5124 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

RIN 0596–AC02 

National Forest System Land 

Management Planning Directives 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of agency 

final directives. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is issuing 

ten (10) final directives to Forest Service 

Manuals 1900 and 1920 and Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12; chapters 

zero code, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 80. 

These directives establish procedures 

and responsibilities for implementing 

national forest land management 

planning regulations at 36 CFR part 219, 

subpart A, published in the Federal 

Register on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 

1023). These directives provide 

consistent overall guidance to Forest 

Service line officers and employees in 

developing, amending, or revising land 

management plans for units of the 

National Forest System. 

DATES: These directives are effective 

January 31, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the directives are 

available on the World Wide Web/ 

Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/ 

nfma/index or on a compact disc (CD). 

Copies of the directives on a CD can be 

obtained by contacting Regis Terney by 

e-mail (rterney@fs.fed.us), by phone at 

1–866–235–6652 or 202–205–0895, or 

by mail at Regis Terney, USDA Forest 

Service, Mailstop 1104, EMC, 3 Central, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20050–1104. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Regis Terney, Planning Specialist, 

Ecosystem Management Coordination 

Staff (202) 205–0895. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 5, 2005, the Department 

adopted final planning regulations for 

the National Forest System (NFS) at 36 

CFR Part 219, subpart A (70 FR 1023) 

(also referred to as the 2005 planning 

rule). The 2005 planning rule provides 

broad programmatic direction in 

developing and carrying out land 

management planning. The rule 

explicitly directs the Chief of the Forest 

Service to establish planning procedures 

in the Forest Service directives system 

(36 CFR 219.1(c)). 

The Forest Service directives consist 

of the Forest Service Manual (FSM) and 

the Forest Service Handbook (FSH), 

which contain the agency’s policies, 

practices, and procedures and serve as 

the primary basis for the internal 

management and control of programs 

and administrative direction to Forest 

Service employees. The directives for all 

agency programs are set out on the 

World Wide Web/Internet at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/im/directives. 

Generally, the FSM contains legal 

authorities, objectives, policies, 

responsibilities, instructions, and 

guidance needed on a continuing basis 

by Forest Service line officers and 

primary staff to plan and execute 

programs and activities, while the FSH 

is generally the principal source of 

specialized guidance and instruction for 

carrying out the policies, objectives, and 

responsibilities contained in the FSM. 

Need for Direction 

Procedural and technical details 

associated with implementing the 2005 

planning rule are needed by NFS units 

to begin consistent plan amendments or 

revisions across all NFS units to prevent 

confusion and to improve public 

involvement and decisionmaking 

associated with developing, amending, 

or revising a land management plan. 

Public Participation 

On March 23, 2005, the Forest Service 

issued 12 interim directives to FSM 

1330, 1900, and 1920 and FSH 1909.12 

asking for public comment. This notice 

of issuance involves final amendments 

for those interim directives, except for 

FSM 1330 and FSH 1909.12, chapters 70 

and 90. FSM 1330 and FSH 1909.12, 

chapters 70 and 90 will be issued 

separately. 

Comments were submitted by mail, 

facsimile, and electronically. During the 

90-day comment period (ending on June 

21, 2005), the agency received 365 

original responses and 8,727 copies of 

one form letter. These responses were 

analyzed by the Content Analysis Group 

and documented in a Content Analysis 

Report. Of the 365 original responses, 

the Forest Service received responses 

from 324 individuals and 41 

organizations, of which 150 were letters, 

214 were forms of various types, and 1 

resolution. The Forest Service received 

responses from 49 states as well as from 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

Army Post Office/Fleet Post Office, and 

foreign nations. 

Response to Comments 

Overview 

In response to comments, the Forest 

Service made substantive changes to the 

interim directives issued on March 23, 

2005, by decreasing the length 

approximately 25 percent and 

reorganizing the text. This was 

accomplished primarily by: 

1. Reviewing direction to remove 

redundancies. 

2. Questioning the need for the 

direction. 

3. Discussing major topics once. 

4. Using more cross-referencing. 

5. Removing detailed exhibits from 

the final directives and placing, at a 

later date, more useful exhibits in 

technical guides on the Technical 

Information for Planning Site (TIPS) 

Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS. 

6. Moving detail about plan 

components, planning process, 

monitoring, sustainability, and science 

from FSM 1920 to the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) 1909.12. 

7. Moving all information about the 

objections process from FSM 1926 of the 

interim directives to FSH 1909.12, 

chapter 50. 

In addition, the Forest Service moved 

the previous content of FSM 1922 to 

FSM 1926. Forest Service Manual 1926 

now provides procedures to revise or 

amend plans using provisions of the 

planning regulations in effect before 

November 9, 2000 (1982 planning rule) 

for those Responsible Officials that 

choose to continue using those 

procedures in accord with 36 CFR 

219.14. The Forest Service moved FSM 

1922 because many readers confused 

the procedures for the 2005 planning 

rule with the procedures for using the 

1982 planning rule. 

Key Issues 

Decisionmaking Process 

Laws 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

comply with all applicable laws and 

with Executive Order 13352. 

Response: Forest Service Manual 

(FSM) 1901.1 identifies the laws setting 

forth the requirements for Forest Service 

planning, while other applicable 

authorities are discussed at FSM 1011. 

In addition, Responsible Officials are 

required to comply with applicable laws 

in development, revision, amendment, 

and implementation of plans (70 FR 

1034, Jan. 5, 2005). 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13352 provides 

that specific Federal agencies, including 

the USDA, should implement laws 

relating to the environment and natural 

resources in a manner that promotes 

cooperative conservation and 

emphasizes local participation in 

Federal decisionmaking. The public 

participation requirements from the 

2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.9) and 

the directives (FSM 1921.61 and FSH 

1909.12, sec. 30) ensure that the 

interested public, state agencies, and 

local governments have the opportunity 

to participate. The Forest Service 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5125 

believes that the 2005 planning rule and 

the Forest Service directives are 

consistent with E.O. 13352. 

State Participation 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

ensure that states play a meaningful role 

in the planning process. This should 

include encouraging states to establish a 

state governing body, chartered by that 

state, with the authority to create 

general forest policies and produce a 

state guidance document for the 

management of Federal forestlands. This 

could define a state’s position on the 

niche that Federal forestlands play in 

the state, clarify state expectations, and 

build support for Federal land 

management plans with State and local 

constituents. 

Response: The Forest Service agrees 

that states should play a meaningful role 

in the planning process, including a role 

in defining the niche that National 

Forest System lands play in each state. 

The 2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.9) 

and directives (FSM 1921.61) encourage 

that role. The Responsible Officials will 

work with state officials to jointly agree 

on the type and amount of participation. 

The Forest Service does not believe that 

a specific approach to state involvement 

should be identified in the directives 

because the state should decide what 

specific approach may be appropriate 

for them. 

Cooperating Agency 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide local and state agencies the 

option of cooperating agency status for 

developing amendments or plan 

revisions. 

Response: Under Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations for 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA); cooperating agency status is 

appropriate for other Federal, State, or 

local governments when they have 

jurisdiction by law or special knowledge 

about the action being addressed in a 

NEPA analysis (40 CFR 1501.6). When 

other Federal, State, or local 

governments have jurisdiction by law or 

special knowledge about the action 

being addressed, the Responsible 

Official is encouraged to work with 

other State and local governments to 

determine if cooperating agency status 

is the most appropriate way for them to 

be involved. State and local 

governments contacted when the Forest 

Service is preparing a plan, plan 

amendment or plan revision are 

encouraged to identify their special 

expertise and/or jurisdiction by law to 

assist the local Responsible Official in 

determining appropriate designations as 

cooperating agencies. The Forest Service 

believes that the local Responsible 

Official is most able to determine how 

to involve state and local governments. 

Governor’s Consistency Review 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

add language to the FSM and create a 

process for state review of land 

management plans similar to the 

Governor’s Consistency Review statutes 

created under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FLPMA). 

Response: The National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) does 

not have a requirement equivalent to the 

FLPMA requirement for a governor’s 

consistency review. The Forest Service 

believes that the collaborative processes 

in the 2005 planning rule and the Forest 

Service directives, along with the 

potential for cooperating agency status 

when the Responsible Official and a 

state concludes this to be appropriate, 

will provide for meaningful State 

involvement in the planning process. 

The Forest Service believes that early 

state involvement, such as identifying a 

need for change and developing plan 

components, will be more beneficial to 

the Forest Service and the states than 

will a consistency review late in the 

planning process. States will also be 

invited to comment on proposed plans 

during the 90-day comment period. 

National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

coordinate with the National 

Association of State Foresters on 

planning, monitoring, and assessments. 

Response: The Forest Service 

encourages the National Association of 

State Foresters to participate in Forest 

Service planning at all levels. 

Comment Period 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

add 60 days to the comment period. 

Response: In past planning efforts, a 

90-day public comment period on a 

proposed plan or plan revision has 

proved adequate. Historically, the Forest 

Service has extended comment periods 

where circumstances about a specific 

planning effort have merited an 

extension. The 2005 planning rule does 

not preclude extending the comment 

period when needed. 

Framework of Directives 

Need for Regulations 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

address NFMA’s requirement in the 

Code of Federal Regulations and not in 

the Forest Service Directives System. 

Response: The Forest Service 

interprets NFMA to afford the Forest 

Service discretion to provide policy 

guidance through regulations or the 

Forest Service directives. Final 

regulations for implementing the NFMA 

were published in the Federal Register, 

January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1022). Those 

regulations provide that guidance in 

addition to that provided in the 

regulations will be provided in the 

directives. Directives are available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives. 

Requirements and Content 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

have standards rather than weak 

guidelines, which allow too much 

discretion. 

Response: The decision to use 

guidelines rather than standards was 

made in the 2005 planning rule because 

the standards, as used previously in 

land management plans, proved too 

restrictive. The directives provide 

clarification about how guidelines 

should be written (FSH 1909.12, sec. 

11.3). The Forest Service believes that 

guidelines will provide the necessary 

sideboards for designing projects and 

authorizing activities, while allowing 

line officers needed discretion to 

address site-specific situations. 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

create directives that are inclusive of all 

direction needed by the planners rather 

than awaiting white papers or technical 

guides. 

Response: The directives strive to 

provide the guidance needed to 

develop, revise, and amend plans. 

However, specific methods and 

analytical tools based on new 

information and changing technologies 

are expected to develop rapidly as the 

Forest Service gains experience carrying 

out the new planning and 

environmental management system 

processes. The Forest Service believes 

that using technical guides will allow 

more rapid response to these changes; 

such as, better examples of desired 

conditions, objectives, and associated 

monitoring programs, than could occur 

if all detailed planning techniques were 

placed in the directives. 

National Direction 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

adopt a system with limited national 

direction for forest planners on 

complying with national legal 

mandates. 

Response: The 2005 planning rule and 

the Forest Service directives for 

implementing that rule are intended to 

provide the necessary guidance 

essential to ensure quality plans are 

developed without unduly limiting 

local innovation in the process and the 

plan content. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5126 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

Plan Consistency 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide guidance to ensure consistency 

among Forests. 

Response: It is the responsibility of 

the Regional Foresters (FSM 1921.04a) 

to coordinate planning between units in 

the region and between regions where 

units adjoin. The directives provide a 

framework for developing, revising, and 

amending plans; while allowing 

components of plans to adapt to local 

situations. 

Project Information 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide complete and accurate 

information about projects. It is unclear 

how much explanation of possible 

project schedules and locations will 

occur in the plan. 

Response: Plans are intended to be 

strategic documents, providing limited 

or no information on schedules and 

locations of projects. Each plan will list 

proposed and possible actions 

anticipated to provide an array of 

opportunities or resource management 

programs (FSH 1909.12, sec. 11.2) and 

a planned timber sale program, 

including proportion of probable 

harvest methods (FSH 1909.12, sec. 

65.4). Project disclosure comes at the 

project planning level. 

Cumulative Effects 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

include requirements for cumulative 

effects analysis in the Forest Service 

directives. 

Response: Cumulative effects analysis 

occurs as a part of project-level planning 

in accord with NEPA (FSM 1950, FSH 

1909.15) rather than through forest 

planning. The comprehensive 

evaluation report (FSH 1909.12, sec. 

24.2), is intended to help provide 

context for project-level cumulative 

effects analyses. The comprehensive 

evaluation report will be updated at 

least every 5 years. 

Length and Clarity of Directives 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

shorten the length of the Forest Service 

directives. The sheer length of the 

directives makes them difficult to 

absorb. However, some respondents 

thought that the Forest Service should 

acknowledge that all sections of the 

Forest Service directives are incomplete, 

conceptual, ambiguous, and lack 

guidance about how concepts may be 

evaluated or applied and thought they 

should be clearer and more consistent. 

Response: The final directives have 

been reduced approximately 25% from 

the interim directives to improve clarity 

and remove inconsistencies identified 

by respondents. More guidance on 

methods will be available in technical 

guides. 

Guideline Description 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that the statement 

‘‘Direction that compels us to do action 

is not appropriate’’ (FSH 1909.12, sec. 

12.23b) is an inappropriate statement. 

Another respondent stated that the 

directives system is not a substitute for 

plan direction (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.11, 

para. 3, item 3). 

Response: Although it has been 

reworded to provide clarity, the concept 

that guidelines should not be written to 

force action remains unchanged. 

Guidelines are intended to guide 

implementing actions, not cause actions 

to occur. The description of guidelines 

has been moved to FSH 1909.12, section 

11.13 in the final directives. 

The directives system is not a 

substitute for plan direction. It would be 

redundant to repeat in the plan 

guidelines or technical design 

specifications what already exists in 

law, regulation, or agency directives. 

Where appropriate, these are referenced 

in a plan rather than repeated. 

Legal Considerations 

Litigation 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that the 2005 planning 

rule is being litigated and use of the 

directives could be found invalid. 

Response: The Forest Service 

recognizes the potential implications 

from ongoing litigation of the 2005 

planning rule; however, these 

implications are outside the scope of the 

directives. 

Plan Implementation 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

include stipulations in the Forest 

Service directives that allow the public 

to challenge the agency in court if it 

fails to live up to a plan. 

Response: The Forest Service is 

committed to designing and carrying out 

activities consistent with plans. 

Administrative procedures are in place 

that allow the public appeal (36 CFR 

215) or object (36 CFR 218) to certain 

management actions. 

Consistency With NFMA 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

ensure that the directives are in accord 

with NFMA, including the act’s 

biodiversity requirements. 

Response: The Forest Service believes 

that the 2005 planning rule, and the 

Forest Service directives for carrying out 

that rule, are consistent with the 

requirements of NFMA. The Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended 

by NFMA, calls for plans to provide for 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities based on the suitability 

and capability of the specific land area 

(RPA, sec. 6(g)(3)(B)). The 2005 

planning rule (36 CFR 219.10(b)) 

provides for sustaining ecological 

systems by maintaining ecosystem 

diversity and species diversity. The 

Forest Service directives provide added 

guidance in FSM 1921.73 and FSH 

1909.12, section 43, to provide for 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities. 

National Trails System Act 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

specifically list the National Trails 

System Act in the Forest Services 

directives as an applicable law. 

Response: Forest Service Manual 

1920.11 identifies statutory authorities 

relevant to planning and references 

other applicable authorities found in 

FSM 1011, including the National Trails 

System Act. 

Forest Planning 

Forest Planning Versus Project Planning 

Comment: The directives should 

acknowledge the increased role for 

project planning and provide guidance 

about how forest and project planning 

will link together. The interim 

directive’s discussion of plan to project 

evaluation is too generic; for example, 

when in the process would cumulative 

effects on watershed be evaluated? 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12 sets up procedures for 

developing, revising, and amending 

plans, as needed, to carry out the 

planning rule. The rule at 36 CFR 

219.2(c) specifies that not one of the 

requirements of the rule apply to 

projects except as specifically provided. 

The final directives at FSH 1909.12, 

section 29, address how potential 

projects are identified and the finding 

that the project is consistent with the 

plan. Project analysis is discussed in 

detail in FSH 1909.15; agency 

procedures for compliance with NEPA. 

These directives and Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations at 40 

CFR 1500 to 1508 guide the 

environmental analysis for projects, 

including analysis of cumulative effects. 

Although the Forest Service expects that 

plan development, revision, and 

amendment will usually be categorically 

excluded, the comprehensive evaluation 

report will help set the context for 

project level analysis. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5127 

Need for Change 

Comment: The general premise that 

plan revisions will address only those 

parts of plans needing change and the 

premise that the new planning 

regulations and directives provide a 

new paradigm for planning are in 

conflict. The emphasis should be on a 

need for change. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, sections 24 and 25, outline an 

adaptive management framework for 

annual and comprehensive evaluations. 

An important result of these evaluations 

is to determine the need for change in 

the plan or in monitoring requirements. 

The 2005 planning rule significantly 

improves the process for plan 

development, revision, and amendment 

so that the attention of the Forest 

Service and the public can focus on 

only those items that appear to need 

change. The Forest Service does not see 

this as a conflict in the two premises. 

Adaptive Management Practices 

Comment: An adaptive management 

approach will enable the Forest Service 

to keep up with the best available 

science and to better respond to 

changing conditions. 

Response: The Forest Service agrees. 

An adaptive management framework is 

a cornerstone for the 2005 planning rule 

and the final directives. 

Mandatory Standards 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

continue to call for plans to contain 

mandatory, environmentally protective 

standards. Without quantitative, 

measurable, performance standards the 

plans will lack commitment, because 

performance cannot be measured or 

verified. Guidelines do not serve this 

purpose because deviations can be made 

as individual projects are designed. This 

defeats establishing a certain 

‘‘minimum’’ natural resource protection. 

This makes plans meaningless and 

circumvents the NFMA requirement to 

adopt plans and carry out projects 

consistent with those plans (16 U.S.C., 

sec. 1604). This, and other attempts to 

increase leeway for the Forest Service, 

does not make sense given the agency’s 

historical lack of accountability. 

Response: The 2005 planning rule 

does not include standards as a plan 

component. The preamble to the 

proposed rule and the response to 

comments for the final rule state the 

reason for using guidelines. Conditions 

on the ground are variable and the 

Forest Service believes that mandatory 

standards are too restrictive. Guidelines 

allow more flexibility for making 

adjustments based on site-specific 

conditions. The guidelines in plans are 

expected to be measurable. Guidelines 

should be written with inherent latitude 

and flexibility to carry out projects and 

activities so that adjustment is seldom 

an issue. However, if adjustment of 

guidelines is necessary, the project 

analysis and decision document must 

articulate the reasons for adjusting the 

guidelines. 

Forest Management Prescription 

Comment: Forest management 

prescriptions should be used to set 

performance standards and ensure 

needed protections and desired 

conditions. An example is the 

Appalachian Trail, which is now has 

specific management prescriptions in 

eight national forest plans, ensuring 

consistent administration of the trail. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 11.1 specifically states 

that plan components may be developed 

for areas in units; usually called 

management areas or geographic areas. 

Nothing in the final directives prohibits 

the continued use of management areas; 

as for example, those used by several 

national forests to provide consistent 

management guidance for the 

Appalachian Trail. The Forest Service 

believes that plan components; 

including desired conditions, 

guidelines, and suitability of areas will 

provide the needed framework for 

providing desired experiences, 

conditions, and protections. 

Plan Amendments 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not allow a plan to be amended through 

site-specific project decisions because 

this discretion would be abused, used 

mainly to make easier commodity 

development, or would evade the 

rigorous cumulative effects analysis 

requirements intended by NEPA. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 25.4 and 35 CFR 

219.8(e) provide that the plan can be 

amended through approval of a project 

or activity. This type of amendment 

would be considered along with 

considering whether the project should 

be modified or rejected entirely if the 

Responsible Official decides the project 

is not consistent with the plan. 

Conditions on the land are highly 

variable and the provision for 

amendments through projects is an 

important aspect making plans 

adaptable and workable. Documentation 

of the reason for the plan amendment 

would be included with the project 

documentation. Amendments through 

projects may be considered for a variety 

of projects, not just those that would 

produce commodities. NEPA 

compliance at project level is 

unchanged. 

Management and Geographic Areas 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not call for plans to contain 

management and geographic areas. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 11.1 does not call for 

management and geographic areas. It is 

permissive in that a unit could use one, 

both, or neither. 

Minimum Components 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

ensure that plans identify the minimum 

components and commitments needed 

to manage multiple uses on a 

sustainable basis and to maintain 

ecological integrity of forest lands. 

Forest Service Manual 1921.11 states 

that plan components should be 

realistic and achievable, reflecting the 

unit’s anticipated budget, staffing and 

technical capability. Budget levels 

should not dictate whether an adequate 

plan is prepared to reach missions and 

objectives. 

Response: Plans must provide for 

biological diversity and address the 

ecological, economic, and social parts of 

sustainability as required by the 2005 

planning rule (36 CFR 219.10 and FSH 

1909.12, ch. 40). Past plans have 

included desired conditions and 

objectives that could not be reached. 

Having unrealistic plan components 

does not enhance sustainability, but 

does cause considerable frustration and 

the feeling that promises were broken. 

The Forest Service believes that the 

provisions of FSM 1921.11 are 

important and will lead to a much 

clearer focus on setting priorities for 

plan implementation. These plan 

components can always be adjusted if 

more resources become available. 

National Strategic Plan 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

establish a national framework of goals 

and objectives in its Strategic Plan 

designed around key outputs mandated 

through Congressional direction. Lack of 

a consistent framework may cause 

confusion and lead to many different 

frameworks for developing land 

management plans. There is an inherent 

tension between providing consistency 

between plans and providing flexibility 

in the plans to address circumstances 

that are unique to individual forests. 

Response: The Forest Service’s 

National Strategic Plan sets up goals, 

objectives, performance measures, and 

strategies for management of the NFS 

mission areas (36 CFR 219.2(a)). 

Specific performance measures are 

identified. The Strategic Plan 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5128 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

establishes a national vision, based on 

the Resource Planning Act assessment 

and the 127 land management plans for 

forests, grasslands, and prairies (FSM 

1906.11(b)). The Regional Foresters are 

required to ensure use of the Forest 

Service National Strategic Plan as a 

context for developing or refining 

desired conditions (FSM 1921.04(a)). 

The Forest Service agrees that there 

should be a link between unit plans and 

the National Strategic Plan. This link is 

addressed in the directives. The link 

works both ways, with the unit plans 

considering national goals and 

objectives and the National Strategic 

Plan considering the plans of each unit. 

Plan Set of Documents 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

include in the plan set of documents 

any material that may have been used to 

formulate the management plan. 

Response: The plan set of documents 

details that were in FSH 1909.12, 

chapter 50 have been removed from the 

directives and placed in a technical 

guide on the Technical Information for 

Planning Site (TIPS) Web site at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS. The Forest 

Service believes that detailed guidance 

and procedures for the plan set of 

documents and the planning record are 

more appropriate for a technical guide. 

The description of the plan set of 

documents is in the planning rule at 36 

CFR 219.7(a)(1). The plan set of 

documents is not limited to only those 

things listed in the rule. The Forest 

Service believes the documents 

included should be clearly relevant to 

plan development and components and 

should be limited to final documents. 

Options 

Comment: There is no guarantee that 

the Forest Service will consider options. 

Not considering options may be illegal. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 25.32 discusses 

considering options to proposed 

changes in plan components. Options 

may not be required for some proposed 

changes that are limited in scope or if 

there are no choices to the proposal, 

such as amendments needed to put into 

effect conservation strategies for 

federally-listed threatened or 

endangered species. Options can be 

used as a valuable part of the 

collaborative approach to plan 

amendment, revision, or development. 

Options would be developed with 

public input and would look at a range 

of potential plan components. Options 

would not be needed for those 

components of a proposed plan where 

the public is in agreement with the 

proposal. The Forest Service believes 

that this iterative and collaborative 

approach will be useful, but should be 

used only where feasible options are 

available. There are no legal 

requirements that would mandate 

options be considered every time the 

plan is changed. 

Legal Problems 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider legal problems that will arise 

from a planning process that is too 

casual, especially if the directives are 

not binding. 

Response: The planning rule and 

directives establish a planning process 

and provides a framework that complies 

with NFMA. As Responsible Officials 

develop, revise, or amend plans they are 

constrained and guided by a large body 

of law, regulation, and policy, as well 

as, public participation and oversight to 

ensure full legal compliance. 

Multilevel Planning 

Comment: The directives description 

of multilevel planning is inconsistent 

with the planning rule. The rule is for 

plan development only and discussion 

of considering cumulative effects from 

projects is not appropriate. 

Response: The description of the 

Forest Service planning process has 

been moved to FSM 1906. Reference to 

cumulative effects from projects during 

the comprehensive evaluations has been 

deleted, although the Forest Service 

does believe that comprehensive 

evaluations should use available data 

from several sources and some 

information developed during project 

development and implementation will 

be useful. 

Supreme Court Decisions 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not try to extend the Supreme Court 

decisions in Ohio Forestry and Norton 

v. Southern Utah Wilderness 

Association (SUWA) to forest planning. 

The questions addressed in these cases 

do not address the questions of the 2005 

planning rule and directives about 

whether and environmental assessment 

(EA) or an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) is required for 

preparation of a programmatic plan. 

Response: The explanation for this 

approach to compliance with NEPA is 

discussed in detail in the preamble to 

the final 2005 planning rule (70 FR 

1034, Jan. 5, 2005). Many factors, 

besides the Supreme Court decisions 

cited, led to the approach in the final 

rule and directives. 

Desired Conditions 

Comment: The directives should give 

added guidance on how to describe and 

select desired conditions from an 

ecological standpoint. Historical 

conditions or range of variability may 

not be a suitable guide. The directives 

should include how climatic, cultural 

and historical changes have and will 

influence desired conditions. 

Response: A technical guide will be 

available on the Technical Information 

for Planning Site (TIPS) Web site at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS. The range of 

variation under historic disturbance 

regimes is an important context; 

however, additional direction on how to 

develop desired conditions is found in 

FSH 1909.12, chapter 40. 

Comment: Desired conditions should 

have an expanded role as a key plan 

component. 

Response: Plan components are 

discussed in FSH 1909.12, section 11. 

The Forest Service agrees that desired 

conditions are a key plan component. 

Other components such as objectives, 

guidelines, and suitable uses must be 

developed consistent with moving 

toward or maintaining desired 

conditions. 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

have an appropriate focus of desired 

conditions, whether on ecological, 

social or economic elements. Desired 

conditions should focus on vegetation 

conditions with general statements on 

the contribution to a range of recreation 

uses and contributions to economies 

through commodity production. Desired 

conditions should include considerable 

detail on social and economic elements, 

such as sense of remoteness, cultural 

heritage, and how ecosystem 

management will address humanrelated issues. 

Response: Desired conditions describe 

ecological, social, and economic 

attributes and should be integrated to 

consider the needs of all relevant 

resources, ongoing activities, and 

natural processes (FSH 1909.12, sec. 

11.11). The statements of desired 

conditions will vary considerably from 

unit to unit based on conditions and 

public wants. Some statements of 

desired conditions may focus more on 

vegetation conditions while others focus 

on social and economic conditions and 

contributions. It would be inappropriate 

for the directives to prescribe an 

emphasis that would be used on every 

unit. 

Realistic Objectives 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

develop realistic desired conditions that 

can be maintained under expected 

budgets besides developing realistic 

objectives for the plan period. Desired 

conditions should be changed to 

produce more revenue if adequate 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5129 

funding is not received to maintain 

desired conditions. 

Response: The Forest Service agrees 

that all plan components should be 

realistic and achievable. They should 

show the unit’s anticipated budget 

levels, staffing, and capability for the 

plan period (FSM 1921.11). Through 

annual and comprehensive evaluations 

during plan implementation, the Forest 

Service may identify the need to adjust 

plan components that appear to be 

unrealistic. Adjustments in plan 

components would not always produce 

more revenue for plan implementation, 

as annual budgets are largely dependent 

on Congressional appropriations. 

Monitoring 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

use monitoring as a tool to identify 

information that may improve land 

productivity or provide alternative 

means of meeting desired conditions. 

Response: The Forest Service believes 

that the primary purpose of monitoring 

is to find out whether plan 

implementation is reaching plan 

objectives and desired conditions. The 

Forest Service agrees that monitoring 

the effects of management activities on 

the productivity of the land is 

important. Monitoring may trigger the 

need to look for alternative means of 

meeting the desired conditions. 

Measurable, Quantitative Criteria 

Comment: To be a legitimate plan, it 

must include measurable, quantitative 

criteria for goals and objectives, 

including desired conditions, and make 

an affirmative commitment to reaching 

those results. Desired conditions are the 

foundation of a plan. A document 

lacking affirmative commitments to 

reaching goals, desired conditions, and 

objectives is not a plan. 

Response: The Forest Service agrees 

that desired conditions and objectives 

should be measurable. If monitoring and 

plan evaluation identify that desired 

conditions cannot be reached, the plan 

should be amended or revised (FSH 

1909.12, sec. 11.11). The Forest Service 

intends to carry out projects and 

activities to maintain or make progress 

toward desired conditions and 

objectives. However, because there is 

uncertainty, the Forest Service believes 

plans are aspirational. 

Role of Responsible Official 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify who is the Responsible Official. 

Response: ‘‘Responsible Official’’ is 

defined in the definitions section of the 

planning rule (36 CFR 219.16). The 

Responsible Official is the official with 

the authority and responsibility to 

oversee the planning process and to 

approve plans, plan amendments, and 

plan revisions. The Responsible Official 

for plan development, revision, and 

amendment is the forest, grassland, or 

prairie supervisor (FSM 1921.04(b)). 

Comment: The Responsible Official 

should be given more flexibility to 

respond to scientific advancements and 

threats from invasive species, disease, or 

wildfire. Another respondent was 

concerned that Responsible Officials 

have too much discretion and that the 

directives should include safeguards 

against abuse. 

Response: The Forest Service believes 

that the authority and discretion for 

plan amendment, revision, and 

development provided by the 2005 

planning rule and the directives is 

appropriate. The planning process is 

greatly streamlined, specifically with 

the intent of improving Forest Service 

capability to adapt to changing 

conditions and new information. 

Although there is greater discretion, the 

decisions of the Responsible Official are 

constrained and guided by a large body 

of law, regulation, and policy, as well as 

public and agency participation and 

oversight. 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify the discretion of the Responsible 

Official to set the scope and 

applicability for project decision 

amendments so that every time a project 

was inconsistent with the plan, the 

Responsible Official would not be able 

to amend the plan to allow that project 

to go ahead; making the plan 

meaningless. 

Response: The discussion of 

amendments through project decisions 

is now set out at FSH 1909.12, section 

25.4. The Forest Service has clarified 

that the Responsible Official may limit 

the scope and applicability of the plan 

amendment to apply only to the project 

or activity area. It is important to 

understand that these amendments 

would not exempt the project or activity 

from plan compliance, but would adjust 

plan components in response to more 

site-specific information gained through 

the project analysis. There is no way to 

find out in advance how often the 

option of amending a plan will be used; 

however, the directives advise that 

plans should be monitored to identify if 

there is a need for change over all or 

part of the plan area. 

Role of Science in Planning 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

require the use of the best available 

science in forest planning. The role of 

science must not be diminished to just 

‘‘one aspect of decisionmaking,’’ an 

aspect superseded by ‘‘competing use 

demands,’’ for example. 

Response: In FSM 1921.81, the Forest 

Service describes the steps required to 

ensure that the best available science is 

taken into account. In FSH 1909.12, 

section 41.1 direction was added about 

the scope, timing, and other aspects of 

a review. Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 41.22, table 3, lays out 

the many steps in developing a plan and 

suggests appropriate reviews for each 

step. 

Wildlife Conservation 

Comment: Science needs to be a major 

factor; monitoring and regulations need 

to be in place to keep a natural balance 

and conserve our wildlife, endangered 

species and their important habitats. 

Response: The Forest Service concurs 

that science is a major factor in 

decisionmaking. As written, the 

directives tie monitoring and science 

together. 

Identification of Best Available Science 

Comment: The evaluation and 

determination of what science 

constitutes the best available science 

should be conducted by people with the 

appropriate scientific knowledge and 

background. 

Response: In response to comments, 

direction has been added to FSH 

1909.12, section 41.23 that describes the 

qualifications of the reviewers. Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12, section 41.1 

provides more direction. 

Consistency in the Use of Science 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

be consistent in its use of science. 

Under the directives, some forests will 

have plans based on top-notch scientific 

review, others will not. 

Response: To ensure consistency and 

quality, FSM 1921.8 and FSH 1909.12, 

section 41 provide direction on how to 

take into account science. FSH 1909.12, 

section 41 emphasizes that the level of 

review must be commensurate with the 

controversy, uncertainty, or risk 

associated with the planning activity. 

To always require a type or scale of 

review means the same review would be 

done on all planning efforts regardless 

of the complexity or scope. The 

Responsible Official needs the 

flexibility to conduct a review that is 

appropriate to the issue being reviewed. 

Definition of Best Available Science 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

require the Responsible Official to 

define the ‘‘best available science.’’ How 

will this be done? Again, the directives 

contain no direction for the responsible 

officials. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5130 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

Response: Forest Service Manual 

(FSM) 1921.85 states, ‘‘the Responsible 

Official shall conduct timely and 

substantive reviews of the science 

applied during the planning process.’’

Best available science cannot be 

described in a directive, but can be 

taken into account by using appropriate 

procedures. A four-step discovery 

process for best available science, 

modified in the final directives, is 

described in FSM 1921.81. When the 

four-step process is followed and an 

appropriate review is conducted the 

best available science should be taken 

into account and properly influence 

plan components. Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, section 41.23 

requires that reviewers be independent 

of the plan development and 

implementation process. 

Responsible Official Discretion 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

limit how cost influences the 

appropriate science determinations that 

are left to the Responsible Official. 

Response: The Forest Service believes 

that the direction found in FSM 1921.8 

and FSH 1909.12, section 41 provides 

enough direction to Responsible 

Officials regarding the role of science 

and properly directs the Responsible 

Official to consider cost in assessing 

how to best apply science in the 

planning effort. The Responsible 

Official is required to disclose how best 

available science was taken into 

account. 

Scientific Data From Citizen Groups 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider scientifically sound data 

provided by citizen groups. Citizen 

groups frequently contribute 

scientifically sound data and analysis 

that counters and balances the often 

pro-resource harvesting plans promoted 

by Forest Service employees. 

Response: The Forest Service agrees 

that citizen groups need to have 

meaningful participation in the 

planning process. The input of citizens 

can influence the application of science. 

The methods for gathering and 

considering citizen input are addressed 

in the directives under collaboration 

(FSM 1921.6 and FSH 1909.12, sec. 30). 

Define ‘‘Other Appropriate Means’’

Comment: The Forest Service should 

define the phrase ‘‘other appropriate 

means’’ as used in the Forest Service 

directives to describe how the 

Responsible Official documents that 

science was appropriately interpreted 

and applied in the planning process. 

Response: The final directives 

identify four levels of review and 

address when and how to use them in 

FSH 1909.12, section 41. 

Use of Systematic Evidence Review 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider a system of gathering and 

synthesizing scientific information that 

is similar to the ‘‘Systematic Evidence 

Review,’’ a system used by the medical 

profession to gather information for 

clinical practice guidelines. 

Response: The Forest Service believes 

that the method described in FSM 

1921.81 represents the state-of-the-art 

for science review for natural resource 

management, (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. 

Science Consistency Reviews: A Primer 

for Application. FS–771. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 9 p. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. The 

Science Consistency Review: A Tool to 

Evaluate the Use of Scientific 

Information in Land Management 

Decisionmaking. FS–772. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 32 p.). 

Public Participation and Collaboration 

Public Input 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide more opportunity for public 

input to the planning process to 

decrease litigation, make the process 

more democratic, comply with NFMA, 

ensure resource protection, ensure an 

appropriate range of alternatives, and 

determine the extent of plan revisions. 

Response: Public participation in land 

management planning is required under 

NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)) and the 

Forest Service will continue to fulfill its 

obligations to involve the public in 

meaningful ways. The NFMA stresses 

public review of plans and revisions 

while allowing other participation. The 

Forest Service believes the agency 

directives are a better reflection of 

public and agency interest in an open 

process that includes collaborative ways 

of working together rather than methods 

that are more formal. Not everyone 

wants to participate or provide input the 

same way. The Forest Service believes 

Responsible Officials should have the 

discretion to design processes that meet 

participant and agency needs and; as 

appropriate, go beyond public review 

and public meetings. The directives 

(FSH 1909.12, sec. 31.4) provide 

Responsible Officials with the 

discretion to select the most current and 

suitable activities for meeting 

requirements; yet, they require those 

officials to involve the public in specific 

planning activities, including evaluating 

whether need for changing the plan 

exists, setting up the basis for that need, 

developing plan components, designing 

the monitoring program, and conducting 

regular comprehensive evaluations. 

These expectations go beyond land 

management planning and into the 

activities of public land management. 

Public Scrutiny of Plan Documents 

Comment: The interim directives left 

open the possibility that public scrutiny 

of some plan documents might not 

occur, specifically referring to public 

involvement and scrutiny of 

management review documents and 

annual monitoring reports. 

Response: Responsible Officials 

should make publicly available 

information developed as part of the 

planning process (FSM 1921.65). Legal 

considerations, such as the Privacy Act 

or the FOIA, can impose limits on 

certain disclosures affected by those 

considerations. The section in the 

interim directives about management 

review has been removed. The 

directives, FSH 1909.12, section 31.5, 

now clarify the expectation that public 

participation will occur in identifying 

the need for change. Also, Responsible 

Officials have the discretion to involve 

interested and willing members of the 

public in agency work, including the 

work of annual monitoring. The Forest 

Service’s long history of working with 

the public to do the work of responsible 

and adaptive public land management 

will continue. 

Roles of Line Officers 

Comment: The interim directives 

referred to line officers playing a variety 

of roles (FSM 1921.61 in the ID) during 

a collaborative process and it was 

unclear whether this referred just to 

roles or to some implied detail of the 

intended public participation process. 

Response: The past reference has been 

removed because it did not provide 

direction to agency officials and was, 

therefore, confusing to readers. 

Decision Responsibility 

Comment: The interim directives 

were unclear about whether the agency 

has ultimate responsibility for planning 

decisions, specifically referring to 

interim direction about shared 

leadership as a goal of public 

participation and collaboration. 

Response: In NFMA, Congress has 

charged the Forest Service with the 

responsibility and authority to manage 

lands in agency jurisdiction and has 

made the agency solely accountable for 

the results of that management. Even so, 

the agency is committed to exercising its 

responsibility with the help of willing 

and interested individuals, groups, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5131 

tribes, state and local governments, 

agencies, and other partners. The Forest 

Service agrees that the phrase shared 

leadership was unclear. The goal is to 

build better plans using principles that 

increase our ability to put into effect, 

evaluate, and adapt those plans by 

working with others who are willing to 

participate. 

Responding to Specific Public 

Comments 

Comment: Agency responses to public 

comments should address every 

comment individually, rather than by 

grouping similar comments, because 

salient points are often missed when 

grouping occurs. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 25.34 addresses agency 

response to public comments. The 

Forest Service believes that the 

directives provide Responsible Officials 

with appropriate discretion to respond 

to individual comments when salient 

points merit such a response while 

responding to groupings of similar 

comments when a common salient point 

is evident. The emphasis is on concise 

responses to salient points that 

substantively improve the land 

management plan components or that 

differ from or support the Responsible 

Official’s reason for approving the plan. 

Collaboration Aspirations 

Comment: The interim direction 

about collaboration contained vague and 

poorly defined aspirations that may 

negatively affect agency aspirations for 

collaboration, in part by stressing a 

bureaucratically centered approach to 

collaboration. 

Response: The Forest Service agrees 

that the directives are not the only 

mechanism by which the agency will 

realize its goal of collaborative public 

land management and that aspirations, 

while needed, are not enough. The 

directives set up the goal of building 

better plans using public participation 

and collaboration activities; clarify the 

Responsible Official’s discretion about 

timing and methods of those activities; 

and set up agency policy for public 

participation in land management 

planning. The principles the agency will 

follow when meeting this goal include 

building and maintaining working 

relationships, trust, and collaborative 

capacity; encouraging a shared 

understanding of values, concerns, 

roles, and the responsibilities of all 

participants; and other principles found 

in FSH 1909.12, section 31.2. The Forest 

Service believes that this goal and these 

principles are an important part of 

realizing the agency’s goal of 

collaborative public land management. 

Define Collaborative Process 

Comment: A clearly defined 

collaborative process is needed to 

ensure uniformity, consistency, and 

enforceable standards. Some 

respondents commented that Forest 

Supervisors could go ahead unilaterally 

and not involve the public at key points. 

Others commented that a measure of 

effectiveness is needed and that 

consultation with social scientists 

should occur when developing that 

measure. Lastly, a respondent 

commented that the term ‘‘vision’’ and 

the phrase ‘‘strategy development’’ need 

definition for public participation and 

collaboration. 

Response: The Forest Service believes 

that the goal of collaborative public land 

management is best served by defining 

principles of public participation and 

collaboration; defining the plan 

components and planning activities that 

public participation and collaboration 

must address; and providing 

Responsible Officials with the 

discretion to tailor timing and methods 

to meet those mandates. The Forest 

Service believes that a uniform and 

consistent process is inappropriate for 

collaborative public land management 

because such a process is autocratic and 

therefore, is not collaborative. Such a 

process would not allow participants to 

help tailor the process to meet their 

needs and agency mandates. Yet, the 

directives establish that Responsible 

Officials, most often Forest Supervisors, 

must involve the public in specific 

planning activities; including, 

identifying whether any need to change 

the plan exists, developing plan 

components, designing of the plan 

monitoring program, and updating of 

comprehensive evaluations. At times, a 

series of public meetings may be 

appropriate. At other times, other 

methods will be appropriate. Evidence 

of responsiveness to the established 

principles should show the 

effectiveness of the timing and methods 

chosen by the Responsible Official. The 

Forest Service agrees that the term 

‘‘vision’’ and the phrase ‘‘strategy 

development’’ were unclear and has 

removed those terms from the FSH 

1909.12, chapter 30 regarding public 

participation and collaboration. 

Keeping Interested Participants 

Involved 

Comment: The directives on public 

participation and collaboration need 

clearer direction about how to keep 

interested participants involved and not 

disenfranchised. 

Response: The Forest Service agrees 

that keeping interested participants 

engaged in the planning process is 

crucial to a successful plan. The Forest 

Service believes the principles 

established in FSH 1909.12, chapter 30, 

reaffirm keeping interested participants 

involved by building, earning, and 

maintaining the working relationships, 

trust, and collaborative capacity. The 

agency will work with partners to 

disseminate existing techniques for 

accomplishing this goal and will 

develop more materials as needed. 

Separate Topics 

Comment: Separation of the topics of 

public participation and collaboration is 

needed because public participation is 

mandated by law or regulation, while 

collaboration is not, and collaboration is 

a subset of public participation. 

Response: The Forest Service must 

use a collaborative and participatory 

planning process to comply with NFMA 

and its implementing regulations in 36 

CFR part 219. The Forest Service 

believes that collaborative activities are 

an important form of public 

participation during planning efforts 

and believes that collaborative activities 

extend beyond planning efforts. By 

treating these topics together, the Forest 

Service believes that better plans will 

result. 

Consider Landowner Desires 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

require Responsible Officials to consider 

landowner desires when setting up plan 

components because discretionary 

guidance is inconsistent with other 

references to collaboration. 

Response: In agency direction, the 

verb ‘‘should’’ requires compliance 

except for justifiable reasons (FSM 

1110). The Forest Service regulations 

require Responsible Officials to involve 

the public in developing plan 

components (36 CFR 219.9). The 

directives require Responsible Officials 

to strive to identify and notify 

potentially interested individuals, 

including landowners, and provide 

opportunities to engage in setting up 

plan components (FSM 1921.62). The 

directives also require Responsible 

Officials to involve the public in setting 

up plan components (FSH 1909.12, sec. 

31.5). The Forest Service believes this 

direction requires consideration of 

landowner desires as part of the 

participatory and collaborative process 

of identifying desired social, ecological, 

and economic conditions. 

Notification 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

publish all plan amendments in the 

Federal Register. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5132 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

Response: Public notification 

procedures for plan amendments are 

specified in the 2005 planning rule, 36 

CFR 219.9(b)(2), and are not modified 

by the planning directives. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

continue to do EISs including 

developing alternatives for planning. 

Response: The Forest Service has 25 

years of experience developing, 

amending, and revising plans under the 

requirements of NEPA. Based on that 

experience, and the recognition by the 

Supreme Court in Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. 

Sierra Club and Norton v. Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance about plans 

themselves, the Forest Service believes 

that land management plans, plan 

revisions, or plan amendments 

developed under the 2005 planning 

rule, and that do not approve projects or 

activities, do not individually or 

cumulatively result in significant effects 

on the human environment. For these 

reasons, the Forest Service believes that 

continuing the practice of developing 

EISs for plans is not needed. 

Public Participation 

Comment: Public participation 

opportunities should be provided 

consistent with the requirements of 

NEPA. 

Response: The intent of the 2005 

planning rule and the Forest Service 

directives is that public participation in 

the planning process be open and 

meaningful. The Forest Service believes 

that calling for frequent and 

collaborative public involvement in the 

planning process (FSM 1921.61, FSH 

1909.12, sec. 30) will allow the views 

and values of the public to be better 

shown in plans than has historically 

occurred following the public 

involvement procedures specified by 

NEPA. 

Cumulative Effects 

Comment: Planning should give 

citizens information about the 

cumulative effects of various forest uses. 

Response: The comprehensive 

evaluation report (CER) (FSM 1921.2, 

FSH 1090.12, sec. 24.2), while not 

considered a cumulative effects 

analysis, is intended to provide context 

for understanding the effects of various 

forest uses and activities. Because the 

CER is to be updated at least every 5 

years its value in providing this context 

should be retained. Cumulative effects 

will be reviewed and disclosed during 

NEPA compliance at the project level. 

Options Proposed by the Public 

Comment: Forest Supervisors should 

be required to consider plan options 

that conservationists and others 

propose. 

Response: Plan components, 

including options for plan components, 

are required to be developed with 

public input and input from other 

agencies (FSH 1909.12, sec. 25.32b). 

Categorical Exclusion (CE) 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not categorically exclude (CE) plans 

from NEPA requirements or allow the 

exclusion of public participation in the 

planning process. 

Response: Under the Council on 

Environmental Quality procedures for 

carrying out NEPA, categorical 

exclusion of a proposed action from 

documentation in an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) or environmental 

assessment (EA) is one way of 

complying with NEPA requirements (40 

CFR 1500.4(p), 1501.4(a), 1508.4). The 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations specifically authorize 

Federal agencies (40 CFR 1507.3(b)) to 

identify classes of actions that normally 

do not call for either an EIS or an EA. 

The Forest Service believes that 

adoption of a plan falls into this class 

of actions because it does not result in 

specific on-the-ground action; and 

therefore, does not result in effects that 

can be analyzed (40 CFR 1508.23). The 

2005 planning rule and Forest Service 

directives make open and meaningful 

public participation a central land 

management planning responsibility of 

the Responsible Official (FSH 1909.12, 

sec. 30). The Forest Service requested 

public comment on the proposal 

planning CE by notice in the Federal 

Register on January 5, 2005. The 

comment period closed on March 7, 

2005. 

Scientific Input 

Comment: Amending and revising 

plans using CEs would unfairly and 

unwisely restrict scientists from 

providing important feedback to the 

government about natural resources. 

Response: The public involvement 

processes under the 2005 planning rule 

and Forest Service directives are 

intended to involve all interested 

members of the public, along with other 

agencies, states and tribes. 

Project Analysis 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify whether either an EIS or EA will 

be needed for each project. 

Response: Any proposed action 

carrying out a plan developed under the 

2005 planning rule (70 CFR part 1039) 

will be subject to Forest Service NEPA 

procedures at the time of the project 

decision, except in those rare instances 

when a project decision is made in a 

plan and that decision is supported by 

an EIS or EA assessment. Determination 

of the type of NEPA analysis and 

documentation will be made using 

Forest Service procedures found in FSM 

1950 and FSH 1909.15 based on the 

characteristics of the individual actions 

proposed. 

NEPA Compliance for Directives 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

develop permanent planning directives 

through a process that complies with 

NEPA. 

Response: The Forest Service 

directives have been developed in 

compliance with NEPA procedures. 

Forest Service NEPA procedures (FSH 

1909.15, sec. 31.12, category 2), which 

were developed in consultation with the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

pursuant to Title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 1507.3—Protection of 

the Environment, Council on 

Environmental Quality, Agency 

procedures, allow Service-wide policies 

to be categorically excluded from 

documentation in an EIS or EA. 

Developing Forest Service directives fits 

that category. 

NEPA Handbook 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

delete all references to NEPA in favor of 

directing planners to the NEPA 

handbook for the specifics of NEPA 

compliance. 

Response: This change has been made 

in the final directives. 

Adaptive Management Process 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify the stages at which the adaptive 

management process undergoes NEPA 

compliance. 

Response: NEPA analysis occurs at 

the project level. 

NEPA Application 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify whether FSM 1922 applies NEPA 

at the Forest planning level or the local 

project level for land management 

planning using planning regulations 

before November 9, 2000. 

Response: Forest Service Manual 

1926.04b clarifies that planning under 

the regulations in effect before 

November 9, 2000, calls for compliance 

with NEPA procedures found in FSH 

1909.15. Forest Service Handbook 

1909.15 identifies the NEPA 

requirements for project decisions. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5133 

Project EISs 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

call for EISs for individual projects and 

not for land management plans. 

Response: The intent of the 2005 

planning rule and Forest Service 

directives is to use EISs for plans only 

when the plan decision includes 

projects otherwise needing an EIS. 

Individual projects will include NEPA 

documentation consistent with the 

requirements of FSH 1909.15. The 

documentation (EIS, EA, or CE) will 

depend on the specific proposal. 

NEPA Compliance and Public 

Participation 

Comment: The NFMA requires the 

Forest Service to meet NEPA 

requirements for public participation 

and that those requirements include an 

iterative process of developing 

alternatives, soliciting and responding 

to public comments, and consideration 

of proposals from non-agency sources. 

Response: NFMA directs the Forest 

Service to specify procedures to ensure 

that the agency prepares land 

management plans in accordance with 

NEPA (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). NEPA 

directs the Forest Service and other 

Federal agencies to make environmental 

information available to the public 

before decisions occur and to encourage 

public involvement in decisions that 

affect the quality of the human 

environment. The directives set up 

procedures that ensure the agency 

prepares plans in accordance with 

NEPA, make information available to 

the public before decisions occur, and 

encourage public involvement in 

decisions and in implementing those 

decisions. The directives also maintain 

agency responsibility to consider and 

respond to public comments and to 

provide environmental information 

before decisions occur. And the 

directives set up the expectation that the 

planning process and the plans will be 

adaptive and, therefore, iterative so that 

the agency and the public work to 

develop plan components in a way that 

seeks continual improvement. 

Objections 

Objection Process 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

ensure that objections made by the 

public are reviewed and that the 

reviewing officer responds point-bypoint and accepts e-mailed objections. 

Response: Requirements of the 

objection process have been moved from 

FSM 1926 to the FSH 1909.12, chapter 

50. Although not requiring a ‘‘point-bypoint’’ response, FSH 1909.12, section 

51.31 calls for the Reviewing Official to 

‘‘provide a response on any remaining 

issues, including the basis of the 

response * * *’’ This requirement 

ensures that objection issues are 

addressed by the Reviewing Official but 

does not require that the response be 

exhaustive to make prompt resolution of 

objections easier based on the 

requirements of the final rule. The final 

directives require acceptance of emailed objections (FSH 1909.12, sec. 

51.13e). 

Standing To Object 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

make participation in the objection 

process open only to those parties that 

have provided prior written comment 

and limit the issues to those raised 

during the comment period. 

Response: The objection process is 

established in Title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 219.13—and detailed 

in FSH 1909.12, chapter 50. Eligibility 

to file objections is based upon having 

participated in the planning process 

through submission of at least one 

written comment as an individual. A 

group may submit comments, but that 

does not establish eligibility for all 

members of that group. The final 

directives do not limit objections issues 

to those already submitted during prior 

comment opportunities. A proposed 

plan, amendment, or revision released 

for the objection period might provoke 

new responses from interested parties 

that have participated throughout the 

planning process. Limiting objection 

issues to past issues unnecessarily 

constrains opportunities for new ideas 

or fresh perspectives to be raised 

through objection that might improve 

the final plan. 

Administrative Appeal 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide provisions for administrative 

appeal or judicial review of objections 

in the Forest Service directives because 

any person, regardless of whether they 

submitted comments, has standing to 

file an objection or judicial review. 

Response: The objection process 

under the planning rule and directives 

replaces an administrative appeals 

process previously set out at 36 CFR 

part 217. The directives do not address 

the availability of judicial review, which 

will be governed by generally applicable 

legal principles. 

NEPA 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

ensure that the objection process in the 

Forest Service directives is compliant 

with NEPA that actively and 

aggressively calls for public 

involvement, usually on a national 

scale. 

Response: The new planning rule and 

directives provide extensive 

opportunity for public participation that 

exceeds requirement for public 

participation under NEPA. See the 

Preamble to the 2005 planning rule (70 

FR 1034, Jan. 5, 2005) for more 

extensive discussion of the relation 

between the 2005 planning rule and 

NEPA. 

Extensions 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

allow extensions to the objection time 

period because a 30-day objection 

period is too short. 

Response: The final directives retain 

the requirement of a 30-day objection 

period with no time extension. The final 

rule is clear in its intent to promote 

prompt resolution of objections through 

specific time frame requirements while 

fostering collaboration to resolve 

objection issues. Collaboration 

throughout the planning process is 

expected to keep the public participants 

in the process informed so that when a 

proposed plan, amendment, or revision 

is released for the objection period, 30 

days would be enough to review and 

submit a timely objection. 

Time Limit for Reviewing Officer 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide a time limit for the Reviewing 

Officer to respond to an objection. 

Response: No time limit is required in 

the final directives for the Reviewing 

Officer except to ‘‘promptly render a 

written response to the objection’’ (36 

CFR 219.13(c)). Unlike the 

administrative appeals process, in 

which revised plans could go into effect 

after the record of decision was signed, 

but before plan appeals were decided, 

the Reviewing Officer and Responsible 

Official have an incentive to resolve 

objections promptly because the plan, 

amendment, or revision cannot be 

approved until objections are resolved. 

Collaborative Process 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

keep the objection process separate from 

the collaborative process. 

Response: The final rule and 

directives require that parties to the 

objection must have submitted written 

comments before the objection period 

(36 CFR 219.13(a)). A collaborative 

effort to resolve objection issues is 

encouraged. 

Mandatory Conflict Resolution 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

make collaboration mandatory for 

resolving conflicts during the objection 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5134 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

process and clarify how it will be 

carried out. 

Response: The objection process is 

mandatory before approval of all 

proposed plans, amendments, and 

revisions (36 CFR 219.13(a)). 

Collaboration may be used to resolve 

objection issues through an effort 

between the Reviewing Officer, the 

Responsible Official, and the objector(s). 

The means of resolving objections is left 

to the Reviewing Officer to decide (FSH 

1909.12, sec. 50.47)). 

Social, Ecological, and Economic 

Sustainability 

General Concerns 

Sustainability 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

focus on conservation and restoration of 

ecosystem diversity and provide 

standards in the directives so that the 

Responsible Official will include 

meaningful provisions for sustainability 

in the plan. 

Response: Explanation of the goal of 

ecological sustainability is provided in 

FSM 1921.73. Although that section 

does not provide strict standards for 

ecological sustainability, it does provide 

the Responsible Official enough 

direction to establish a framework that 

will make appropriate contributions to 

ecological sustainability. Specific 

provisions in the plan will be found 

during plan development with public 

involvement. 

Sustainability 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

add a section to the Forest Service 

directives that explains how to blend 

the three parts of sustainability together 

rather than focusing solely on the 

ecological aspects of sustainability. 

Response: Plans must combine the 

parts of sustainability because social 

and economic conditions affect, and are 

affected by, ecological conditions, and 

also ecological conditions affect, and are 

affected by, social and economic 

conditions. Plans are also required to set 

up plan components, especially desired 

conditions, in response to connections 

among the Forest and social, economic, 

and ecological systems. Integrating these 

three facets of the environment is a new 

and challenging task for Forest Service 

land management planning. The manner 

of integration is, in the first instance, 

left to the discretion of the Responsible 

Officer. Placing more specific direction 

in the Forest Service directives is 

inappropriate at this time. Specific 

recommendations about how to carry 

out integration employing best available 

science will be found on the TIPS 

(Technical Information for Planning Site 

at http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS) as forests 

gain knowledge and experience about 

how to do the integration. 

Sustainability 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

base its assessment of sustainability on 

properly functioning, ecological 

conditions and not social or economic 

conditions. 

Response: The Forest Service believes 

sustainability results from the 

interaction of social, economic, and 

ecological conditions. The assessment of 

ecological sustainability is based on the 

range of variation wherever adequate 

information is available. This approach 

is widely recognized in scientific 

literature. Proper functioning condition 

(PFC) is an assessment tool that was 

developed for riparian systems. 

Although PFC has seen some 

application to broader forest 

communities, there is stronger scientific 

support for use of the range of variation. 

Evaluating the Elements of 

Sustainability 

Comment: Productivity is 

conspicuously missing from the 

evaluation criteria. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 43.26 refers to the 

provision of ‘‘ecological conditions’’ for 

species. In the 2005 planning rule, 

‘‘ecological conditions’’ are defined as 

‘‘components of the biological and 

physical environment that can affect 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities and the productive 

capacity of ecological systems’’

(emphasis added). Also, one of the 

characteristics of ecosystem diversity 

listed in FSH 1909.12, section 43.12 is 

basic soil productivity. 

Properly Functioning Ecological 

Condition 

Comment: All forest units should be 

maintained in a properly functioning 

ecological condition to provide a gauge 

when uses being applied to the unit are 

not sustainable. This should be assessed 

by comparing exploited forest units to 

‘‘control’’ units. 

Response: Using the range of 

variability as context for sustainability 

has considerable scientific support. 

‘‘Control’’ units are introduced in FSH 

1909.12, section 43.13 using the term 

‘‘reference areas’’. 

Sustainability Monitoring 

Comment: Chapter 40 provides 

guidance for socioeconomic monitoring, 

but no guidance for ecological 

sustainability monitoring. The Forest 

Service should consider providing more 

specific guidance for ecological 

sustainability monitoring into its 

handbook. 

Response: Guidance for monitoring of 

sustainability is provided in FSH 

1909.12, section 12. 

Ecosystem Diversity Characteristics 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

revise its list of ecosystem diversity 

characteristics in chapter 40 of its 

handbook because the current list is too 

prescriptive. 

Response: The characteristics 

displayed in FSH 1909.12, section 

43.12, exhibit 01 are clearly labeled as 

examples and not characteristics for 

which analysis is required. Therefore, 

the list isn’t prescriptive and will serve 

as an aid to help find those 

characteristics that are appropriate for a 

given local situation. 

Risk Assessment 

Comment: Expand chapter 40 to 

include the risk assessment process to 

determine the long-term impacts of 

untreated forest fuel conditions on 

social, economic, and ecological 

sustainability. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 43.14a provides 

guidance for use of a risk assessment 

process for all characteristics of 

ecosystem diversity including those that 

would be impacted by forest fuels. 

Diversity of Plant and Animal 

Communities 

Comment: Directives should ensure 

that national forests provide a diversity 

of plant and animal communities by 

making the ecological sustainability 

provisions mandatory. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 43.1 directs that the 

assessment of ecosystem diversity 

‘‘inform * * * the development of plan 

components through the establishment 

of desired conditions, objectives, 

guidelines, and suitability 

determinations.’’ The Responsible 

Official has to show that the plan 

developed in accordance with these 

objectives satisfies the NFMA 

requirement to provide for a diversity of 

plant and animal communities. 

Trend Analysis 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

require forest planners to conduct trend 

analyses that evaluate the social, 

economic, and ecological impacts from 

the lack of actions on forest vegetation, 

the risk of catastrophic wildfires, soil 

movement, and the impact of these and 

related ecological factors on the local 

communities. 

Response: While the directives do not 

explicitly direct examination of trends 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5135 

from lack of action, direction added in 

several places suggests this 

examination. In FSH 1909.12, section 

43.1 the Responsible Official is directed 

to compare natural variation of 

ecosystem characteristics to projected 

future conditions. Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, section 43.14 calls 

for the development information about 

current conditions of the selected 

ecosystem diversity characteristics, and 

projecting future trends of those 

characteristics under existing plan 

guidance. These projected future 

conditions cannot be interpreted to be 

limited to lands getting management 

activities. For social and economic 

trends, FSH 1909.12, section 42.21 

directs the Responsible Official to 

evaluate changing conditions that may 

affect relevant economic indicators and 

social systems. Changing conditions are 

subject to this evaluation, whether the 

result of activity or lack of activity. 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that the Service directives 

give Responsible Officials conflicting 

guidance about trend analysis. The 

directives say that trend analysis is at 

the discretion of the Responsible 

Official but then gives duties. 

Response: The directives have been 

changed in several places to clarify the 

requirements for trend analysis (FSH 

1909.12, sec. 24.23). Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, section 43.1 and 

FSH 1909.12, section 43.14 direct the 

Responsible Official to look at trends in 

ecological conditions. Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, section 42.21 gives 

guidance on evaluating trends that effect 

social and economic sustainability. The 

details of methods of evaluation are left 

to the Responsible Official’s discretion. 

Range of Variation 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

caution against using range of variation 

to justify management toward typical 

system equilibrium; disclimaxes, 

disturbance states, or a prevalence of 

early successional stages to increase 

short-term yield. 

Response: The directives are clear that 

the intent of evaluating ecosystem 

diversity is to ‘‘determine possible risks 

to the sustainability of ecosystem 

diversity over time, determine the 

potential contribution of National Forest 

System (NFS) lands to ecosystem 

diversity of the larger landscape, and 

determine needed change’’ (FSM 

1921.73a). The directives also caution 

that ‘‘there may be ecological, social, or 

economic reasons for identifying 

desired conditions that are outside the 

range of variation and the range of 

desired conditions may be narrower 

than the range of variation’’ (FSH 

1909.12, sec. 43.13). The directives 

stipulate that ‘‘The range of variation for 

an ecosystem characteristic is most 

comprehensively described by a 

frequency distribution for conditions 

experienced by that characteristic over 

time, including the areal extent of those 

conditions’’ (FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.13). 

The directives note that ‘‘In general, the 

likelihood of negative outcomes is 

greater for those ecosystem 

characteristics whose condition show 

greater departure from the range of 

variation’’ (FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.14a) 

and finally stipulate that the 

Responsible Official should ‘‘describe 

the ecological reason for the plan 

components based on evaluating 

ecosystem diversity’’ (FSH 1909.12, sec. 

43.14a). 

In summary, the directives provide 

guidance to the Responsible Official to: 

(1) Consider the range of variation on 

NFS lands in the larger landscape; (2) 

consider the full range of variation and 

the frequency with which various 

conditions occurred; (3) consider all 

facets of ecological, economic, and 

social sustainability, and not just range 

of variation, when setting up desired 

conditions; (4) estimate risk resulting 

from departure from range of variation; 

and (5) show the ecological reason for 

plan components. Use of range of 

variation information to simply justify 

maximum timber yields would not be 

consistent with this direction. 

Economic Considerations 

Fire Condition Class 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

note fire condition class information in 

assessing current conditions as called 

for in section 43.14 of its handbook. 

Forest planners should evaluate the 

social, economic, and ecological 

implications of current forest fuel 

conditions because they create future 

risks to air quality and the quality and 

quantity of forage and water. 

Response: Forest fuel condition is one 

of many forest conditions that planners 

may evaluate for their contribution to or 

potential risk to sustainability. Fire 

Regime Condition Class information 

was added to exhibit 01 of FSH 1909.12, 

section 43.12. On forests where risks 

from fuel conditions are significant, 

they will be addressed in the planning 

process. 

Historic Range of Variation 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

drop the references to, and analysis of, 

historic range of variation in the 

guidance documents and create a 

process that truly balances social, 

economic, and ecological sustainability 

goals because using historic range of 

variation as a benchmark or guideline 

will preclude balancing environmental 

goals with social and economic goals. 

Response: Using the range of 

variability as a context for setting up 

plan components is not inconsistent 

with reaching an appropriate balance of 

social, economic, and ecological 

sustainability. The directives are careful 

to stipulate that range of variability 

should be used as a context for 

evaluating current and desired 

conditions, but do not always become 

desired conditions themselves. The 

directives further acknowledge that 

there may be ecological, social, and 

economic reasons for setting up desired 

conditions that are outside the range of 

variability and that it may be impossible 

in many cases to recreate the range of 

variability. 

Social and Economic Elements 

Comment: The ecological section is 

very prescriptive in the type and source 

of information planners can use while 

the social and economic elements are 

much more generic directing the 

planners to use ‘‘best available 

information.’’

Response: The difference in detail 

between the social and economic 

sustainability section and the ecological 

sustainability section can be traced to a 

difference in wording employed by the 

final rule. While it is the goal of the plan 

to contribute to the sustainability of 

social and economic systems in a 

general sense, the plan must provide a 

framework to contribute to sustaining 

native ecological systems by providing 

ecological conditions to support 

diversity of native plant and animal 

species in the plan area (70 FR 1059, 

Jan. 5, 2005). This creates a greater 

responsibility for addressing ecological 

sustainability in the land management 

planning process and requires more 

detailed guidance in the directives. 

Social and Economic Sustainability 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that it is not the purpose 

of the NFS or Federal lands to guarantee 

economic and social sustainability or 

economic gain to businesses and local 

economies. 

Response: Plans are not required to 

guarantee social and economic 

sustainability, but rather are required to 

contribute to social and economic 

systems. There is clear recognition in 

the rule and directives that social and 

economic sustainability cannot stand on 

its own and is inextricably linked to 

ecologic sustainability. The MultipleUse Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) 

authorizes and directs the Secretary to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5136 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

develop and administer the resources 

for multiple-use and the sustained yield 

of the several products and services that 

are obtained from management of the 

surface resources. The Forest Service 

views sustainability under the proposed 

and final rule as a single objective with 

interrelated and interdependent social, 

economic, and ecological elements. This 

concept of sustainability is linked 

closely to MUSYA in that economic and 

social elements are treated as 

interrelated and interdependent with 

ecological elements of sustainability. 

Budgets 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

remove the many references throughout 

the Forest Service directives that 

constrain the planning process based on 

anticipated budgets because plans 

should be aspirational and 

unconstrained by financial 

considerations when addressing desired 

future conditions. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 11 states that plan 

objectives should be based on budgets 

and other assumptions that are realistic 

expectations for the next 15 years. The 

same section also states that the 

Responsible Official is responsible for 

adapting the plan to respond to 

changing situations and for developing 

budgets and projects that implement the 

plan’s components. The Forest Service 

believes these guidelines represent a 

reasonable and prudent approach when 

developing a plan that can be 

implemented. The comprehensive 

evaluations, required every 5 years, will 

allow for reconsidering the effects of 

budget constraints on plan 

implementation. Contributions to the 

sustainability of social, economic, and 

ecological systems are limited by agency 

authorities, budget, and the capability of 

the plan area (36 CFR 219.10). 

Ecosystem Health 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not give economic considerations the 

same weight as ecosystem health 

because sustained productivity requires 

a functioning ecosystem. 

Response: The final rule and 

directives recognize that economic, 

social, and ecological sustainability are 

interrelated and that a plan must 

integrate the elements of sustainability. 

Any relative weighting is done during 

the collaborative process of developing 

desired conditions. 

Forest Level Assessment 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider creating a national forest level 

assessment of the agency’s capability to 

annually and cumulatively meet the 

goals of each plan as part of the budget 

preparation and review process. 

Response: During the collaborative 

process, it is anticipated that this type 

of information will be shared and 

weighed by all interested parties, 

though no specific direction for this is 

offered in the directives. The final rule 

states that contributions to the 

sustainability of social, economic, and 

ecological systems are limited by agency 

authorities, budget, and the capability of 

the plan area (36 CFR 219.10). 

Disclose Financial Expenditures 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

disclose all financial expenditures to the 

general public. 

Response: This information is 

available in the annual ‘‘Forest Service 

Performance and Accountability 

Report’’ which can be viewed at 

http://www.fs.fed.us.gov/publications. 

Cumulative Economic Impacts 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

include the cumulative economic 

impacts in every forest planning 

document, including a three-year 

cumulative impact study. 

Response: In the past, job and income 

effects have not often been expressed in 

terms of cumulative impacts over time. 

Increased public participation and 

collaboration should produce plans that 

provide interested parties with more of 

the information they require. 

Cumulative effects analysis will be done 

during project level NEPA analysis, as 

appropriate. These issues are also 

addressed during the development of 

the Allotment Management Plan for 

each range allotment on NFS units. 

Role of Timber 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge in the Forest Service 

directives the potential role of timber in 

contributing to economic and social 

sustainability. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, chapter 60 requires the 

Responsible Official to take into account 

all elements of sustainability (social, 

economic, and ecological) and follow 

the public participation process for plan 

development, plan amendment, or plan 

revision to involve the public in this 

analysis of timber harvesting. During 

this part of the planning process, the 

contribution of timber harvest and 

production will be considered when 

appropriate (FSH 1909.12, ch. 60). 

Contributing to Sustainability 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

expand the Forest Service directives to 

include a section on how to contribute 

to social and economic sustainability 

similar to the instruction on 

contributing to ecological sustainability. 

Response: In FSH 1909.12, section 

42.21, ‘‘Evaluation Guidelines’’ states 

for economic systems, consider 

opportunities to, such as employment, 

income, capital, housing, and fiscal 

health for important economic units. 

These economic units may include the 

contribution of payments to states and 

local governments. 

Business Management Evaluation 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

require a business management 

evaluation as part of the sustainability 

evaluation, which carefully reviews 

costs and revenues and how these 

factors can be changed and improved. 

Forest planners should identify all the 

revenues generated from a national 

forest, the source of those revenues, and 

how those revenues are expected to 

change over time as part of the 

economic review. 

Response: Discretion is left to the 

Responsible Official to decide how 

detailed the evaluation needs to be. The 

rigor of analysis used in assessing 

social, economic, and ecological 

systems should be proportional to the 

level of risk to those systems and to the 

degree to which past, present, and 

projected conditions in the plan area 

contribute to that risk. A business 

analysis could be an important part of 

this assessment if deemed appropriate 

by the Responsible Official. 

Cost Increase 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that under the new 

planning system the costs will increase 

perhaps 80–90 percent because of the 

contraction of forest planning and the 

increased responsibility for project 

planning. 

Response: Before the 2005 planning 

rule was released, the Forest Service did 

a benefit/cost analysis that showed that 

the cost of the new rule is expected to 

be similar to that of the 1982 planning 

rule. Experience with applying the 2005 

planning rule will give more 

information on relative costs. 

Economic and Social Costs 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that the economic and 

social costs of forest planning are borne 

by the people at the state and local 

level. 

Response: The 2005 planning rule 

addresses this problem by requiring that 

social and economic sustainability are 

taken into account as well as basing the 

planning process on collaboration. 

Further direction is provided in the 

Forest Service directives (FSH 1919.12, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5137 

sec. 42). Local constituencies will have 

an important opportunity to have their 

voices and concerns heard throughout 

the planning process. 

Economic Impact of Timber Sales 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider the economic impact that 

timber sales have on the state of 

Michigan’s economic well-being. 

Response: This is exactly the type of 

local concern that is addressed through 

collaboration. As part of planning 

process, the Responsible Official is 

required to involve the public in 

developing and updating the 

comprehensive evaluation report, 

establishing the components of the plan, 

and designing the monitoring program. 

For example, collaboration is used to 

describe distinctive roles and 

contributions that the planning unit has 

to the ecological system and the human 

community. 

Domestic Livestock 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

be required to produce accurate data on 

domestic livestock management to 

document the need for change. There 

should be a built-in allowance for the 

increase in animal units when 

monitoring to show that range. 

Response: The monitoring strategy for 

a plan is developed collaboratively: ‘‘As 

part of planning process, the 

Responsible Official shall involve the 

public in developing and updating the 

comprehensive evaluation report, 

establishing the components of the plan, 

and designing the monitoring program’’

(36 CFR 219.9(a)). Therefore, if the 

Forest Service proposes a project to 

develop an inventoried roadless area, 

the environmental analysis must look at 

whether to develop the area or not, not 

just alternative ways of developing the 

area. 

Species Protection 

Species 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

admit that there is a drastic decline in 

the strength of regulations for species 

protection, including the removal of the 

viability requirement. There should be 

more protection for rare species, 

regionally sensitive species, species-ofconservation-concern in State 

Comprehensive Wildlife Strategies, and 

species listed as threatened and 

endangered by states. Restrictive criteria 

for identifying species-of-concern and 

relying on ecosystem provisions to 

provide for species and species diversity 

should be removed. Requirements for 

enhancement of fish populations, 

increasing protection provisions, 

increasing the number of species 

identified for protection, monitoring 

populations, and broadening current 

species protection provisions to prevent 

decline of species making them eligible 

for endangered species listing should be 

included in the directives. 

Response: The 2005 planning rule and 

directives are explicitly designed to 

provide for ecological sustainability 

through the combination of ecosystem 

diversity and species diversity 

approaches. The new rule addresses a 

much broader range of species than the 

1982 planning rule; plant species, 

invertebrates and lichens are included 

besides vertebrates. Species-of-concern 

will be identified based on NatureServe 

rankings, but identifying species-ofinterest will consider many sources 

including those listed by states as 

threatened or endangered and those 

identified in state comprehensive plans 

as species of conservation concern. The 

primary purpose for identifying speciesof-concern is to put in place provisions 

that will contribute to keeping those 

species from being listed as threatened 

or endangered. The combined criteria 

for species-of-concern and species-ofinterest should lead to identification of 

all species for which there are legitimate 

conservation concerns. Particularly, 

criterion five for species-of-interest 

(FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.22c), which 

directs identifying ‘‘additional species 

that valid, existing information 

indicates are of regional or local 

conservation concern due to factors that 

may include significant threats to 

populations or habitat, declining trends 

in populations or habitat, rarity, or 

restricted ranges.’’ Species for which 

there are no conservation concerns 

should be adequately conserved through 

the ecosystem diversity approach. 

The directives are not as prescriptive 

as the viability requirement was, but 

under the 2005 planning rule and 

directives, the enhancement of 

conditions for fish and wildlife 

populations is the expected outcome of 

new plans. 

Populations 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

collect data about species populations 

and trend data for at least some speciesof-concern, species-of-interest and other 

species because implementing plan 

components for species diversity 

described in FSH 1909.12, section 

43.25, will need information about the 

populations, trends, and distributions of 

certain species. These species should be 

monitored over the life of the plan or 

until they are no longer of concern or 

interest to assess whether plan 

components conserve species. 

Response: The 2005 planning rule and 

directives do not anticipate gathering 

population data for developing a plan. 

Nor do they specify the types of data 

that will be needed for implementation 

of plans or contain prescriptive 

requirements for monitoring on any 

resource. It is possible that more data on 

populations of some species may be 

needed during plan implementation. 

The types and amount of data needed 

will be determined by the Responsible 

Official taking into account best 

available science. 

The rule and directives require that 

monitoring questions be articulated 

revolving primarily around desired 

conditions and the degree to which they 

are being achieved. Priority will be 

given to monitoring questions that 

address desired conditions for which 

there is ‘‘a high degree of uncertainty 

associated with management 

assumptions’’ (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.1). 

Species populations may be identified 

for monitoring through this process. 

Species Diversity 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify the intent of the Forest Service 

directives’ species diversity sections to 

show the direction provided in the 

regulations and focus on biological 

diversity at the landscape and 

ecosystem level. There are several 

sections in the handbook and manual 

that suggests that the past approach of 

providing for individual species 

remains. 

Response: The 2005 planning rule sets 

up the requirement that Responsible 

Officials provide for diversity of plant 

and animal communities using an 

approach that addresses ecosystem 

diversity and species diversity (36 CFR 

219.10). The rule stipulates that the 

species diversity approach is to be used 

when the components set up through 

ecosystem diversity need to be 

supplemented to provide appropriate 

ecological conditions for listed species, 

species-of-concern, and species-ofinterest. The provisions in the directives 

are a direct reflection of this approach 

to providing for diversity of plant and 

animal communities. 

Diversity of Plant and Animal 

Communities 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

make its handbook consistent with the 

law by aligning provisions to focus on 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities rather than species 

diversity. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 61 has been re-drafted 

to address vegetation management 

requirements at the project level. The 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5138 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

role of land management planning and 

sustainability is addressed in FSH 

1909.12, chapter 40. The planning rule 

lists two criteria for sustaining 

ecological systems; ecosystem diversity 

and species diversity. These criteria are 

consistent with the requirements of 

NFMA. 

Sustainability 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

include various discussions in section 

61.7 of the Forest Service directives to 

provide a sustainable and functioning 

ecological condition. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 61 has been revised to 

address vegetation management 

requirements at the project level. The 

role of land management planning and 

sustainability is addressed in FSH 

1909.12, chapter 40. 

Species Viability 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not repeal the NFMA’s species viability 

requirement because the viability 

requirement provides a way to 

accurately assess species population 

numbers and will prevent species from 

being listed as endangered species. One 

respondent thought it was unclear 

whether the viable population standard, 

as it exists now, would be included in 

the desired conditions component using 

the new rule. 

Response: The viability standard will 

no longer be used. But, the directives 

require that national forests and 

grasslands continue to: (1) Identify 

listed species, species-of-concern, and 

species-of-interest; (2) collect available 

data and information for the species 

including population data; (3) develop 

management direction for the species; 

and (4) assess the effects of management 

direction. Elimination of the viability 

requirement was a decision made with 

publication of the 2005 planning rule. 

The directives reflect that decision. The 

following points were made about the 

viability provision when the rule was 

published: 

‘‘The species viability requirement was not 

adopted for several reasons. First, the Forest 

Service’s experience under the 1982 planning 

rule has been that ensuring species viability 

is not always possible. For example, viability 

of some species on NFS lands may not be 

achievable because of species specific 

distribution patterns (such as a species on the 

extreme and fluctuating edge of its natural 

range), or when the reasons for species 

decline are caused by factors outside the 

control of the agency (such as habitat change 

in South America causing decline of some 

Neotropical birds), or when the land lacks 

the capability to support species (such as a 

drought affecting fish habitat). Second, the 

number of recognized species present on the 

units of the NFS is very large. It is clearly 

impractical to analyze all species and past 

attempts to analyze the full suite of species 

by way of groups, surrogates, and 

representatives have had mixed success in 

practice. Third, focus on the viability 

requirement has often diverted attention and 

resources away from an ecosystem approach 

to land management that, in the Department’s 

view, is the most efficient and effective way 

to manage for the broadest range of species 

with the few resources available for the task.’’

Populations 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

include enforceable requirements in the 

Forest Service directives to analyze and 

monitor wildlife populations and health 

of species with determinations on 

trends. Nowhere in the directives, is 

there a requirement to monitor 

populations of species. 

Response: The 2005 planning rule and 

resulting directives do not contain 

prescriptive requirements for 

monitoring of any resource. Rather they 

require that monitoring questions be 

addressed in the context of desired 

conditions and the degree to which they 

are being achieved. Priority will be 

given to monitoring questions that 

address desired conditions for which 

there is ‘‘a high degree of uncertainty 

associated with management 

assumptions’’ (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.1). 

Species populations may be identified 

for monitoring through this process. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

continue to use MIS as a tool for 

evaluating the effects of land 

management activities because analysis 

of habitat and individual species data 

are needed to maintain species 

diversity. 

Response: The concept of MIS was 

not included in the 2005 planning rule, 

except for transition provisions at 36 

CFR 219.14, because recent scientific 

evidence identified flaws in the MIS 

concept. The concept of MIS was that 

population trends for certain species 

that were monitored could represent 

trends for other species. Through time, 

this was found not to be the case. 

Genetic Diversity 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

conserve genetic diversity at the 

population level with decisions being 

made at the individual national forest 

level. 

Response: It is the intent that 

decisions about species conservation 

under NFMA will be made on 

individual national forests and will 

address genetic diversity when needed. 

Habitat Viability 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not adopt habitat viability as its 

framework to protect biodiversity under 

NFMA because determining the 

population viability of individual 

species calls for data on the 

population’s status. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 43.26 requires that the 

connection between habitat conditions 

and species consequences be assessed as 

part of evaluating the effects of plan 

components on species. This assessment 

would be based on existing information. 

Also, FSH 1909.12, section 43.23 calls 

for identifying critical information that 

is essential to management for species 

diversity and is currently lacking. 

Collection of that information should 

become a high priority of monitoring 

programs. 

Wildlife Corridors 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

have a broader ecological plan focusing 

on connectivity and wildlife corridors. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 43.25 describes plan 

components for species diversity that 

would address the whole range of issues 

associated with species conservation 

including habitat connectivity. 

State Strategies 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

include specific language in the manual 

and handbook encouraging consultation 

with State Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategies to reduce 

potentially duplicative planning efforts. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 43.22c directs that 

species identified as conservation 

concerns in the State Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategies be considered for 

identification as species-of-interest. 

Directions to consult would not be 

appropriate because the timing of Forest 

Service and state planning efforts are 

not likely to coincide; however, we do 

direct the Responsible Official to take 

into account State Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategies and we encourage 

the Responsible Official to participate in 

ongoing planning efforts where NFS 

lands are found (FSH 1909.12, ch. 30). 

Altered Systems 

Comment: In FSH 1909.12, section 

43.1 it states ‘‘where systems are highly 

altered, a species conservation plan 

focus may be more appropriate.’’ We are 

concerned that some would argue or 

litigate that the entire NFS is highly 

altered and therefore the entire NFS 

should be subjected to a species 

conservation plan focus. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5139 

Response: This section has been 

rewritten and the example cited in this 

comment is no longer present. 

Previous Rule No Longer Applies 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify provisions in its handbook to 

better focus on biological diversity at 

the landscape and ecosystem level and 

reinstate language from the September 

29, 2004, ‘‘Interpretative Rule’’

explaining the meaning of the ‘‘Use of 

Best Available Science in Implementing 

Land Management Plans’’ to make it 

clear that the 1982 and 2000 planning 

rules no longer apply to projects. Some 

people have insisted that the 1982 

planning rule required population 

counts before approving projects and 

activities. 

Response: The Forest Service has 

clarified provisions for ecosystem 

diversity and species diversity in FSH 

1909.12. The Forest Service does not 

need to reinstate the Interpretative Rule. 

The previous planning regulations are 

no longer in effect. However, the 2005 

planning rule allows Responsible 

Officials to continue to use the 

provisions of the planning regulations 

in effect before November 9, 2000, to 

develop, amend, or revise land 

management plans in specific cases (36 

CFR 219.14). The 2005 planning rule 

explicitly states, ‘‘site-specific 

monitoring or surveying of a proposed 

project or activity area is not required’’

(36 CFR 219.14(f)). 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clearly state in the Forest Service 

directives the Endangered Species Actrelated requirements for forest planners 

or delete these references because 

provisions constraining forest planning 

to advance conserving of species is 

unlawfully limiting the agency’s 

discretion to manage for multiple uses. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12 does not increase the habitat 

values for the conservation, recovery, or 

improvement of listed species, or 

increase the benefits for ESA listed 

species. Direction in the handbook will 

allow the Forest Service to contribute to 

reaching the purposes and requirements 

of the ESA and NFMA for species and 

ecosystem conservation, while also 

contributing to society’s demand for 

other resources. 

Species-Specific Management 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

amend the directives to clearly state that 

species-specific management should be 

tried only when the maintenance or 

creation of that species’ habitat is 

defined as a desired condition 

consistent with multiple-use objectives 

and identified desired future conditions. 

Response: Forest Service Manual 

1921.73 states that species-specific 

direction will be developed only when 

needed to supplement direction for 

ecosystem diversity to provide 

appropriate ecological conditions for 

listed species, species-of-concern, and 

species-of-interest. This intent is 

reiterated in FSH 1909.12, section 43.21. 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, 

sections 43.22b and 43.22c set up that 

species-of-concern are identified 

because management actions may be 

needed to prevent listing under the 

ESA. Species-of-interest are identified 

because the Responsible Official finds 

that management actions are needed to 

reach ecological or other multiple-use 

objectives. This clearly satisfies the 

concern that species specific direction 

will only be established when needed to 

reach desired conditions. Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, section 43.25 further 

sets up that plan components developed 

for species diversity will be consistent 

with the limits of agency authorities, the 

capability of the plan area, and 

multiple-use objectives. 

Late Successional Habitats 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

give priority to late successional forests. 

In the Eastern United States, much of 

the landscape is in private ownership 

and because of land-use patterns; much 

of the private land is in an early- to midsuccessional stage. But Public lands in 

the Eastern United States offer a chance 

to promote late successional habitats 

and species. 

Response: Evaluations of ecological 

sustainability are intended to consider 

national forests and grasslands in 

relation to other lands. Forest Service 

Manual 1921.73a directs the 

Responsible Official to use evaluations 

to determine the potential contribution 

of national forests and grasslands to 

ecosystem diversity of the larger 

landscape. Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 43.11 sets up that the 

area of analysis for ecosystem diversity 

will generally include non-National 

Forest System lands to consider broadscale conditions and trends. These 

national directives do not set up which 

components of ecosystem diversity will 

be stressed in the plans of a particular 

region relying instead on the unitspecific analysis to help determine that 

emphasis. 

Self-Sustaining Populations 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify the Forest Service’s directives’

approach to conserving species-ofconcern because the phrase 

‘‘contributing to’’ self-sustaining 

populations is vague and indirect. 

Response: The agency uses the phrase 

‘‘contribute’’ recognizing that NFS lands 

may not be enough to maintain selfsustaining populations of those species 

that are distributed across lands of many 

ownerships. 

Criteria for Species-of-Concern 

Comment: Clarify the criteria for 

recognizing species-of-concern to 

clearly state that evidence must exist 

(either scientific reports or expert 

opinion) that the species will continue 

to decline under the plan. 

Response: Species-of-concern will be 

identified using explicit criteria about 

their ranking on NatureServe and their 

listing status under the Endangered 

Species Act. Once identified, these 

species will be screened to see if they 

need further consideration in the 

planning process. They may be dropped 

from further consideration if they are 

considered secure in the plan area, are 

not affected by management, or there is 

too little information about them to 

complete a credible assessment. 

Identifying Species 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

direct forest planners to identify 

species-of concern and species-ofinterest based on the best available 

scientific information because a lack of 

information should not be a justification 

for listing a species-of-interest or 

species-of-concern. The directives 

should provide greater discretion to 

agency decision makers and limit 

species-specific action. 

Response: The Responsible Official 

must take into account best available 

science throughout the planning 

process. Also, FSH 1909.12, section 

43.22d states that only species for which 

there is adequate knowledge to 

complete a credible assessment will be 

carried forward in the planning process. 

Increase Conservation of Species 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clearly state that plans do not need to 

include provisions that increase 

conserving of species-of-concern and 

species-of-interest. 

Response: No such caveat is needed 

because there is nothing in the 

directives that suggests that 

conservation will be increased. 

Sensitive Species 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify how species-of-concern and 

species-of-interest encompass or do not 

encompass sensitive species because all 

of the species that the Regional 

Foresters designate as sensitive in their 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5140 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

respective regions must be considered 

in planning for the affected forests. 

Response: The criteria for species-ofconcern and species-of-interest are 

listed in FSH 1909.12, section 43.22. 

The wildlife directives governing the 

identification of sensitive species are 

subject to change because they were 

based on the viability requirement from 

the 1982 planning rule. Since those 

directives may now change, they are not 

cited in the Forest Service directives. 

However, the criteria for species-ofconcern or species-of-interest are similar 

to the criteria generally used for 

developing the existing regional lists of 

sensitive species. 

Criteria for Listing 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider adding more criteria for listing 

species-of-interest because forest 

planners will find many common 

species that are ranked S1 or S2 on 

NatureServe or are listed as threatened 

or endangered by the states. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 43.22c recognizes that 

species ranked S1 and S2 and statelisted species may not be of concern in 

a particular plan area and so suggests 

additional criteria that should be 

applied before species are identified as 

species-of-interest. 

State-Listed Species 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider listing species that meet the 

criteria for species-of-interest as speciesof-concern instead to ensure the 

continued existence of important 

ecosystem components such as native 

plant and wildlife species. The Forest 

Service should treat state-listed species 

in a similar fashion to federally listed 

species in the Forest Service directives. 

Response: In general, species that 

require the highest levels of 

conservation attention are those that 

meet the criteria for species-of-concern. 

The directives recognize that other 

species, those fitting the criteria for 

species-of-interest, may also require 

specific management considerations. 

Identification of species-of-concern and 

species-of interest is only the first step 

in determining what plan components 

will be developed for species. Through 

the processes of information collection, 

evaluation of species status including 

risk factors, and evaluation of plan 

components, the Responsible Official 

will determine appropriate 

contributions of the national forest or 

grassland to ecological conditions 

needed to meet objectives for the 

species. If plan components are needed 

on the national forest or grassland to 

avoid the need to list species, they will 

be identified through this process 

regardless of the initial identification of 

a species as being of concern or of 

interest. 

Endangered Species 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

ensure that endangered species, speciesof-concern, and species-of-interest are 

sufficiently protected. In addition, all 

species that might be listed as 

endangered or threatened should be 

identified as species-of-concern in order 

to avoid the need to list them. 

Additionally, the genetic viability of 

species should be protected in order to 

maintain biodiversity. 

Response: Through the processes of 

identifying species-of-concern and 

species-of-interest information 

collection, evaluation of species status 

including risk factors, and evaluation of 

plan components, the Responsible 

Official will determine appropriate 

contributions of the national forest or 

grassland to ecological conditions 

needed to meet objectives for the 

species, including genetic viability, as 

appropriate. If plan components are 

needed on the national forest or 

grassland to avoid the need to list 

species, they will be identified through 

this process. 

Ecological Community 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

base species diversity on the overall 

composition and diversity of species 

within an ecological community rather 

than basing it predominately on single 

species management approaches 

revolving around specially identified 

species. 

Response: The hierarchical approach 

using ecosystem diversity and species 

diversity is intended to provide for the 

overall composition and diversity of 

species. Plan components established 

for ecosystem diversity should provide 

for populations of the majority of 

species. The species diversity approach 

then provides a check for those species 

for which additional plan components 

may be needed. 

Population Data 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

obtain population and trend data for at 

least some species-of-concern, speciesof-interest, and other species. These 

species should be monitored over the 

life of the plan or until they are no 

longer of concern or interest to assess 

whether plan components conserve 

species. 

Response: The 2005 planning rule and 

directives do not contain prescriptive 

requirements for monitoring of any 

resource. Rather, they require that 

monitoring questions be addressed 

through desired conditions and the 

degree to which they are being 

achieved. Priority will be given to 

monitoring questions that address 

desired conditions for which there is ‘‘a 

high degree of uncertainty associated 

with management assumptions’’ (FSH 

1909.12, sec. 12.1). Species populations 

may be identified for monitoring 

through this process. 

Non-Discretionary Wording 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

make the consideration of endangered 

species, species-of-concern, and speciesof-interest non-discretionary. 

Response: While there is some 

discretion in the wording for species 

diversity in the directives, the following 

steps are generally required: (1) Identify 

listed species, species-of-concern and 

species-of-interest; (2) collect available 

data and information for the species 

including an assessment of risk factors; 

(3) develop plan components for the 

species as necessary; and (4) assess the 

potential outcomes of plan components. 

These steps, combined with the 

ecosystem diversity approach, should 

provide for significant consideration of 

species that require conservation 

attention. 

Enforceable Standards 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide enforceable standards and use 

more than one data source when 

determining which species to protect. 

Without enforceable standards, there is 

no way for the public or other branches 

of the government to hold the Forest 

Service accountable for protecting 

species and their habitats. 

Response: The Forest Service is 

accountable for federally-listed species 

under the Endangered Species Act and 

accountable for diversity of plant and 

animal species under the provisions of 

NFMA. That accountability is not 

changed by the directives. 

While there is some dependence on 

NatureServe for identifying species-ofconcern and species-of-interest, 

numerous other sources are listed in the 

directives including State 

Comprehensive Wildlife Strategies, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of 

Conservation Concern Priority List, state 

lists of threatened and endangered 

species, and other sources of valid 

information indicating significant 

threats to a species population or 

habitat. 

Federally Listed Species 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

require Responsible Officials to 

contribute to conserving federally listed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5141 

species so as not to present a possible 

conflict with the Endangered Species 

Act, section 7(a)(1). 

Response: Forest Service Manual 

1921.76c states that ‘‘plan components 

for federally-listed species must comply 

with requirements and procedures of 

the Endangered Species Act and should, 

as appropriate, implement approved 

recovery plans and/or address threats 

identified in listing decisions.’’

Surrogate Species 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clearly identify the criteria for 

identifying surrogate species in section 

43.24 of its handbook and how this tool 

is to be used in the forest planning 

process because if workable guidelines 

for forest planners cannot be developed, 

then this section should be deleted. 

Response: As with any other approach 

used in NFMA planning, species 

grouping and the selection of surrogates 

must take into account the best available 

science and applicable portions of the 

Data Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 3516). An 

approach that does not satisfy these 

criteria would not be used. 

Risk Levels 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify how Responsible Officials will 

determine that information is valid and 

sufficient to indicate risk levels to 

species. 

Response: Determinations of 

Responsible Officials will consider best 

available science and meet applicable 

Data Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 3516) 

standards regarding public 

acknowledgement of known data 

quality. Responsible Officials will take 

into account best available science and 

known risk levels when indicating risk 

levels to species (FSH 1909.12, sec. 41). 

NatureServe 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not rely on NatureServe as the sole 

source for species-of-concern 

designations. Concerns about 

NatureServe related to: (1) Frequency 

with which the ratings are updated; (2) 

public access to the data used in 

determining the rankings; (3) 

consistency of ranking across states; (4) 

use of only global rankings instead of 

global and national rankings to 

determine species-of-concern; and (5) 

failure of NatureServe to recognize some 

taxonomic units that could be listable. 

Response: The intent of the directives 

is to provide an independent and 

objective means of prioritizing species 

for conservation. The most 

comprehensive source of this 

information is the network of state 

natural heritage programs that make up 

the NatureServe network. 

Although it is the best source of data 

available, the NatureServe ranking 

system is not perfect. Imperfections in 

the NatureServe database were one of 

the reasons for establishing the speciesof-interest category. Species that are not 

ranked or are locally rare (rather than 

globally rare) may be identified as 

species-of-interest, resulting in the 

establishment of appropriate plan 

components. Species and other 

taxonomic units that are listed and 

proposed under the Endangered Species 

Act will be identified for establishment 

of appropriate plan components 

regardless of their NatureServe ranking. 

NatureServe ranks are ‘‘categorical,’’

not continuous data, and so cannot have 

associated errors. However, NatureServe 

has a system for identifying uncertainty 

in ranks. Also, a summary of the reasons 

for each rank is presented with the 

species comprehensive report on the 

NatureServe explorer Web site. Those 

who are interested in details that are 

more specific can contact their local 

state natural heritage program to see all 

of the data that was used to establish a 

rank. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Monitoring Movement Toward 

Objectives 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

have monitoring programs that will 

allow it to adjust its management 

actions so that it can meet long-term 

objectives and respond to the 

unexpected. 

Response: Forest Service Manual 

1921.5 requires that monitoring provide 

data and information to evaluate 

progress toward meeting objectives and 

desired conditions. Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, section 12, calls for 

designing a monitoring program that 

provides a basis for continuing 

improvement, focuses on key desired 

conditions, and recognizes the need to 

monitor management assumptions that 

have a high degree of uncertainty. 

Accountability and Performance-Based 

Standards 

Comment: The directives should 

include added requirements for 

accountability and performance-based 

standards including details of what 

would be monitored and how this 

monitoring would be done. 

Response: The directives require the 

monitoring program to identify key 

questions and performance measures 

(FSM 1921.5). Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 12.2, provides for 

performance measures as a basis for 

accountability. These performance 

measures are tied to near-term 

objectives and long-term desired 

conditions. Annual evaluation reports 

and 5-year comprehensive evaluation 

reports are to be used to summarize and 

evaluate the results of monitoring as a 

means of identifying needed plan 

adjustments. The Forest Service believes 

that these requirements are enough for 

inclusion in the monitoring program, 

with monitoring details included in the 

Monitoring Guide and Annual 

Monitoring Workplan (FSH 1909.12, 

sec. 12.3). 

State Goals for Federal Lands 

Comment: Monitoring reviews should 

include feedback on the 

accomplishment of state goals defined 

for Federal lands. The Forest Service 

should coordinate plan monitoring with 

a few state-wide indicators of 

sustainability that can assess whether 

the state governing body’s goals and 

objectives are being met. 

Response: The Forest Service 

encourages state participation in 

planning. Forest Service Manual 

1921.62 identifies the value of planning 

collaboratively with the public and 

other agencies. The roles of the public 

and other agencies are more clearly 

described in FSH 1909.12, chapter 30. 

State involvement during these 

collaborative efforts is intended to 

ensure that state goals are appropriately 

considered in plan components and the 

associated monitoring program. 

Specific Monitoring Requirements 

Comment: The Forest Service 

directives should provide more specific 

monitoring guidance designed to 

measure and maintain ecological 

sustainability, including things such as: 

monitoring of key potential natural 

vegetation types; desired conditions and 

objectives contributing to sustainability; 

key ecological attributes of each 

potential vegetation type and species; 

and performance measures for each 

ecological attribute. 

Response: The guidance for 

developing, putting into effect, and 

documenting a monitoring program is 

intended to provide a monitoring 

framework applicable to all plans (FSM 

1921.5 and FSH 1909.12, sec. 12). The 

specific details for each monitoring 

program are not identified in the 

directives because the Forest Service 

believes it is necessary to tailor these 

details to show unit-specific situations. 

Implementation, Effectiveness, and 

Validation Monitoring 

Comment: The Environmental 

Protection Agency suggested that the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5142 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

directives include more direction for 

monitoring; specifically, that monitoring 

be conducted on 3 levels—

implementation, effectiveness, and 

validation—during the 3-year transition 

period for putting into effect the 2005 

planning rule. 

Response: During the transition 

period and until plans are revised or 

amended to be consistent with the 2005 

planning rule, monitoring will be 

conducted consistent with existing 

monitoring requirements, many of 

which specifically address 

implementation, effectiveness, and 

validation monitoring. The 2005 

planning rule and directives stress 

monitoring of plan components, 

specifically to find out if actions taken 

during plan implementation are 

reaching plan objectives and moving the 

unit toward desired conditions. 

Although not specifically addressed in 

the directives, monitoring plan 

implementation and the effectiveness of 

implementation actions are required to 

meet monitoring program requirements. 

Validation monitoring is considered to 

be a research need and will be done 

outside the plan monitoring program. 

Public Involvement 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify which members of the public 

will be invited and how they will be 

involved in designing the monitoring 

program. This should include 

coordination and consultation with the 

public, state governments, and so on in 

developing and revising monitoring 

programs. 

Response: Involvement of the public 

in monitoring program design is 

required by the 2005 planning rule (36 

CFR 219.9(a)) and is discussed in the 

directives (FSM 1921.5 and FSH 

1909.12, sec. 12). But, the specifics of 

how this involvement is to occur and 

who will be involved cannot be 

appropriately determined in the 

directives. The Forest Service believes 

that these details are best addressed by 

the Responsible Official for individual 

planning efforts. 

Monitoring Partnerships 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

support state partnerships in collecting 

and assessing monitoring data used for 

annual evaluation reports and 

comprehensive evaluation reports. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 12.2 recognizes the 

value of selecting performance measures 

with agency partners to make easier 

monitoring across all landownerships. 

Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

use the Montreal Process Criteria and 

Indicators as a framework for 

monitoring efforts. 

Response: The Forest Service has 

invested substantial energy in assessing 

the applicability of the Montreal Process 

Criteria and Indicators along with other 

international and national approaches 

and commitments to sustainable 

development such as the Santiago 

Declaration, the Rio Declaration on 

Environment and Development, and the 

Ottawa Local Unit Criteria and 

Indicators Development (LUCID) Test 

(Monitoring for Forest Management Unit 

Scale Sustainability: The Local Unit 

Criteria and Indicators Development 

(LUCID) Test Technical Edition, USDA 

Forest Service, Inventory and 

Monitoring Institute Report No. 4, 

October 2002). Although using criteria 

and indicators have value and are being 

used in some plan revision efforts; the 

Forest Service concluded that the 

Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators 

were not applicable at the forest scale. 

Monitoring Responsibility 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not leave monitoring of logging impacts 

to independent Forest Supervisor’s 

discretion. 

Response: The Forest Service agrees 

that the plan monitoring program 

should be developed with public 

participation and has directed 

Responsible Officials to do so. 

New Information 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

use monitoring to identify information 

not contemplated in plan development 

that could lead to new systems that 

improve land productivity or meet 

desired conditions in another way. 

Response: The 2005 planning rule 

requires monitoring to determine the 

effects of management on the 

productivity of the land. The final 

directives on monitoring show the need 

to monitor key desired conditions and 

objectives besides those about land 

productivity and that monitoring take 

into account the best available science. 

Funding 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

increase funding for its fish and wildlife 

monitoring programs. 

Response: The Forest Service expects 

that the reduced cost of planning under 

the 2005 planning rule will permit 

better funding of monitoring. The 

priorities for funding monitoring by 

program area will depend on individual 

forest monitoring programs tied to key 

desired conditions and objectives. 

State Guidance 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

incorporate state guidance into 

management reviews where available. 

Response: Reviews are conducted, 

based on monitoring results and 

evaluations, to help determine if there is 

a need to amend or revise the plan (FSH 

1909.12, sec. 24). Where state guidance 

is shown in a plan component being 

monitored or evaluated, this guidance 

will be considered during reviews. 

Comprehensive Evaluation Report 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

specify in the planning directives what 

media will be used to make the annual 

and five-year comprehensive evaluation 

reports available to the public. 

Response: The comprehensive 

evaluation report is a part of the plan set 

of documents. This may be available to 

the public in various forms. The Forest 

Service does not believe that it is 

appropriate to specify one national 

approach given the diversity of 

audiences interested in planning. 

Comprehensive Evaluation Report 

Content 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

require that the comprehensive 

evaluation report contain a thorough 

compilation and description of baseline 

data about ecological system types and 

species. 

Response: Comprehensive evaluation 

reports are described in FSM 1921.2. 

Added details on their content are 

found in FSH 1909.12, sections 13.1, 

24.2, and 43.1. In combination, these 

sections provide for inclusion of a wide 

range of ecological data and analysis in 

the report, including trend analysis for 

key social, economic, and ecological 

resources (FSH 1909.12, sec. 24.23). 

Alternatives 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider having the comprehensive 

evaluation report require the Forest 

Supervisor to consider alternatives and 

their impacts in detail. 

Response: Based on more than 20 

years of experience doing planning EISs, 

including many fully-developed 

alternatives, the Forest Service has 

concluded that it will be more efficient 

to consider options for specific plan 

components than to continue 

developing full alternatives. These 

options are discussed in FSH 1909.12, 

section 25.32b. This is shown in the rule 

and in the final directives. 

Comment: Monitoring program of 

work. The Forest Service should delete 

from the Forest Service directives the 

provision establishing a monitoring 

team and a formal process for setting up 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5143 

an annual program of work and instead 

require a comprehensive evaluation 

report be finished on a five-year 

schedule. 

Response: The provision dealing with 

the establishment of a monitoring team 

has been removed from the directives. 

The Forest Service believes that 

defining an annual program of work 

(FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.3) is needed to 

ensure that annual monitoring priorities 

are identified and done consistently 

with available resources. 

Comprehensive evaluation reports are 

required every 5 years. 

Environmental Management System 

(EMS) 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide more direction to carry out EMS 

including the relation of EMS to land 

management planning, the role the 

public plays in EMS, the types of 

information needed for EMS, the types 

of audits to be done, and how the Forest 

Service will use an international 

standard. 

Response: Confusion is 

understandable given the lack of EMS 

experience in the Forest Service, many 

agency partners, and other interested 

parties. Based on roughly one year of 

EMS field experience with qualified 

consultants, the agency has changed 

many parts of the EMS directives, 

mainly by simplifying and clarifying 

direction. Forest Service Manual 1331 

will address EMS authorities, objectives, 

policies, and responsibilities. The EMS 

direction about land management 

planning is in FSM 1921.9. The Forest 

Service is likely to provide added EMS 

guidance through a technical guide or 

other means as more experience is 

gained. 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not use EMS or the ISO standard for 

EMS because it is not applicable to 

national forest management, the public 

lacks access to the standard, and the 

standard would preclude public 

participation. 

Response: The Forest Service is 

committed to using ISO 14001 under the 

2005 planning rule and believes that 

EMS can be applied to the national 

forests in a way that will contribute to 

quality management. The ISO 14001 

standard is available for public review 

in all Forest Service offices. EMS 

documentation will be available to the 

public. 

Role of Public and States 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify the roles of the public and the 

states in EMS development and 

implementation. 

Response: The Forest Service believes 

that public and state involvement in 

EMS development and implementation 

will be beneficial, but that no direction 

on this involvement is needed besides 

that already in FSM 1921.61 and FSH 

1909.12, chapter 30. The Forest Service 

intends to use the existing public and 

state involvement direction to inform 

EMS implementation without directing 

EMS-specific roles. 

Management Review 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide ‘‘management review’’ direction 

in the directives to provide consistency 

across the national forests. 

Response: The ISO 14001 standard 

provides direction for management 

reviews and the Forest Service believes 

that no added direction is required at 

this time. 

EMS Terms 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify confusion over terms used in 

EMS with terms used in planning, 

especially the ‘‘independent audit’’

definition. 

Response: The Forest Service 

recognizes that in some instances 

planning and EMS use similar terms 

with slightly different meanings. 

Applying the definitions in the ISO 

14001 standard to EMS will be needed 

to conform to the standard, but this 

should not hinder the agency’s ability to 

use different definitions in planning. As 

the agency gains more EMS experience, 

clarification can be given about how 

EMS terms relate to planning terms. 

Definitions have been added to FSM 

1331 specific to Forest Service EMS 

policies and procedures (administrative 

unit, facility, and independent secondparty EMS audit). The definition 

‘‘independent audit’’ has been changed 

to be consistent with USDA’s definition 

of independent audit. 

Independent Audits 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

explain how they will use independent 

EMS audits and certification boards. 

Response: The Forest Service is 

preparing for internal audits according 

to ISO 14001 and is also looking at 

options to meet USDA guidance for 

independent audits. This is an area 

where added guidance may be 

developed as the Forest Service gains 

experience in EMS. 

Planning and EMS 

Comment: The Forest Service 

directives should clarify the relation 

between the plans and the EMS and 

should use an ISO 14001 EMS template 

for communicating guidelines to Forest 

Service units. 

Response: Forest Service units are 

sharing templates and examples as they 

are developed; however, because an 

EMS is a continuous improvement 

process, the Forest Service does not 

expect to have EMS templates in the 

directives. Planning direction and 

guidance about EMS are found in FSM 

1921.9; however, in the final directives 

the agency has only retained 

information about EMS establishment 

requirements under the 2005 planning 

rule and has maintained minimum 

direction on the relation of the EMS to 

the land management plan. As the 

agency gains more experience with 

EMS, more direction can be added. 

Monitoring Data 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

set up regional centers at regional landgrant universities or research stations to 

serve as repositories for monitoring data 

and the results of EMS reviews. 

Response: The Forest Service has 

implemented a corporate database, the 

Natural Resource Information System 

(NRIS), which the agency intends to use 

to store monitoring data common to 

many Forest Service units. The Forest 

Service believes that storing data with 

one consistent corporate approach is 

efficient and will best serve members of 

the public interested in viewing that 

data. It is unknown how the results of 

EMS reviews will be stored or made 

available to the public. 

Timber Management 

General Concerns 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

make the Forest Service directives about 

timber management less discretionary. 

Response: The direction provided in 

the Forest Service manual and 

handbook must comply with all the 

applicable natural resource laws, 

including the NFMA. The NFMA sets 

up the benchmarks for ecological, 

social, and economic sustainability that 

the agency must meet in managing 

national forests. The law also gives the 

Secretary of Agriculture the discretion 

to determine how best to carry out these 

statutory mandates. The directive 

system is used by the agency to reiterate 

and, when needed, provide more 

specific explanations, procedures, and 

guidance in the framework provided by 

the statute for use by field units. The 

Forest Service believes that the 

directives provide the appropriate 

amount of discretion. 

Forest Land 

Comment: The Forest Service must 

change section 62.21a of its handbook to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5144 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

revise the description of what is forest 

land to avoid erroneous calculations. 

Response: The description and 

calculation methods for determination 

of forest lands outlined in this section 

are consistent with NFMA and the 2005 

planning rule. Forest land’s definition 

remains unchanged from the 1982 

planning rule. The combination of forest 

inventory data, detailed aerial photos, 

extensive on-the-ground knowledge, 

and experience ensures that the 

assessment of National Forest System 

land meeting the definition of ‘‘forest 

land’’ is accurate for land management 

planning purposes. 

Rotation Age 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

explain its reason for changing ‘‘rotation 

age’s’’ definition to an ‘‘age range due to 

the need to ‘meet the needs of other 

resources’ ’’ because forest management 

literature has always referred to ‘‘forest 

rotation’’ as a precise, fixed stand 

harvest age expressed in years. 

Response: The definition and use of 

‘‘rotation age’’ in the directives is 

consistent with the meaning of the term 

as used by the Society of American 

Foresters. ‘‘Rotation age’’ at the plan 

level is a range of ages based on local 

forest types and growing conditions, 

rather than a precise age that can be 

assigned broadly across a national 

forest. The Society of American 

Forester’s definition refers to rotation 

age at the stand level. By definition, a 

specific and precise rotation age can 

only be determined at the individual 

stand level. 

Invasive Species 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

direct planners to identify and address 

invasive species rather than native and 

non-native ecosystems to avoid 

litigation. 

Response: In response to comments, 

the Forest Service has removed 

references to native and non-native 

ecosystems from FSH 1909.12, chapter 

60. 

Suitability Determinations 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

explain its reason for deferring key 

planning decisions until project level 

analysis. This may be used to reclassify 

unsuitable lands as suitable. The Forest 

Service should amend the project level 

analysis directive to include explicit 

criteria for acceptance or rejection of a 

project. Key planning decisions should 

be made at the initial planning level or 

project level analysis must be clearly 

developed. 

Response: Lands that are classified as 

‘‘generally suitable for timber harvest or 

timber production’’ in the land 

management plan are continually 

evaluated during project level 

implementation of the plan and may be 

identified as unsuitable at that stage. 

General suitability for various uses will 

be found at the plan level using criteria 

identified in the plan set of documents. 

Project level analysis is the decision 

level where ‘‘irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources’’

are made. Project level analysis must 

follow the NEPA process. The NEPA 

process is clearly developed and 

defined (FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15). 

The data used for project level analysis 

is more site specific and ensures that a 

better resource management decision 

will be made than at the forest-wide 

strategic planning level. For these 

reasons, determining final timber 

suitability must be made at the project 

level. If the Responsible Official finds 

that the project or activity is 

inconsistent with the general suitability 

identification, the plan should be 

amended. 

Unsuitable Timber Lands 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

make sure that enough areas will 

continue to be identified and designated 

as ‘‘unsuitable for timber production’’

by reviewing plan documents at least 

every ten years to see if changes have 

occurred that make it necessary to 

remove lands from the ‘‘suitable for 

timber production’’ group and by 

removing lands identified as 

‘‘unsuitable for timber production’’ from 

the timber land base for ten years as 

required by NFMA. 

Response: Guidance on identifying 

lands not suitable for timber production 

and the review of those determinations 

are found in FSM 1920.12c and FSH 

1909.12, section 62.3. Guidance 

includes the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(k)) 

requirement to review lands not suited 

for timber production every 10 years. 

Lands that are classified as ‘‘generally 

suitable for timber harvest or timber 

production’’ in the land management 

plan are continually evaluated during 

project level implementation of the plan 

and may be identified as unsuitable at 

that stage. Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, chapter 60 has been modified 

to clearly define lands generally suited 

for timber production and ‘‘other lands’’

where harvests may occur for other 

objectives. The clear identification of 

‘‘other lands’’ called for in the directives 

more explicitly defines lands that may 

receive ‘‘salvage sales or sales 

necessitated to protect other multipleuse values’’ as allowed by 16 U.S.C. 

1604(k). 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider that the process for designating 

lands as unsuitable for timber harvest is 

circular and the definition of 

‘‘unsuitable lands’’ contains no criteria 

determining unsuitability as required by 

NFMA. Lands unsuitable for timber 

should not be found by residual 

calculation only after the suitable timber 

lands are identified. NFMA requires that 

unsuitable lands be identified first. Why 

were new terms ‘‘generally suitable’’

and ‘‘actually suitable’’ created? These 

terms are not mentioned or authorized 

by NFMA. 

Response: Substantial changes were 

made to the draft FSH 1909.12, chapter 

60 to clarify and define the suitability 

determination process. Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, section 62.1 lists the 

general categories of lands not suitable 

for timber harvest as outlined in Title 

36, Code of Federal Regulations, section 

219.12—Suitable uses and provisions 

required by NFMA. The Secretary has 

discretion under the act to determine 

how best to develop suitability 

determination criteria. The criteria in 

these general categories are developed at 

the forest level considering the specific 

physical, biological, and economic 

elements under 16 U.S.C. 1604(k). 

NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(k)) does not 

specify that unsuitable lands be 

identified first; it simply directs the 

Secretary to identify unsuitable lands. 

Identification of the suitability of lands 

for timber harvest and timber 

production at the land management 

plan level is a general determination 

made for planning purposes; therefore, 

the term ‘‘generally suitable’’ and 

‘‘generally unsuitable’’ are used. The 

final suitability determination is made 

at the project level. 

Generally and Actually Suitable 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

explain the reason for creating the new 

terms, ‘‘generally suitable’’ and 

‘‘actually suitable’’ in the Forest Service 

directives’ guidance for designation of 

timber lands. These terms are not 

mentioned or authorized by NFMA. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 62 has been revised to 

clarify the suitability process. 

Identification of the suitability of lands 

for timber harvest and timber 

production at the land management 

plan level is a general determination 

made for planning purposes; therefore, 

use of the terms ‘‘generally suitable’’

and ‘‘generally unsuitable.’’ The final 

directives do not use the term, actuallysuitable. The decision on suitability of 

lands for a specific use is appropriately 

made at the site-specific project level. 

The NFMA recognizes that the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5145 

suitability of lands for timber harvest 

will change by directing the Secretary to 

review suitability determinations every 

ten years. The act also gives the 

Secretary discretion about the most 

appropriate method for determining 

suitability. 

Below-Cost Timber Sales 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

set out a process for identifying lands 

where the costs of timber production 

and road construction are unlikely to be 

covered by future receipts. These lands 

should be deemed unsuitable and offlimits to timber harvest to meet the goal 

of limiting below-cost timber sales. The 

Forest Service should explain its reason 

for ending all economic tests for 

determining whether lands are 

unsuitable for timber harvest. 

Response: The NFMA (16 U.S.C. 

1604(k)) does specify that economics is 

one factor to be considered in 

identifying lands not suited for timber 

production. In response to comments, 

FSH 1909.12, section 62.21 includes 

added direction on the role of 

economics in suitability determinations. 

Timber harvest on lands deemed not 

suited for timber production in the land 

management plan is explicitly allowed 

by NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(k)) for salvage 

and for other multiple-use purposes. 

The NFMA does not prohibit harvest 

when costs exceed revenues. 

Classes of Suitable Timber Lands 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not create two classes of suitable timber 

lands because it dramatically and 

artificially expands the suitable timber 

base and projected timber sale levels. 

Response: The NFMA requires 

identifying lands suitable for timber 

production. The NFMA also allows 

timber harvest on lands identified as 

unsuitable for timber production. The 

definitions section of the directives, 

FSH 1909.12, section 60.5 provides an 

explanation of the differences between 

these two activities. The interim 

directives were written to explicitly 

recognize the lands where harvest is 

permitted by the NFMA on lands 

identified as unsuitable for timber 

production. The lands suitable for 

timber harvest are lands where timber 

harvest is a tool that may be used to 

meet ecological goals, such as 

restoration of appropriate fire regimes, 

but commercial harvest is not a primary 

goal for the area. Both types of land are 

considered when estimating the Timber 

Sale Program Quantity for the plan. 

Setting up the added group of lands 

suitable for timber harvest identifies 

added lands where harvest may occur 

but does not dramatically increase 

timber sale quantity. 

Harvest and Reforestation Guidelines 

Timber Sale Volume 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not require specific timber volume 

objectives to be specified in plans 

because timber sale volume is not an 

independent objective. 

Response: Land management plans 

are required to identify objectives (36 

CFR 219.7 (a)(2)(ii)). Objectives are 

described as follows: ‘‘Objectives are 

concise projections of measurable, timespecific intended outcomes. The 

objectives for a plan are the means of 

measuring progress toward achieving or 

maintaining desired conditions.’’ The 

NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(2), 1604(f)(2), 

16 U.S.C. 1611) requires that a land 

management plan must provide timber 

management projections; however, there 

is no specific requirement to identify 

timber sale volume as a plan objective. 

Even-Aged Management 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

stop practicing even-aged management 

of timber. 

Response: Even-aged management is a 

legitimate, silvicultural practice that 

may be used to create or maintain 

healthy forested landscapes. Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12, section 64.5 

outlines the requirements for ensuring 

that clear-cutting is the best silvicultural 

technique and that other even-aged cuts, 

such as shelter wood harvest are 

appropriate. This guidance complies 

with the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 

1604(g)(3)(F)(i)). 

Clearcuts 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

revise the Forest Service directives to 

include standards that limit the size of 

clearcuts, protect streams from logging, 

ensure prompt reforestation, restrict the 

annual rate of cutting, and determine 

what land is economically suitable for 

timber production. 

Response: Maximum size limits for 

even-aged harvest systems are addressed 

in FSM 1921.12e; protection of streams 

in FSM 1921.12a, paragraph 3; 

reforestation requirements in FSM 

1921.12g; harvest rates in FSM 

1921.12d; and suitability determinations 

in FSM 1921.12c. More detailed 

guidance is found in FSH 1909.12, 

chapter 60 for even-aged harvest, 

reforestation and stocking requirements, 

suitability determinations, calculation 

of long-term sustained yield, and 

calculation of timber sale program 

quantities. Detailed direction on 

watershed protection and management 

may be found in FSM 2520. 

Even-Aged Regeneration Harvest 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify its guidelines of maximum size 

limits for even-aged regeneration 

harvest to allow the public to comment. 

Response: Public review of proposals 

to exceed maximum harvest size limits 

is required by 16 U.S.C. 

1609(g)(3)(F)(iv). Forest Service Manual 

1921.12e establishes the size limitations 

for individual harvest units. Added 

guidance on size limitations may be in 

the plan and subject to public notice 

and comment. Projects often contain 

many individual harvest units. Project 

size will vary depending on local 

conditions and considerations. The 

environmental analysis conducted for 

each project, as required by the NEPA, 

provides individuals and organizations 

the opportunity to provide input on 

issues of concern to them. 

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

apply the culmination of mean annual 

increment requirement to uneven-aged 

stands that are being managed to 

produce wood fiber and to ensure that 

stands reach their optimum economic 

value. 

Response: By definition, uneven-aged 

management harvests are regulated by 

specifying the number or proportion of 

trees of particular sizes to retain in each 

area, thereby maintaining a planned 

distribution of size classes (FSH 

1909.12, sec. 60.5). Application of 

culmination of mean increment unevenaged management would not be a sound 

silvicultural practice (16 U.S.C. 

1609(m)). 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide a more specific reason than ‘‘for 

the use of sound silviculture’’ when 

allowing departures from harvesting of 

stands at the culmination of mean 

annual increment. 

Response: The phrase ‘‘culmination of 

mean annual increment’’ is taken 

directly from the NFMA. The NFMA 

authorizes the Secretary to set up 

standards to ensure that stands of trees 

have generally reached the culmination 

of mean annual increment provided the 

standards do not preclude using sound 

silvicultural practices. 

Projected Trends 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide more specific direction to forest 

planners in describing ‘‘projected trends 

of future forest ecological conditions’’

and ‘‘projected vegetative and other 

environmental changes.’’

Response: Trend analysis is described 

at FSH 1909.12, section 24.23. Forest 

Service Manual 1921.7 provides general 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5146 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

guidance on sustainability. Changes 

were also made to FSH 1909.12, section 

65.4 to better address projected trends. 

Environmental Policy Statement 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

clarify and revise section 61 of its 

handbook to address various goals and 

provide a foundation for national forests 

to develop their environmental policy 

statement. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 61 has been redrafted 

to address vegetation management 

requirements at the project level. The 

role of land management planning and 

sustainability is addressed in FSH 

1909.12, chapter 40. Requirements for 

the environmental policy are addressed 

in ISO 14001 and FSM 1330. 

Size of Timber Cuts 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

modify its provision for size of timber 

cuts to stipulate that they should exceed 

maximum size limits only where such 

exception is consistent with sustainable 

use and ecological considerations. 

Response: Exceptions to the size 

limits as described in FSM 1921.12a and 

1921.12e are subject to environmental 

analysis and documentation as required 

by the NFMA and must comply with the 

long-term sustainability desired 

conditions and objectives established in 

that unit’s land management plan. 

Catastrophic Events 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

amend its handbook’s provisions for 

restoration of areas deforested by 

catastrophic events to include 

reasonable assurances of adequate 

restocking. 

Response: The policy direction on 

reforestation in FSH 1909.12, chapter 60 

of the interim directives has been 

removed as it is redundant to FSM 2470. 

The agency policy on reforestation has 

not changed and is founded in the 

NFMA, section 3(d)(1) that states, ‘‘It is 

the policy of the Congress that all 

forested lands in the NFS be maintained 

in appropriate forest cover * * * in 

accordance with land management 

plans.’’ Land management plans may 

address the degree to which 

reforestation is required after 

catastrophic events. 

Volume Trends 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

display volume trends using Forest 

Inventory and Analysis data. 

Response: Changes were made to the 

exhibits in FSH 1909.12, section 65.6 to 

better display volume trends. 

Averages 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide more direction on when using 

an average would be more desirable 

than using field-developed inventory 

information. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 63.4 has been 

reorganized to address this topic. This 

section provides direction on 

calculating conversions for saw timber, 

small roundwood, and biomass. 

Forest Plan Amendment 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide direction in section 63 of its 

handbook on when a plan amendment 

would be required or reference 

applicable sections of the FSM. 

Response: Direction on plan 

amendments is found in FSM 1921.3 

and FSH 1909.12, chapter 20. The 

Responsible Official must determine 

whether changed conditions or other 

issues require a plan amendment. 

Evaluation Reports 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

direct planners to cite the report, ‘‘The 

Scientific Basis for Silvicultural and 

Management Decisions in the NFS 

(Forest Service General Technical 

Report (GTR) WO–55),’’ rather than 

requiring evaluation reports. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, chapter 60 has been 

reorganized so that this topic is now 

discussed in section 65.4. Forest Service 

GTR WO–55 is useful as a general 

reference but is not detailed enough for 

use at the plan level. 

Long Term Sustained Yield 

Definition of Long Term Sustained 

Yield (LTSY) 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not use lands not suited for timber 

production for calculating the Long 

Term Sustained Yield Capacity (LTSYC) 

because it will be difficult to estimate 

timber harvests for objectives other than 

timber production. Harvests for other 

objectives will cause them to be 

sporadic and uneven. The LTSY and 

Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) 

are calculated from different land bases, 

allowing excessive harvesting on lands 

suitable for timber production. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, chapter 60 has been modified 

to clearly define lands generally suited 

for timber production and ‘‘other lands’’

where harvests may occur for other 

objectives. The chapter has also been 

changed to require that the LTSY and 

TSPQ be calculated separately for those 

two classes of lands. Calculating the 

LTSY from lands generally suited for 

timber production is the same as the 

calculation used under the 1982 

planning rule. The practice of 

calculating the LTSY on unsuitable 

lands is new. The Forest Service agrees 

it will be more difficult to make reliable 

estimates of the LTSYC and TSPQ from 

lands where timber harvest is a byproduct of reaching other goals. The 

Forest Service believes these difficulties 

can be addressed when experience is 

obtained. Added guidance to the field 

may be needed later to show the results 

of that experience. 

Harvesting Below the LTSYC 

Comment: The Forest Service violates 

NFMA because they do not require a 

decade-end reconciliation of harvest 

with sustained yield limits. There are no 

cases where harvesting above the 

calculated LTSYC would be consistent 

with multiple-use objectives. More 

detailed direction is needed to spell out 

the few circumstances under which a 

departure is permitted because the 

language guiding the Responsible 

Official in considering departures is too 

weak. The amount of timber harvest 

permitted is artificially inflated by 

allowing departures and by calculating 

LTSYC from all lands where timber 

harvest can occur. The directives allow 

departures to continue indefinitely, 

making the LTSY limit meaningless. 

Response: The term ‘‘departure’’ used 

in relation to the Long Term Sustained 

Yield Capacity (LTSYC) has been 

replaced with the more descriptive 

phrase ‘‘planned harvest exceeding the 

LTSYC’’. Specific direction addressing 

planned harvests that exceed the LTSYC 

is now found in FSH 1909.12, section 

63.5. Planned harvests that exceed the 

LTSYC are permitted by 16 U.S.C. 1611. 

This statute does not require a decadeend reconciliation of harvest with the 

sustained yield limit. Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, section 63.4 requires 

the Responsible Official to meet specific 

criteria, take into account all the parts 

of sustainability, and involve the public 

when considering a planned harvest 

that exceeds the LTSYC. Harvests 

exceeding the LTSYC are reconciled 

during revision of the plan. 

In response to public comment, the 

directives have been modified so that 

the relation between the TSPQ and the 

LTSYC must be considered separately 

on lands suitable for timber production 

and ‘‘other lands’’ where harvests may 

occur. This separate assessment should 

address concerns that harvest levels will 

be artificially inflated. 

Restoration activities being 

undertaken now and in the near future 

are examples where short-term timber 

harvest levels may exceed the LTSYC. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5147 

Many areas have stand densities that are 

much higher than historical levels 

creating greater fire risk. Timber harvest 

treatments may be used on these lands 

to reduce fuels and reach a desired 

stand density. Future fuel reduction 

treatments on these lands may be a 

combination of small harvests and 

controlled burns, making the long-term 

harvest levels lower than short-term 

harvest levels. 

Wilderness and Roadless Areas 

Wilderness Recommendations 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

recommend all roadless areas to 

Congress for permanent protection 

through wilderness designation. 

Response: The agency will do an 

evaluation of inventoried roadless areas 

for possible recommendation for 

wilderness designation during revision 

of a land management plan. The 

outcome of that evaluation will 

determine which areas are 

administratively recommended for 

wilderness designation by Congress. 

Public Support 

Comment: The Forest Service must 

consider that the public has expressed 

overwhelming support for roadless area 

conservation when determining how the 

roadless areas will be managed. 

Response: Responsible Officials will 

consider all appropriate public input 

when revising land management plans. 

It is appropriate for the Responsible 

Official to develop plan components; 

such as, desired conditions, to protect 

roadless character for lands not 

recommended for wilderness. 

Contiguous Roadless Areas 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

inventory all roadless areas contiguous 

to existing wilderness as one area 

because that was the will of Congress. 

Response: It would not be appropriate 

to combine many separated roadless and 

undeveloped areas and consider them as 

one area when determining their 

suitability for the inventory of potential 

wilderness. Each area is potentially 

unique and must demonstrate 

characteristics that make it suitable for 

wilderness. 

Protection of Roadless Areas 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

use the protective safeguards and 

exceptions in the roadless rule as the 

baseline for protecting roadless areas. 

Response: The Roadless Areas 

Conservation Rule was withdrawn and 

replaced by the State Petitioning rule on 

May 13, 2005. The directives for plan 

revision and amendment are directed 

toward the inventory and evaluation of 

roadless areas rather than their 

protection. Consideration of wilderness 

suitability is inherent in land 

management planning. Unless otherwise 

provided by law, all roadless, 

undeveloped areas that satisfy the 

definition of wilderness found in 

section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 

1964 are evaluated and considered for 

recommendation as potential wilderness 

areas during plan development or 

revision. Management of those 

inventoried roadless areas is subject to 

the land management planning process, 

which includes collaboration with and 

involvement by all interested parties. 

RARE I and II 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

explain the current status of the 

Roadless Area Review and Evaluation 

(RARE) I and II studies. 

Response: In 1972, the agency 

undertook an inventory and evaluation 

of all undeveloped areas in the NFS that 

could be considered for possible 

inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System (NWPS). This first 

roadless area review and evaluation, 

later called RARE I, concluded in 

October of 1973 with the selection of 

274 wilderness study areas containing 

12.3 million acres. These selections 

were made from an inventory of 1,449 

areas containing 56 million acres. The 

reviews of these study areas were to be 

completed in the planning process. 

In 1977, concerns were expressed that 

the planning process might be too slow 

for completing timely reviews for the 

274 study areas. There were also 

concerns that some areas might have 

been overlooked and that RARE I did 

not adequately inventory the national 

grasslands or the eastern national 

forests. In response to these concerns, 

the Secretary started RARE II. RARE II 

was finished in January of 1979 and 

identified 2,919 areas containing just 

over 62 million acres; recommended 

that 15 million acres be added to the 

NWPS, 36 million acres be allocated to 

non-wilderness uses, and about 11 

million acres be placed into a further 

planning category. 

In June of 1979, the state of California 

began a lawsuit challenging the RARE II 

decision to designate inventoried 

roadless areas in the state as nonwilderness. The U.S. District Court and 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

agreed that the RARE II Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

did not comply with the requirements of 

NEPA. 

Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision 

in 1982, the planning regulations were 

revised in 1983 to require evaluating 

inventoried roadless areas for 

wilderness potential in land 

management planning. The planning 

regulation allowed the agency to 

maintain discretion over developing 

inventoried roadless areas after a land 

management plan was finished. 

Subsