed rule did notspecifically address how nonrenewableactivities can be addressed in asustainable manner or define activitiesthat would be allowed on the nationalforests and grasslands. Likewise, thesetopics are not addressed in the finalrule. Rather, the rule establishes aprocess for identifying, discussing, and,if appropriate, acting on issues that mayemerge from a variety of sources(section 219.4).

The Department believes that thisrule, and in particular, its sustainabilityrequirements, will not by itself precludemining activities. Analysis andcollaboration conducted under therequirements of the rule, and followingall applicable laws, will determinewhere mining is appropriate and whatmitigation measures will be required.The rule’s emphasis on ecosystemhealth, collaboration, and the role of

science may very well result in theidentification and implementation ofeffective and efficient mitigatingmeasures applicable to miningoperations, improving the overallsustainability of the use anddevelopment of what are commonlyreferred to as nonrenewable resources.

Comment: Assessing ecological,social, and economic sustainability.Many respondents felt the ecological,economic, and social benefits derivedfrom national forest management mustoutweigh the costs involved. This is thestandard by which the Forest Serviceshould measure sustainability,according to these citizens. Othersasserted that ecological, economic, andsocial sustainability should receiveequal consideration in the proposedrule. Citing the fact that social andeconomic sciences are currently notbeing integrated into Forest Servicedecisions, they believed that thisperceived oversight be corrected in thefinal planning rule. In addition, onerespondent wanted the proposed rule toset a discrete time period over whichsustainability is to be measured. Finally,other people applauded the choice ofsustainability as the guiding principle offorest management because they believesuch a goal is admirable and attainable.

Response: Requirements for achievingsustainability are found in sections219.19, 219.20, and 219.21 of the finalrule. The proposed rule did not specifyhow social and economic sustainabilitywas to be achieved in relation toecological sustainability. In the finalrule, social and economic sustainabilityis achieved by providing a range of uses,products, services, and values,consistent with ecological sustainability(section 219.20(b)). The first priority forstewardship of the National ForestSystem, which is to maintain andrestore ecological sustainability, isunchanged from the proposed rule. TheDepartment believes that theserequirements will result in ecological,economic, and social benefits that aregreater than the costs. As noted by theCommittee of Scientists,‘‘* * * ecological sustainability lays anecessary foundation for national forestsand grasslands to contribute to theeconomic and social components ofsustainability, making contributions tostrong productive economies andcreating opportunities for enduringhuman communities.’’

In the proposed rule, information onecological sustainability is collected at avariety of spatial and temporal scales.This requirement has been retained inthe final rule. The proposed and finalrules are silent on the temporal scale for



the evaluation of social and economicsustainability. The proposed ruleacknowledges social and economicanalyses being undertaken at variousspatial scales. The final rule requires theplanning process to include analyses forsocial and economic information atvariable scales, including national,regional, and local scales. Theresponsible official has the authority todetermine the appropriate scope andscale of analysis and data collection. Inmaking this determination, theresponsible official appropriatelyapplies collaboration and the bestavailable science.

As noted in section 219.20(a) of thefinal rule, the collection and analysis ofinformation at a variety of spatial andtemporal scales is important inproviding for maintenance or restorationof ecosystems. These scales includegeographic areas such as bioregions andwatersheds, scales of biologicalorganization such as communities andspecies, and scales of time ranging frommonths to centuries. For this reason, theDepartment has not adopted a discretetime period over which sustainability isto be measured.

The Department agrees thatsustainability is the guiding principle ofNational Forest System management.This section of the proposed rulereferred to sustainability as the overallgoal for the management of NationalForest System land. The Department hasretained this reference in the final rule.

Comment: Linkage betweenecological, economic, and socialsustainability. Some people believedthat the Forest Service shouldemphasize the link among the threetypes of sustainability outlined in theproposed planning regulations. Otherssought clarification regarding the linkbetween ecological and socioeconomicsustainability, as well as what roleextraction industries will play inachieving ecological sustainability.

Response: The Department agrees thatthe linkage between ecological, socialand economic sustainability was notsufficiently emphasized in the proposedrule. Language was added to the finalrule to rectify this insufficiency. In thefinal rule, sustainability, composed ofinterdependent ecological, social, andeconomic elements, embodies theMUSYA without impairment to theproductivity of the land and is theoverall goal of management of theNational Forest System. The firstpriority for stewardship of the nationalforests and grasslands is to maintain orrestore ecological sustainability toprovide a sustainable flow of uses,values, products, and services fromthese lands.

To contribute to economic and socialsustainability, the responsible officialinvolves interested and affected peoplein planning for National Forest Systemlands (§ 219.12–219.18), provides for thedevelopment and consideration ofrelevant social and economicinformation and analyses, and a range ofuses, values, products, and services.Plan decisions contribute to social andeconomic sustainability by providing arange of uses, products, services, andvalues, consistent with ecologicalsustainability (section 219.21(b)).

The proposed rule did not define aspecific role for extractive industries inachieving ecological sustainability. Norhas such a role been defined in the finalrule. The final rule does includeprovisions such as § 219.21(a)(1)(iii) thatrequire the responsible official toconsider opportunities to provide socialand economic benefits to communitiesthrough natural resource restorationstrategies. The rule establishes a processfor identifying, discussing, and, ifappropriate, acting on issues that mayemerge from a variety of sources(section 219.4). The Departmentbelieves that the role of extractiveindustries in achieving ecologicalsustainability is most appropriatelyaddressed using this process.

The final rule would not, by itself,result in environmental consequences.Rather, adverse effects or benefits wouldonly be realized when the new rule isapplied on national forests andgrasslands through forest and projectlevel planning. Because application ofthe rule requires consideration of site-specific information that pertains to theplanning unit, it is not possible, from aprogrammatic viewpoint, to determineshort or long-term environmental,social, or economic consequences of thefinal rule. The Department believes thatthis rule, and in particular, itssustainability requirements, will not byitself preclude mining or othereconomic activities. Analysis andcollaboration conducted under therequirements of the rule, and followingall applicable laws, will determinewhere mining is appropriate and whatmitigation measures will be required.The rule’s emphasis on ecosystemhealth, collaboration, and the role ofscience may very well result in theidentification and implementation ofeffective and efficient mitigatingmeasures applicable to miningoperations, improving the overallsustainability of the use anddevelopment of what are commonlyreferred to as nonrenewable resources.As noted above, mitigation of the effectsof mining activities through theapplication of the planning rule may

reduce the overall environmentalimpacts of mining within nationalforests and grasslands.

Similarly, any short-term or long-termeffects on the availability of forestproducts and services would occur on aforest-by-forest basis once forest planswere revised under the final rule. Forthis reason, quantifiable impacts to theavailability of forest products andservices cannot be determined at thistime. The Forest Service speculates thatby implementing the rule, the ForestService will put greater emphasis onmaintaining and restoring ecosystemhealth in order to promote sustainableforest use. As a result, it is possible thatthere could be less timber volume madeavailable for commodity purposes in thefuture. At the same time, more timbervolume could be made available as aresult of efforts to increase timberharvest for stewardship purposes.

Comment: Adoption of MontrealCriteria: One respondent recommendedthat the rule be used to build greaterconsistency between sustainable forestmanagement, including nationalcommitments to sustainable forestry andthe Forest Service Natural ResourceAgenda, and national forest planning.Adoption of the seven Montreal ProcessCriteria within the regulation wasspecifically recommended to provide aframework for measuring and organizinginformation and performance related tosustainability.

Response: The Committee ofScientists, while acknowledging theirpotential usefulness, had a number ofqualifications about the use of criteriaand indicators for gauging sustainabilityon the National Forest System lands.First, the Committee found that theymight not be sufficient, by themselves,to gauge ecological sustainability. As anexample, the ‘‘maintenance ofproductive capacity of forestecosystems’’ does not appear to includethe amount of dead trees for wildlifehabitat as an indicator. Second, theCommittee believed that the criteria andindicators are generally non-spatial andseem to lack a landscape view. Theyfocus on measuring acres in certaincondition without the aggregationneeded for judgments about areas. Thelack of integrative concepts on the useof the criteria and indicators may makeit difficult to use them to make overalljudgments. Finally, the Committee feltthat they could consume much of theagency’s resources for inventorying andmonitoring, leaving little to otherimportant measures of sustainability.

The Department is guided by thequalifications of the Committee ofScientists concerning the use of criteriaand indicators for gauging sustainability



on National Forest System lands. Thespecific framework for illustrating thelinkage between sustainability and theMontreal Criterion are underdevelopment and are expected to beincluded in Forest Service directives asthey become available.

Other changes: The final rule refers tosustainability as the embodiment of theprinciples of multiple-use andsustained-yield without impairment tothe productivity of the land. Thislanguage is not contained in theproposed rule. The Department hasincluded this language to more clearlydescribe the linkage of sustainability tothe requirements of the MUSYA. Thephrase ‘‘without impairment to theproductivity of the land’’ in this statuteis key in defining both multiple-use andsustained-yield and is acknowledged inthe final rule.

Other changes in the final rule aremade to eliminate redundancy, improveclarity, or incorporate changedterminology. The proposed rulerequired that management be consistentwith laws and regulations. Thisreference is removed from the final rulebecause this is a requirement of allactions by each civil servant and notunique to management of nationalforests or grasslands. The proposed rulereferred to sustainability as the overallgoal of National Forest Systemmanagement and this reference isretained in the final rule. Similarlanguage is found in section 219.1(b) ofthe final rule. Finally, section219.1(b)(3) of the proposed rule madereference to the interdependentelements of sustainability. Thisreference is included in this section ofthe final rule to emphasize theimportance of consideration of theinterdependent nature of ecological,social, and economic sustainability.

Section 219.20—Ecologicalsustainability. This section of theproposed rule described the keyprinciples and desired outcomes forecological sustainability.

Comment: The definition of ecologicalsustainability. Some felt that theproposed regulations should includehumans and their impacts on theenvironment in the definition. Of thoserespondents that use the termsecological sustainability and foresthealth interchangeably, some suggestedthe proposed rule clarify the definitionof forest health.

Response: The Department believesthat humans and their impacts on theenvironment are included in thedefinition of ecological sustainability.The Department also believes that foresthealth is also encompassed in thisdefinition. Ecological sustainability is

defined in section 219.36 of the finalrule as the maintenance or restoration ofthe composition, structure, andprocesses of ecosystems including thediversity of plant and animalcommunities and the productivecapacity of ecological systems.

Comment: Ecological sustainabilityand discretionary language. Numerouspeople cited the use of discretionarylanguage, such as ‘‘may’’ and ‘‘should,’’as a serious flaw in the proposedregulations. These individuals wouldlike to see the inclusion of imperativelanguage, such as ‘‘shall’’ and ‘‘must,’’to ensure that ecological sustainabilityis achieved.

Response: The Department hasretained the discretionary language inthe final rule. It does not believe that theuse of discretionary language inreferring to ecological sustainability is aserious flaw. The planning rule isintended to provide numerousopportunities to reach well-reasonedand sustainable solutions to naturalresource issues. Discretionary authorityoften provides flexible and appropriatesolutions to complex natural resourceissues among competing interests. It hasbeen the experience of the ForestService and others that the net result ofinflexible policies often results inpoorer solutions.

Comment: Specific guidelines forecological sustainability. Severalrespondents that supported the goal ofecological sustainability felt that theproposed planning rule lacks specificguidelines. They requested that theForest Service include clear, directstandards and goals for achievingecological sustainability in the finalrule. Others asserted that ecosystemrecovery should occur before themaintenance of sustainability isundertaken. A few respondents urgedthe Forest Service to recognize the linkbetween timber harvest and ecologicalsustainability. They were adamant thatfuel loads and overstocked forests posea more serious threat to forest healththan logging does.

Response: The Department agrees thatthe proposed rule did not include clear,direct standards and goals for achievingecological sustainability. This section ofthe final rule was revised in response tothis concern. Requirements forachieving ecological sustainability arefound in section 219.20(b) of the finalrule.

The proposed rule did not requireecosystem recovery to occur before themaintenance of sustainability isundertaken. Nor did it recognize thelink between timber harvest andecological sustainability. TheDepartment did not include either of

these issues in the final rule. The ruledoes establish a process for identifying,discussing, and, if appropriate, actingon issues that may emerge from avariety of sources (section 219.4). TheDepartment believes that these issuesare most appropriately addressed usingthis process.

Finally, as noted above, theDepartment believes that the definitionof ecological sustainability encompassesforest health.

Comment: Ecological sustainability asthe over-reaching goal of forestplanning. Some respondents cited theloss of jobs and an increase of appealsand litigation as reasons not to supportthe goal of ecological sustainability. Onerespondent asserted that ecologicalsustainability is unattainable under thecurrent ecological circumstances.Invasive species such as cheatgrass haveirretrievably altered the landscape, thisperson contended, precluding thepossibility of attaining ecologicalsustainability. Others believed the goalof ecological sustainability is toonebulous a concept to use as a standardupon which to judge forest health.

Response: The Department does notbelieve that the goal of ecologicalsustainability will result in a loss of jobsor an increase in appeals and litigation.As noted by the Committee of Scientists,‘‘* * * ecological sustainability lays anecessary foundation for NationalForests and Grasslands to contribute tothe economic and social components ofsustainability, making contributions tostrong productive economies andcreating opportunities for enduringhuman communities.’’ The intent of theobjection process (section 219.32) is toencourage resolution of issues beforedecisions are made. In the long run, theobjection process is expected to resolvemany potential conflicts, reducinglitigation.

The proposed rule stated that whereecosystems have been altered to theextent that it is not possible to returnthem to conditions within the historicalrange, other scientifically credibleapproaches may be used to maintain orrestore ecological sustainability. Thefinal rule states that where it is notpracticable to make measurable progresstoward conditions within the expectedrange of variability, plan decisions mayprovide for ecosystem composition andstructure outside the expected range ofvariability. Other independently peer-reviewed methods must be used toprovide for ecosystem diversity. TheDepartment believes this language in thefinal rule provides for ecologicalsustainability where circumstances,such as invasive species, haveirretrievably altered the landscape.



Finally, as noted above, theDepartment changed this section toprovide clear, direct standards and goalsfor achieving ecological sustainability.

Comment: The maintenance of thecomposition, structure, and processes ofecosystems. Some respondents assertedthat the discretionary and nebulousnature of this mandate will lead toarbitrary and inconsistent decisions.Others believed that the proposed ruledoes not address the physicalcharacteristics of ecosystems. Accordingto these individuals, the Forest Serviceshould emphasize soil, water, and air asmuch as biological factors whenconducting ecological analyses.

Response: As noted above, theDepartment changed this section toprovide clear, direct standards and goalsfor achieving ecological sustainability.As also noted above, the use ofdiscretionary language in referring toecological sustainability is appropriate.

The proposed rule required ecologicalinformation and analyses on thefollowing physical characteristics: soilconditions, air and water quality, streamchannel morphology, and instreamflows. The final rule requiresevaluations of soil resources, includingsoil productivity, physical, chemicaland biological properties, soil loss, andcompaction, and air resources,including air quality, visibility, andother air resource values. The final rulealso requires an evaluation of the effectsof air quality in ecological systems,including water, and an estimate ofcurrent and foreseeable future ForestService consumptive and non-consumptive water uses and thequantity and quality of water needed tosupport those uses and contribute toecological sustainability. TheDepartment believes the requirements inthe final rule appropriately address thephysical characteristics of ecologicalsustainability.

Comment: Value of medicinal plants.The extraction of trees, while fosteringimmediate economic gains, may bedestroying valuable plants, according toone respondent. Claiming thatmedicinal plants have the potential tonot only generate income but also savelives, this respondent requested that thevalue of medicinal plants growing innational forests be considered in thefinal rule.

Response: Medicinal plants willcontinue to be an importantconsideration in the management ofnational forests and grasslands. Theprocedures for the identification offunctioning ecosystems described insection 219.5 and the use of the issueidentification process in section 219.4ensure appropriate attention and

management action is directed towardmedicinal plants on National ForestSystem lands.

Comment: Pre-European settlementconditions. A few respondentssupported the concept of pre-Europeansettlement conditions as it is presentedin the proposed regulations. They feltthat using such a standard would helpthe Forest Service avoid past mistakes.A majority of respondents, however,presented numerous and diversereasons for not supporting theseconcepts. Many believed that the goal ofpre-European settlement conditions wasunattainable. One individual citedairplane over-flights as an example ofthe impossibility of returning forests tothe pre-European settlement conditions.Some respondents requested the ForestService clarify exactly what pre-European settlement conditions are.Other respondents feared that thisbenchmark would be used to restricthuman access to national forests. Onerespondent believed that adopting thepre-European settlement standard willshift forest product demands onto lessresilient forests around the world. Sucha shift will impact global biodiversityaccording to this respondent. Othersbelieved that the goal of pre-Europeansettlement conditions contradicts theletter and the spirit of the MUSYA. Theresource needs of the nation todaycannot be met, they asserted, if such astandard is adopted.

Response: The Department agrees thata goal of pre-European settlementconditions is unattainable. Givenclimate change, land-use change, andchanging landscape conditions, the useof the conditions of pre-Europeansettlement as a reference was notrealistic for many environments. Forthis reason, the Department haseliminated the use of this terminologyfrom the final rule.

As discussed for more fully below, thefinal rule partially relies on informationfrom the historical natural disturbanceregimes of ecosystems, but does notpurport to return ecosystems to thedynamics of pre-European settlement.Rather, these requirements use theregimes of natural disturbances of thecurrent climatic period to estimate anexpected range of variability forcharacteristics of ecosystemcomposition and structure that can beused in planning at broad spatial scalesacross major ecological types.

Comment: Historical range ofvariability. Some respondents believedthat a lack of information makes adefinitive determination of historicalrange of variability unattainable. Theyfelt that the Forest Service shouldclearly define what the historical range

of variability means and how it will beapplied. Others felt the term is toodiscretionary and will allow the ForestService to make arbitrary managementdecisions. Some felt that the proposedplanning regulations should account forpotential misuse of the historical rangeof variability. They asserted that theconcept can be exploited to supportextractive activities that do notnecessarily support ecosystemsustainability. Various respondentssuggested that the final planning ruleprovide specific guidance for instanceswhen the historical range of variabilityfor a site is not clearly defined. Becausethey believed that the determination ofhistorical range of variability for specificsites could take years to complete,several individuals requested that theproposed planning regulations requirethe implementation of interimprotection guidelines for areas of highecological value. Some respondentswished to see the incorporation ofheritage research in the ecosystemmanagement process. They believedsuch research was essential todetermine the historical range ofvariability. Some respondents supportedthe benchmark of historical range ofvariability to measure ecosystemintegrity.

Response: The proposed ruledescribed the concept of ecologicalintegrity and the historical range ofvariability, which, in turn, used pre-European settlement as a referenceperiod. Considering variable andchanging climate, land-use, andlandscape conditions, the approach inthe proposed rule was changed.

The proposed rule containedimportant, essential ideas about naturalhistory and disturbances. It is wellaccepted in the scientific communitythat the ecosystems and species of todayare a product of historical disturbanceregimes as well as currentenvironments. It is also widely acceptedthat disturbances play a major role increating ecological diversity andproductivity. The current species areadapted to recent climatic anddisturbance regimes of landscapes andcontain a long record of environmentalhistory in their genetic structure.Consequently, one cannot ignore therole of the past when attempting tosustain ecological conditions into thefuture, even when that futureenvironment will be different.

Human desires, however, need to bein sync with ecological capacities.When those desires include maintainingand enhancing current biologicaldiversity, or slowing the rate of itschange, then information from the pastmust be used to help sustain or



transition ecosystems into future statesat rates that are socially acceptable. Therole of ecosystem management in thisprocess is to manage change inecosystems such that the rate anddirection of change is consistent withecological potential and social desires. Itis extremely difficult to establishdesired conditions for species andcomplex ecosystems without somereference to how they have functionedin the past. When used carefully and ina limited way, historical informationcan play an important role in sustainingdesired ecosystems into the future.

The final rule uses information fromthe historical natural disturbanceregimes of ecosystems, but does notpurport to return ecosystems to thedynamics of pre-European settlement.Rather, these requirements use theregimes of natural disturbances of thecurrent climatic period to estimate anexpected range of variability forcharacteristics of ecosystemcomposition and structure. Theexpected range of variability forcharacteristics of ecosystemcomposition and structure in alandscape or region can be estimatedfrom general knowledge of disturbancefrequencies, severities, and rates ofvegetation development.

The Department believes thatproviding ecological conditions withinthe expected range of variability acrossall major ecological types will reducethreats and risks to the sustainability ofnative and desired non-native speciesand ecosystems on national forests andgrasslands. Many of the current threatsto species and ecosystems on theselands have their origin in acceleratedrates and intensities of human activitiessuch as intensive management fortimber production and overgrazing orreduced rates of disturbance from firesuppression that have altered theabundance, structure and compositionof ecosystems at multiple spatial scales.Providing ecological conditions withinthe expected range of variability willalso contribute to ecosystemproductivity and diversity and optionsfor sustaining social, and economicgoods and services such as water,forage, and wood and recreation. Thisrequirement is intended to be set atrelatively broad province scales and formajor ecological types that correspondto potential natural vegetation series.

The proposed rule did not includeinterim protection guidelines for areasof high ecological value; nor has theDepartment included such interimguidelines in the final rule. TheDepartment believes that, unlike thehistoric range of variability, theestimation of the expected range of

variability can be accomplished withoutthe need to provide interim protectionfor areas of high ecological value.

The use of the expected range ofvariability is not intended to precludecommercial timber harvest. Any short-term or long-term effects on theavailability of forest products andservices would occur on a forest-by-forest basis once forest plans wererevised under the final rule. For thisreason, quantifiable impacts to theavailability of forest products andservices cannot be determined at thistime.

Comment: Reference landscapes.Some citizens suggested that the finalplanning rule clarify the process ofidentifying reference landscapes. Theyfelt specific guidelines would helpdefine which landscapes will bedeemed suitable for such a designation.A few respondents questioned thepossibility of finding suitable areas forreference landscape designation. Theybelieved the Forest Service will be hardpressed to find large areas affected bynatural disturbance regimes yet stillundisturbed by human activity. Oneindividual believed the establishment ofreference landscapes is a usurpation ofCongressional authority. Since theselandscapes are to be set aside inperpetuity as benchmarks, thisindividual asserted that such an actionis a de facto wilderness designation.This respondent felt that such adesignation can be exploited to amasslarge land areas and then exclude accessto these lands.

Response: The Committee ofScientists noted that managers needsome guidance about the amount ofenvironmental variation that isacceptable and is within the biota’sability to respond adaptively to it.Estimates of an acceptable range ofvariability in composition, structures,and processes provide referencedistributions or conditions againstwhich competing management scenariosare compared. The conditions found inreference landscapes may be the ‘‘coarsefilters’’ within which the currentphysical landscape and biota evolved.To the degree that future managementscenarios can achieve the conditions inreference landscapes, the more likely itis that the ‘‘coarse filter’’ will achievethe objectives for ecologicalsustainability and the less likely that‘‘fine-filter’’ strategies will be needed forindividual species.

The Department has not includedspecific guidelines in the final rule todefine which landscapes will bedeemed suitable for such a designation.Reference landscapes are rarely uniform‘‘snapshots’’ of the past. Considerable

variability caused by climate changeand disturbance by fire, flood, insects,disease, and other natural factorstypically affects reference conditions.Reference conditions vary within anecosystem over time, and theproportions of old-growth forests orearly seral conditions are never in a trueequilibrium state. These conditions alsovary between ecosystems.

The Department agrees that it will bedifficult finding suitable areas forreference landscape designation. Ingeneral, it is easier to reconstructdisturbance regimes (e.g., fire frequencyand intensity) than the effect of thoseregimes, so reference landscapes arerarely precise. Nevertheless, they play akey role in evaluating the ‘‘coarse filter’’proposed by future management plans.

Finally, the establishment of referencelandscapes is not a usurpation ofCongressional authority. The final ruledoes not set aside reference landscapesin perpetuity as benchmarks.

Comment: Scientific foundation ofecosystem integrity. Some respondentsfelt that the concept of ecosystemintegrity cannot currently bescientifically gauged. These respondentsbelieved that the lack of scientificmeasurement standards has led to theunfair labeling of road building andlogging activity as indicators ofecosystem integrity. Such a designation,they asserted, leads to the prohibition ofroad building and logging. Onerespondent, citing the complexity andbreadth of ecosystem processes,requested clarification on the definitionof the concept of a ‘‘complete’’ecosystem. Another respondent assertedthat, ‘‘Grouping species based onparticular value judgments and thenusing these groupings to evaluate * * *integrity introduces enormous bias intothe evaluation.’’

Response: The proposed rule definedintegrity as the completeness of anecosystem, at multiple spatial andtemporal scales, that maintains itscharacteristic diversity of biological andphysical components, spatial patterns,structure, and functional processeswithin its approximate range of historicvariability. These processes includedisturbance regimes, nutrient cycling,hydrologic functions, vegetationsuccession, and species adaptation andevolution. Ecosystems with integrity areresilient and sustainable in the presenceof human management actions andnatural disturbances. Ecologicalintegrity is an intuitively appealingconcept that is well established in theecological literature, but its definition iscontentious. This contention stems fromthe various (and often conflicting)perspectives that include: Structural



(keep the parts), functional (maintainecosystem functions and processes), andhuman uses (accommodating thederivation of goods and services fromecosystems for humans).

Ecological integrity was defined in theCommittee of Scientists’ report as thestate of being unimpaired and sound,and the quality or condition of beingwhole or complete. Furthermore, theCommittee of Scientists recommendedthat a suite of indicators be used toevaluate integrity that includes speciescomposition, ecosystem composition,ecosystem processes, and appropriatereference distributions against which tojudge management decisions. Thisdefinition has its basis in the structuraland functional perspectives definedabove and was put forth as a way toencapsulate the state of the ecosystem inthe absence of social and economicconsiderations.

There are a number of potentialconcerns tied to directly usingecological integrity in the proposed rule,including: the lack of an unambiguousdefinition in the literature; a tendencyto be viewed as a single state of absolutecondition rather than recognizing thedynamic nature of ecosystems; aninclination to link integrity measures togoals (e.g., the historical range ofvariability of pre-European conditions);and a redundancy with the concept ofecological sustainability.

There is a relatively rich literature onthe conceptual aspects of ecologicalintegrity. What is lacking is a generallyaccepted set of scientific normsregarding integrity measures. For thisreason, actual applications of ecologicalintegrity in a management context arerare in the literature, making it difficultto use the concept of ecological integrityin natural resource planning. Someapplications of integrity have focusedon a single ecosystem stated as havingintegrity. The concept does not lenditself to classify each system as havingor not having integrity. This approachfails to recognize the dynamic nature ofecosystems.

The context for understanding theecological integrity of any specificlandscape must be couched in terms ofthe goals and expectations for thelandscape. This translates, in part, todefining some standard against whichintegrity will be measured. Often thisstandard is based on some ecologicalcondition like the historic range ofvariability as reflected under pre-European settlement conditions.Defining ecological integrity to bewithin the historic range of variabilityand requiring that ecological conditionsshould be maintained within that rangedoes not capture the full meaning of

integrity as described in the literature.Linking only to historical conditions,without framing the current andprobable future climatic system, is notsupported by scientific understanding ofenvironmental change.

The proposed rule stated that ‘‘toachieve ecological sustainability, it isnecessary to maintain and restoreecological integrity.’’ The Departmentfound it difficult to separate ecologicalintegrity from the broader notion ofecological sustainability. Ecologicalintegrity and ecological sustainabilityare intended to reflect the overall stateof an ecosystem as a whole.

The language ‘‘ecological integrity’’ isnot included in the final rule. Integrityis viewed as a component of ecologicalsustainability along with other systemattributes like resiliency, health, andvitality. The Department concluded thatthe explicit application of ecologicalintegrity as an analysis or performancerequirement in the final rule wasunnecessary given the rule’s focus onecological sustainability. TheDepartment believes the concept ofecological integrity is within theconcept of sustainability as described bythe rule.

Comment: Indicators of ecosystemintegrity. One respondent wonderedhow the Forest Service will choosespecific indicators to gauge the integrityof ecosystems when, by definition,ecosystems are constantly changing,dynamic systems. This person alsoquestioned how, and by whom, goodand bad effects will be determined.Some respondents supported theinclusion of water quality and waterflow regimes as indicators of ecosystemintegrity in the final rule.

Response: As noted above, theDepartment found that ecologicalintegrity indicators are an unnecessaryaddition to the evaluation ofsustainability.

As also noted above, the final rulerequires the estimation of an expectedrange of variability for characteristics ofecosystem composition and structurethat can be used as planning objectivesat broad spatial scales across majorecological types. The expected range ofvariability in a landscape or region canbe estimated from general knowledge ofdisturbance frequencies, severities andrates of vegetation development.

With respect to the integrity ofecosystems, neither the proposed norfinal rule described how good and badeffects will be determined. Therequirements for ecosystem diversity(section 219.20(b)(1)) use the expectedrange of variability to provide for themaintenance and restoration of the

characteristics of ecosystemcomposition and structure.

The final rule provides for anevaluation of ecological sustainability,which includes characteristics ofecosystem and species diversity (section219.20(a)). The characteristics to beevaluated include water quality andflow regimes.

Comment: Species definitions. Whilesome respondents sought generalclarification of focal species, otherssuggested the final rule specificallyelucidate the distinction between focalspecies and management indicatorspecies. Another respondent questionedwhether introduced species, such as thewolf, can be considered under thedefinition of species-at-risk. In addition,certain respondents felt the proposeddefinitions of focal species and species-at-risk create a statutory conflict withendangered and threatened speciesunder the Endangered Species Act.Some respondents wonder whether theForest Service or the Fish and WildlifeService will designate focal species andspecies-at-risk. One individual believedthe definition of species-at-risk shouldbe expanded to include any speciesidentified by conservation organizationsor state natural heritage programs asimperiled. Another felt any documenteddeclining species should be designated.Conversely, numerous respondentssupported the concept of focal species,species-at-risk, and demand species asthey are currently defined in theproposed rule.

Response: In the current rule,management indicator species (MIS) areselected in order to estimate the effectsof management actions on fish andwildlife populations. MIS include,where appropriate, threatened andendangered species; species withspecial habitat needs that may besignificantly influenced by plannedmanagement programs; speciescommonly hunted, fished, or trapped;non-game species of special interest;and species whose population changesare believed to indicate the effects ofmanagement activities on other speciesof selected major biologicalcommunities or on water quality.

In the proposed rule, focal species areselected for use as surrogate measures inthe assessment of ecological integrity,including the diversity of native anddesired non-native species. Their statusand time trend provide insights to theintegrity of the larger ecological systemto which they belong. Species selectedwould represent the range ofenvironments within the assessmentarea, and would serve an umbrellafunction, or play key roles inmaintaining community structure or



processes. Focal species have beenretained in the final rule.

In the proposed rule, species-at-riskwere defined as endangered, threatened,candidate, proposed, and sensitivespecies, and species for whichsignificant local reductions indistribution or density are concerns.The final rule defines species-at-risk asfederally listed endangered, threatened,candidate, and proposed species andother species for which loss of viability,including reduction in distribution orabundance, is a concern. In the finalrule, an introduced species could bedesignated as a species-at-risk.

The Department does not believe thedefinitions of focal species and species-at-risk in the proposed rule created astatutory conflict with endangered andthreatened species under theEndangered Species Act. In addition,the responsible official designates focalspecies and those species-at-risk notdesignated as threatened, endangered,candidate, and proposed species by theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in theproposed rule. This language is retainedin the final rule (section 219.20(a)).

The proposed rule did not requireinclusion of species listed by statenatural heritage programs orconservation organizations as species-at-risk. The Department believed that thestate natural heritage programs orconservation organizations listedspecies for reasons other than viabilityconcerns. In defining species-at-risk, theDepartment sought a grouping of speciesbased solely on viability concerns. Forthis reason, the Department insertedlanguage in the final rule that species-at-risk include other species for whichloss of viability, including reduction indistribution or abundance, is a concernwithin the plan area. These otherspecies-at-risk may include sensitivespecies and state listed species.Viability is the criterion whichdetermines what is included as aspecies-at-risk.

Comment: Game species. Somerespondents felt habitats for abundantgame species have been enhanced at theexpense of habitats for less common andmore sensitive species. They assertedthat such practices indicate the need fora shift of emphasis from demand speciesto focal species and species-at-risk. Incontrast, some felt that many species ofbig game are not receiving themanagement attention they warrant.

Response: Demand species are thoseplants and animal species of high social,cultural, or economic value. In theproposed rule, plan decisions mustprovide for ecological conditionsneeded to achieve sustainable use levelsof demand species. This provision was

deleted from the final rule to ensure thatthe treatment of demand species wouldnot take place at the expense of habitatsfor focal species and species-at-risk.

Comment: Use of focal species. Somerespondents believed the Forest Serviceshould reconsider the use of focalspecies as indicators of ecosystemintegrity. One citizen asserted, ‘‘There isnot enough money in the federaltreasury to fund the numerous surveysand analyses that will ultimately berequired.’’ Others agreed with thissentiment, and added that the emphasisof the final rule should be shifted fromfocal species to habitat capability. TheForest Service should be monitoring forhabitat, they declared, because it is notonly easier than monitoring forpopulations, but it also allows theappropriate entity, the individual stated,to manage and monitor wildlife species.

Response: The Departmentacknowledges an increase in analysisand monitoring in the proposed rule forecological sustainability, including focalspecies. Continued declines in the costof analysis and monitoring are expectedin the future, however, with advances ininformation technology. Furthermore,the Department believes that nosignificant additional resources will berequired for implementation of the finalrule as the planning framework shiftsresources from later to earlier in theplanning process. For these reasons, theDepartment has retained the provisionsfor appropriate analysis and monitoringin the final rule.

Comment: Assessing viablepopulations of species. Populationsampling and monitoring of species,especially threatened and endangeredspecies, needs to be a mandate in thefinal rule, some respondents asserted.These respondents felt that withoutactual population surveys, speciesviability will not be sustained. Anotherindividual wondered if scientists havereached any consensus on broad-scalemethods and strategies for providingspecies viability. This person assertedthat such a model does not exist andhence the attainment of species viabilitywill be marred by confusion andconflict.

Response: In the proposed rule,population sampling is appropriatewhen the risk of local or broaderextirpation is high or there is highuncertainty about the habitats andconditions needed for species viability.In the final rule, the plan monitoringstrategy may require populationmonitoring for some focal species andsome species-at-risk as appropriate.

The responsible official’s decision tomonitor populations and theresponsible official’s choice of

methodologies for monitoring selectedfocal species and selected species-at-riskin the final rule may be based uponfactors that include, but are not limitedto, the degree of risk to the species, thedegree to which a species’ life historycharacteristics lend themselves tomonitoring, the reasons that a species isincluded in the list of focal species orspecies-at-risk, and the strength ofassociation between ecologicalconditions and population dynamics.The Department believes this languageprovides assurance that species viabilitywill be sustained.

Many scientists have reached aconsensus on broad scale methods andstrategies for providing species viability.These scientists believe that taking anecosystem diversity approach increasesthe potential to meet the needs of thepreponderance of species. This isparticularly important because it isfinancially and technically impracticalto individually assess each species.

Ecological sustainability has twoprimary indicators in the final rule:ecosystem diversity and speciesdiversity. Ecosystem diversity providesa ‘‘coarse filter’’ approach for sustainingecosystems. Ecological diversity isdefined in a broad context by languagethroughout section 219.20 of the finalrule. Characteristics of ecosystemdiversity include, but are not limited to,major vegetation types, water resources,soil resources, air resources, and focalspecies. Evaluation of ecologicaldiversity includes information aboutfocal species, biological and physicalproperties, principal ecologicalprocesses, effects of human activities,estimations of the range of variability ofcharacteristics, effects of air quality,water uses, and reference landscapes.Species diversity provides a ‘‘fine filter’’approach for sustaining ecosystems inthe final rule by addressing thosespecies that may not remain viableunder the coarse filter approach. Thesespecies typically include those that arecurrently thought to have a highextinction risk within an area ofinterest. The combination of coarse andfine filters in the final rule has theadvantage of efficiency; the responsibleofficial assumes adequate representationof ecological conditions by maintainingor restoring a diversity of ecosystemsand checks this assumption throughassessments of viability of a subset ofindividual species.

Comment: Use of plant andinvertebrate species in evaluatingspecies viability. Many respondentsexhorted the Forest Service toreconsider the use of plant andinvertebrate species in evaluatingspecies viability. Most of these



respondents felt that insufficientscientific data exists to implement thisincrease in the scope of analysis. Otherrespondents applauded the inclusion ofplant and invertebrate species viabilityas an indicator of ecological integrity. Ofthese respondents, at least oneindividual suggested the Forest Serviceexpand the species viability criteria toinclude organisms from all thebiological kingdoms.

Response: The proposed ruleimplemented the NFMA requirement toprovide for the diversity of plant andanimal communities by expresslydefining species to include any taxon ofthe plant or animal kingdom. Thecurrent rule only requires that viablepopulations of vertebrate fish andwildlife be maintained. In the final rule,a species is defined as any member ofthe animal or plant kingdom that isdescribed as a species in a peer-reviewed scientific publication and isidentified as a species by theresponsible official pursuant to a plandecision.

The Department acknowledges anincrease in requirements for speciesviability. But as noted above, continueddeclines in the cost of informationtechnology, such as personal computersand the application of remote sensingtechnologies, are anticipated. Inaddition, it is expected that theapplication of broad-scale assessmentsand subsequent smaller-scale analysesand decisionmaking will build on oneanother and improve the overallefficiency and effectiveness of planningactivities.

The Department has not expanded thespecies viability criteria to includeorganisms from all the biologicalkingdoms. NFMA’s requirement isspecific to plant and animalcommunities.

Comment: Sustaining viablepopulations of non-native species. Somerespondents wondered why the ForestService would wish to maintain speciesthat, by definition, disrupt theecological integrity of an ecosystem.One respondent wanted the ForestService to recognize that planning, inand of itself, cannot ensure speciesviability. This person supported thisassertion by noting that the AmericanChestnut, once the dominant, climaxtree species in eastern forests, has beenwiped out by chestnut blight. Forestplanning has no effect on the loss ofsuch major ecosystem components, thisrespondent asserted. Another citizenapplauded the agency’sacknowledgment of incompleteinformation, uncertainty, and theinherent variability of ecologicalsystems. Such an acknowledgment

should be heeded, this person asserted,and precaution and prudence should beused when implementing any newmanagement practices.

Response: The proposed rule defineddesired non-native species as thosespecies of plants or animals that are notindigenous to an area but whichrepresent a significant, and usuallyremnant segment of a gene pool. Thefinal rule retains its reference to desirednon-native species, which are defined asthose species of plants or animals whichare not indigenous to an area, butvalued for their contribution to speciesdiversity or their high social, cultural, oreconomic value.

The Department agrees that planning,in and of itself, cannot ensure speciesviability. The Forest Service can onlyaffect certain ecological conditions onland it manages, such as the abundanceand distribution of habitat, roads, otherstructural developments, many humanuses, and some invasive or exoticspecies. Other factors beyond thecontrol of the Forest Service mayinfluence the viability of species.

As noted above, the final ruleprovides that where it is not practicableto make measurable progress towardconditions within the expected range ofvariability, plan decisions may providefor ecosystem composition and structureoutside the expected range ofvariability. Other independently peer-reviewed methods must be used toprovide for ecosystem diversity.

An alternative method of providingfor ecosystem diversity, which wasdescribed in the proposed rule, is thehistoric range of variability referencedto pre-European settlement conditions.Yet another approach would be a rangeof variability referenced using a timeperiod more recent than pre-Europeansettlement conditions. This wouldprovide for ecological sustainabilitywhere circumstances, such as theChestnut blight, which haveirretrievably altered the landscape. Inthe future there may also be othermethods that have not yet been fullytested or envisioned.

The proposed rule acknowledged theuncertainty and inherent variability ofecological systems (sections219.20(a)(10) and 219.20(b)(1)). TheDepartment agrees with respondentsthat welcomed the inclusion of thislanguage. The final rule retains thislanguage and relocates it to section219.22, The overall role of science inplanning.

Comment: Discretionary language.Many respondents felt that specific,imperative language should be used insection 219.20 (b) of the proposed rule.Discretionary language is too vague to

be enforceable, they asserted. Oneperson asserted that phrases such as,‘‘Maintain the more likely conditionswithin the range,’’ and ‘‘provide for* * * redundancy of habitat asnecessary to buffer disturbancescharacteristic of dynamic systems,’’needs less jargon and more clarification.Another respondent felt that the finalrule should consider the variability ofspecies distributions and density overtime.

Response: The Departmentacknowledges a lack of clarity in theproposed rule and has revisedparagraph (b) in section 219.20 toimprove its clarity and readability.

The species viability criteria do notspecifically address the variability ofspecies distributions and density overtime. These are factors to be addressedduring plan revisions as required byNFMA, to provide for diversity of plantand animal communities based on thesuitability and capability of the specificland area, in order to meet overallmultiple-use objectives (16 U.S.C.1604(g)(3)(B)).

Comment: Species viabilityrequirements. Numerous respondentsfelt that the Forest Service should useclear, specific, imperative language toguide the maintenance of speciesviability. Some of these respondentsalso believed the final rule shouldspecify a discrete time period overwhich species viability will bemeasured. Although dissent existsamong the public and even within theCommittee of Scientists, one respondentbelieved this should not preclude theForest Service from includingrequirements for sustaining viablepopulations. The majority ofrespondents that supportedrequirements for sustaining viablepopulations believed the final ruleshould contain specific guidelines inthis respect, rather than the vague ‘‘highlikelihood’’ standard. Conversely, somerespondents believe the Forest Serviceshould reconsider the requirement inthe proposed rule to sustain viablepopulations. They felt that such amandate makes wildlife the dominant, ifnot exclusive, goal of forest planning.Others questioned whether fundingsources will be available to supportsuch a mandate.

Response: As noted above, theDepartment does not believe there is alack of imperative language in section219.20(b). It does acknowledge less thanclear descriptions in this section of theproposed rule. Paragraph (b) in section219.20 is revised in the final rule toimprove its clarity and readability.

As also noted above, the collectionand analysis of information at a variety



of spatial and temporal scales isimportant in providing for maintenanceor restoration of ecologicalsustainability. These scales includegeographic areas such as bioregions andwatersheds, scales of biologicalorganization such as communities andspecies, and scales of time ranging frommonths to centuries. For this reason, theDepartment has not adopted a discretetime period over which species viabilityis to be measured.

The Department is adopting the ‘‘highlikelihood’’ language to emphasize theimportance it places on the viability ofplant and animal species. The currentrule states ‘‘Fish and wildlife habitatshall be managed to maintain viablepopulations of existing native anddesired non-native vertebrate species inthe planning area.’’ Furthermore, therule states that ‘‘a viable populationshall be regarded as one which has theestimated number and distribution ofreproductive individuals to insure itscontinued existence is well distributedin the planning area. In order to insurethat viable populations will bemaintained. * * *’’. Together, thephrases ‘‘shall be managed to maintain’’and ‘‘ensure’’ have been perceived bysome people to be a 100 percentcertainty that all species would remainviable at all times. This expectation inthe face of known as well as unknownuncertainty, imperfect and incompleteinformation, as well as acknowledgmentof systemic environmental variation is astandard that is arguably a technicalimpossibility—unattainable in theabsolute. The Department has adoptedthe high likelihood standard, as anadministrative rather than technicalstandard, to provide a reasonable levelof assurance that species will remainviable and correct what is perceived bymany to be a technical conundrum.

The Department revised the languagein the final rule to clearly apply the highlikelihood standard to ecologicalconditions rather than to thepopulations of species and theirviability. This recognizes that the ForestService can only affect certainecological conditions on the land it

manages. These conditions include theabundance and distribution of habitat aswell as other factors such as roads, otherstructural developments, many humanuses, and some invasive or exoticspecies. Other factors beyond thecontrol of the Forest Service mayinfluence the viability of some species.These factors include fragmented landownership patterns, adjacent activities,climate, disease, and factors that maypreclude a species from maintainingviability within National Forest Systemlands.

The Department has retained therequirement in the final rule to sustainviable populations. As noted above, thefirst priority for stewardship of theNational Forest System, which is tomaintain and restore ecologicalsustainability, is unchanged from theproposed rule. Ecological sustainabilityhas two primary indicators in the finalrule: ecosystem diversity and speciesdiversity. Ecosystem diversity providesa ‘‘coarse filter’’ approach to theconservation of biological diversity.Species diversity requirements specifiedin the final rule defines what iscommonly considered a ‘‘fine filter’’approach. The combination of coarseand fine filters in the final rule has theadvantage of efficiency: the responsibleofficial assumes adequate representationof ecological conditions by maintainingor restoring a diversity of ecosystemsand checks this assumption throughassessments of viability of a subset ofindividual species.

The Department acknowledges anincrease in requirements for speciesviability. But as noted above, continueddeclines in the cost of informationtechnology are expected in the future.Furthermore, the Department believesthat, in total, no significant additionalresources will be required forimplementation of the final rule.

Comment: Mandates to maintainhabitat. Many respondents supportmaintenance of habitat. However,several people believed that as privatelands become developed, the nationalforests and grasslands could becomeincreasingly important refuges for

sensitive species. They felt that theproposed regulations should includerequirements to restore or maintaindisproportionately greater amounts ofhabitat in national forests andgrasslands for sensitive species. Oneindividual requested clarificationregarding the concept of redundancy ofhabitat. One organization suggested thatthe requirement to provide forredundancy of habitat would only leadto more litigation.

Response: In the proposed rule,consideration is given to National ForestSystem lands that have a uniqueopportunity to provide adisproportionately greater contributionto ecological conditions needed toreduce the likelihood of speciesbecoming listed under the EndangeredSpecies Act or to contribute to therecovery of listed species. In response tothis comment, the final rule strengthensthis provision by requiring plandecisions to reflect the uniqueopportunities that National ForestSystem lands provide to contribute torecovery of listed species.

Section 219.20(b)(8)(v) in theproposed rule required structural andfunctional redundancy of habitat asnecessary to buffer disturbancescharacteristic of dynamic systems. Thisprovision was not retained in the finalrule and is best addressed in site-specific planning.

Other changes. This section has beensubstantially reorganized from theproposed rule and terms redefined. Thiswas done to add clarity and respond topublic comments and staff review. Noneof the changes in section 219.20 areintended to change the overall intent ofthe section as originally proposed.

‘‘Ecosystem diversity and speciesdiversity’’ are specifically stated as thecomponents of ecological sustainabilityin the final rule and provide a focus toreorganize information in this section.The proposed rule included, but did notexplicitly identify ecosystem diversityand species diversity as the twocomponents of ecological sustainability.

COMPARISON OF THE COMPONENTS IN SECTION 219.20

Components Proposed rule Final rule

Spatial and temporal scales ............................... (a) Includes NEPA under list of methods ........ (a) NEPA requirement already exists and isnot included. Language added for respon-sible official to determine information andanalyses needed for plan revisions, amend-ments, and site-specific decisions.

Characteristics of ecosystem and species diver-sity.

.......................................................................... (a)(1) New language added for clarity.

Ecosystem diversity ............................................ (a)(1), (a)(7), (b)(6), (b)(7) ............................... (a)(1)(i) Soil resource language added to levelof detail consistent with water and air re-sources.



COMPARISON OF THE COMPONENTS IN SECTION 219.20—Continued


Species diversity ................................................ (a)(1), (a)(7) ..................................................... (a)(1)(ii).Evaluation of ecological sustainability ................ (a), (a)(5), (a)(8) ............................................... (a)(2) Language added that describes evalua-

tions of ecological sustainability.Focus species .................................................... (a)(7)(i) ............................................................. (a)(2)(i)(A).Biological and physical properties of eco-

systems.(a)(1) ................................................................ (a)(2)(i)(B).

Ecological processes .......................................... (a)(2) ................................................................ (a)(2)(i)(C) Adds specific information to be in-cluded in the description of other ecologicalprocesses and feasibility of maintaining ec-ological processes (e.g. dispersal, migra-tion, nutrient cycle, food web dynamics, wa-terfowls, etc.)

Effects of human activities ................................. (a)(3) ................................................................ (a)(2)(i)(D).Effects of air quality ............................................ (b)(7) ................................................................ (a)(2)(i)(F).Estimates of water use ....................................... (b)(6) ................................................................ (a)(2)(i)(G).Plan decision requirements for soil, water and

air.(b)(6), (b)(7) ..................................................... (b)(1) Language not retained, requirements in-

cluded within overall statement.Identification of reference landscapes ................ (a)(6) ................................................................ (a)(2)(i)(H).Definitions: Focal species, Species-at-risk ......... (a)(7)(i), (a)(7)(ii) .............................................. Section 219.36, Definitions.Species viability .................................................. (a)(8)(i) ............................................................. (a)(2)(ii) Situations where risks to viability are

high not included, enough language is in-cluded to analyze these situations.

Measures of ecological integrity ......................... (a)(8)(ii) ............................................................ Provides for evaluation of a comprehensivelist of physical and biological indicators.

Individual and group species assessments ....... (a)(8)(i) ............................................................. (a)(2)(ii) Language added requiring individualspecies assessments of federally listed spe-cies, otherwise allowing for group assess-ments. Group assessments necessary forfinancial and technical feasibility.

Variability of ecological systems ........................ (a)(10), (b)(1) ................................................... Section 219.22.Consistency of planning level decisions and ex-

isting rights and legal requirements.(b) ..................................................................... Section 219.7 adequately describes these re-

quirements.Plan decision for maintenance or restoration of

ecosystems.(b)(2), (b)(3) ..................................................... (b)(1).

Conditions within the range of variability ........... (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(iv) for exception ....................... (b)(1)(i) New language provides an exception,(b)(1)(iv), when staying within the range isunacceptable.

Conditions outside the range of variability ......... (b)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iv) for exception ...................... (b)(1)(ii) New language provides an exception,(b)(1)(v), when staying outside the range isacceptable.

Range of variability cannot be defined ............... (b)(3)(iv) ........................................................... (b)(1)(iii) New language ensures other peer-reviewed methods are used.

Natural disturbance processes ........................... (b)(3)(iii) ............................................................ (a)(2)(i)(E).Future stewardship choices ............................... (b)(4) ................................................................ (b)(1) Language not retained, intent ad-

dressed.Reference landscapes ........................................ (b)(5) ................................................................ (b)(1) Language not retained, intent ad-

dressed.Plan decisions affecting species diversity .......... (b)(8), (b)(8)(ii), (b)(8)(iii), (b)(8)(i) replaced by

new language referencing methods.(b)(2).

Exceptions for plan decisions affecting speciesdiversity.

(b)(8)(iv) ...........................................................(b)(8)(ii) ............................................................

(b)(2)(ii).(b)(2)(iii) New language to prevent species

extirpation and support viability. (b)(2)(iv)Added to support viability where infeasibleto restore ecological conditions.

Redundancy of habitat to buffer disturbances ... (b)(8)(v) ............................................................ Language not retained, requirements of thesection provide a comprehensive ecologicalapproach.

Federally listed species ...................................... (b)(10) .............................................................. (b)(3)(i) Language that actions not contributeto species listing is covered under ESA andrestated only for conservation agreements.

Biological opinions and recovery plans .............. (b)(9) ................................................................ (b)(3)(ii) Specific language for recovery plansis replaced by requirement for plan deci-sions and ESA.

Section 219.21—Social and economicsustainability. This section of theproposed rule described a process fordeveloping a comprehensive

understanding of sustainable social andeconomic environments.

Comment: Definition of economic andsocial sustainability. Many respondentsexpress confusion over the myriad of

definitions of social and economicsustainability contained in the proposedplanning regulations. Clear, concise,and consistent definitions are needed,according to numerous citizens. Several



people believe the use of discretionarylanguage in this section is rampant, andtherefore makes all the subsequentguidelines moot.

Response: The Departmentacknowledges a lack of clear, concise,and consistent definitions in theproposed rule concerning social andeconomic sustainability. The final rulehas been revised in response to thisconcern.

In the final rule, social and economicsustainability is defined as meeting theeconomic, social, aesthetic, and culturalneeds and desires of current generationswithout reducing the capacity of theenvironment to provide for the needsand desires of future generations,considering both local communities andthe nation as a whole. It also involvesthe capacity of citizens to communicateeffectively with each other and to makesound choices about their environment.

The Forest Service contributes tosocial and economic sustainability bydeveloping and considering relevantsocial and economic information andanalyses, providing early and frequentopportunities for interested and affectedpeople to participate in National ForestSystem planning and stewardship, andproviding a range of uses, values,products, and services. These uses,values, products, and services includebut are not limited to outdoorrecreation; forage; timber; wildlife andfish; biological diversity; productivesoils; clean air and water; and minerals.They also afford intangible benefits suchas beauty, inspiration, and wonder.

The final rule requires the responsibleofficial to develop or supplementinformation and analyses (section219.21(a)), including specific social andeconomic analyses (section 219.21(a)(1))and analyses of community or regionalrisk and vulnerability (section219.21(a)(2)).

Comment: Goal of economic andsocial sustainability. Several people feltthat social and economic concerns havereceived little consideration in pastForest Service decisions. These peopledo not think the proposed regulationswill prevent such transgressions. Tohelp emphasize these concerns, oneperson requested that social andeconomic sustainability be split intotwo separate sections. Anotherindividual asserted that the ForestService should establish theachievement of economic and socialsustainability as the first priority amongthe goals of the proposed rule. Of thosethat believe the social and economicsection needs to be emphasized andexpanded, many requested that theForest Service promulgate specific,mandatory guidelines for achieving

social and economic sustainability.Some believed the proposed rule shouldnot emphasize economic and socialsustainability, because they fear such anemphasis will result in the reallocationof time and money away from naturalresource management. Improving localstewardship capacities andcollaboration were also offered as waysto attain social and economicsustainability.

Response: In the final rule, theDepartment has not split social andeconomic sustainability into twoseparate sections. Nor has it establishedthe achievement of economic and socialsustainability as the first priority amongthe goals of the proposed rule. Finally,the Department has not included in thefinal rule specific, mandatory guidelinesfor achieving social and economicsustainability.

Requirements for achievingsustainability are found in sections219.19, 219.20, and 219.21 of the finalrule. As noted above, social andeconomic sustainability is achieved byproviding a range of uses, products,services, and values, consistent withecological sustainability (section219.20(b)). The first priority forstewardship of the National ForestSystem, which is to maintain andrestore ecological sustainability, isunchanged from the proposed rule. Asnoted by the Committee of Scientists,‘‘* * * ecological sustainability lays anecessary foundation for NationalForests and Grasslands to contribute tothe economic and social components ofsustainability, making contributions tostrong productive economies andcreating opportunities for enduringhuman communities.’’

The Department agrees that improvinglocal stewardship capacities andcollaboration are ways to attain socialand economic sustainability. Theproposed rule provided that theresponsible official and those involvedin planning should invite and encourageothers to engage in the collaborativedevelopment of landscape goals. Thislanguage has been retained in the finalrule (section 219.12(b)(1)). As noted inthe Committee of Scientists’ report,collaborative planning is a sharedprocess within which agenciescooperate with one another; work withtribes, other public, and privateorganizations; and engage communitiesand citizens in envisioning and workingtoward a sustainable future on thenational forests and grasslands.

Comment: Role of timber harvest ineconomic and social sustainability. Onerespondent believed that the ForestService must realize that timber harvestis necessary to achieve economic and

social sustainability. In contrast, anotherindividual asserted that the ForestService has no responsibility or reasonto sustain certain cultural and economicpractices such as commodity extraction.No federal agency should maintain aparticular lifestyle over another,according to this respondent.

Response: The proposed rule did notconsider timber harvest or moregenerally, commodity extraction,necessary to achieving economic andsocial sustainability. Nor did theDepartment include either of theseissues in the final rule. The rule doesestablish a process for identifying,discussing, and, if appropriate, actingon issues that may emerge from avariety of sources (section 219.4). TheDepartment believes that these issuesare most appropriately addressed usingthis process.

Comment: Analysis of economic andsocial sustainability. Many respondentsoffered various ideas to help achievesocial and economic sustainability innational forest communities. Oneperson suggested the Forest Serviceadopt better modeling tools to improveanalysis. Others cited the need toexpand the analysis criteria to includeadjacent communities and electedofficials in management decisions. Oneperson believed the Forest Serviceshould reconsider the requirement toanalyze social and economicsustainability on a large scale. Suchanalysis, this person asserted, masks theimpacts on small and sparselypopulated communities.

Response: The Department agrees thatbetter modeling tools should be adoptedto improve analysis. The final rulerequires that the best available sciencebe considered in planning (section219.22(a)).

The Department has not expanded theanalysis criteria to include adjacentcommunities and elected officials in theanalysis of management decisions. Asnoted above, section 219.14 of the finalrule identifies some of the key stepswhere state and local governments willbe engaged in planning. State and localgovernments will be involved in theidentification of issues as described insection 219.4(a). In addition, the rulerecognizes the need for the ForestService and state and local governmentsto coordinate plans and programs.Section 219.3(c) provides opportunitiesfor state and local governments toparticipate in the collaborative planningprocess.

The proposed rule encouragedappropriate analysis within the relevantscales of influence for national forestand grassland planning anddecisionmaking. This language has been



retained in the final rule. Large-scalestudies may not be appropriate todetermine the impacts of an actionwithin a particular village or smalltown. Conversely, looking only ateconomic or social relationships withina village or small town may maskidentification of regional trends andemerging events. As with many topics,the early identification of issues andtheir appropriate scope and scale arecritical to successful planning andnatural resource management.

Comment: Measurement of socialsustainability. The exact means bywhich social sustainability will bemeasured needs to be clarified for manyrespondents. Some felt that theproposed regulations should expand thecriteria of future social analyses toinclude the input of adjacentcommunities and their elected officials.Numerous people cited the use ofdiscretionary language, such as ‘‘may’’and ‘‘should,’’ as a serious flaw in theproposed regulations. These individualswould like to see the inclusion ofimperative language, such as ‘‘shall’’and ‘‘must,’’ to ensure that socialanalysis is, in fact, undertaken.

Response: The proposed rule did notdescribe the exact means by whichsocial sustainability will be measured.This information was not included inthe final rule. Instead, this informationwill be included in the Forest ServiceManual.

As noted above, the Department hasnot expanded the criteria of analyses toinclude the input of adjacentcommunities and their elected officials.Section 219.14 of the final ruleidentifies some of the key steps wherestate and local governments will beengaged in planning. State and localgovernments will be involved in theidentification of issues as described insection 219.4(a). In addition, the rulerecognizes the need for the ForestService and state and local governmentsto coordinate plans and programs.Section 219.3(d) provides opportunitiesfor state and local governments toparticipate in the collaborative planningprocess.

As noted above, the Departmentagrees that the use of discretionarylanguage, such as ‘‘may’’ and ‘‘should,’’was a serious flaw in the proposed rule.The final rule requires the responsibleofficial to develop or supplementinformation and analyses (section219.21(a)), including specific socialanalyses (section 219.21(a)(1)(i)) andanalyses of community or regional riskand vulnerability (section 219.21(a)(2)).

Comment: Social data and effects.Specific clarification regarding socialdata collection is needed according to

many respondents. Local values, socialstandards, and changes in social valueswere mentioned as criteria that need tobe further clarified. The social effects ofthe loss of timber industry jobs,specifically on rural communities, werealso a concern. Several respondentsasserted that their quality of life is atleast partially, if not wholly, dependenton the health of the national forests.

Response: The Department agrees thatthe proposed rule was not specificconcerning the collection of socialinformation. As described above, thefinal rule requires the responsibleofficial to develop or supplementinformation and analyses (section219.21(a)), including specific socialanalyses (section 219.21(a)(1)(i)).Additional specificity will be providedin the Forest Service Manual.

Included in section 219.21(a)(1)(i) ofthe final rule is the requirement todevelop or supplement information onsocial and cultural opportunitiesprovided by National Forest Systemlands. The Department believes thislanguage encompasses the social effectsof the loss of timber industry jobs,including those effects on ruralcommunities.

The Department agrees that quality oflife is at least partially dependent on thehealth of the national forests. As notedabove, the first priority for stewardshipof the National Forest System, which isto maintain and restore ecologicalsustainability, is unchanged from theproposed rule.

Comment: Economic analysis ofForest Service management. Severalpeople felt that previous economicanalyses of national forests have beenmyopic in scope, and hence theproposed rule should expand thecriteria of future economic analysis toinclude adjacent communities andelected officials in managementdecisions. Some cited the need for acomprehensive economic analysis of theentire Forest Service and itsmanagement activities.

Response: As noted above, theDepartment has not expanded thecriteria of analyses to include the inputof adjacent communities and localelected officials. Section 219.14 of thefinal rule identifies some of the keysteps where state and local governmentswill be engaged in planning. State andlocal governments will be involved inthe identification of issues as describedin section 219.4(a). In addition, the rulerecognizes the need for the ForestService and state and local governmentsto coordinate plans and programs.Section 219.3(c) provides opportunitiesfor state and local governments to

participate in the collaborative planningprocess.

An economic analysis of the entireForest Service and its managementactivities is beyond the scope of thisrule.

Comment: Valuation of non-marketbenefits. Several respondents felt thatthe Forest Service has been ignoring theindirect and often time invisiblebenefits of forest systems. They believedthat non-commodity resource benefits,such as carbon sequestration, oxygenproduction, and water filtration, shouldbe factored into any economic analysisof forest management activities. Onecitizen urged the Forest Service toassign a monetary value to thesetraditionally priceless benefits. Thisindividual felt that such an exercisewould ensure that the loss of thesebenefits would be a factor in economiccost-benefit analysis.

Response: The proposed ruleprovided for, but did not require, theconsideration of the financial andopportunity costs derived from marketand non-market use. Section219.21(a)(1)(ii) of the final rule requiresthe development of information on therange and estimated long-term value ofmarket and non-market goods, uses,services, and amenities that can beprovided by National Forest Systemlands consistent with the requirementsof ecological sustainability. Thisincludes the cost of providing them, andthe effect of providing them on regionaland community well-being,employment, and wages. TheDepartment believes this language in thefinal rule requires the inclusion ofcommodity and non-commodityresource benefits in economic analyses,with values assigned to these benefits.

Comment: Economic impacts onecosystems. Some respondents felt thatthe long-term ecological consequenceshave not been considered whenconducting cost-benefit analysis of pastforest management activities. Oneindividual cited the long-term loss ofwater quality incurred from the short-term economic benefit of logging as anexample. Another citizen stated thattimber harvest often has adverseeconomic impacts, citing the loss ofwindbreak and temperature regulationthat a nearby forest once provided localfamilies. Some respondents suggestedthat the cost-benefit analysis of pastlogging expand in scope to include anyand all costs associated with specificprojects.

Response: The proposed rule did notprovide for cost-benefit analysis of pastforest management activities. TheDepartment has not included such aprovision in the final rule. While



acknowledging that timber harvest inthe past may have had adverseeconomic impacts, the Department doesnot believe that quantifying pasteconomic impacts would significantlyimprove the planning process.

As noted above, the final rule requiresthe development of descriptions andanalyses, including the estimated long-term value of market and non-marketgoods, uses, services, and amenities thatcan be provided by National ForestSystem lands consistent with therequirements of ecologicalsustainability.

Comment: Economic impacts on localeconomies. Some respondents felt thatthe final rule will further restrict timberharvest, and this restriction willadversely affect the economies of localcompanies and communities. Otherindividuals cited the need for the ForestService to specifically identify theeconomic impacts the proposed rulemay have on local economies. Many feltthat the small, rural communitiesassociated with national forests haveexperienced, and will continue toexperience, the majority of impacts anychange in forest management policyengenders. Thus, they asserted, localcommunities, especially those wherethe majority of adjacent land is federallyowned, warrant special consideration.

Response: The proposed ruleprovided for, but did not require, theconsideration of economic estimates ofthe National Forest System contributionto present and future society benefits.As noted above, section 219.21(a)(1)(ii)of the final rule requires thedevelopment of information on therange and estimated long-term value ofmarket and non-market goods, uses,services, and amenities that can beprovided by National Forest Systemlands consistent with the requirementsof ecological sustainability. Thisincludes the cost of providing them, andthe effect of providing them on regionaland community well-being,employment, and wages. TheDepartment believes this language helps

identify the economic impacts on localeconomies.

Comment: Direct and indirect costs.Another person felt the language in thecurrent rule better ensures that directand indirect costs are included in suchan economic analysis. This personsuggested the Forest Service retain thecurrent language rather than adopt theless stringent proposed language. Suchlanguage will lead to more divisiveness,according to this individual. In additionto including traditional expenses, thesepeople believed the Forest Serviceshould include the costs of generaloverhead and possible litigation in theireconomic analysis.

Response: In the proposed rule, landsnot suited for timber productionincluded lands where the costs oftimber production were not justified bythe ecological, social, or economicbenefits (section 219.28(b)(5)). Thisprovision has not been retained in thefinal rule. In the final rule, theresponsible official may establish timberproduction and its possible harvest as amultiple-use value and plan objectivewithin the plan area where timber maybe harvested if the costs of timberproduction are justified by theecological, social, or economic benefits(section 219.28(b)). The Departmentbelieves the costs and benefitsreferenced in this Section of the finalrule include all direct and indirect costsand benefits.

Comment: Economic analysis anddemographics. Several respondentsbelieved that the Forest Service shouldconduct economic analyses suited tolocal demographics. The denselypopulated, sparsely forested East Coastis demographically distinct from thesparsely populated, densely forestedwestern regions. Some asserted thatsuch demographics should beincorporated into the economic analysisof Forest Service activities. The dearthof forests and plethora of humans in theeastern region of the United Statesdictates that the value of tourism shouldoutweigh the value of timber in eastern

economic analyses, according to theserespondents.

Response: The proposed ruleprovided for, but did not require, theconsideration of the demographics,including current demographics relatedto direct, indirect, and induced effectson income, population, and industryemployment, and the ability ofcommunities to adapt to change. Thefinal rule requires the development ofdescriptions and analyses, but itstreatment of demographics is limited tosocial trends.

Other changes. The Departmentacknowledges the frequent use ofdiscretionary language in this section ofthe proposed rule. In contrast, the finalrule requires the responsible official todevelop or supplement information andanalyses, including specific social andeconomic analyses and analyses ofcommunity or regional risk andvulnerability, paragraph (a).

The proposed rule did not includerequirements for plan decisions thatmay affect economic and socialsustainability. The final rule requiresthat plan decisions contribute to socialand economic sustainability byproviding a range of uses, products,services, and values, consistent withecological sustainability, paragraph (b).This paragraph also contains newlanguage concerning the scope and scaleof decisions, issues addressed, andanalyses conducted in previousprovision of this section. The languagewas added to clarify that plan decisionsaffecting economic and socialsustainability would be made consistentwith the principles of ecologicalsustainability and applicable laws,including the MUSYA.

The Department acknowledgesrespondent’s concerns regardingdefinitions for social and economicsustainability in the proposed rule thatare clear, concise, and consistent.Section 219.21 is revised to reduceredundancy and improve clarity andreadability, as described below:

COMPARISON OF THE COMPONENTS IN SECTION 219.21


Planning involves interested and affectedpeople .................................................................

(a) ..................................................................... Opening paragraph references sections219.12 through 219.18.

Social and economic information ....................... (b), (c), (d) ........................................................ (a) Language added that requires social andeconomic information and analyses forplanning.

Economic effect .................................................. (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(7) .......................................... (a).Social and economic analyses ........................... (b)(3), (b)(4), (c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1), (d)(2) .......... (a) Adds monitoring results to the list of meth-

ods.



COMPARISON OF THE COMPONENTS IN SECTION 219.21—Continued


Demographic trends ........................................... (b)(1), (e) .......................................................... (a)(1)(i) Language added to include social andcultural opportunities, community assistanceneeds, and other appropriate information toprovide a comprehensive list of social indi-cators.

Employment, income, and other economictrends.

(b)(3–6) ............................................................ (a)(1)(ii) Language added includes long-termcosts and benefits provided by NationalForest System lands and their effects oncommunity well-being to provide a com-prehensive list of economic indicators.

Benefits of restoration strategies ....................... (b)(2) ................................................................ (a)(1)(iii).Other information ................................................ .......................................................................... (a)(1)(iv) Added to provide for issues being

considered by the responsible official, sec-tion 219.4.

Risk and vulnerability analyses .......................... (c)(3), (g) .......................................................... (a)(2).Evaluate social and economic sustainability ...... .......................................................................... (b) Requires responsible official to use the in-

formation analyses developed in (a).

The Contribution of ScienceSection 219.22—The role of

assessments, analyses, and monitoring.This section of the proposed ruledescribed the role of assessments, localanalyses, and monitoring. In the finalrule, this section has been renamed‘‘The role of science in assessments,analyses, and monitoring.’’ It has beendesignated as section 219.23.

Comment: Integrating science into theplanning process. While many peopleagree with using science as amanagement tool, respondentsexpressed a variety of opinions on howto best integrate science into theplanning process. One person suggestedreplacing the phrase ‘‘best availablescience’’ with the phrase ‘‘broadlyaccepted scientific principles,information, and analysis’’ in order tomaintain continuity in scientificassessment. Others contended thatscience must be statistically sound andsupportable.

Response: The Committee ofScientists’ report emphasized that‘‘Collaborative planning rests upon afoundation of scientific informationdeveloped by scientists and otherknowledgeable people in an open,public process.’’ The Committeeidentified at least five different tasks forscientists in collaborative planning:creating knowledge of relevance tocollaborative planning, developingintegrative science for bioregionalassessments, helping managersunderstand the application of scientificand technical knowledge, helping todesign effective monitoring proceduresand adaptive management experiments,and evaluating the use of scientificinformation in planning andimplementation.

Planning is based on scientific andother forms of knowledge. Where

scientific information is used, thequality of such information should beensured by using appropriate levels ofindependent peer review, qualityassurance protocols for monitoring andother data, as well as free and openaccess by the public (including thescientific community) to data,assumptions, and conclusions.

The final rule acknowledges theseroles for science and the responsibilitiesof the Forest Service Research andDevelopment Program. It requires theresponsible official to ensure that thebest available science is considered inplanning (section 219.22). It also setsmechanisms in place throughinvolvement of Forest Service Researchand Development, Science AdvisoryBoards (section 219.25), scienceconsistency evaluations (section219.24), and scientific peer reviews(section 219.22) to ensure that the bestscience is available to decision makers,is properly analyzed and interpreted,and can be applied with scientificcredibility.

Comment: Human values andmultiple perspectives. Even thoughmany believe that the use of scientistsin national forest planning is important,some requested that human values andmultiple perspectives be integrated withscience to evaluate sustainability.

Response: The role of science in thefinal rule (section 219.22) is to ensurethat the best available science, includingsocial science, is available and soundlyconsidered in planning. Collaborativeplanning involving other federalagencies, state and local governments,American Indian Tribes and AlaskaNatives, private landowners, and otherinterested individuals and organizations(sections 219.12 to 219.18) isencouraged to ensure that a broad rangeof human values and perspectives is

brought to bear, along with the bestscience available, in land managementplanning. Through these processes, alocally appropriate balance of ecologicalconditions and social issues, goals, andproposed actions will be identified toensure that scientifically soundmanagement decisions are made tosustain ecological conditions for thefuture while meeting current desiresand requirements of humans.Furthermore, the final rule underscoresthat science provides information, notdecisions, and it is the responsibleofficial who has final decision authority.

Comment: Balance betweeneconomic, social, and biologicalsciences. Many respondents assertedthat economic and social sciences mustbe weighed equally with biologicalsciences in the decisionmaking process.

Response: Section 219.22(a) of thefinal rule includes new languagerequiring consideration of the bestavailable science in the development ofrecommendations or conclusions. Thisincludes all scientific fields appropriateto natural resource issues, which will beconsidered by the responsible officialalong with other forms of input indecisionmaking.

Other changes: The introductoryparagraph of the proposed rule has notbeen retained in final rule. Thisinformation is already contained insection 219.5.

Section 219.23—The participation ofscientists in planning. This section ofthe proposed rule describedexpectations and roles for scientists inNational Forest System planning anddecisionmaking. In the final rule, thissection has been renamed ‘‘The overallrole of science in planning.’’ It has beendesignated as section 219.22.

Comment: Use of sound science.Various individuals suggested that the



regulations clarify the definition of‘‘scientist.’’ The real issue, according tosome of these respondents, is the use ofsound science information andscientific methods—not who brings theinformation or methods to the process.

Response: The Department agrees,and section 219.22 of the final ruleshifts the emphasis from scientists, asthe deliverers of scientific information,to the role of science in the planningprocess. This shifts the focus fromindividuals who may participate in theprocess, to an embracing of science asan integral part of National ForestSystem planning—thus includingscientific knowledge, scientificmethods, and expert scientific reviewand opinion, including analyses basedon the latest scientific information.

Comment: Influence of scienceadvisory panels. Enthusiasm for sciencein land management was tempered byconcerns regarding the level of authorityand influence of science advisorypanels. Some felt that the scientificadvisory board should support ForestService staff and should not be involvedin decisionmaking.

Response: The final rule requires theresponsible official to ensure that thebest available science is considered inplanning. It clarifies the intent thatscience consistency evaluations (section219.24) and science advisory boards(section 219.25) are to inform thisprocess, not to advocate a particulardecision, and clearly states that alldecision authority rests with theresponsible official.

Comment: Cost and effectiveness ofscientific input. Some respondentsquestioned the cost and effectiveness ofincreasing the required levels ofscientific input into the forest planningprocess. Others expressed concern thatthe Forest Service does not have thebudget or resources to effectivelyevaluate the credentials of non-governmental science professionals.

Response: The final rule requires thatthe best scientific information beconsidered in planning (section219.22(a)), but recognized that all plandecisions do not require detailed andcostly broad-scale assessments, scienceconsistency evaluations, or similarcostly approaches, to achieve this goal(section 219.5). Concerns regardingscientific efficacy are addressed byincreasing peer review of science input(section 219.22), involving the DeputyChief for Research and Development,Research Station Directors, and ScienceAdvisory Boards (sections 219.24 and219.25).

Comment: Use of science advisoryboards. Forest Service officials aregranted too much discretion in

determining the use of peer reviews andscience advisory boards, manyrespondents contended. Additionally,many respondents worry about thepotential for bias in the selection ofscientists. One person recommendsusing professional literature searches toensure an efficient and cost effectivemeans for gathering and documentinginformation. Others recommendedpublishing the names and qualificationsof those selected to serve on scienceadvisory boards.

Response: The final rule requires fullconsideration of the best availablescience in plan development, includingpeer review and science consistencyevaluations. Peer reviews and publicinvolvement provide powerfulmechanisms to detect scientific or otherbias in decisionmaking. Furthermore,the final rule clarifies that theresponsible official, not scientists orothers, makes the decision. Membershipon advisory boards would be publicinformation, and the Departmentassumes that literature searches wouldbe a part of applying the best availablescience where appropriate.

Other changes. Section 219.23 in theproposed rule, paragraphs (b) and (c) arenot retained in the final rule. These arefunctions of scientists listed in theproposed rule, which are onlyillustrative and not needed in the finalrule. In the proposed rule, generalassistance in applying relevant scientificinformation is addressed in paragraph(a), to the extent necessary in the rule,by science consistency evaluations insection 219.25. The material related toissues in paragraph (d) of the proposedrule, is also not retained. It is referencedin section 219.4 which suggests that theresponsible official consider thescientific basis and merit of availabledata and analyses in determiningwhether an issue is appropriate forconsideration. Section 219.23 in thefinal rule addresses the role of sciencein information development andinterpretation. Since the final rule doesnot focus on scientists, the last sentencein paragraph (d) of the proposed rulediscussing their employer is notincluded.

Section 219.24—Science consistencyevaluations. This section of theproposed rule described responsibilitiesfor scientific review of planningprocesses to ensure that proposedactions and supporting procedures areconsistent with current scientificunderstanding.

Comment: Some reviewers felt thatthe planning regulations should clarifywhat science consistency guidelinesmay be used if the responsible official

chooses not to consult with the scienceadvisory board.

Response: The final rule requires theresponsible official to consider the bestavailable science in plan developmentand subsequent decisions; it is at her/his discretion as to how this can best beaccomplished. The final rule makes itclear that the use of advisory boards isone means identified in the final rule toassist, others include: Direct informaland formal involvement of scientistsand technical experts, peer reviews ofdraft analyses and plans, and scienceconsistency evaluations. All of these, aswell as others, are available to theresponsible official. The methodemployed for a planning activity is to beselected by the responsible official, butat a minimum, the responsible officialmust periodically consult with anadvisory board.

Other changes. There are twoimportant changes in paragraph (a). Thefirst clarifies the purpose of scienceconsistency evaluations. The proposedrule initially stated that decisions mustbe consistent with available science. Itthen restates the test as whetherinformation gathered, evaluationsconducted, or analyses and conclusionsreached in the planning process areconsistent with the best availablescientific information and analysis. Afinding of inconsistency that resultsfrom this process does not necessarilymean that a decision is ‘‘wrong.’’ It doesmean that the information and analysissupporting that decision should berevisited, which may in turn lead to achange in the decision. The final rulestates the purpose of the scienceconsistency evaluation is to determinewhether information, evaluations,analyses, or interpretations used inproposals for plan decisions areconsistent with the best availablescience.

The second change in paragraph (a)concerns the role of the science advisoryboards in this process. In the proposedrule, the responsible official may usethem to assist in the science consistencyevaluation. In the final rule, theresponsible official must use them todetermine when a science consistencyevaluation is appropriate. This change isconsistent with the change in emphasisaway from who is performing analysis.While the proposed rule did not requireparticipation of the science advisoryboards, it gave too much weight to thisone approach. In addition, giving thescience advisory boards a role indetermining when to conduct scienceconsistency analysis addressed theconcern that there are no criteria forwhen such an analysis should occur.



Section 219.25—Science advisoryboards. This section of the proposedrule described establishment of Nationaland Regional Science Advisory Boardsand work groups

Comment: Representation of interests.A large number of commentsrecommended that the proposedregulations establish protections againstbias and unequal representation ofinterests. Many people advocated thatthe proposed planning regulationsrequire representation from a broadrange of scientific fields in peerevaluations and advisory boards. Forexample, some suggested that the ForestService should better recognizeuniversity professionals and otherfederal agency scientists as resources inplanning. Others argued that the use ofnon-Forest Service scientists beexplicitly required in forest planning tominimize agency influence overscientific conclusions.

Response: Sections 219.25(a) and (b)of the final rule now stipulate that:‘‘Board membership (of National andRegional Science Advisory Boards) mustrepresent a broad range of scientificdisciplines including, but not limited to,the physical, biological, and socialsciences.’’ The Department believes thatthe purpose of the science advisoryboards, as specified in section 219.25(a)of the final rule, is to advise on mattersof science. It is not, however, a role ofAdvisory Board members to represent oradvocate special interests. Sections219.22(b) and 219.24(a) should helpexpose and mitigate any perceived bias.

Comment: Role of Forest Servicescientists. Many respondents believe therole of Forest Service scientists needs tobe clarified. Several people state that theproposed regulations will undulyburden Forest Service research stationpersonnel and potentially compromisetheir integrity as field experts.Conversely, several people indicate thatthe regulations should encourage landmanagers to utilize research stationprofessionals more extensively.

Response: The final rule specifies that‘‘the best available science’’ must beconsidered and obtained from thoseindividuals possessing appropriatescientific credentials. In some cases thismay include Forest Service scientists. Inothers cases it may not.

This section of the final rule differsfrom the proposed rule in that theDeputy Chief for Research andDevelopment must establish a NationalScience Advisory Board to advise onissues of national importance, ratherthan the Chief as required in theproposed rule. The final rule also statesthat Station Directors and the DeputyChief for Research and Development

must personally chair the scienceadvisory board(s) they establish, orappoint the chair(s).

The proposed rule states that workgroups could be established with theconcurrence of ‘‘Forest Serviceofficials.’’ The final rule specifies thatconcurrence must be by the DeputyChief for Research and Development forthe National Science Advisory Board, orthe Research Station Director for aRegional Science Advisory Board.

Other changes. Paragraph (a) in thefinal rule requires the establishment ofa national science advisory board. Thisboard is required by paragraph (b) in theproposed rule. The role remains toprovide advice on issues of nationalsignificance. The final rule clarifies thatthe Chief of the Forest Service willidentify these issues. The compositionof the science advisory boards generatedmany public comments, including someadvocating a stronger role for ForestService research scientists. In response,the final rule gives the Deputy Chief forResearch and Development theresponsibility for establishing andchairing the national science advisoryboard. In the proposed rule, the Chief ofthe Forest Service is responsible forestablishing the national advisory board.

Paragraph (b) in both the proposedand final rules requires the appropriateForest Service Research StationDirector(s) to establish regional scienceadvisory boards. As a result of publiccomments, in the final rule, this directoror directors shall chair the advisoryboard or appoint a chair. The final ruleclarifies the geographic boundaries ofthe boards need not align with NationalForest System Regional boundaries.

Special ConsiderationsProposed Section 219.26—Identifying

and designating suitable uses. Thissection of the proposed rule identifiedthe suitability of various uses onnational forests and grasslands andprovided criteria for making adetermination of suitability within theplanning framework. Designation ofsuitable land uses was one of thedecisions that must be included in plans(see Section 219.7).

Comment: Multiple-use as the guidingprinciple. Multiple-use should continueto be the guiding principle formanagement of national forests,according to many individuals. Like anumber of respondents who view thissection as a significant departure bothfrom relevant statutes and from theexisting planning rule, these individualssaw the proposed planning regulationsas de-emphasizing multiple-use to theextent that they ‘‘violate the mandatesprescribed in the NFMA and the

MUSYA as well as other applicablerules and regulations.’’ In particular,some respondents suggested that theplanning rule encourage industrialcommodity production and extraction.One person, though, asked the ForestService to define the term multiple-usesince the term may includeconnotations other than resourceextraction.

Response: National forest andgrasslands will continue to be availablefor a wide variety of multiple uses aslong as those uses do not conflict withone another and they are appropriate forthe location where they may occur. Thissection of the planning rule providescriteria for making this determination.

Comment: Criteria to identify anddesignate suitable uses. Somerespondents believed that incomparison to the current NFMAplanning regulations, the proposedcriteria to identify and designatesuitable uses is thoroughly inadequate.These individuals contended that theproposed rule should provide clearsuitability standards—particularlyregarding livestock grazing, mineralextraction, and timber removal. To thisend, some respondents suggested thatthe Forest Service retain the existingsuitability requirements since thecurrent guidelines are more prescriptivethan those included in the proposedregulations. In addition, several peopleasserted that the final rule’s suitabilityrequirements must not grant excessivediscretion to Forest Service landmanagers. Specifically, they suggestedreplacing the word ‘‘should’’ with‘‘shall’’ throughout the subsection. Sucha change would require land managersto consider the possible uses listed inthis section, they asserted. Several otherpeople asked the Forest Service toclarify the statutory authority by whichExecutive Orders can restrict suitableuses of national forests. One respondentwondered how forest plans woulddesignate and map management areasfor specific uses.

Response: The Department has addedcriteria to the rule related to impairmentof the productivity of the land andcompatibility with plan decisions. Withthese changes, the Department believesthat it has provided sufficient guidancefor amendment and revision of plans.The current regulation was put in placeto enable the agency to preparecomprehensive national forest andgrassland plans. Detailed instructionswere necessary and appropriate forcompletion of the first round ofplanning. Each national forest andgrassland now has a plan in place, andthe task at hand is to evaluate andimprove upon each of these. Detailed



procedures regarding the integration ofnatural resource management practicesare no longer appropriate. Rather, asdescribed in the planning regulation, itis now appropriate to look to ways toimprove existing plans and provide forneeded adjustments in uses.

Comment: Access to national forestsand grasslands. Several respondentsfeared that the proposed rule wouldlimit access to national forest lands.Among those that felt access will berestricted, some asserted that if nationalforests really are the ‘‘people’s lands,’’then the people have the right to accessthem for recreation, such as hiking,biking, off-highway travel, andsnowmobiling. ‘‘I have a right as ataxpayer and a law abiding citizen touse these lands,’’ wrote one respondent.Recreational access is especially crucialfor visitors with disabilities, accordingto many. ‘‘I cannot park a car in atrailhead parking lot and hike into areasthat non-handicapped persons can,’’ onecitizen said. ‘‘I should be able to accessthe same public lands as non-handicapped persons,’’ this personstated.

Response: Congress has given theSecretary of Agriculture theresponsibility to regulate use of theNational Forests System. The MUSYAacknowledges that not all lands must beavailable for all uses. Any changes toaccess for specific uses under this rulewill occur using the framework forplanning, will involve collaborationwith the affected and other publics, andwill use the best available science toidentify the uses that are suitable withinthe plan area.

Comment: Mining. Many respondentsfelt that the proposed rule fails toemphasize mining as a legitimate use ofnational forests. At the very least,according to one person, the proposedrule should clarify how nonrenewableresources, such as minerals, will beregulated. If mining is to be allowed,others asserted, its effects must bemitigated.

Response: Unlike current planningrule, the revised rule does not try toprovide direction for specific uses. Itfocuses instead on sustainability of theeconomic, social, and ecologicalsystems. Mining is one of many uses ofnational forests, and it may occur whereit is a suitable use, consistent withplans. Other federal statutes applicableto mining must also be considered indetermining where and how miningmay occur.

The Department believes that thisrule, and in particular, its sustainabilityrequirements, will not by itself precludemining activities. Analysis andcollaboration conducted under the

requirements of the rule, and followingall applicable laws, will determinewhere mining is appropriate and whatmitigation measures will be required.The rule’s emphasis on ecosystemhealth, collaboration, and the role ofscience may very well result in theidentification and implementation ofeffective and efficient mitigatingmeasures applicable to miningoperations, improving the overallsustainability of the use anddevelopment of what are commonlyreferred to as nonrenewable resources.

Comment: Grazing. Requiringmonitoring and enforcement of grazingstandards on national forest lands, somecontended, will ameliorate the negativeeffects of grazing. To this end, wrote oneperson, the proposed rule should clarifyhow science will aid in determining thesuitability of lands for grazing.

Response: This level of detail is notappropriate for this rule. The role ofscience is generally described in section219.22, which requires the use of bestavailable science in all aspects ofplanning, including suitabilitydeterminations.

Comment: Recreation. Onerespondent contended that limitingaccess to portions of public land mightshift increasing visitor pressure intoother, ever-dwindling, public use areas.Conversely, others specificallyrequested access restrictions for types ofrecreation that degrade public lands.Activities that are allowed on ForestService lands—be they recreational orcommercial-must not degrade forestresources, many argued. Still othersquestioned what role recreation shouldhave in forest planning.

Response: Outdoor recreation is oneof the uses of national forests recognizedin the MUSYA. The NFMA requires thatplans provide for these uses. Inaccordance with this rule, all potentialuses, and decisions to limit access mustbe considered in the context of overallsustainability.

Comment: Biodiversity. Onerespondent suggested that the planningrule should require that public lands beevaluated for their role in maintainingand protecting biodiversity.

Response: Section 219.20 requires thisevaluation.

Comment: Relationship with privateland. Several respondents suggestedthat the proposed planning rule addressthe relationship between resourceextraction on national forests and thaton private lands. Another respondentargued for conservation easementsacross deeded lands.

Response: Section 219.17 requires theForest Service to interact with privatelandowners, which may include the

relationship between resourceextraction on national forests and thaton private lands and conservationeasements across deeded lands.

Other changes. The final rulecharacterizes the process as identifyinglands not suited for particular uses,whereas the proposed rule requiredidentification of lands suited for certainuses. The approach in the final rule ismore in line with the introductorystatement that national forests andgrasslands are suitable unless they aredesignated unsuitable.

Additional criteria are added to thefinal rule for identifying lands notsuitable for particular uses. These are:(1) Incompatibility with policies of theNational Forest System, (2) causingsubstantial and permanent impairmentof the productivity of the land, and (3)incompatibility with one or more plandecisions. With these changes, theDepartment believes that it has providedsufficient guidance for amendment andrevision of plans. The current regulationwas put in place to enable the agency toprepare comprehensive national forestand grassland plans. Detailedinstructions were necessary andappropriate for completion of the firstround of planning. Each national forestand grassland now has a plan in place,and the task at hand is to evaluate andimprove upon each of these. Detailedprocedures regarding the integration ofnatural resource management practicesare no longer appropriate. Rather, asdescribed in the planning regulation, itis now appropriate to look to ways toimprove existing plans and to providefor needed adjustments in uses.

Proposed Section 219.27—Specialdesignations. The proposed ruleidentified types of special designationsthe Forest Service can recommendthrough the plan amendment or revisionprocess. It required all roadless,undeveloped areas of sufficient size tobe considered for wildernessdesignation. It required special areasdesignated by statute to be incorporatedin the plan.

Comment: List of special designations.A state agency believed that theproposed planning regulations shouldclarify which special designations, inaddition to those listed, will be allowed.In the minds of some respondents, thelist in section 219.27 contains too manydesignations. In particular, manybelieved that public access would beunnecessarily limited by specialdesignations such as wilderness andresearch natural areas. Otherscontended that Forest Service officialssimply have too much discretion toauthorize special designations. This,they believed, is an abrogation of



Congressional powers. Conversely,several people suggested that the ForestService broaden the list of specialdesignations to include heritagemanagement areas, unique botanicalareas, indigenous religious sites, andutility corridors. Some recommendedprotecting and strengthening existingspecial designations areas such asreference landscape areas and researchnatural areas.

Response: The lists of bothCongressionally and administrativelydesignated areas are examples, and notall-inclusive. The recommendation ordesignation of these or other kinds ofspecial areas is within the scope ofexisting laws and regulations and iswithin the authority of planning asdesignated in NFMA. The framework forplanning allows for the development ofissues leading to the proposal of specialdesignations, and also gives ampleopportunity for the public and others tocollaborate on the issue at all levels ofplanning.

In response to comments, and to moreclearly delineate the authorities relatedto special designations, the final ruleseparates Congressionally designatedareas, paragraph (a), fromadministratively designated areas,paragraph (c). Based on publiccomment, specific requirements forevaluating inventoried roadless areasand unroaded areas are included insection 219.9(b)(8) of the final rule toemphasize that the responsible officialmust evaluate these areas during therevision process. The Forest Servicemay adopt special designations orrecommend designation to higherauthorities through the planningprocess. In the final rule, the ForestService is not limited to theclassifications listed in the rule, and theForest Service, Department, orAdministration may designate areas asappropriate.

Comment: Wild and Scenic Rivers.Many respondents urged the ForestService to protect watersheds, wetlands,and riparian areas. According to a fewrespondents, affected rivers must beevaluated for Wild and Scenic Riverdesignation as per the Wild and ScenicRivers Act. Specifically, The DraftUnified Federal Policy for Ensuring aWatershed Approach to Federal Landand Resource Management was cited bya state agency as a model for watershedrestoration. Correspondingly, a waterusers’ association believed that theForest Service’s founding mandatedictates that the agency ensure certainand stable water flows from nationalforests. ‘‘While the Cache La ProuderWater Users Association approves inconcept the long-term, sustainable

management of the forests, we areconcerned that the proposed rule’semphasis on sustainability may inpractice subvert and cripple one of theoriginal purposes of the nationalforests—favorable conditions of waterflows for use by the people.’’Conversely, one respondent asked theForest Service to justify the purpose ofmaintaining riparian buffer zones.

Response: Authorities governing thedevelopment and the management ofthe National Forest System include theOrganic Administration Act, the CleanWater Act, and the Wild and ScenicRivers Act. The requirements of thesemust be followed. This rule does notreiterate those requirements, but it doescreate a framework for planning to meetthem. Specific methods for theprotection of watersheds, wetlands, andriparian areas and the use of riparianbuffer zones are not addressed in thisrule. These are developed through theplanning process using the bestavailable science.

Comment: Evaluating areas forwilderness. One respondent stated thatthe language of section 219.27(a)‘‘clearly singles out and emphasizeswilderness as a consideration formanagement and in the next paragraphsays that roadless areas should receivea full range of management options.’’The wilderness biases should beeliminated from the text of the rule, thisperson believed. During any analysis ofproposed wilderness, wrote oneorganization, an ecological, social, andeconomic cost-benefit analysis shouldbe conducted. Some respondentssuggested specific suitability criteria.‘‘There should be some sort of releasecriteria to prevent unsuitable areas fromremaining in ‘limbo’ for decades aswilderness study areas do now,’’ onerespondent stated. Others called forusing either environmental impactstatements or site-specific analyses (inaccordance with RARE I and II) as theappropriate tools to evaluate roadlessareas for wilderness designation. Othersquestioned the efficacy of consideringroadless areas for wildernessdesignation at this time—they suggestchanging section 219.27(a) to exemptwilderness consideration ‘‘during thisround of plan revisions.’’

Response: The Department believesthat the best process for determiningsuitability for wilderness designation isthe planning process embodied in thisrule, and conducted at a scale that canaddress unique characteristics of eacharea. The Department does not see aneed to change the wildernesssuitability process significantly from theone that was used to develop currentplans. Wilderness review is intrinsic to

planning. Wilderness designation willbe subject to the planning and publicinvolvement requirements of this rule.A responsible official may establishmanagement direction for areas notrecommended for wilderness, consistentwith requirements of this and otherapplicable rules. The Department doesnot believe this section of the ruleestablishes a bias or preference forwilderness designation.

Comment: Evaluating roadless areas.Many people supported the proposedrule’s directive to evaluate roadlessareas for wilderness designation. Oneperson suggested that, at the very least,commercial activities should beprohibited in roadless areas.

Response: The Forest Service’sproposed Roadless Area ConservationRule would provide protections forinventoried roadless areas byprohibiting certain activities ininventoried roadless areas. In addition,as discussed above, the final planningrule clarifies that the responsible officialwill have to evaluate inventoriedroadless and unroaded areas andconsider additional protections duringthe time of plan revision.

Comment: ‘‘Roadless’’ and‘‘unroaded’’ areas. A pervasive themeamong respondents’’ comments was theneed for the Forest Service to clarify thedefinition and relationship of ‘‘roadlessarea’’ and ‘‘unroaded area.’’ Specifically,some questioned the appropriateness ofusing the term unroaded since,according to one group, ‘‘Congress hasnever legally recognized the term.’’Another respondent, however, askedthat the final planning rule clarify thedefinition of unroaded to address thesize, configuration, composition, andinherent values of unroaded areas. Theproposed rule was vague, according toa recreational organization, as towhether ‘‘the Forest Service willundertake a comprehensive inventory ofthe unroaded areas.’’ Many feel that theForest Service should perform such aninventory since, according to oneindividual, ‘‘the existing inventories onmany forests were never performedaccurately during the RARE II process.’’

Response: To reduce this confusion,the final planning rule renames‘‘roadless’’ areas ‘‘inventoried roadlessareas.’’ Definitions of inventoriedroadless area and unroaded areas in thefinal planning rule are consistent withthe Forest Service’s proposed roadlessarea conservation rule and roadmanagement policy. An unroaded areais any area, without the presence of aclassified road, of a size andconfiguration sufficient to protect theinherent characteristics associated withits roadless condition. As noted above,



the final rule clarifies that during therevision process the responsible officialmust evaluate inventoried roadless areasand unroaded areas and identify areasthat warrant protection and the level ofprotection to be afforded.

Comment: Protection of roadlessareas. Many believed all remainingroadless areas on National ForestSystem lands—particularly roadlessareas of 1,000 acres or more—should beprotected. A primary reason cited forthis view was the need to preserveecologically significant areas uponwhich plant and animal species aredependent. Some believed the TongassNational Forest exhibited these qualitiesand argued that the Tongass not beexempted from roadless area protection.Others suggested biodiversity protectioncan be achieved by basing roadless areamanagement on the recommendationsfound in the Committee of Scientists’report.

Response: The Forest Service’sproposed Roadless Area ConservationRule would provide protections forinventoried roadless areas byprohibiting certain activities ininventoried roadless areas. In addition,as discussed above, the final planningrule (section 219.9(b)(8)) clarifies thatthe responsible official must evaluateinventoried roadless and unroaded areasand consider additional protectionsduring plan revision. This evaluationmust include information and analysesdeveloped to assess ecologicalsustainability, including assessments ofecosystem and species diversity at theappropriate spatial and temporal scale.The final planning rule does not includespecial provisions for the TongassNational Forest.

The Department believes itinappropriate to predetermine the sizeor configuration of unroaded areas to beanalyzed and considered through planrevisions. In some areas, 1,000-acreunroaded areas may be an appropriatestandard. In other areas, managementcriteria, such as the scarcity orabundance of unroaded and inventoriedroadless areas, may require theconsideration of smaller or larger sizedareas. Responsible officials maydetermine that other size, configuration,or resource criteria may be appropriateto best evaluate and protect theimportant social and ecologicalcharacteristics of unroaded andinventoried roadless areas. Unroadedareas should be of a size, shape, andposition within the landscape toreasonably achieve the long-termconservation of roadless characteristicssuch as soil, water, and air quality;sources of drinking water; diversity ofplant and animal communities; habitat

for threatened, endangered, proposed,candidate, and sensitive species and forthose species dependent on large,undisturbed areas of land; primitive,semi-primitive non-motorized, andsemi-primitive motorized classes ofdispersed recreation; referencelandscapes, landscape character andscenic integrity; traditional culturalproperties and sacred sites; and otherlocally identified unique characteristics.Areas may include those that provideimportant corridors for wildlifemovement, or areas that share acommon boundary of considerablelength with an inventoried roadlessarea, with a component of the NationalWild and Scenic River System, or withunroaded areas 5,000 acres or more onlands administered by other federalagencies. In selecting areas, theresponsible official should consider thedistance from, and the scarcity of, otherunroaded areas, particularly for thoseareas east of the 100th meridian.

Comment: Access to public lands.Many argued against the withdrawal ofroadless areas because access for activemanagement practices was needed tomaintain forest health. Additionally,many stated that access to public landsfor recreation was an essentialcomponent of multiple-use.Furthermore, the fact that motorizedvehicle use had been authorized incertain areas in the past should ensurefuture access for this activity, accordingto some.

Response: This final rule does notwithdraw roadless areas from activemanagement or prohibit access to publiclands. The proposed Roadless AreaConservation Rule proposes prohibitingcertain activities in inventoried roadlessareas, but it does not propose closingtrails or roads, prohibiting off-roadvehicle use, changing current forestaccess, or interfering with accessgranted by statute, treaty, or reserved oroutstanding rights. Under the proposedroadless rule, decisions aboutrecreational activities (other than thosethat depend on road construction andreconstruction) on National ForestSystem lands would continue to bemade through the planning process withthe full involvement of trail riders andother interested people.

Indeed, the final planning ruleestablishes a process for identifying,discussing, and, if appropriate, actingon issues that may emerge from avariety of sources and on a variety ofspecial and temporal scales (section219.3). This rule anticipates that issueswill be resolved at the appropriatelevel—national, regional, or local—through the planning process. In someplaces, activities such as mineral

exploration or recreational access to thenational forests and grasslands maybecome issues. As such, these issueswould be considered using the explicitcollaboration, science, sustainability,and planning requirements articulatedin the final planning rule.

Comment: Legal mandates andproposed roadless area conservationrule. Many respondents felt theproposed roadless rule must not violateexisting statutes such as the WildernessAct and the MUSYA. Severalindividuals expressed concern that theproposed roadless rule circumventsCongressional authority to designatewilderness areas. Among those whoexplicitly argued against the proposedroadless rule, the need to comply withforest management and multiple-usemandates were two prominent reasonsoffered in support of their position.

Response: Consistent with allapplicable law, the Forest Service’sproposed Roadless Area ConservationRule would provide protections forinventoried roadless areas byprohibiting certain activities ininventoried roadless areas. In addition,as discussed above, the final planningrule (section 219.9) clarifies that theresponsible official will have to evaluateinventoried roadless and unroaded areasand consider additional protectionsduring the time of plan revision. Theseprocedures are in accordance withexisting statutory direction, includingthe Wilderness Act and the MUSYA.

Other changes. The final ruleexpanded the list of special designationsto be more inclusive than that of theproposed rule. The final rule clarifiesthat an amendment or revision of a planis a mechanism by which the ForestService establishes managementdirection for special designations.

Section 219.28—Determination ofland suitable for timber harvest. Thissection of the proposed rule establishedtwo classifications of land suitability fortimber harvest. The first was theclassification of lands not suited fortimber production. The second was theclassification of lands where timberharvest would be permitted.

Comment: Suitability classifications.The proposed rule listed twoclassifications of land relative to timberproduction: ‘‘land not suited for timberproduction’’ and ‘‘land where timberharvest is permitted.’’ A number ofrespondents claimed that these classesare not consistent with NFMA. Otherssuggested retaining the suitabilitydetermination requirements in theexisting regulations. Some individualssuggested adding additionalclassifications such as ‘‘landsunavailable for timber production’’ or



other classifications that take intoaccount forest health harvests or long-term harvest rotations.

Response: The final rule has beenreorganized to better incorporate theintent of the NFMA, and also to betteraccommodate innovative managementapproaches to achieving sustainability.The final rule, identifies three separateclassifications of land in section 219.28:(a) Lands where timber may not beharvested; (b) lands where timber maybe harvested for timber production; and(c) lands where timber may be harvestedfor other multiple-use values.

Comment: Consistency with NFMArequirements. Some respondentswanted the proposed planning rule toinclude various specific provisions fromNFMA. Other people voicedreservations regarding the criteria fordetermining lands not suited for timberproduction as detailed in the proposedrule. These criteria are too vague andshould be eliminated, according toseveral people. Expressing a commonsentiment among respondents, onewood products industry representativebelieved that ‘‘interpretation of thephrases ‘ecosystem integrity,’ and ‘landswhere the costs of timber production arenot justified by the ecological, social, oreconomic benefits,’ would be costly andcontroversial at best, and most likelywould contribute to further planninggridlock.’’

Response: Criteria for lands wheretimber harvest may not occur are takendirectly from NFMA section 6(e). Inorder to determine lands where timberharvest is an objective, the responsibleofficial must complete the planningprocess to determine that the projectedcosts of timber production are justifiedby the overall benefits. The Departmentbelieves that these criteria arestraightforward and legally sound. Inthe final rule, criteria for where timbermay be harvested from lands not suitedfor timber production, include the term‘‘ecological sustainability’’ instead of‘‘ecosystem integrity,’’ and the ruleelaborates on its meaning in 219.20. Therule also defers the determination of theneed to harvest timber until site-specificinformation is available.

Comment: Land withdrawn formtimber harvest. The proposed rule listsa number of lands not suited for timberproduction—one category being ‘‘landsthat have been withdrawn from timberharvest by the Secretary of Agricultureor the Chief of the Forest Service.’’Several respondents question thisexecutive branch authority that theybelieve is reserved for Congress alone.

Response: Authority to withdraw landfrom availability for timber harvest maybe undertaken by the Secretary of

Agriculture or Chief of the ForestService for specific reasons such as, butnot limited to, public health and safety,accomplishments of other multiple-useobjectives, and other appropriate uses ofthe land.

Comment: Lands where technology isnot available for conducting timberharvesting. The proposed planning rulealso describes lands ‘‘where technologyis not available for conducting timberharvesting * * *’’ as another land-classnot suited for timber production. Onewood products industry representativerecommends striking this provisionbased on the belief that ‘‘technology isever changing, and tomorrow systemswill be available that we aren’t eventhinking of today.’’

Response: This language is arequirement of NFMA. The fact thattechnology changes was recognized bythe additional requirement in NFMA(and this section of the rule) to reviewlands determined to be not suited fortimber production at least every tenyears, or as prescribed by law.

Comment: Lands where the costs oftimber production are exceeded bybenefits. The proposed planningregulations defined one classification oflands not suitable for timber productionas ‘‘lands where the costs of timberproduction are not justified by theecological, social, or economic benefits’’(section 219.28(b)(5)). Respondentsraised a number of related concernsregarding this classification.

First, some believed that timberproduction costs should be exemptedfrom consideration during suitabilitydeterminations for timber productionbecause to do otherwise, theycontended, would constitute a violationof NFMA suitability criteria. Second, anumber of people asked the ForestService to clarify what they mean bybelow-market cost timber sales. In otherwords, what ‘‘costs’’ are beingconsidered in such determinations? Arethey ecological, social, or economic? Apossible solution offered by onerespondent requires the Forest Serviceto conduct a cost-benefit analysis ofecological, social, and economic factorsin conjunction with proposed timberremoval actions. Third, if ecological,social, or economic benefits do notoutweigh the cost of conducting atimber sale; such projects should beprohibited, according to some.

Response: Section 6(k) of the NFMArequires the Secretary of Agriculture toidentify lands, which are not suited fortimber production, consideringphysical, economic, and other pertinentfactors. Under this authority, it isappropriate to consider the relativecosts and benefits from timber

production. In the final rule, regardinglands that are not classified asunsuitable for timber, the responsibleofficial may establish timber productionas a multiple-use objective in the planif the costs of timber production arejustified by the ecological, social, oreconomic benefits. With regard toindividual timber sales, no economictest is required on lands where timberproduction has been established as aplan objective based on plan-levelanalysis. On lands where timberproduction is not an objective, analysismust be used to determine that timberharvest is necessary to achieve otherobjectives. However, the Departmentdoes not believe this rule should limituse of timber harvest as a managementtool in these situations based on theability to recover economic costs.

Comment: Lands where timberharvest is permitted. Severalrespondents argued that in order toachieve the goals of multiple-usesustained-yield, the Forest Service mustrequire active timber managementthrough its planning regulations. Forsome, this even meant harvesting timberfrom roadless areas. In addition to thestatutory foundation for this position,these individuals cited the need toimprove both forest health and wildlifehabitat.

Response: Plans prepared pursuant tothis planning regulation may, inresponse to issues that have beenidentified, require active timbermanagement to achieve their objectives,the Department does not believe that itis appropriate to mandate such actionon each national forest and grassland atthe national level. The planning ruleprovides ample direction andopportunity for the responsible officialto provide for timber production.

Comment: Salvage and Sanitationharvests. A few people asked the ForestService to clarify the language of section219.28(d), which, according to oneperson, ‘‘seems to allow salvage loggingon all national forest lands not protectedby wilderness status.’’ The bottom linefor these individuals is that the ForestService needs to clearly differentiatebetween salvage, sanitation, and greentimber harvests. However, assuming thatthe proposed rule does, in fact, allowsalvage logging on all non-wildernesslands, other respondents urged theForest Service to eliminate salvage andsanitation harvests entirely. Theyquestioned the efficacy of such harveststo actually control fires or curb insectinfestations. They also cited perceivedpast abuses of the salvage sale programas reason enough to be skeptical of theprogram in the future. In contrast, otherssupported planning rule provisions for



salvage and sanitation harvests. These,they claimed, are essential to localeconomies and to improving foresthealth.

Response: Both sanitation and salvageharvest of timber are legitimate, tested,silvicultural practices that may beappropriate to curb or manage theharmful impacts of undesirable insectand disease attacks. The Departmentbelieves that the language in this sectionon suitability is appropriate regardlessof the kind of timber harvesting activity.The reference to the sanitation andsalvage harvest has been removed fromthis section. No exceptions are made forsalvage and sanitation harvests in thisrule. They will be allowed on landswhere timber may be harvested fortimber production, and on lands whereit may be harvested for other values aslong as the criteria for harvest from suchlands are met. NFMA requires keepingseparate records of salvage andsanitation harvest volume.

New language has been added tosection 219.29 which states, based onNFMA: ‘‘For purposes of limiting theamount of timber harvest, the harvest oftimber from areas that are substantiallyaffected by fire, wind, or other events,or for which there is an imminent threatfrom insects or disease may eithersubstitute such timber for timber thatwould otherwise be sold or, if notfeasible, sell such timber over and abovethe plan volume * * *’’

Other changes. The final ruleemphasizes that a decision to harvesttimber must be consistent with plandecisions, in accordance with section219.10.

Paragraph (b)(2) in the proposed ruledesignated all lands that do not meet thedefinition of forested land as not suitedfor timber production. That provision isnot in the final rule; rather, paragraph(b) allows a decision on such lands tobe based on an evaluation of the costsand benefits of timber production.Lands that do not meet the definition offorested land are by their nature, notsuitable for timber production. NFMArequires that lands determined to be notsuitable for timber production bereviewed at least once every ten years.In accordance with paragraph (b), alllands other than those selected pursuantto this paragraph are not suited fortimber harvest, and subject to thisreview requirement.

Proposed Section 219.29—Limitationon timber harvest. This section of theproposed rule required the estimation ofthe long-term sustained-yield capacityof timber. In addition, it provided forthe calculation of an allowable salequantity for any decade that departs

from the projected long-term averagesale quantity.

Comment: Exceeding sustained-yieldlimits. Most respondents agreed that theconcept of sustained-yield is, inprinciple, a positive goal. However,some people took exception to how thisactually will be implemented throughthe proposed regulations. For example,some saw section 219.29(c)(2) asproviding a loophole for trulysustainable timber removal. Thesepeople argued that this section allowsthe responsible officials the discretionto exceed sustained-yield limits‘‘whenever they want as long as the saleis disclosed.’’

Response: The text of the proposedrule regarding the procedures that mustbe used when a departure in timberharvest levels is necessary is notretained in the final rule. Because thistext was taken from the language ofNFMA, it is believed that in the rarecircumstance when a departure inprojected timber harvests may benecessary, it is best to rely on the exactlanguage of NFMA. Also, the calculationfor long-term, sustained-yieldlimitations is separated into twocategories in the final rule. The first isa limitation on the harvests that maytake place from timber productionlands. The second is a limitation on theharvests that may take place for theremoval of timber to accomplishmultiple-use objectives other thantimber production. The two calculationscannot be combined to increase harvestlevels from either category of land.

Comment: Ecologically sustainabletimber harvest. Some respondents urgedthe Forest Service to adopt specificstandards and criteria to achieveecologically sustainable timber harvests.Several respondents suggested possiblemeans to this end: adopting guidelinesto ensure a diversity of tree age classeson national forests rather than simplyevaluating sustainable biomass removal;measuring sustained-yield at a finerscale than the current provision thatallows combining forests less than200,000 acres in size; or using theSustainable Fisheries Act as a model forsustainable logging. Sections 219.29(a)and (c) of the proposed rule used theterm ‘‘perpetuity.’’ One respondentwondered how ‘‘perpetuity’’ will becalculated-is this a mathematicalestimation and who would determinethis figure?

Response: In accordance with section219.20, plans must provide forecosystem diversity, which includesmany characteristics such asdistribution and abundance ofsuccessional stages of vegetation. TheDepartment intends and believes that

timber harvest levels that result fromimplementation of this rule will beconsistent with ecologicalsustainability.

Comment: Allowable sale quantity.Many public concerns centered on theconcept of allowable sale quantity(ASQ). Some saw the proposed rule asa detrimental move away from existingASQ requirements, which were thoughtto be important for sustaining theeconomies of timber-dependentcommunities. Moreover, one woodproducts industry representativecontended that pursuant to NFMArequirements, the proposed rule shouldrequire that ASQ determinations bemade at the forest level and that ‘‘anysignificant up or down departure fromplanned allowable sale quantitiesshould trigger a forest planamendment.’’ In contrast, othersrequested that ASQ provisions beentirely eliminated from the proposedrule or revised to require that ASQdeterminations reflect salvage andsanitation harvest volumes.

Response: The topic of ASQ has longcaused confusion for those concernedwith the management of the nationalforests. NFMA authorizes, but does notrequire, the establishment of an ASQwhere it is necessary to plan harvest ofmore timber in a decade than whatcould be removed on a sustained-yieldbasis (16 U.S.C. 1611). The currentplanning rule required theestablishment of an ASQ for every planbased on its projected sale schedule (36CFR 219.16(b)). In accordance withNFMA, both the sustained-yieldquantity (long-term sustained-yieldcapacity) and ASQ were intended toimpose limits on the sale of timber froma national forest rather than to establishtargets. Nevertheless, many individualshave viewed ASQ as a target to beachieved. However, many factorsbeyond the control of the agency haveinfluenced and will continue toinfluence actual harvest levels. Theseinclude the budget received fromCongress, new listings and designationsof critical habitat under the EndangeredSpecies Act, weather, and therequirements of other statutes andExecutive Orders.

The proposed rule, while notrequiring the establishment of an ASQ,did require the establishment of a long-term sustained-yield capacity at theforest level, which set the upper cap onthe sale of timber from lands wheretimber production was an objective. Inaddition, the proposed rule requiredthat plans contain a display of actions,outcomes, and projected products andservices that could be used forreasonable estimates of likely timber



harvest levels. These provisions areretained in the final rule. In addition, alimitation on the amount of timber thatmay be removed from lands unsuited fortimber production is added to the finalrule. Language from NFMA has beenadded to clarify the relationship ofsalvage and sanitation sales to harvestvolume limits. To simplify the text andacknowledge the intended limited useof the term, ‘‘allowable sale quantity,’’ itis no longer used in the rule, but maybe found in the referenced section ofNFMA.

Comment: Logging methods. Loggingmethods and techniques were veryimportant for many who comment onthe proposed planning rule. In order toensure minimal environmental impactduring logging activities, somesuggested using small equipment fortimber cutting and removal procedures.One person requested that the ForestService design timber harvest units tomimic stand composition and structurecreated by natural disturbance events.Indeed, to some, mimicking disturbanceevents requires an explicit commitmentby the Forest Service to continue thepractice of clearcutting. Clearcuts, theyclaimed, contribute to a multi-age foreststructure and serve as habitat for avariety of wildlife species. Still, theremust be limits on individual clearcutsize, some argued. One person suggestedusing the Committee of Scientists reportas a guide for establishing size limitsbased on the characteristics of naturaldisturbance regimes. Many otherrespondents called for a complete banon clearcutting in national forests. Tothem, clearcuts are ecologicallydestructive and reduce the capacity offorests to act as wind buffers for humancommunities in some regions of thecountry.

Response: Clearcutting is a legitimateand sometimes needed silvicultural toolfor managing certain forestedlandscapes. Forest silviculture andecosystem disturbance ecology supportthis view. At the same time, theDepartment shares the concerns overinappropriate application ofclearcutting. The Department isconfident that the planning frameworkand the collaborative, science-basedapproach to ecological diversity itcontains will result in clearcutting beingused appropriately. It remains agencypolicy that clearcutting be used onlywhen and where it is appropriate andfully supported by science.

Other changes. Paragraph (a) in thefinal rule requires calculation of theamount of timber that could be sold inperpetuity on a sustained-yield basisfrom lands where timber harvest is notprohibited. In the proposed rule, this

calculation was required only for thoselands where timber production wasidentified as an objective. NFMA doesnot make this distinction, and in thefinal rule the requirement applies to alllands not identified in paragraph (a).Estimates for lands that may beharvested for other purposes may bedifficult to make and less reliable thanfor timber production lands. For thatreason, and to avoid excessive harvestfrom either type of land, the volumeestimates for the two areas may not becombined. Paragraph (b) imposesseparate limits on the volume that maybe sold from lands that are suited fortimber production and those lands thatare not suited for timber production, butavailable for the harvest of timber tofulfill other multiple use objectives.

Planning DocumentationProposed Section 219.30—Land and

resource management plandocumentation. This section of theproposed rule described thedocumentation requirements for theplan, including the summary document,a display of land suitable for selecteduses, a display of decisions for the planarea, a list of actions to achieve desiredconditions, the minimum level ofmonitoring and evaluation, a display ofbudgetary information, and a list ofreference materials. In the final rule,this section has been renamed ‘‘Plandocumentation.’’

Comment: Many people found the‘‘living document’’ idea appealingalthough they doubt the ability of theForest Service to meet the goals set outin this subsection of the proposed rule.Some people claimed that ‘‘existingforest plans are already livingdocuments’’ due to rapidly changingconditions which require revisions.Other people questioned the ability ofthe Forest Service to keep up withexpectations outlined in the proposal.‘‘This is a lot of disparate information tokeep track of, connected, integrated, andcontinually updated.’’ A fewrespondents asked how thedocumentation will work and how itwill be organized. Will the livingdocument result in ‘‘the same sort ofunintelligible documents that appearedduring the first round of planning,’’another person asked? Others hadspecific suggestions for the kind ofbudget and output information toinclude.

Response: In general, section 219.30of the final rule retains the language inthe proposed rule. The Department doesnot view the plan documentation as anundue burden. The items to bedisplayed already exist within agencyrecords. By following the plan

documentation process, informationrelative to plan and site-specificdecisions as well as futureimplementation would be readilyavailable to the public. The intent ofthis section of the rule is to provide onelocation for all the documents thatpertain to plan decisions on the forestor grassland. As noted in the Committeeof Scientists Report, the integrated planis the assemblage of all policies anddecisions affecting an administrativeunit. The Department agrees with thecomment that forest plans currently canbe viewed as ‘‘living documents.’’However, the Department believes thatthe planning structure outlined in thefinal rule provides for more timely andflexible planning based on theappropriate scale of the issue.

Other Changes. The term ‘‘guidelines’’in the proposed rule has been removedfrom this section in the final rule. Therewas some confusion about the terms‘‘standards and guidelines’’ and theirmeaning in the proposed rule. The term‘‘standards’’ has been retained in thefinal rule. New language is added in thefinal rule referring to ‘‘maintenance orrestoration of sustainability.’’ Thislanguage has been added to emphasizethe goals of sustainability in the finalrule. The language referring to‘‘watershed protection or restoration’’ inparagraph (a) from the proposed rule isremoved in the final rule. TheDepartment believes that the languagein the final rule referring to ‘‘ecological’’environments within the plan areaencompasses watershed protection andrestoration.

Some editing and clarifying changesto paragraph (b), ‘‘Display of publicuses,’’ and paragraph (c), ‘‘Plandecisions,’’ are made in the final rule.There is also some editing and clarifyingchanges to paragraph (d), ‘‘Display ofactions and outcomes.’’ Paragraph(d)(4), regarding the projected range ofoutcomes for uses, values, and servicesis changed from 10-year projection inthe proposed rule to a 15-year projectionin the final rule to coincide with therequired revision schedule for plans.

Proposed Section 219.31—Maintenance of the plan and planningrecords. This section of the proposedrule described the requirements thatkeep plans up-to-date and readilyavailable to the public. It also describedthe types of administrative changes toplans that are considered maintenance.

Comment: Many people believed thatthe maintenance of planning documentsunder the proposed rule would becomean insurmountable obstacle to effectivemanagement. They were concernedabout the staff time it will take tocomply with the reporting periods. One



person wrote that at a two-year cycle fordocumentation maintenance would be abetter use of staff time. Others arguedthat posting the entire plan record onthe Internet is not feasible. Some peoplerequested that complete sets ofdocuments be maintained at districtoffices. Distances can sometimes be‘‘unduly burdensome for staff andcitizens to have to travel to theSupervisor’s office,’’ they asserted.Some respondents feared that specialinterest groups would be able to undulyinfluence management by initiatingrevisions. Other people felt that stabilityis more important than flexibility in aforest plan.

Response: The Department believes itis reasonable to expect the requirementsunder this provision to be successfullyfollowed by the Forest Service. Thedocuments should be available in anelectronic format. However, thereference to the Internet in section219.31(a) in the proposed rule has beeneliminated from the final rule to allowfor development and use of otherapplicable electronic media forinformation exchange. The Departmenthas removed the language in section219.31(b) of the proposed rule referringto ‘‘complete and current data’’associated with planning records. Thislanguage was removed because theseterms have specific legal interpretations.

The Department has also added a newitem (4) under subsection (b) that wouldexempt changes in monitoring methodsfrom Forest Service NEPA procedures.The Department made this change tomake sure that any changes inmonitoring methods would beconsidered administrative corrections,and not plan revisions or amendmentssubject to NEPA.

Objections and AppealsProposed Section 219.32—Objections

to amendments or revisions. In theproposed rule, this section described theprocess by which the public couldchallenge plan revisions oramendments. This process will providethe public an opportunity to challengeForest Service planning prior to theresponsible official making a finaldecision. This section requires theresponsible official in the planningprocess to respond to all objectionsprior to approving an amendment orrevision of the plan. This process willprovide the Forest Service and thepublic with an opportunity to addressissues before a final decision is made.

Comment: Objection process. Manypeople feared the objection processwould reduce the influence that thecurrent appeals process provides tosome individuals. They claimed the 30-

day objection period is insufficient timeto identify issues and generate anadministrative record. Many believedthe proposed objection process wouldundermine their ability to establishstanding for possible litigation.Although some respondents felt that theobjection process is an inadequateprotection of public interests, others feltthat requirements for standing should bemuch more stringent to preventneedless obstruction. Many respondentsnoted that there is no time limit for theagency to respond to objections. Toachieve conflict resolution andefficiency in the objection process,‘‘time limits are essential,’’ wrote oneindividual. However, one forestproducts industry representativebelieved that the pre-decisionalobjection process would allow managersto implement decisions without‘‘excessive appeals.’’

Response: The objection processapplies only to amendments andrevisions of a land and resourcemanagement plan. The processrecognizes the interest of peopleengaged in stewardship and theachievement of sustainability isgrounded in the recommendations ofthe Committee of Scientists. It furthersthe intent of the collaborative dialogueoutlined in sections 219.12 to 219.18and supports the premise of theproblem-solving and decisionmakingmodel envisioned in the framework forplanning (sections 219.3 to 219.11). Theprocess complements and is consistentwith the maintenance of establishedrelationships, commitments, andresponsibilities necessary to continuingsolving problems for effectivestewardship prior to finalizing apending plan amendment or revision.

The final rule, as a whole, addressesthe weaknesses in the current 36 CFRpart 217 appeal process throughintegration of the objection process withthe framework for planning (sections219.3 to 219.11) and supplementingtraditional NEPA public involvementwith collaborative planning forsustainability (sections 219.12 to219.18). In the long run, the objectionprocess is expected to resolve manypotential conflicts. The purpose of theobjection process is to encourageresolution of issues before decisions aremade. The intent is to provide thereviewing officer with an opportunity towork more closely with the responsibleofficial and those filing objections toresolve the objections before a decisionis made. A predecisional objectionprocess will also enhance interagencycollaboration by standardizing objectionprocedures and provide incentives to

work out substantive differences ratherthan focus on procedural errors.

Critical to the success of the objectionprocess is the active effort of theresponsible official and others to engagein early and frequent opportunities forpublic involvement and dialogue. Anobjection must be filed, in writing,within 30 calendar days of public noticeof the appropriate NEPAdocumentation. The 30-day objectionperiod mirrors a similar existing processused successfully by the Bureau of LandManagement, and the Department feelsthat it should not prove a barrier tothose who wish to utilize it—particularly if they have been involvedin the collaborative processes.Establishing a time limit for the agencyto respond to objections would burdenthe collaborative process with anunnecessary constraint. The focus of theobjection process is on joint problemsolving to resolve issues, not onpressing a decision to meet an artificialdeadline.

Comment: Current appeals process.Many respondents argued for theretention of the current appeal process.They felt that appeals ensurecumulative analysis, allow publicoversight of Forest Service policy, andare a citizen’s right. Changing theprocess, some declared, will destroyconfidence in the integrity of the ForestService. Many people believed anappeals process provides the option toresolve conflict before litigationbecomes necessary.

Response: Under the current 36 CFRpart 217 appeal process, the agency andthe public expend significant humanand financial resources in fulfillment ofprocedural requirements. Under theexisting rule, some individuals andinterest groups have little trust in theintegrity of the current process andperceive they have a better chance ofachieving their interests through costlyappeal and litigation processes. Often, apolarized relationship develops wherethere is no real incentive to addressnatural resource issues, creating a cycleof ‘‘bulletproofing environmentaldocumentation’’ and expending bothhuman and financial capital, oftenwithout long-lasting solutions. Theobjection process provides for theconsideration of a pending planamendment or revision withoutrestricting citizens’ legal rights. Theresponsible official, the reviewingofficer and the objector have theopportunity to seek reasonable solutionsto conflicting views before a planamendment or revision is adopted.

Comment: Analysis of prior appeals.Some respondents suggested that theForest Service address prior appeals



against Forest Service decisions as partof the proposed planning rule. Theybelieved that interviews with peoplewho filed appeals should beincorporated into the planning process.

Response: Appeals and the concernsof national forest and grassland userswere considered in the development ofthe final planning rule. The team thatdeveloped the proposed rule andresponse to public comment based theirwork on years of experience inaddressing the concerns of interestedcitizens. The increased emphasis thatthe planning rule places oncollaboration is a direct response toimprove working relationships amonginterested citizens. In the objectionprocess, the reviewing officer can stepin and review the procedures as well asthe substance of a pending decision andseek a suitable resolution of anobjection.

Subparagraph (b) has been added tothe final rule which provides forobjectors and other parties to participatein meetings with the responsible officialto discuss their objection, narrowdifferences, agree on facts, and exploreopportunities for resolution. Any personwould be allowed to object to a pendingdecision. The objection submittalrequires copies of all documentsaddressing the issue or issues that weresubmitted during the planning processby the objecting party or an indicationof the date the issue or issues werediscussed for the record. Unlike thecurrent 36 CFR part 217 rule, theobjection process in section 219.32 ofthe final rule does not have a specifictime limit for resolving objections. Thecurrent appeal process prevents a higherlevel intervention or participation inissue resolution or problem solvingbecause of the need to avoid ex partecommunication by higher-levelreviewing authorities and also tomaintain an independent, objectivereview of the record, at the higher levelof appeal. Under the objection process,to expedite resolution of any objection,the responsible official would not beallowed to approve an amendment orrevision under objection until a decisionon the objection has been reached anddocumented in an appropriate decisiondocument. Also, the reviewing officermust promptly render a response, inwriting, setting forth the rationale forthe response. The reviewing officer’sresponse regarding an objection is thefinal decision of the Department ofAgriculture.

Other changes. The Departmentadded new language in paragraph (a) inthe final rule, which requires theresponsible official to publish notice ofall objections in a newspaper of record.

This language was added to ensure thatthe list of objections would be disclosedto the public. The Department removedthe section of paragraph (b) in theproposed rule pertaining to the Noticeof Intent and multi-agency planning.The Department believes that thislanguage is not necessary in the finalrule. The Department also removedparagraph (c) of the proposed rulepertaining to review and final responseto an objection. The Departmentdetermined that the objection processshould not be viewed as a legal process.

Proposed Section 219.33—Appeals ofsite-specific decisions. This section ofthe proposed rule addressed appeals ofsite-specific decisions. The appealprocess is the same as the existingrequirements provided in 36 CFR part215.

Comment: Although many peoplewanted to keep the existing appealsprocess, some felt that the objectionprocess is a good direction for the ForestService and is appropriate for site-specific decisions as well. Othersbelieved that the Forest Service mustclarify the relationship between the pre-decision objection process for plandecisions and the appeal process forsite-specific decisions. A few peopleargued that objection process violatesdue process requirements for site-specific decisions.

Response: While there is merit inhaving an objection process for site-specific decisions, amending the appealprocess is beyond the scope andauthority for developing these planningregulations under the NFMA. For thisreason, the administrative appealprocess for site-specific decisionsremains unchanged in the final rule.

The Department added language tothis section to clarify the relationshipbetween the objection processes for plandecisions and the appeal process forsite-specific decisions. Other revisionshave been made to incorporate changedterminology.

The Department does not believe thatobjection process violates due processrequirements for site-specific decisions.The agency’s NEPA procedures providesfor both public comment and appeal ofsite-specific decisions.

Applicability and TransitionProposed Section 219.34—

Applicability. This section of theproposed rule provided that thedirection in the rule applied to all unitsof the National Forest System andremains unchanged in the final rule.The agency did not receive any specificcomments on this section.

Proposed Section 219.35—Transition.This section of the proposed rule

addressed the shift in planning from theuse of the existing regulation to the newrule, including the initiation oftransition, the length of time existingplans remain in effect, the review ofunsuitable land for timber production,the timing for completion of ongoingamendment or revision efforts, therelationship between transition and site-specific decisions, and the withdrawalof regional guides. This section outlinedthe process by which the Forest Servicewill transition from the 1982 planningregulations.

Comment: Many respondentsrequested a clear distinction betweenforest plans and project-level plans interms of when they must conform torequirements in the proposed rule.Existing NEPA regulations still apply toproject plans, stated one person. Inaddition, the application of theproposed regulations to recently revisedforest plans was a significant concern ofmany people. One respondent said thatthe new regulations could overturnenvironmental safeguards developed inrevised forest plans. Some commentedthat a timeframe must be set in orderthat proposed projects, which can takeyears to develop, don’t come intoconflict with forest plans under the newregulations.

Response: The final rule adequatelydescribes the relationship between plandecisions, site-specific decisions, andthe agency’s NEPA procedures. Thetransition from the existing regulationsto the new rule and the relationshipbetween transition and site-specificdecisions is addressed in section 219.35.The Department does not believe thatthe new rule could overturnenvironmental safeguards developed inrevised forest plans. For site-specificdecisions, section 219.35(d) provides athree-year time period for transitionbetween the existing regulations and thenew rule.

Comment: The use of Regional Guidesafter implementation of the proposedplanning regulations should bediscussed in more detail somecontended. One respondent suggestedthat Regional Guides should bewithdrawn ‘‘on a forest-by-forest basis.’’Another requests they not apply untilthe next scheduled plan revision.Several people asserted that provisionsmust be in place to prevent delays inrevision of forest plans through ‘‘endlessextensions.’’ On a separate note, oneperson wanted requirements forevaluating suitability for multiple-usesspecified in the transition sectioninstead of ‘‘just sustainability.’’

Response: The management directioncontained within each Regional Guidewould be transferred to the Forest



Service directives system or toapplicable plans. The directioncontained within Regional Guides willbe used to develop plan revisions.Section 219.35(f) of the final ruleprovides that the Regional Forester willhave 1 year from the effective date ofthis rule to withdraw the regional guide.In regard to the comment about delaysin planning, the rule provides atransition framework that willexpeditiously amend or revise existingforest plans. In addition, the ruleestablishes a framework forincorporating this new planningstructure into project planning as wellas forest and grassland plans. In regardto the comment about suitability, theidentification and designations ofsuitable uses will be implemented inaccordance with Section 219.26 of thefinal rule. It is the intent of this rule toprovide that suitable uses will beevaluated during the transition period.

Other Changes. Some editing andclarifying changes are made to thissection of the final rule. In addition, theDepartment has added new text inparagraph (a) of the final rule requiringthe responsible official to consider the‘‘best available science to implement,and, if appropriate, amend the currentplan.’’ This text is added in the finalrule in order to require the ForestService to incorporate the best sciencewithin current plans. The Departmentintends this to be incorporated withinexisting forest plans that have beenprepared under the 1982 planningstructure, too.

New text in paragraph (b) of the finalrule is added to allow for thecompletion of an ongoing planamendment or revision under the 1982rule if an environmental assessment ordraft environmental impact statementhas been issued within six months ofthe effective date of the new planningrule. The responsible official maycomplete the amendment or revisionunder the new rule. This addition to thefinal rule was made to ensure thatongoing plan amendments or revisionsnearing completion were not delayed.Implementation of the new planningrule would take place as described bythe transition process.

New language in paragraph (e)requiring the Regional Forester towithdraw the regional guide within oneyear of the effective date of theregulation is added to the final rule. Thelanguage in the proposed rule thatrequired all the forests within a regionto complete their revisions prior towithdrawal of the regional guide hasbeen removed. This change was made toensure the expeditious withdrawal ofregional guides. The information in the

regional guide will be transferred to aregional supplement of the ForestService directives system or to existingforest plans. Public notice for theseactions will be announced in theFederal Register. The Department hasincluded new language in paragraph (f)of the final rule that provides for thetransfer of information from the regionalguide to other plans does not constitutenew decisionmaking subject toadditional Forest Service NEPAprocedures.

A new subparagraph (g) is added tothe final rule that requires the Chief ofthe Forest Service to prepare a schedulefor completion of the plan revisionswithin one year. This section wasmoved from section 219.9, Revision, ofthe proposed rule to this section in thefinal rule. The change was made toemphasize this is one of the majorresponsibilities during the transitionperiod. This language will enable theChief of the Forest Service to prioritizeplan revisions and provide thenecessary resources to complete them ina timely manner.

DefinitionsProposed Section 219.36—Definitions.

This section of the proposed ruledefines terms used in the rule. Thissection has been retained in the finalrule, with some changes in terms.

Comment: Many people requestedthat a variety of terms be defined thissection of the proposed planning rule.Other respondents offered specificcomments regarding the need for theclarification of terms already defined inthe proposed planning regulations.

Response: The changes in thedefinitions and terms from the proposedrule to the final rule are as follows:

Assessment or analysis area. Thedefinition of assessment or analysis areawas retained from the proposed rule,with some minor clarifying language.The term ‘‘geographic’’ has been addedto describe the area of analysis.

Broad-scale assessment. The proposedrule included a definition for this term.The definition of broad-scale assessmenthas been moved to section 219.5(a) ofthe final rule.

Candidate species. The termcandidate species has been retained inthe final rule. The phrase ‘‘a list of suchspecies prepared by the USFWS andpublished in the Federal Register’’ hasbeen removed. The Department believesthat this language is unnecessary andredundant.

Conservation agreement. The termconservation agreement was defined inthe proposed rule has been retained inthe final rule. There are no changes tothe definition.

Current climatic period. This term hasbeen added to the final rule. TheDepartment believes that this term isimportant to understand the timeframefor species and ecosystems within thefinal rule.

Demand species. This term wasdefined in the proposed rule. It has beenremoved from the final rule. TheDepartment believes that the final ruleshould concentrate on protection ofspecies that may have viabilityconcerns. Demand species, as defined inthe proposed rule, may not haveviability concerns.

Desired condition. This term has beenmodified in the final rule by deletingthe phrases pertaining to the descriptionof the range of natural variability. TheDepartment removed this languagebecause there is a new definition forrange of variability.

Desired non-native species. This termhas been modified in the final rule torecognize that non-native species canhave ‘‘high social, cultural, or economicvalue.’’ This term could include‘‘demand species,’’ as defined in theproposed rule.

Disturbance processes. This term hasbeen changed from ‘‘disturbanceprocesses’’ to ‘‘disturbance regime’’ inthe final rule. The Department believesthat this term better describesdisturbances. The Department alsoremoved the term ‘‘land usedevelopment’’ from the list of humancaused disturbances. The Departmentbelieves that the list of disturbances inthe final rule describes all of theactivities that could occur on nationalforests and grasslands.

Diversity of plant and animalcommunities. The Department hasretained this term in the final rule.

Ecological composition. This term,which was defined in the proposed rule,has been removed from the final rule.The Department believes that thecharacteristics of ecological compositionare defined in the definitions for theterms ecosystem composition,ecosystem processes, and ecosystemstructure.

Ecological conditions. TheDepartment has removed the term‘‘ecological sustainability’’ from the listof components of the biological andphysical environment. The term‘‘ecological sustainability’’ has beendefined in the final rule. TheDepartment has also added the phrase‘‘abundance and distribution’’ to the listof ecological conditions. This phrasewas added to ensure that planning takesinto consideration these factors inidentifying ecological conditions.

Ecological sustainability. This term,which was defined in the proposed rule,



has been retained in the final rule withsome modifications. The Departmenthas removed the language in theproposed rule referring to ‘‘plan area.’’The Department believes that thisdefinition should not be limited to onlythe plan area.

Ecosystem. This term, which wasdefined in the proposed rule, has beenremoved from the final rule. TheDepartment believes that this term isadequately defined within thedefinitions of ecosystem structure,ecosystem processes, and ecosystemcomposition.

Ecosystem composition. TheDepartment has added this definition tothe final rule to clarify what ecologicalelements are included within this term.

Ecosystem integrity. This term hasbeen removed from the final rule. TheDepartment believes that the termsecosystem composition, ecosystemprocesses, and ecosystem structureprovide adequate definitions for thisterm in the final rule.

Ecosystem processes. The Departmenthas added this term to the final rule.The Department believes that it isimportant for participants in theplanning process to have anunderstanding of the elements ofecological processes.

Ecosystem structure. This term wasdefined in the proposed rule. It has beenretained in the final rule, with somemodifications. The Department hasremoved the language listing thespecific characteristics for identifyingecosystem structure. The Departmentbelieves that this information is notnecessary.

Focal species. The proposed rule didnot define this term. The Departmenthas added this term to the final rulebecause of its importance indetermining viability of species. This isa term that is used broadly by thescientific community.

Forest Service NEPA procedures. TheDepartment has retained this definitionin the final rule.

Historical range of variability. TheDepartment has removed this term fromthe final rule. It has included a newdefinition for range of variability in thefinal rule. The Department removed thisterm because it wanted to ensure thatrange of ecosystem processes consideredin the new planning process are withinthe current climatic period, but notlimited to pre-European settlement timeperiod.

Inherently rare species. This term wasnot defined in the proposed rule. TheDepartment has added this term to thefinal rule. The Department has definedthis term because it is important for theagency and public to understand that

there may be species that are ‘‘rare’’because of natural circumstances.

Inventoried roadless areas. TheDepartment has added this term in thefinal rule. This was done to furtherclarify the terms of ‘‘roadless areas’’ and‘‘unroaded areas’’ in the proposed ruleand make the definition consistent withForest Service Roadless AreaConservation Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement Summary andProposed Rule, dated May 2000.

Local analysis. The Department hasremoved this definition from the finalrule. This term is defined in Section219.5, Information development andinterpretation.

Major vegetation types. TheDepartment has added a definition ofthis term to the final rule. This term wasadded to describe the predominantplant communities within a region orsub-region.

Native species. The Department hasmade minor editorial changes to thisdefinition in the final rule. Thesubstance of the definition remainsunchanged.

Plan area. This term was defined inthe proposed rule. It is defined in thefinal rule, with some modifications. TheDepartment has added the term‘‘geographic.’’ The Department believesthat this addition is important fordescribing the plan area.

Productive capacity of ecosystems.The Department has changed this termto ‘‘productive capacity of ecologicalsystems’’ in the final rule. TheDepartment believes that this betterdescribes ecosystem processes in theplanning structure.

Range of variability. The Departmenthas added this term to the Definitionsection in the final rule. As mentionedabove, the definition on historical rangeof variability is no longer included inthe final rule. The new definition statesthat the natural disturbance regimes arein the current climatic period. TheDepartment believes that this languagebetter characterizes the range ofvariability for planning on nationalforests and grasslands.

Reference landscapes. TheDepartment has redefined this term inthe final rule. The Department removedthe phrases referring to ‘‘historical rangeof variability’’ and ‘‘terrestrial andaquatic areas.’’ The Department hasadded new language that describes the‘‘reference landscapes’’ as places withinthe ‘‘plan area.’’ The Departmentbelieves that this new language betterdescribes the types of referencelandscapes that can be used in theplanning process.

Responsible official. The Departmenthas modified this definition in the final

rule by removing the language referringto more than one line officer. TheDepartment believes that this phrase isnot necessary. The Department has alsoremoved the language referring to ‘‘lineofficer,’’ and has added new languagethat provides for the responsible officialto be the person who oversees theplanning process.

Reviewing officer. The Departmenthas added this term in the final rule.The Department wanted to clarify whothis individual is and what theirresponsibility is in the planningframework.

Roadless areas. The Department hasrenamed this term ‘‘inventoried roadlessareas’’ to further differentiate it fromunroaded areas.

Salvage harvest of timber. TheDepartment has removed this definitionfrom the final rule. The Departmentbelieves that it is not necessary tospecifically define this term.

Sanitation harvest of timber. TheDepartment has removed this definitionfrom the final rule. The Departmentbelieves that this term does not need tobe defined in the final rule.

Sensitive species. The Department hasremoved this definition from the finalrule. The term is only referred to in theDefinition section for ‘‘species-at-risk’’in the final rule and the Departmentbelieves it is not necessary tospecifically define it.

Social and economic sustainability.The Department added this definition inthe final rule based on public comment.

Species. The definition in theproposed rule stating that ‘‘any nativetaxon of the plant or animal kingdom’’is defined as a species has been changedin the final rule to ‘‘any member of theplant or animal kingdom.’’ TheDepartment made this change tobroaden the definition to include nativeand non-native species.

Species-at-risk. The Department hasdefined this new term in the final rule.The Department wanted to clarify thatthese are federally listed and otherspecies that have a viability risk withinthe plan area.

Species viability. The Department hasretained this definition in the final rule,with some modifications. TheDepartment has removed the languagein the proposed rule referring to the‘‘genetic diversity’’ of self-sustainingpopulations. The Department removedthis language because it believes thatviability should be interpreted in thebroadest manner.

Successional stages. The Departmenthas added this term to the final rule.The Department believes there is a needto define the various phases of



vegetation development within thecontext of sustainability.

Timber production. This definition isunchanged from the proposed rule.

Undeveloped areas. This term wasadded to the final rule. This term refersto all areas of sufficient size that are‘‘untrammeled’’ by human beings thatare appropriate to evaluate forwilderness designation in the planningprocess.

Unroaded areas. This term is revisedto be consistent with the definition usedin Forest Service Roadless AreaConservation Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement Summary andProposed Rule, dated May 2000.

Vegetation Management. This termhas been removed from the final rule.The term is defined within the contentof sections 219.4, Identification andconsideration of issues, 219.28,Determination of land suitable fortimber harvest, and 219.29, Limitationon timber harvest.

Watershed integrity. This term hasbeen removed from the final rule. It isdefined within the content of section219.20, Ecological Sustainability.

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Impact

This rule has been reviewed underUSDA procedures and Executive Order12866 on Regulatory Planning andReview. It has been determined that thisis not an economically significant rule.This rule will not have an annual effectof $100 million or more on the economynor adversely affect productivity,competition, jobs, the environment,public health or safety, nor state or localgovernments. This rule will not interferewith an action taken or planned byanother agency nor raise new legal orpolicy issues. Finally, this action willnot alter the budgetary impact ofentitlements, grants, user fees, or loanprograms or the rights and obligations ofrecipients of such programs. However,because of the extensive interest inNational Forest System planning anddecisionmaking, the Office ofManagement and Budget hasdetermined this rule to be significantand thus, subject to OMB review underExecutive Order 12866.

The cost-benefit analysis focused onkey activities in land and resourcemanagement planning for which costscould be estimated under the existingand final planning rules. Those majoractivities included regional guides, landand resource management planrevisions, land and resourcemanagement plan amendments, andadvisory committees. The final rulewould reduce costs by eliminating

regional guides and reducing the lengthof the planning process. Increased costswould result from new requirements forFACA-type advisory boards and scienceadvisory boards. The cost of broad-scaleassessments will also be a new planningexpense, which is assumed to be at leastequal to the cost of maintaining regionalguides. Based on the quantified costs,the final rule is estimated to result in anaverage annual cost savings of $2.4million compared to the existing rule.This estimate is a conservative estimateof cost savings, since it is assumed thatthe cost of significant amendmentsunder the existing rule is zero (based onthe rarity of application), and no costsavings are estimated as a result ofimproved efficiencies, streamlinedprocesses, and reduced litigation costsbecause of improved methods fordealing with planning conflicts. Thecost-benefit analysis can be obtained bycontacting: the Director, EcosystemManagement and Coordination, ForestService, USDA, P.O. Box 96090,Washington, DC 20090–6090, (202) 205–1697.

Moreover, this rule has beenconsidered in light of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C.601 et seq.), and it has been determinedthat this rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities as defined bythat Act. The rule imposes norequirements on either small or largeentities. Rather, the rule sets out theprocess the Forest Service will follow inplanning for the management of theNational Forest System. The rule shouldincrease opportunities for smallbusinesses to become involved in bothsite-specific and national forest andgrassland plan decisions. Moreover, bystreamlining the planning process, smallbusinesses should see more timely site-specific decisions that affect outputs ofproducts and services.

Eight comments from law firms orrepresentatives of small miningoperators, outfitters and guide permitholders, and small timber companieschallenged the Forest Service assertionthat the proposed rule, if adopted,would not have a significant economicimpact on small businesses and otherentities. Several of these reviewersasserted that the shift to ecologicalsustainability would result inreductions in resource allocations andthus would have severe adverse effectson small businesses and communitieswithin and adjacent to National Forests.One commenter also challenged theassertion that the proposed rulestreamlined the planning process. Oneorganization representing the 8,000recreation outfitters and guides

operating under permit on the nationalforests and grasslands contended thatthe proposed planning rule wouldreduce recreation opportunities withcorollary reductions in commercialoutfitting and guiding.

Several representatives of smallmining operators also asserted that theproposed planning rule, in combinationwith actions by the Bureau of LandManagement, would violate the smallminers Constitutional rights. Finally, allthese respondents quoting variousprovisions of the Regulatory FlexibilityAct, believed that the Forest Service hadnot complied with the Act, either by notpreparing Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAct, or not presenting a factual basis forwhy an IRFA was not required.

The Department finds that theplanning rule would not result in asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities asdefined by the Small Business Act.Those who allege severe shifts inresource allocations have not offeredfacts and data to prove their point.

This planning rule establishes aprocess for planning of national forestand grasslands and does not directlyregulate any business. The process thatis being established under this ruleoffers greater opportunity for smallentities to actively participate in theplanning process than in the past. Forestdependent businesses and communitiesmay choose to become involved inplanning if the issues are relevant andimportant to them.

No Takings ImplicationsThis rule has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles andcriteria contained in Executive Order12630, and it has been determined thatthe rule does not pose the risk of ataking of Constitutionally protectedprivate property. This rule establishes aprocess for amending and revising landand resource management plans fornational forests and grasslands. Severalrespondents commented that theproposed regulations would impose‘‘takings’’ of private property. Aftercareful review of the proposed and finalregulations, the Department finds thatthere are no ‘‘takings’’ implications bythis rule. As stated previously, the ruleestablishes a process and only applies tonational forests and grasslands, notprivate property.

Civil Justice Reform ActThis rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform. As adopted, (1) all state andlocal laws and regulations that are inconflict with this rule or which wouldimpede its full implementation are to be



preempted; (2) no retroactive effect isgiven to this rule; and (3) it does notrequire administrative proceedingsbefore parties may file suit in courtchallenging its provisions. Severalrespondents commented about thefederal government’s authority topreempt state and local laws. TheDepartment has carefully reviewed thislanguage and finds that this is entirelyconsistent with the legal responsibilitiesof the federal government.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

The President signed into law onMarch 22, 1995, direction regardingunfunded mandates. The Departmenthas assessed the effects of this rule onstate, local, and tribal governments, andthe private sector. This rule does notcompel the expenditure of $100 millionor more by any state, local, or tribalgovernments or anyone in the privatesector. Therefore, a statement undersection 202 of the Act is not required.Several respondents commented thatthe proposed regulations imposed an‘‘unfunded mandate’’ on state and localgovernments. The Department disagreeswith this comment. These regulationsdo not impose any mandatoryrequirements on states, tribes, or localgovernments. These regulations onlyapply to land and management planningfor national forests and grasslands. It isdiscretionary for state and localgovernments and tribes to participate inthe planning process detailed in thisrule.

Environmental Impact

This rule deals with the developmentand adoption of Forest Service land andresource management plan decisions aswell as procedures for developing site-specific decisions that may includedecisions regarding the occupancy anduse of National Forest System land. Anenvironmental assessment has beencompleted with a finding of nosignificant impact. Several respondentsasked why the Forest Service did notprepare an environmental impactstatement. As stated previously, theDepartment prepared an environmentalassessment consistent with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act. Theenvironmental assessment prepared bythe Forest Service includes a Cost-Benefit Analysis and Civil Rights ImpactAnalysis. The environmentalassessment can be obtained bycontacting: Director, EcosystemManagement and Coordination, ForestService, USDA, P.O. Box 96090,Washington, DC 20090–6090, (202) 205–1697. Subsequent NEPA documents willbe written when land and resource

management plans and site-specificplans are undertaken.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on thePublic

In accordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), the information collection orreporting requirements included in therule have been approved by the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) andassigned control number 0596–0158.

Section 219.32 Objections andAppeals would establish a new processfor citizens and groups to object to aforest plan amendment or revisiondecision. Instead of appealing a decisionafter it is made under the rules of 36CFR part 217, the rule would allowinterested and affected persons andgroups to file an objection before thedecision is made. The final rule alsoincludes a provision for other parties toparticipate in the objection process. Theobjection process should be open andinclusive of all parties. In addition,language has been added to the finalrule that provides for objectors andother parties to participate in meetingswith the reviewing officer to discusstheir concerns regarding a proposedplan amendment or revision. This is anopportunity for all parties to explorepossible resolution of their concernswith the responsible official.

The rule sets out the information thatan objector would need to provide inorder to file an objection to a proposeddecision. This information is the sameinformation that is currently required bythe rules at 36 CFR part 217, whichprovides post-decisional administrativeappeal and review of land and resourcemanagement plan decisions. An agencymay not conduct or sponsor, and aperson is not required to respond to, acollection of information unless itdisplays a currently valid OMB initialednumber.

The agency received comments onthis section for the proposed regulation.Respondents indicated that language inthe proposed rule was nebulous andconfusing. There were concerns statedfor replacing the appeal process with apre-decisional objection process andincluding site-specific decisions in theland and resource management plan.Respondents said that the direction foranalysis and documentation would notreduce paperwork under the proposedrule.

The language in the final rule clarifiesthe language used in the proposed rule.The new objection process replaces thepaperwork required in the appealprocess with upfront discussions untilthe objection is resolved. Site-specificdecisions are required to be identified in

the two-year budgetary documentationof the Land and Resource ManagementPlan and be consistent with theplanning processes. Site-specificdecisions will continue to be conductedconsistent with applicable NEPAprocedures.

Use of Comments—FederalismThe agency has considered this rule

under the requirements of ExecutiveOrder 12612 and made a preliminaryassessment that the rule will not havesubstantial direct effects on the states,on the relationship between the nationalgovernment and the states, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government. Therefore, theagency has determined that no furtherassessment on federalism implicationsis necessary at this time. In addition, theagency has reviewed the consultationrequirements under Executive Order13132, which is effective on November2, 1999. This Order calls for enhancedconsultation with state and localgovernmental officials and emphasizesincreased sensitivity to their concerns.In the spirit of these new requirements,the agency consulted with the WesternGovernors’ Association and the NaturalResources Committee of the NationalGovernors’ Association for comments ona draft version of the rule.Representatives of the WesternGovernors’ Association indicated thatthe rule fits the principles espoused intheir organization’s ENLIBRA policy,which encourages greater participationand collaboration in decisionmaking,focuses on outcomes rather thanprograms only, and recognizes the needfor a variety of tools beyond regulationthat can improve environmental andnatural resource management. TheNational Governors’ Association alsohas adopted the ENLIBRA policy. Manystate and local governmentrepresentatives attended town meetingson the proposed rule. Departmentrepresentatives also met with andshared information about the proposedplanning rule with the InternationalCity and County ManagementAssociation, National Conference ofState Legislators, The Council of StateGovernments, National Association ofCounties, Western GovernorsAssociation, U.S. Conference of Majors,and National League of Cities.

The rule calls for enhancedcollaboration with state and localgovernments. Section 219.14 showssensitivity to federalism concerns froma substantive standpoint. Under therule, the responsible official mustprovide opportunities for involvementof state and local governments in the



planning process, includingopportunities to participate in theidentification and consideration ofissues related to planning.

Respondents appreciated theconsultation required with state andlocal governments in the proposed rule.One respondent felt the role of statesand local governments was diminishedby so much emphasis on collaborativerelationships with the public.Respondents were concerned thatpublic meetings on the proposed rulewere not held in more localcommunities. In the context of planningactivities, there was concern that thiswas the province of the city and countygovernments and that the Forest Serviceshould not promote communityorganization around a set of agencydetermined goals.

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 217Administrative practice and

procedure, National forests.

36 CFR Part 219Administrative practice and

procedure, Environmental impactstatements, Indians, Intergovernmentalrelations, Forest and forest products,National forests, Natural resources,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Science and technology.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth inthe preamble, and under the authority of16 U.S.C. 551, chapter II of title 36 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations isamended as follows:

PART 217—[REMOVED]

1. Remove Part 217.2. Revise Part 219 to read as follows:

PART 219—PLANNING

Subpart A—National Forest System Landand Resource Management Planning

Purpose and PrinciplesSec.219.1 Purpose.219.2 Principles.

The Framework for Planning219.3 Overview.219.4 Identification and consideration of

issues.219.5 Information development and

interpretation.219.6 Proposed actions.219.7 Plan decisions.219.8 Amendment.219.9 Revision.219.10 Site-specific decisions.219.11 Monitoring and evaluation for

adaptive management.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability219.12 Collaboration and cooperatively

developed landscape goals.

219.13 Coordination among federalagencies.

219.14 Involvement of state and localgovernments.

219.15 Interaction with American Indiantribes and Alaska Natives.

219.16 Relationships with interestedindividuals and organizations.

219.17 Interaction with private landowners.219.18 Role of advisory committees.

Ecological, Social, and EconomicSustainability219.19 Ecological, social, and economic

sustainability.219.20 Ecological sustainability.219.21 Social and economic sustainability.

The Contribution of Science219.22 The overall role of science in

planning.219.23 The role of science in assessments,

analyses, and monitoring.219.24 Science consistency evaluations.219.25 Science advisory boards.

Special Considerations219.26 Identifying and designating suitable

uses.219.27 Special designations.219.28 Determination of land suitable for

timber removal.219.29 Limitation on timber removal.

Planning Documentation219.30 Plan documentation.219.31 Maintenance of the plan and

planning records.

Objections and Appeals219.32 Objections to amendments or

revisions.219.33 Appeals of site-specific decisions.

Applicability and Transition219.34 Applicability.219.35 Transition.

Definitions219.36 Definitions.

Subpart B—[Reserved]

Subpart A—National Forest SystemLand and Resource ManagementPlanning

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; and Secs. 6 and15, 90 Stat. 2949, 2952, 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604,1613).

Purpose and Principles

§ 219.1 Purpose.(a) Land and resource management

planning guides how the Forest Servicewill fulfill its stewardship of the naturalresources of the National Forest Systemto fulfill the designated purposes of thenational forests and grasslands andhonor their unique place in Americanlife. The regulations in this subpart setforth a process for amending andrevising land and resource managementplans, hereafter referred to as plans, forthe National Forest System and formonitoring the results of plan

implementation under the Forest andRangeland Renewable Resources Act of1974, as amended by the National ForestManagement Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C.1600 et seq. The regulations in thissubpart also guide the selection andimplementation of site-specific actions.The principal authorities governing thedevelopment and the management ofthe National Forest System include: theOrganic Administration Act of 1897, asamended (16 U.S.C. 473 et seq.); theMultiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.); theWilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1121 et. seq.);the National Environmental Policy Actof 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); theForest and Rangeland RenewableResource Act of 1974, as amended bythe National Forest Management Act of1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.); and theClean Water Act of 1948, as amended bythe Federal Water Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1977 and the WaterQuality Act of 1987 and other laws (33U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1323 et seq.).

(b) The National Forest Systemconstitutes an extraordinary nationallegacy created by people of vision andpreserved for future generations bydiligent and far-sighted public servantsand citizens. These are the peoples’lands, emblems of the nation’sdemocratic traditions.

(1) The national forests and grasslandsprovide a wide variety of uses, values,products, and services that areimportant to many people, includingoutdoor recreation, forage, timber,wildlife and fish, biological diversity,productive soils, clean air and water,and minerals. They also affordintangible benefits such as beauty,inspiration, and wonder.

(2) To assure the continuation of thisarray of benefits this regulation affirmssustainability as the overall goal forstewardship of the natural resources ofeach national forest and grasslandconsistent with the laws that guidemanagement of these lands.

(3) Sustainability, composed ofinterdependent ecological, social, andeconomic elements, embodies theprinciples of multiple-use andsustained-yield without impairment tothe productivity of the land.Sustainability means meeting needs ofthe present generation withoutcompromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their needs.Planning contributes to social andeconomic sustainability withoutcompromising the basic composition,structure, and functioning of ecological



systems. The progress towardachievement of sustainability isassessed through monitoring andevaluation.

§ 219.2 Principles.

The planning regulations in thissubpart are based on the followingprinciples:

(a) The first priority for planning toguide management of the NationalForest System is to maintain or restoreecological sustainability of nationalforests and grasslands to provide for awide variety of uses, values, products,and services. The benefits sought fromthese lands depend upon long-termecological sustainability. Consideringincreased human uses, it is essentialthat uses of today do not impair thefunctioning of ecological processes andthe ability of these natural resources tocontribute to sustainability in the future.

(1) Planning provides the guidance formaintaining or restoring the diversity ofplant and animal communities and theproductive capacity of ecologicalsystems, the core elements of ecologicalsustainability.

(2) Planning is based on science andother knowledge, including the use ofscientifically based strategies forsustainability and benefits fromindependent scientific peer review.

(3) Planning is based on the temporaland spatial scales necessary forsustainability.

(4) Planning includes the monitoringand evaluation of the achievement ofgoals.

(b) Planning contributes to social andeconomic sustainability by providing fora wide variety of uses, values, products,and services without compromising thebasic composition, structure, andfunction of ecological systems.

(1) Planning recognizes and fosters abroad-based understanding of theinterdependence of national forests andgrasslands with economies andcommunities.

(2) Planning fosters strategies andactions that provide for human use inways that contribute to long-termsustainability.

(c) Planning is efficiently integratedinto the broader geographic, legal, andsocial landscape within which nationalforests and grasslands exist. Otheragencies, governments, corporations,and citizens manage land in and aroundthe national forests and grasslands.Planning, therefore, is outward lookingwith the goal of understanding thebroader landscape in which the nationalforests and grasslands lie.

(1) Planning fosters coordinationamong all affected federal agencies.

(2) Planning proceeds in closecooperation with state, tribal, and localgovernments.

(3) Planning recognizes the rights ofAmerican Indian tribes and AlaskaNatives.

(4) Planning is interdisciplinary,providing analyses and options that areresponsive to a broad range ofecological, social, and economic.

(5) Planning acknowledges the limitsand variability of likely budgets.

(d) Planning meaningfully engages theAmerican people in the stewardship oftheir national forests and grasslands.Just as the Forest Service can help theAmerican people learn about the limitsand capabilities of the national forestsand grasslands, managers also should beguided by the knowledge and values ofthe American people.

(1) Planning encourages extensivecollaborative citizen participation andbuilds upon the human resources inlocal communities and throughout thenation.

(2) Planning actively seeks andaddresses key issues and promotes ashared vision of desired conditions.

(3) Planning and plans areunderstandable.

(4) Planning restores and maintainsthe trust of the American people in themanagement of the national forests andgrasslands.

(e) Planning is an ongoing process,where decisions are adapted, asnecessary, to address new issues, newinformation, and unforeseen events.

(1) Planning is innovative andpractical.

(2) Planning is expeditious andefficient in achieving goals.

(f) Planning seeks to manage NationalForest System resources in acombination that best serves the publicinterest without impairment of theproductivity of the land consistent withthe Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of1960.

The Framework for Planning

§ 219.3 Overview.

(a) The planning framework. Landand resource management planning is aflexible process for fitting solutions tothe scope and scale of needed action.Planning, conducted according to theplanning framework outlined in§§ 219.3–219.11, involves engaging thepublic (§§ 219.12–219.18) and applyingthe best available science (§§ 219.22–219.25) to contribute to sustainability(§§ 219.19–219.21) in the use andenjoyment of National Forest Systemlands.

(b) Levels of planning. Planning maybe undertaken at the national, regional,

national forest or grassland, and/orranger district administrative levelsdepending on the scope and scale ofissues.

(1) The Chief of the Forest Service isresponsible for national planning.National planning includes the ForestService national strategic plan requiredunder the Government Performance andResults Act of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 306, 31U.S.C. 1115–1119 and 9703–9704) thatestablishes national long-term goals,outcome measures, and strategies to beconsidered in managing the NationalForest System and the ResourcesPlanning Act Program (16 U.S.C. 1600).

(2) The Forest or GrasslandSupervisor is the responsible official fora plan amendment or revision, except tothe extent the Regional Forester or Chiefdecides to act as the responsible official.

(3) When appropriate, two or moreForest or Grassland Supervisors, one ormore Regional Foresters, or the Chief ofthe Forest Service may undertakeplanning which may amend or reviseone or more plans.

(4) The Chief of the Forest Service,Regional Foresters, National Forest andGrassland Supervisors, or DistrictRangers may authorize and implementsite-specific actions.

(c) An interdisciplinary, collaborativeapproach to planning. Aninterdisciplinary, collaborativeapproach to planning may be achievedby engaging the skills and interests ofappropriate combinations of ForestService staff, consultants, contractors,other federal agencies, states, AmericanIndian tribes, Alaska Natives, or localgovernment personnel, or otherinterested or affected people consistentwith applicable laws.

(d) Key elements. The planning cyclebegins with the identification andconsideration of issues and concludeswith the monitoring and evaluation ofresults. Based upon the scope and scaleof issues, planning includes one or moreof the following key elements:

(1) Identification and consideration ofissues (§ 219.4);

(2) Information development andinterpretation (§ 219.5);

(3) Proposed actions (§ 219.6);(4) Plan decisions (§ 219.7);(5) Amendment (§ 219.8);(6) Revision (§ 219.9);(7) Site-specific decisions (§ 219.10);

and(8) Monitoring and evaluation for

adaptive management (§ 219.11).

§ 219.4 Identification and consideration ofissues.

(a) Origination of issues. Issues mayoriginate from a variety of sourcesincluding, but are not limited to:



inventories, assessments, analyses,monitoring and evaluation of projects;discussions among people andproposals by organizations orgovernments interested in or affected byNational Forest System management;Presidential, Departmental, and ForestService conservation leadershipinitiatives; cooperatively developedlandscape goals (§ 219.12(b)); evaluationof sustainability (§ 219.9(b)(4));enactment of new laws; policies such asthe Forest Service national strategicplan; and applications for authorizationfor occupancy and use of NationalForest System lands.

(b) Consideration of issues. Theresponsible official has the discretion todetermine, at any time, whether and towhat extent an issue is appropriate forconsideration.

(1) In making this determination, theresponsible official should consider:

(i) The scope, complexity, andgeographic scale of potential actionsthat may address an issue;

(ii) Statutory requirements;(iii) Organizational and community

capabilities and available resources,including current and likely ForestService budgets;

(iv) The scientific basis and merit ofavailable data and analyses;

(v) The relationship of possibleactions to the Forest Service nationalstrategic plan, other existing plans,adopted conservation strategies,biological opinions, or other strategiesapplicable within all or a portion of theplan area; and

(vi) The opinions of interested oraffected individuals, organizations, orother entities and the social and culturalvalues related to an issue.

(2) The responsible official shouldconsider the extent to which addressingthe issue relates to or provides:

(i) Opportunities to contribute to theachievement of cooperatively developedlandscape goals;

(ii) Opportunities for the nationalforests and grasslands to contribute tothe restoration or maintenance ofecological sustainability, includingmaintenance or restoration of watershedfunction, such as water flow regimes tobenefit aquatic resources, groundwaterrecharge, municipal water supply, orother uses, and maintaining or restoringecological conditions needed forecosystem and species diversity;

(iii) Opportunities for the nationalforests or grasslands to contribute tosocial and economic sustainability;

(iv) Opportunities to recoverthreatened or endangered species andmaintain or restore their habitat;

(v) The potential for negativeenvironmental effects, including human

health, economic and social effects,upon minority and low incomecommunities;

(vi) Opportunities to maintain orrestore ecological conditions that aresimilar to the biological and physicalrange of expected variability(§ 219.20(b)(1)); and

(vii) Opportunities to contribute toknowledge about and preservation ofhistoric and cultural resources.

§ 219.5 Information development andinterpretation.

If the responsible official determinesan issue should receive consideration,the responsible official should reviewrelevant information such asinventories, broad-scale assessments,local analyses, or monitoring results todetermine if additional information isdesirable and if it can be obtained at areasonable cost and in a timely manner.The responsible official, at his or herdiscretion, may choose the methods anddetermine the scope of informationdevelopment and interpretation for anissue under consideration. A broad-scale assessment or a local analysis maybe developed or supplemented ifappropriate to the scope and scale of anissue. Broad-scale assessments, localanalyses, monitoring results, and otherstudies are not site-specific or plandecisions or proposals for agency action(§ 219.6(a)) subject to Forest ServiceNEPA procedures.

(a) Broad-scale assessments. Broad-scale assessments provide informationregarding ecological, economic, or socialissues that are broad in geographicscale, sometimes crossing Forest Serviceregional administrative boundaries.Ecological information and analyses thatmay be provided in an assessment areaddressed in § 219.20(a). Social andeconomic information and analyses thatmay be provided in an assessment areaddressed in § 219.21(a).

(1) Broad-scale assessment shouldprovide the following as appropriate:

(i) Findings and conclusions thatdescribe historic conditions, currentstatus, and future trends of ecological,social, and/or economic conditions,their relationship to sustainability, andthe principal factors contributing tothose conditions and trends. Theresponsible official may use thesefindings and conclusions to identifyother issues (§ 219.4), develop proposalsfor action (§ 219.6), or for otherpurposes.

(ii) Identification of needs foradditional research to develop newinformation or address conflictinginterpretations of existing information.

(2) Station Directors and RegionalForesters must have joint responsibility

for Forest Service participation inbroad-scale assessments. Each broad-scale assessment should be designedand conducted with the assistance ofscientists, resource professionals,governmental entities, and otherindividuals and organizationsknowledgeable of the assessment area.

(b) Local analyses. Local analysesprovide ecological, social, or economicinformation as deemed appropriate bythe responsible official. Local analysesmay cover watersheds, ecological units,and social and economic units, and maytier to or provide information to updatea broad-scale assessment. Local analysesshould provide the following, asappropriate:

(1) Characterization of the area ofanalysis;

(2) Description of issues within theanalysis area;

(3) Description of current conditions;(4) Description of likely future

conditions;(5) Synthesis and interpretation of

information; and(6) Recommendations for proposals

(§ 219.6(a)) or identification of otherissues (§ 219.4).

§ 219.6 Proposed actions.(a) Proposal. The responsible official

may propose to amend or revise a plan,propose a site-specific action, or both.

(b) NEPA requirements. Unlessotherwise provided by law, theresponsible official must analyze theeffects of the proposal and alternative(s)in conformance with Forest ServiceNEPA procedures. The responsibleofficial may use issues identified andinformation reviewed pursuant to§§ 219.4–219.5 for scoping required inForest Service NEPA procedures.

§ 219.7 Plan decisions.Plan decisions guide or limit uses of

National Forest System resources andprovide the basis for future agencyaction. Plan decisions link therequirements of laws, regulations,Executive Orders, policies, and theForest Service national strategic plan tospecific national forests and grasslands.While plan decisions generally do notcommit resources to a site-specificaction, plan decisions provide aframework for authorizing site-specificactions that may commit resources. Inmaking decisions, the responsibleofficial should seek to manage NationalForest System resources in acombination that best serves the publicinterest without impairment of theproductivity of the land consistent withthe Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of1960. Plan decisions may apply to all orpart of a plan area. Paragraphs (a)



through (e) of this section describe thedecisions in a plan.

(a) Desired resource conditions. Theseplan decisions define the resourceconditions sought within all or portionsof the plan area. Desired resourceconditions may include, but are notlimited to, the desired watershed andecological conditions and aquatic andterrestrial habitat characteristics.

(b) Objectives. These plan decisionsare concise statements describingmeasurable results intended tocontribute to sustainability (§ 219.19),including a desired level of uses, values,products, and services, assumingcurrent or likely budgets andconsidering other spending levels asappropriate. Objectives include anestimate of the time and resourcesneeded for their completion.

(c) Standards. These plan decisionsare the requirements and limitations forland uses and management actionsnecessary for the achievement of desiredconditions and objectives andcompliance with applicable laws,regulations, Executive Orders, andpolicies. Standards include, but are notlimited to:

(1) Limitations on even-aged timberharvest methods;

(2) Maximum size openings fromtimber harvest;

(3) Methods for achieving aestheticobjectives by blending the boundaries ofvegetation treatments; and

(4) Other requirements to achievemultiple-use of the national forests andgrasslands.

(d) Designation of suitable land uses.These plan decisions identify landswithin the National Forest System thatare or are not suitable for specific uses(§ 219.26), including, but not limited to:the transportation system; livestockgrazing; special designations asdescribed in § 219.27; and lands wheretimber production is an objective(§ 219.28).

(e) Monitoring strategy. A monitoringstrategy is required by each plan asdescribed in § 219.11(a).

§ 219.8 Amendment.

(a) Amending plans. A planamendment may add, modify, or rescindone or more of the decisions of a plan(§ 219.7). An amendment decision mustbe based on the identification andconsideration of issues (§ 219.4),applicable information (§ 219.5), and ananalysis of the effects of the proposedamendment (§ 219.6). In developing anamendment, the responsible officialmust provide opportunities forcollaboration consistent with § 219.12through § 219.18.

(b) Environmental review of aproposed plan amendment. For eachproposal for a plan amendment, theresponsible official must completeappropriate environmental analyses andpublic involvement in accordance withForest Service NEPA procedures. Aproposed amendment that may create asignificant environmental effect andthus require preparation of anenvironmental impact statement isconsidered to be a significant change inthe plan. If a proposal for amendmentrequires the preparation of anenvironmental impact statement, theresponsible official must give publicnotice and an opportunity to commenton the draft environmental impactstatement for at least 90 calendar days.

§ 219.9 Revision.(a) Application of the revision

process. Revision of a plan is requiredby 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5). The revisionprocess is a review of the overallmanagement of a unit of the NationalForest System and an opportunity toconsider the likely results if plandecisions were to remain in effect.

(b) Initiating revision. To begin therevision process, the responsible officialmust:

(1) Provide opportunities forcollaboration consistent with § 219.12through § 219.18;

(2) Summarize those issues theresponsible official determines to beappropriate for consideration (§ 219.4),any relevant inventories, new data,findings and conclusions fromappropriate broad-scale assessments andlocal analyses, monitoring andevaluation results, new or revised ForestService policies, relevant portions of theForest Service national strategic plan,and changes in circumstances affectingthe entire or significant portions of theplan area;

(3) Develop the information andcomplete the analyses described in§ 219.20(a) and § 219.21(a);

(4) Evaluate the effectiveness of thecurrent plan in contributing tosustainability (§§ 219.19–219.21) basedon the information, analyses, andrequirements described in § 219.20(a)and (b) and § 219.21(a) and (b), andprovide for an independent scientificpeer review (§ 219.22) of the evaluation;

(5) Identify new proposals for specialareas, special designation, or forrecommendation as wilderness(§ 219.27);

(6) Identify specific watersheds inneed of protective or restorationmeasures;

(7) Identify lands classified as notsuitable for timber production(§ 219.28);

(8) Identify and evaluate inventoriedroadless areas and unroaded areas basedon the information, analyses, andrequirements in § 219.20(a) and§ 219.21(a). During the plan revisionprocess or at other times as deemedappropriate, the responsible officialmust determine which inventoriedroadless areas and unroaded areaswarrant additional protection and thelevel of protection to be afforded; and

(9) Develop an estimate of outcomesthat would be anticipated, includinguses, values, products, or services, for a15-year period following initiation ofthe revision process, if the plandecisions in effect at the time therevision process began remain in effect.

(c) Public notice of revision processand review of information. After theresponsible official has compiled theinformation required under paragraph(b) of this section, the responsibleofficial must give public notice of theplan revision process and make theinformation compiled under paragraph(b) of this section available for publiccomment for at least 45 calendar days.

(d) Notice of Intent. Based upon theinformation compiled under paragraph(b) of this section and any commentsreceived during the comment periodrequired under paragraph (c) of thissection, the responsible official mustpublish a Notice of Intent to prepare anenvironmental impact statement to add,modify, remove, or continue in effectthe decisions embodied in a plan. Theresponsible official must give the publicnotice and an opportunity to commenton the draft environmental impactstatement for at least 90 calendar days.Following public comment, theresponsible official must overseepreparation of a final environmentalimpact statement in accordance withForest Service NEPA procedures.

(e) Final decision on plan revision.The revision process is completed whenthe responsible official signs a record ofdecision for a plan revision.

§ 219.10 Site-specific decisions.To the extent appropriate and

practicable and subject to valid existingrights and appropriate statutes, theresponsible official must provideopportunities for collaborationconsistent with § 219.12 through§ 219.18, follow the planning frameworkdescribed in §§ 219.4–219.6 and complywith § 219.11 to make site-specificdecisions. All site-specific decisions,including authorized uses of land, mustbe consistent with the applicable plan.If a proposed site-specific decision isnot consistent with the applicable plan,the responsible official may modify theproposed decision to make it consistent



with the plan, reject the proposal; oramend the plan to authorize the action.

§ 219.11 Monitoring and evaluation foradaptive management.

(a) Plan monitoring strategy. Eachplan must contain a practicable,effective, and efficient monitoringstrategy to evaluate sustainability in theplan area (§§ 219.19–219.21). Thestrategy must require monitoring ofappropriate plan decisions andcharacteristics of sustainability.

(1) Monitoring and evaluation ofecological sustainability. The planmonitoring strategy for the monitoringand evaluation of ecologicalsustainability must require monitoringof:

(i) Ecosystem diversity. Monitoringmust be used to evaluate the status andtrend of selected physical and biologicalcharacteristics of ecosystem diversity(§ 219.20(a)(1)). The plan monitoringstrategy must document the reasons forselection of characteristics to bemonitored, monitoring objectives,methodology, and designate criticalvalues that will prompt reviews of plandecisions.

(ii) Species diversity. Monitoring mustbe used to evaluate focal species andspecies-at-risk as follows:

(A) The status and trends of ecologicalconditions known or suspected tosupport focal species and selectedspecies-at-risk must be monitored. Theplan monitoring strategy mustdocument the reasons for the selectionof species-at-risk for which ecologicalconditions are to be monitored,including the degree of risk to thespecies, the factors that put the speciesat risk, and the strength of associationbetween ecological conditions andpopulation dynamics.

(B) In addition to monitoring ofecological conditions, the planmonitoring strategy may requirepopulation monitoring for some focalspecies and some species-at-risk. Thismonitoring may be accomplished by avariety of methods including populationoccurrence and presence/absence data,sampling population characteristics,using population indices to trackrelative population trends, or inferringpopulation status from ecologicalconditions.

(C) A decision by the responsibleofficial to monitor populations and theresponsible official’s choice ofmethodologies for monitoring selectedfocal species and selected species-at-riskmay be based upon factors that include,but are not limited to, the degree of riskto the species, the degree to which aspecies’ life history characteristics lendthemselves to monitoring, the reasons

that a species is included in the list offocal species or species-at-risk, and thestrength of association betweenecological conditions and populationdynamics. Monitoring of populationtrend is often appropriate in those caseswhere risk to species viability is highand population characteristics cannot bereliably inferred from ecologicalconditions. The reasons for selection ofspecies, monitoring objectives, andmethodologies must be documented aspart of the plan monitoring strategy.Critical values that will prompt reviewsof plan decisions must be designated inthe monitoring strategy.

(iii) Monitoring effectiveness. As apart of the plan monitoring strategy, theresponsible official must evaluate theeffectiveness of selected characteristicsof ecosystem diversity and speciesdiversity in providing reliableinformation regarding ecologicalsustainability.

(2) Monitoring and evaluation ofsocial and economic sustainability. Theplan monitoring strategy for themonitoring and evaluation of social andeconomic sustainability should providefor periodic review of national, regional,and local supply and demand forproducts, services, and values. Specialconsideration should be given to thoseuses, values, products, and services thatthe National Forest System is uniquelypoised to provide. Monitoring shouldimprove the understanding of theNational Forest System contributions tosocial and economic sustainability. Theplan monitoring strategy must requirethe responsible official to evaluate theeffectiveness of information andanalyses described in § 219.21(a) inproviding reliable information regardingsocial and economic sustainability.

(b) Monitoring of site-specific actions.The decision document authorizing asite-specific action should describe anyrequired monitoring and evaluation forthe site-specific action. The responsibleofficial must determine that there is areasonable expectation that anticipatedfunding is adequate to complete anyrequired monitoring and evaluationprior to authorizing a site-specificaction.

(c) Monitoring methods. Unlessrequired by the monitoring strategy,monitoring methods may be changed toreflect new information without planamendment or revision.

(d) Use of monitoring information.Where monitoring and evaluation isrequired by the plan monitoringstrategy, the responsible official mustensure that monitoring information isused to determine one or more of thefollowing:

(1) If site-specific actions arecompleted as specified in applicabledecision documents;

(2) If the aggregated outcomes andeffects of completed and ongoingactions are achieving or contributing tothe desired conditions;

(3) If key assumptions identified formonitoring in plan decisions remainvalid; and

(4) If plan or site-specific decisionsneed to be modified.

(e) Coordination of monitoringactivities. To the extent practicable,monitoring and evaluation should beconducted jointly with other federalagencies, state, local, and tribalgovernments, scientific and academiccommunities, and others. In addition,the responsible official must provideappropriate opportunities for the publicto be involved and utilize scientists asdescribed in § 219.23.

(f) Annual monitoring and evaluationreport. The responsible official mustprepare a monitoring and evaluationreport for the plan area within 6 monthsfollowing the end of each fiscal year.The report must be maintained with theplan documents (§ 219.30(d)(5)), andinclude the following:

(1) A list or reference to monitoringrequired by the plan; and

(2) A summary of the results ofmonitoring and evaluation performedduring the preceding fiscal year andappropriate results from previous years.The summary must include:

(i) A description of the progresstoward achievement of desiredconditions within the plan area; and

(ii) A description of the plan area’scontribution to the achievement ofapplicable outcomes of the ForestService national strategic plan.

Collaborative Planning forSustainability

§ 219.12 Collaboration and cooperativelydeveloped landscape goals.

(a) Collaboration. To promotesustainability, the responsible officialmust actively engage the Americanpublic, interested organizations, privatelandowners, state, local, and Tribalgovernments, federal agencies, andothers in the stewardship of NationalForest System lands. To engage peoplein the stewardship of National ForestSystem lands, the responsible officialmay assume many roles, such as leader,organizer, facilitator, or participant. Theresponsible official must provide earlyand frequent opportunities for people toparticipate openly and meaningfully inplanning taking into account the diverseroles, jurisdictions, and responsibilitiesof interested and affected organizations,



groups, and individuals. Theresponsible official has the discretion todetermine how to provide theseopportunities in the planning process.

(b) Cooperatively developedlandscape goals. (1) The responsibleofficial and other Forest Serviceemployees involved in planning mustinvite and encourage others to engage inthe collaborative development oflandscape goals. Using information frombroad-scale assessments or otheravailable information, and subject toapplicable laws, the responsible officialmay initiate or join ongoingcollaborative efforts to develop orpropose landscape goals for areas thatinclude National Forest System lands.

(2) During collaborative efforts,responsible officials and other ForestService employees, must communicateand foster understanding of the nation’sdeclaration of environmental policy asset forth in section 101(b) of theNational Environmental Policy Act, asamended (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), whichstates that it is the continuingresponsibility of the FederalGovernment to use all practicablemeans, consistent with other essentialconsiderations of national policy, toimprove and coordinate federal plans,functions, programs, and resources tothe end that the Nation may—

(i) Fulfill the responsibilities of eachgeneration as trustee of the environmentfor succeeding generations;

(ii) Assure for all Americans safe,healthful, productive, and estheticallyand culturally pleasing surroundings;

(iii) Attain the widest range ofbeneficial uses of the environmentwithout degradation, risk to health orsafety, or other undesirable andunintended consequences;

(iv) Preserve important historic,cultural, and natural aspects of ournational heritage, and maintain,wherever possible, an environmentwhich supports diversity, and variety ofindividual choice;

(v) Achieve a balance betweenpopulation and resource use which willpermit high standards of living and awide sharing of life’s amenities; and

(vi) Enhance the quality of renewableresources and approach the maximumattainable recycling of depletableresources.

(3) Cooperatively developedlandscape goals, whether the result ofefforts initiated by the Forest Service orothers, must be deemed an issue for thepurposes under § 219.4.

§ 219.13 Coordination among federalagencies.

The responsible official must provideearly and frequent coordination with

appropriate federal agencies and mayprovide opportunities:

(a) For interested or affected federalagencies to participate in theidentification of issues and formulationof proposed actions;

(b) For the streamlined coordinationof federal agency policies, resourcemanagement plans, or programs; and

(c) The development, whereappropriate and practicable, of jointresource management plans.

§ 219.14 Involvement of state and localgovernments.

The responsible official must provideearly and frequent opportunities forstate and local governments to:

(a) Participate in the planningprocess, including the identification ofissues; and

(b) Contribute to the streamlinedcoordination of resource managementplans or programs.

§ 219.15 Interaction with American Indiantribes and Alaska Natives.

(a) The Forest Service shares in thefederal government’s overall trustresponsibility for federally recognizedAmerican Indian tribes and AlaskaNatives.

(b) During planning, the responsibleofficial must consider the government-to-government relationship betweenAmerican Indian or Alaska Native tribalgovernments and the federalgovernment.

(c) The responsible official mustconsult with and invite AmericanIndian tribes and Alaska Natives toparticipate in the planning process toassist in:

(1) The early identification of treatyrights, treaty-protected resources, andAmerican Indian tribe trust resources;

(2) The consideration of tribal dataand resource knowledge provided bytribal representatives; and

(3) The consideration of tribalconcerns and suggestions duringdecisionmaking.

§ 219.16 Relationships with interestedindividuals and organizations.

The responsible official must:(a) Make planning information

available to the extent allowed by law;(b) Conduct planning processes that

are fair, meaningful, and open topersons with diverse opinions;

(c) Provide early and frequentopportunities for participation in theidentification of issues;

(d) Encourage interested individualsand organizations to workcollaboratively with one another toimprove understanding and developcooperative landscape and other goals;

(e) Consult with individuals andorganizations who can provide

information about current and historicpublic uses within an assessment orplan area, about the location of uniqueand sensitive resources and values andcultural practices related to issues in theplan area; and

(f) Consult with scientific experts andother knowledgeable persons, asappropriate, during consideration ofcollaboratively developed landscapegoals and other activities.

§ 219.17 Interaction with privatelandowners.

The responsible official must seek tocollaborate with those who have controlor authority over lands adjacent to orwithin the external boundaries ofnational forests or grasslands to identify:

(a) Local knowledge;(b) Potential actions and partnership

activities;(c) Potential conditions and activities

on the adjacent lands that may affectmanagement of National Forest Systemlands, or vice versa; and

(d) Issues (§ 219.4).

§ 219.18 Role of advisory committees.(a) Advisory committees. Advisory

committees can provide an immediate,representative, and predictable structurewithin which public dialogue can occurand the Forest Service can developrelationships with diverse communitiesof interests. The responsible official mayseek the assistance or advice from acommittee, consistent with therequirements of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (5 U.S.C. app.) indetermining whether there is areasonable basis to propose an action toaddress an issue. Each Forest orGrassland Supervisor must have accessto an advisory committee withknowledge of local conditions andissues, although an advisory committeeis not required for each national forestor grassland. Responsible officials mayrequest establishment of advisorycommittees and recommend members tothe Secretary of Agriculture. Advisorycommittees used by other agencies maybe utilized through proper agreements.

(b) Participation in other types ofcommunity-based groups. Whenappropriate, the responsible officialshould consider participating incommunity-based groups organized fora variety of public purposes,particularly those groups organized todevelop landscape goals (§ 219.12(b)).


§ 219.19 Ecological, social, and economicsustainability.

Sustainability, composed ofinterdependent ecological, social, and



economic elements, embodies theMultiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) withoutimpairment to the productivity of theland and is the overall goal ofmanagement of the National ForestSystem. The first priority forstewardship of the national forests andgrasslands is to maintain or restoreecological sustainability to provide asustainable flow of uses, values,products, and services from these lands.

§ 219.20 Ecological sustainability.To achieve ecological sustainability,

the responsible official must ensure thatplans provide for maintenance orrestoration of ecosystems at appropriatespatial and temporal scales determinedby the responsible official.

(a) Ecological information andanalyses. Ecosystem diversity andspecies diversity are components ofecological sustainability. The planningprocess must include the developmentand analysis of information regardingthese components at a variety of spatialand temporal scales. These scalesinclude geographic areas such asbioregions and watersheds, scales ofbiological organization such ascommunities and species, and scales oftime ranging from months to centuries.Information and analyses regarding thecomponents of ecological sustainabilitymay be identified, obtained, ordeveloped through a variety of methods,including broad-scale assessments andlocal analyses (§ 219.5), and monitoringresults (§ 219.11). For plan revisions,and to the extent the responsible officialconsiders appropriate for planamendments or site-specific decisions,the responsible official must develop orsupplement the following informationand analyses related to ecosystem andspecies diversity:

(1) Characteristics of ecosystem andspecies diversity. Characteristics ofecosystem and species diversity must beidentified for assessing and monitoringecological sustainability. In general,these identified characteristics shouldbe consistent at various scales ofanalyses.

(i) Ecosystem diversity. Characteristicsof ecosystem diversity include, but arenot limited to:

(A) Major vegetation types. Thecomposition, distribution, andabundance of the major vegetation typesand successional stages of forest andgrassland systems; the prevalence ofinvasive or noxious plant or animalspecies.

(B) Water resources. The diversity,abundance, and distribution of aquaticand riparian systems including streams,stream banks, coastal waters, estuaries,

groundwater, lakes, wetlands,shorelines, riparian areas, andfloodplains; stream channel morphologyand condition, and flow regimes.

(C) Soil resources. Soil productivity;physical, chemical and biologicalproperties; soil loss; and compaction.

(D) Air resources. Air quality,visibility, and other air resource values.

(E) Focal species. Focal species thatprovide insights to the larger ecologicalsystems with which they are associated.

(ii) Species diversity. Characteristicsof species diversity include, but are notlimited to, the number, distribution, andgeographic ranges of plant and animalspecies, including focal species andspecies-at-risk that serve as surrogatemeasures of species diversity. Species-at-risk and focal species must beidentified for the plan area.

(2) Evaluation of ecologicalsustainability. Evaluations of ecologicalsustainability must be conducted at thescope and scale determined by theresponsible official to be appropriate tothe planning decision. Theseevaluations must describe the currentstatus of ecosystem diversity andspecies diversity, risks to ecologicalsustainability, cumulative effects ofhuman and natural disturbances, andthe contribution of National ForestSystem lands to the ecologicalsustainability of all lands within thearea of analysis.

(i) Evaluation of ecosystem diversity.Evaluations of ecosystem diversity mustinclude, as appropriate, the following:

(A) Information about focal speciesthat provide insights to the integrity ofthe larger ecological system to whichthey belong.

(B) A description of the biological andphysical properties of the ecosystemusing the characteristics identified inparagraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.

(C) A description of the principalecological processes occurring at thespatial and temporal scales thatinfluence the characteristic structureand composition of ecosystems in theassessment or analysis area. Thesedescriptions must include thedistribution, intensity, frequency, andmagnitude of natural disturbanceregimes of the current climatic period,and should include other ecologicalprocesses important to ecologicalsustainability, such as nutrient cycling,migration, dispersal, food webdynamics, water flows, and theidentification of the risks to maintainingthese processes. These descriptions mayalso include an evaluation of thefeasibility of maintaining naturalecological processes as a tool tocontribute to ecological sustainability.

(D) A description of the effects ofhuman activities on ecosystemdiversity. These descriptions mustdistinguish activities that had anintegral role in the landscape’secosystem diversity for a long period oftime from activities that are of a type,size, or rate that were not typical ofdisturbances under which native plantand animal species and ecosystemsdeveloped.

(E) An estimation of the range ofvariability of the characteristics ofecosystem diversity, identified inparagraph (a)(l)(i) of this section, thatwould be expected under the naturaldisturbance regimes of the currentclimatic period. The current values ofthese characteristics should becompared to the expected range ofvariability to develop insights about thecurrent status of ecosystem diversity.

(F) An evaluation of the effects of airquality on ecological systems includingwater.

(G) An estimation of current andforeseeable future Forest Serviceconsumptive and non-consumptivewater uses and the quantity and qualityof water needed to support those usesand contribute to ecologicalsustainability.

(H) An identification of referencelandscapes to provide for evaluation ofthe effects of actions.

(ii) Evaluations of species diversity.Evaluations of species diversity mustinclude, as appropriate, assessments ofthe risks to species viability and theidentification of ecological conditionsneeded to maintain species viabilityover time based on the following:

(A) The viability of each species listedunder the Endangered Species Act asthreatened, endangered, candidate, andproposed species must be assessed.Individual species assessments must beused for these species.

(B) For all other species, includingother species-at-risk and those speciesfor which there is little information, avariety of approaches may be used,including individual speciesassessments and assessments of focalspecies or other indicators used assurrogates in the evaluation ofecological conditions needed tomaintain species viability.

(C) Except as provided in paragraph(a)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, for speciesgroups that contain many species,assessments of functional, taxonomic, orhabitat groups rather than individualspecies may be appropriate.

(D) In analyzing viability, the extentof information available about species,their habitats, the dynamic nature ofecosystems and the ecologicalconditions needed to support them must



be identified. Species assessments mayrely on general conservation principlesand expert opinion. When detailedinformation on species habitatrelationships, demographics, genetics,and risk factors is available, thatinformation should be considered.

(b) Plan decisions. When making plandecisions that will affect ecologicalsustainability, the responsible officialmust use the information developedunder paragraph (a) of this section. Thefollowing requirements must apply atthe spatial and temporal scales that theresponsible official determines to beappropriate to the plan decision:

(1) Ecosystem diversity. Plandecisions affecting ecosystem diversitymust provide for maintenance orrestoration of the characteristics ofecosystem composition and structurewithin the range of variability thatwould be expected to occur undernatural disturbance regimes of thecurrent climatic period in accordancewith paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) ofthis section.

(i) Except as provided in paragraph(b)(1)(iv) of this section, in situationswhere ecosystem composition andstructure are currently within theexpected range of variability, plandecisions must maintain thecomposition and structure within therange.

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph(b)(1)(v) of this section, where currentecosystem composition and structureare outside the expected range ofvariability, plan decisions must providefor measurable progress towardecological conditions within theexpected range of variability.

(iii) Where the range of variabilitycannot be practicably defined, plandecisions must provide for measurableprogress toward maintaining orrestoring ecosystem diversity. Theresponsible official must useindependently peer-reviewed scientificmethods other than the expected rangeof variability to maintain or restoreecosystem diversity. The scientific basisfor such alternative methods must bedocumented in accordance with(§§ 219.22–219.25).

(iv) Where the responsible officialdetermines that ecological conditionsare within the expected range ofvariability and that maintainingecosystem composition and structurewithin that range is ecologically,socially or economically unacceptable,plan decisions may provide forecosystem composition and structureoutside the expected range ofvariability. In such circumstances, theresponsible official must useindependently peer-reviewed scientific

methods other than the expected rangeof variability to provide for themaintenance or restoration of ecosystemdiversity. The scientific basis for suchalternative methods must bedocumented in accordance with(§§ 219.22–219.25).

(v) Where the responsible officialdetermines that ecological conditionsare outside the expected range ofvariability and that it is not practicableto make measurable progress towardconditions within the expected range ofvariability, or that restoration wouldresult in conditions that areecologically, socially or economicallyunacceptable, plan decisions mayprovide for ecosystem composition andstructure outside the expected range ofvariability. In such circumstances, theresponsible official must useindependently peer-reviewed scientificmethods other than the expected rangeof variability to provide for themaintenance or restoration of ecosystemdiversity. The scientific basis for suchalternative methods must bedocumented (§§ 219.22–219.25).

(2) Species diversity. (i) Plandecisions affecting species diversitymust provide for ecological conditionsthat the responsible official determinesprovide a high likelihood that thoseconditions are capable of supportingover time the viability of native anddesired non-native species welldistributed throughout their rangeswithin the plan area, except as providedin paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)–(iv) of thissection. Methods described in paragraph(a)(2)(ii) of this section may be used tomake the determinations of ecologicalconditions needed to maintain viability.A species is well distributed whenindividuals can interact with each otherin the portion of the species range thatoccurs within the plan area. When aplan area occupies the entire range of aspecies, these decisions must providefor ecological conditions capable ofsupporting viability of the species andits component populations throughoutthat range. When a plan areaencompasses one or more naturallydisjunct and self-sustaining populationsof a species, these decisions mustprovide ecological conditions capable ofsupporting over time viability of eachpopulation. When a plan areaencompasses only a part of apopulation, these decisions mustprovide ecological conditions capable ofsupporting viability of that populationwell distributed throughout its rangewithin the plan area.

(ii) When conditions outside theauthority of the agency prevent theagency from providing ecologicalconditions that provide a high

likelihood of supporting over time theviability of native and desired non-native species well distributedthroughout their ranges within the planarea, plan decisions must provide forecological conditions well distributedthroughout the species range within theplan area to contribute to viability ofthat species.

(iii) Where species are inherently rareor not naturally well distributed in theplan area, plan decisions should notcontribute to the extirpation of thespecies from the plan area and mustprovide for ecological conditions tomaintain these species considering theirnatural distribution and abundance.

(iv) Where environmental conditionsneeded to support a species have beenso degraded that it is technicallyinfeasible to restore ecologicalconditions that would provide a highlikelihood of supporting viability, plandecisions must provide for ecologicalconditions to contribute to supportingover time viability to the degreepracticable.

(3) Federally listed threatened andendangered species. (i) Plan decisionsmust provide for implementing actionsin conservation agreements with theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or theNational Marine Fisheries Service thatprovide a basis for not needing to list aspecies. In some situations, conditionsor events beyond the control orauthority of the agency may limit theForest Service’s ability to prevent theneed for federal listing. Plan decisionsshould reflect the unique opportunitiesthat National Forest System landsprovide to contribute to recovery oflisted species.

(ii) Plan decisions involving specieslisted under the Endangered Species Actmust include, at the scale determined bythe responsible official to be appropriateto the plan decision, reasonable andprudent measures and associated termsand conditions contained in finalbiological opinions issued under 50 CFRpart 402. The plan decision documentsmust provide a rationale for adoption orrejection of discretionary conservationrecommendations contained in finalbiological opinions.

§ 219.21 Social and economicsustainability.

To contribute to economic and socialsustainability, the responsible officialinvolves interested and affected peoplein planning for National Forest Systemlands (§§ 219.12–219.18), provides forthe development and consideration ofrelevant social and economicinformation and analyses, and a range ofuses, values, products, and services.



(a) Social and economic informationand analyses. To understand thecontribution national forests andgrasslands make to the economic andsocial sustainability of localcommunities, regions, and the nation,the planning process must include theanalysis of economic and socialinformation at variable scales, includingnational, regional, and local scales.Social analyses address human life-styles, cultures, attitudes, beliefs,values, demographics, and land-usepatterns, and the capacity of humancommunities to adapt to changingconditions. Economic analyses addresseconomic trends, the effect of nationalforest and grassland management on thewell-being of communities and regions,and the net benefit of uses, values,products, or services provided bynational forests and grasslands. Socialand economic analyses shouldrecognize that the uses, values,products, and services from nationalforests and grasslands change with timeand the capacity of communities toaccommodate shifts in land useschange. Social and economic analysesmay rely on quantitative, qualitative,and participatory methods for gatheringand analyzing data. Social andeconomic information may bedeveloped and analyzed through broad-scale assessments and local analyses(§ 219.5), monitoring results (§ 219.11),or other means. For plan revisions, andto the extent the responsible officialconsiders to be appropriate for planamendments or site-specific decisions,the responsible official must develop orsupplement the information andanalyses related to the following:

(1) Describe and analyze, asappropriate, the following:

(i) Demographic trends; life-stylepreferences; public values; land-usepatterns; related conservation and landuse policies at the state and local level;cultural and American Indian tribe andAlaska Native land settlement patterns;social and cultural history; social andcultural opportunities provided bynational forest system lands; theorganization and leadership of localcommunities; community assistanceneeds; community health; and otherappropriate social and culturalinformation;

(ii) Employment, income, and othereconomic trends; the range andestimated long-term value of market andnon-market goods, uses, services, andamenities that can be provided bynational forest system lands consistentwith the requirements of ecologicalsustainability, the estimated cost ofproviding them, and the estimated effectof providing them on regional and

community well-being, employment,and wages; and other appropriateeconomic information. Special attentionshould be paid to the uses, values,products, or services that the ForestService is uniquely poised to provide;

(iii) Opportunities to provide socialand economic benefits to communitiesthrough natural resource restorationstrategies;

(iv) Other social or economicinformation, if appropriate, to addressissues being considered by theresponsible official (§ 219.4).

(2) Analyze community or region riskand vulnerability. Risk andvulnerability analyses assess thevulnerability of communities fromchanges in ecological systems as a resultof natural succession or potentialmanagement actions. Risk may beconsidered for geographic, relevantoccupational, or other relatedcommunities of interest. Resiliency andcommunity capacity should beconsidered in a risk and vulnerabilityanalysis. Risk and vulnerability analysismay also address potentialconsequences to communities andregions from land management changesin terms of capital availability,employment opportunities, wage levels,local tax bases, federal revenue sharing,the ability to support publicinfrastructure and social services,human health and safety, and otherfactors as necessary and appropriate.

(b) Plan decisions. When making plandecisions that will affect social oreconomic sustainability, the responsibleofficial must use the informationanalyses developed in paragraph (a) ofthis section. Plan decisions contribute tosocial and economic sustainability byproviding for a range of uses, values,products, and services, consistent withecological sustainability.

The Contribution of Science

§ 219.22 The overall role of science inplanning.

(a) The responsible official mustensure that the best available science isconsidered in planning. The responsibleofficial, when appropriate, shouldacknowledge incomplete or unavailableinformation, scientific uncertainty, andthe variability inherent in complexsystems.

(b) When appropriate and practicableand consistent with applicable law, theresponsible official should provide forindependent, scientific peer reviews ofthe use of science in planning.Independent, scientific peer reviews areconducted using generally acceptedscientific practices that do not allowindividuals to participate in the peer

reviews of documents they authored orco-authored.

§ 219.23 The role of science inassessments, analyses, and monitoring.

(a) Broad-scale assessments. If theForest Service is leading a broad-scaleassessment, the assessment must be ledby a Chief Scientist selected by theDeputy Chief of Research andDevelopment. When appropriate andpracticable, a responsible official mayprovide for independent, scientific peerreview of the findings and conclusionsoriginating from a broad-scaleassessment. Independent, scientific peerreview may be provided by scientistsfrom the Forest Service, other federal,state, or tribal agencies, or otherinstitutions.

(b) Local analyses. Though notrequired, a responsible official mayinclude scientists in the development ortechnical reviews of local analyses andfield reviews of the design and selectionof subsequent site-specific actions.

(c) Monitoring. (1) The responsibleofficial must include scientists in thedesign and evaluation of monitoringstrategies. Additionally, the responsibleofficial must provide for anindependent, scientific peer review ofplan monitoring on at least a biennialbasis to validate adherence toappropriate protocols and methods incollecting and processing of monitoringsamples and to validate that data aresummarized and interpreted properly.

(2) When appropriate and practicable,the responsible official should includescientists in the review of monitoringdata and analytical results to determinetrends relative to ecological, economic,or social sustainability.

§ 219.24 Science consistency evaluations.(a) The responsible official must

ensure that plan amendments andrevisions are consistent with the bestavailable science. The responsibleofficial may use a science advisoryboard (§ 219.25) to assist in determiningwhether information gathered,evaluations conducted, or analyses andconclusions reached in the planningprocess are consistent with the bestavailable science. If the responsibleofficial decides to use a science advisoryboard, the board and the responsibleofficial are to jointly establish criteriafor the science advisory board and theresponsible official to use in reviewingthe consistency of proposed planamendments and revisions with the bestavailable science.

(b) The science advisory board isresponsible for organizing andconducting a scientific consistencyevaluation to determine the following:



(1) If relevant scientific (ecological,social, or economic) information hasbeen considered by the responsibleofficial in a manner consistent withcurrent scientific understanding at theappropriate scales;

(2) If uncertainty of knowledge hasbeen recognized, acknowledged, andadequately documented; and

(3) If the level of risk in achievementof sustainability is acknowledged andadequately documented by theresponsible official.

(c) If substantial disagreement amongmembers of the science advisory boardor between the science advisory boardand the responsible official is identifiedduring a science consistency evaluation,a summary of such disagreement shouldbe noted in the appropriateenvironmental documentation withinForest Service NEPA procedures.

§ 219.25 Science advisory boards.(a) National science advisory board.

The Forest Service Deputy Chief forResearch and Development mustestablish, convene, and chair a scienceadvisory board to provide scientificadvice on issues identified by the Chiefof the Forest Service. Board membershipmust represent a broad range ofscientific disciplines including, but notlimited to, the physical, biological,economic, and social sciences.

(b) Regional science advisory boards.Based upon needs identified byRegional Forester(s) or Research StationDirector(s), the Forest Service ResearchStation Director(s), should establish andconvene science advisory boardsconsistent with the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (5 U.S.C. app.) toprovide advice to one or more RegionalForesters regarding the application ofscience in planning and decisionmakingfor National Forest System lands. Atleast one regional science advisoryboard must be available for eachnational forest and grassland. TheStation Director(s) must chair the boardor appoint a chair of such boards. Thegeographical boundaries of the boardsneed not align with National ForestSystem Regional boundaries. Boardmembership must represent a broadrange of science disciplines including,but not limited to, the physical,biological, economic, and socialsciences. Regional science advisoryboard tasks may include, but are notlimited, to:

(1) Evaluating significance andrelevance of new information related tocurrent plan decisions, including theresults of monitoring and evaluation;and

(2) Evaluating science consistency asdescribed in § 219.24.

(c) Work groups. With theconcurrence of the appropriate chairand subject to available funding, thenational or regional science advisoryboards may convene work groups tostudy issues and providerecommendations.

Special Considerations

§ 219.26 Identifying and designatingsuitable uses.

National forests and grasslands aresuitable for a wide variety of publicuses, such as outdoor recreation,livestock grazing, timber harvest, off-road vehicle travel, or other uses exceptwhere lands are determined to beunsuited for a particular use. Lands arenot suited for a particular use if that use:is prohibited by law, regulation, orExecutive Order; is incompatible withthe mission or policies of the NationalForest System; or would result insubstantial and permanent impairmentof the productivity of the land. Througha plan amendment or revision, theresponsible official may determinewhether specific uses may begin,continue, or terminate within the planarea. Planning documents shoulddescribe or display lands suitable forvarious uses in areas large enough toprovide sufficient latitude for periodicadjustments in use to conform tochanging needs and conditions.

§ 219.27 Special designations.The Forest Service may recommend

special designations to higherauthorities or, to the extent permitted bylaw, adopt special designations throughplan amendment or revision. Specialdesignations are areas within theNational Forest System that areidentified for their unique or specialcharacteristics and include thefollowing:

(a) Congressionally designated areas.Congressionally designated areas mayinclude, but are not limited to,wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,national trails, scenic areas, recreationareas, and monuments. These nationallysignificant areas must be managed asrequired by Congress and may havespecific requirements for theirmanagement.

(b) Wilderness area reviews. Unlessfederal statute directs otherwise, allundeveloped areas that are of sufficientsize as to make practicable theirpreservation and use in an unimpairedcondition must be evaluated forrecommended wilderness designationduring the plan revision process. Theseareas may be evaluated at other times asdetermined by the responsible official.

(c) Administratively designated areas.Administratively designated areas may

include, but are not limited to, criticalwatersheds, research natural areas,national monuments, geological areas,inventoried roadless areas, unroadedareas, motorized and non-motorizedrecreation areas, botanical areas, andscenic byways.

§ 219.28 Determination of land suitable fortimber harvest.

(a) Lands where timber may not beharvested. The plan must identify landswithin the plan area where timber maynot be harvested. These lands include:

(1) Lands where timber harvest wouldviolate statute, Executive Order, orregulation and those lands that havebeen withdrawn from timber harvest bythe Secretary of Agriculture or the Chiefof the Forest Service;

(2) Lands where technology is notavailable for conducting timberharvesting without causing irreversibledamage to soil, slope, or otherwatershed conditions or producesubstantial and permanent impairmentof the productivity of the land; and

(3) Lands where there are noassurances that such lands can beadequately restocked within 5 yearsafter harvest;

(b) Lands where timber may beharvested for timber production. Theresponsible official may establish timberproduction as a multiple-use planobjective for lands not identified inparagraph (a) of this section if the costsof timber production are justified by theecological, social, or economic benefitsconsidering physical, economic, andother pertinent factors to the extentfeasible. Lands where timber productionis not established as a plan objective aredeemed not suited for timberproduction. These lands must bereviewed by the responsible official atleast once every 10 years, or asprescribed by law, to determine theirsuitability for timber productionconsidering physical, economic, andother pertinent factors to the extentfeasible. Based on this review, timberproduction may be established as a planobjective for these lands throughamendment or revision of the plan.

(c) Lands where timber may beharvested for other multiple-use values.Except for lands identified in paragraph(a) of this section, timber may beharvested from land where timberproduction is not established as a planobjective if, based on a site-specificanalysis, the responsible officialdetermines and documents that suchtimber harvest would contribute toachievement of desired conditions andecological sustainability, and isnecessary to protect multiple-use valuesother than timber production.



§ 219.29 Limitation on timber harvest.

(a) Estimate of the limitation of timberharvest. The responsible official mustestimate the amount of timber that canbe sold annually in perpetuity on asustained-yield basis from NationalForest System lands other than thoseidentified in § 219.28(a). This estimatemust be based on the yield of timberthat can be removed consistent withachievement of objectives or desiredconditions in the applicable plan. Inthose cases where a national forest hasless than 200,000 acres of forested landidentified in lands other than those in§ 219.28(a), two or more national forestsmay be combined for the purpose ofestimating amount of timber that can besold annually on a sustained-yield basis.Estimations for lands where timberproduction is established as a planobjective § 219.28(b) and estimations forlands identified in § 219.28(c) cannot becombined.

(b) Limitation of timber harvest. Theresponsible official must limit the saleof timber from the lands where timberproduction is an objective and fromother lands to a quantity equal to or lessthan that estimated in paragraph (a) ofthis section.

(c) Exceptions to limitations of timberharvest. For purposes of limiting thesale of timber, the responsible officialmay sell timber from areas that aresubstantially affected by fire, wind, orother events, or for which there is animminent threat from insects or disease,and may either substitute such timberfor timber that would otherwise be soldor, if not feasible, sell such timber overand above the plan limit established inparagraph (b) of this section. Ifdeparture from the quantity of timberremoval established in paragraph (b) ofthis section is necessary to meet overallmultiple-use objectives, therequirements in 16 U.S.C. 1611 must befollowed.

Planning Documentation

§ 219.30 Plan documentation.

A plan is a repository of documentsthat integrates and displays the desiredconditions, objectives, standards, andother plan decisions that apply to a unitof the National Forest System. The planalso contains maps, monitoring andevaluation results, the annualmonitoring and evaluation report, andother information relevant to how theplan area is to be managed. Planningdocuments should be clear,understandable, and readily availablefor public review. Plan documentsshould be updated throughamendments, revision, and routine

maintenance (§ 219.31). Plan documentsinclude, at a minimum, the following:

(a) A summary of the plan. Thesummary is a concise description of theplan that includes a summary of theplan decisions and a description of theplan area and appropriate planningunits. The summary should include abrief description of the ecological,social, and economic environmentswithin the plan area and the overallstrategy for maintenance or restorationof sustainability, including desiredconditions and objectives for theirachievement. The summary alsoincludes appropriate maps, adescription of the transportation system,utility corridors, land ownershippatterns and proposed land ownershipadjustments, charts, figures,photographs, and other information toenhance understanding.

(b) Display of public uses. The plandocuments must identify the suitabilityof the plan area for various uses(§ 219.26) such as recreation uses,livestock grazing, timber harvest, andmineral developments. The plandocuments must identify land wheretimber may not be harvested and wheretimber production is an objective(§ 219.28). The plan documents alsomust describe the limitations on theremoval of timber (§ 219.29) and thestandards for timber harvest andregeneration methods (§ 219.7(c)).

(c) Plan decisions. The plandocuments must display or describe theplan decisions (§ 219.7).

(d) Display of actions and outcomes.The plan documents must also contain:

(1) An annually updated list or otherdisplay of proposed, authorized, andcompleted actions to achieve desiredconditions and objectives within theplan area;

(2) A 2-year schedule, updatedannually, of anticipated outcomeswhich may include anticipated uses,values, products, or services based onan estimate of Forest Service budget andcapacity to perform the identifiedprogram of work. The estimate of ForestService budget and capacity should bebased on recent funding levels;

(3) A 2-year summary, updatedannually, of the actual outcomes whichmay include specific uses, values,products, or services provided as aresult of completed site-specific actions;

(4) A projected range of outcomeswhich may include anticipated uses,values, products, and services for thenext 15 years, assuming current or likelybudgets while considering otherspending levels as appropriate. Theseprojections are estimates and as suchoften contain a high degree ofuncertainty; they are intended to

describe expected progress in achievingdesired conditions and objectiveswithin the plan area. The projections areto be updated during revision of eachplan;

(5) A description of the monitoringstrategy to occur in the plan area andthe annual monitoring and evaluationreport; and

(6) A summary of the projectedprogram of work, updated annually,including costs for inventories,assessments, proposed and authorizedactions, and monitoring. The projectedprogram of work must be based onreasonably anticipated funding levels.Reasonably anticipated funding levelsshould be based on recent fundinglevels. The plan documents must alsoinclude a description of the totalcurrent-year budget, funded actions,projections for future budgets over thenext 2 years; and a display of the budgettrends over at least the past 5 years.

(e) Other components. A plan mustcontain or reference a list of materials,Forest Service policies, and decisionsused in forming plan decisions. Theinformation should include, but is notlimited to, lists of previous decision andenvironmental documents, assessments,conservation agreements and strategies,biological opinions, inventories,administrative studies, monitoringresults, and research relevant toadoption of plan decisions.

§ 219.31 Maintenance of the plan andplanning records.

(a) Each National Forest or GrasslandSupervisor must maintain a completeset of the planning documents requiredunder § 219.30 that constitute the planfor the unit. The set of documents mustbe readily available to the public usingappropriate and relevant technology.

(b) The following administrativecorrections and additions may be madeat any time, are not plan amendments orrevisions, and do not require publicnotice or the preparation of anenvironmental document under ForestService NEPA procedures:

(1) Corrections and updates of dataand maps;

(2) Updates to activity lists andschedules as required by § 219.30(d)(1)–(6);

(3) Corrections of typographical errorsor other non-substantive changes; and

(4) Changes in monitoring methodsother than those required in amonitoring strategy (§ 219.11(c)).

Objections and Appeals

§ 219.32 Objections to amendments orrevisions.

(a) Any person may object to aproposed amendment or revision



prepared under the provisions of thissubpart, except for an amendment orrevision proposed by the Chief. Theobjection must be filed within 30calendar days from the date that theEnvironmental Protection Agencypublishes the notice of availability of afinal environmental impact statementregarding a proposed amendment orrevision in the Federal Register, orwithin 30 calendar days of thepublication of a public notice of aproposed amendment not requiringpreparation of an environmental impactstatement. Within ten days after theclose of the objection period, theResponsible Official shall publish noticeof all objections in the local newspaperof record. An objection must be filedwith the reviewing officer identified inthe notice and contain:

(1) The name, mailing address, andtelephone number of the person filingthe objection;

(2) A specific statement of the basisfor each objection; and

(3) A description of the objector’sparticipation in the planning process forthe proposed amendment or revision,including a copy of any relevantdocuments submitted during theplanning process.

(b) Objectors may request meetingswith the reviewing officer and theresponsible official to discuss theobjection, to narrow the issues, agree onfacts, and explore opportunities forresolution. The reviewing officer mustallow other interested persons toparticipate in such meetings. Aninterested person must file a request toparticipate in an objection within tendays after publication of the notice ofobjection as described in paragraph (a)of this section.

(c) The reviewing officer mustrespond, in writing, to an objectionwithin a reasonable period of time andmay respond to all objections in oneresponse. The reviewing officer’sresponse regarding an objection is thefinal decision of the Department ofAgriculture.

(d) The responsible official may notapprove a proposed amendment orrevision until the reviewing officer hasresponded to all objections. A decisionby the responsible official approving anamendment or revision must beconsistent with the reviewing officer’sresponse to objections to the proposedamendment or revision.

(e) Where the Forest Service is aparticipant in a multi-agency decisionsubject to objection under this subpart,the responsible official and reviewingofficer may waive the objectionprocedures of this subpart to adopt theadministrative review procedure of

another participating federal agency, ifthe responsible official and theresponsible official of the other agenciesagree to provide a joint response tothose who have filed for administrativereview of the multi-agency decision.

(f) The information collectionrequirements of this section have beenapproved by the Office of Managementand Budget and assigned controlnumber 0596–0158.

§ 219.33 Appeals of site-specificdecisions.

If a site-specific decision is proposedin conjunction with a plan amendmentor revision, a person may object to theproposed plan amendment or revisionas described in (§ 219.32). If a decisionis made to authorize a site-specificaction, a person may requestadministrative review of that decision asdescribed in 36 CFR part 215.

Applicability and Transition

§ 219.34 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to all units of the NationalForest System as defined by 16 U.S.C.1609.

§ 219.35 Transition.

(a) The transition period begins onNovember 9, 2000 and ends upon thecompletion of the revision process(§ 219.9) for each unit of the NationalForest System. During the transitionperiod, the responsible official mustconsider the best available science inimplementing and, if appropriate,amending the current plan.

(b) If, as of November 9, 2000, a planrevision or amendment has beeninitiated under the 1982 planningregulations in effect prior to November9, 2000 (See 36 CFR part 219, revised asof July 1, 2000.) and if a notice ofavailability of a draft environmentalimpact statement or an environmentalassessment is published by May 9, 2001in the Federal Register, the responsibleofficial may complete the amendment orrevision process under the 1982regulations or adjust the process toconform to the provisions of thissubpart.

(c) If a review of lands not suited fortimber production is required before thecompletion of the revision process, thereview must take place as described bythe provisions of § 219.28, except asprovided in paragraph (b) of thissection.

(d) Site-specific decisions made bythe responsible official 3 years fromNovember 9, 2000 and afterward mustbe in conformance with the provisionsof this subpart.

(e) Within 1 year of November 9,2000, the Regional Forester mustwithdraw the regional guide. When aregional guide is withdrawn, theRegional Forester must identify thedecisions in the regional guide that areto be transferred to a regionalsupplement of the Forest Servicedirective system (36 CFR 200.4) or toone or more plans and give notice in theFederal Register of these actions. Thetransfer of direction from a regionalguide to a regional supplement of theForest Service directive system or to oneor more plans does not constitute anamendment, revision, or site-specificaction subject to Forest Service NEPAprocedures.

(f) Within 3 years after completion ofthe revision process for a unit, theresponsible official must complete thefirst monitoring and evaluation report asrequired in § 219.11(f).

(g) Within 1 year of November 9,2000, the Chief of the Forest Servicemust establish a schedule forcompletion of the revision process foreach unit of the National Forest System.

Definitions

§ 219.36 Definitions.Definitions of the special terms used

in this subpart are set out inalphabetical order in this section asfollows:

Adaptive management: An approachto natural resource managementwherein the effects of policies, plans,and actions are monitored for thepurpose of learning and adjusting futuremanagement actions. Successiveiteration of the adaptive process isessential in contributing tosustainability.

Assessment or analysis area: Thegeographic area included within thescope of a broad-scale assessment orlocal analysis.

Candidate species: Species identifiedby the United States Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) or the National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS), which areconsidered to be candidates for listingunder the Endangered Species Act aspublished in the Federal Register.

Conservation agreement: A formalagreement between the Forest Serviceand the USFWS and/or NMFSidentifying management actionsnecessary to prevent the need to listspecies under the Endangered SpeciesAct.

Current climatic period: The period oftime since establishment of the modernmajor vegetation types, which typicallyencompass the late Holocene Epochincluding the present, including likelyclimatic conditions within the planning



period. The climatic period is typicallycenturies to millennia in length, aperiod of time that is long enough toencompass the variability that speciesand ecosystems have experienced.

Desired condition: A statementdescribing a common vision for aspecific area of land or type of landwithin the plan area. Statements ofdesired conditions should include theestimated time required for theirachievement.

Desired non-native species: Thosespecies of plants or animals which arenot indigenous to an area but valued fortheir contribution to species diversity ortheir high social, cultural or economicvalue.

Disturbance regime: Actions,functions, or events that influence ormaintain the structure, composition, orfunction of terrestrial or aquaticecosystems. Natural disturbancesinclude, among others, drought, floods,wind, fires, insects, and pathogens.Human-caused disturbances includeactions such as recreational use,livestock grazing, mining, roadconstruction, timber harvest, and theintroduction of exotic species.

Diversity of plant and animalcommunities: The distribution andrelative abundance of plant and animalcommunities and their componentspecies occurring within an area.

Ecological conditions: Components ofthe biological and physical environmentthat can affect the diversity of plant andanimal communities, including speciesviability, and the productive capacity ofecological systems. These could includethe abundance and distribution ofaquatic and terrestrial habitats, roadsand other structural developments,human uses, and invasive and exoticspecies.

Ecological sustainability: Themaintenance or restoration of thecomposition, structure, and processes ofecosystems including the diversity ofplant and animal communities and theproductive capacity of ecologicalsystems.

Ecosystem composition: The plantand animal species and communities inthe plan area.

Ecosystem processes: Ecologicalfunctions such as photosynthesis,energy flow, nutrient cycling, watermovement, disturbance, and succession.

Ecosystem structure: The biologicaland physical attributes that characterizeecological systems.

Focal species: Focal species aresurrogate measures used in theevaluation of ecological sustainability,including species and ecosystemdiversity. The key characteristic of afocal species is that its status and trend

provide insights to the integrity of thelarger ecological system to which itbelongs. Individual species, or groups ofspecies that use habitat in similar waysor which perform similar ecologicalfunctions, may be identified as focalspecies. Focal species serve an umbrellafunction in terms of encompassinghabitats needed for many other species,play a key role in maintainingcommunity structure or processes, aresensitive to the changes likely to occurin the area, or otherwise serve as anindicator of ecological sustainability.Certain focal species may be used assurrogates to represent ecologicalconditions that provide for viability ofsome other species, rather than directlyrepresenting the population dynamics ofthose other species.

Forest Service NEPA procedures: TheForest Service policy and procedures forimplementing the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) andthe Council on Environmental Qualityregulations (40 CFR chapter V) asdescribed in Chapter 1950 of the ForestService Manual and Forest ServiceHandbook 1909.15, EnvironmentalPolicy and Procedures Handbook (See36 CFR 200.4 for availability).

Inherently rare species: A species isinherently rare if it occurs in only alimited number of locations, has lowpopulation numbers, or has both limitedoccurrences and low populationnumbers, and those conditions arenatural characteristics of the life historyand ecology of the species and notprimarily the result of humandisturbance.

Inventoried roadless areas: Areas areidentified in a set of inventoriedroadless area maps, contained in ForestService Roadless Area Conservation,Draft Environmental Impact Statement,Volume 2, dated May 2000, which areheld at the National headquarters officeof the Forest Service, or any subsequentupdate or revision of those maps.

Major vegetation types: Plantcommunities, which are typicallynamed after dominant plant species thatare characteristic of the macroclimateand geology of the region or sub-region.

Native species: Species of the plantand animal kingdom indigenous to theplan area or assessment area.

Plan area: The geographic area ofNational Forest System lands coveredby an individual land and resourcemanagement plan. The area may includeone or more administrative units.

Productive capacity of ecologicalsystems: The ability of an ecosystem tomaintain primary productivityincluding its ability to sustain desirableconditions such as clean water, fertilesoil, riparian habitat, and the diversity

of plant and animal species; to sustaindesirable human uses; and to renewitself following disturbance.

Range of variability: The expectedrange of variation in ecosystemcomposition, and structure that wouldbe expected under natural disturbanceregimes in the current climatic period.These regimes include the type,frequency, severity, and magnitude ofdisturbance in the absence of firesuppression and extensive commodityextraction.

Reference landscapes: Placesidentified in the plan area where theconditions and trends of ecosystemcomposition, structure, and processesare deemed useful for setting objectivesfor desired conditions and for judgingthe effectiveness of plan decisions.

Responsible official: The officer withthe authority and responsibility tooversee the planning process and makedecisions on proposed actions.

Reviewing officer: The supervisor ofthe responsible official.

Social and economic sustainability:Meeting the economic, social, aesthetic,and cultural needs and desires ofcurrent generations without reducingthe capacity of the environment toprovide for the needs and desires offuture generations, considering bothlocal communities and the nation as awhole. It also involves the capacity ofcitizens to communicate effectively witheach other and to make sound choicesabout their environment.

Species: Any member of the animal orplant kingdom that is described as aspecies in a peer-reviewed scientificpublication and is identified as aspecies by the responsible officialpursuant to a plan decision, and mustinclude all species listed under theEndangered Species Act as threatened,endangered, candidate, or proposed forlisting by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService or National Marine FisheriesService.

Species-at-risk: Federally listedendangered, threatened, candidate, andproposed species and other species forwhich loss of viability, includingreduction in distribution or abundance,is a concern within the plan area. Otherspecies-at-risk may include sensitivespecies and state listed species. Aspecies-at-risk also may be selected as afocal species.

Species viability: A species consistingof self-sustaining and interactingpopulations that are well distributedthrough the species’ range. Self-sustaining populations are those that aresufficiently abundant and havesufficient diversity to display the arrayof life history strategies and forms to



provide for their long-term persistenceand adaptability over time.

Successional stages: The differentstructural and compositional phases ofvegetation development of forests andgrasslands that occur over timefollowing disturbances that kill, remove,or reduce vegetation and include themajor developmental or seral stages thatoccur within a particular environment.

Timber production: The sustainedlong-term and periodic harvest of woodfiber from National Forest System landsundertaken in support of social andeconomic objectives identified in one or

more land and resource managementplans. For purposes of this regulation,the term timber production includesfuel wood.

Undeveloped areas: Areas, includingbut not limited to inventoried roadlessareas and unroaded areas, withinnational forests or grasslands that are ofsufficient size and generallyuntrammeled by human activities suchthat they are appropriate forconsideration for wildernessdesignation in the planning process.

Unroaded areas: Any area, withoutthe presence of a classified road, of a

size and configuration sufficient toprotect the inherent characteristicsassociated with its roadless condition.Unroaded areas do not overlap withinventoried roadless areas.

Subpart B—[Reserved]

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Dan Glickman,Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–28580 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–U


Documents

Department of Agricultureconcepts. First, it affirms sustainability as the overall goal for national forest and grassland management in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield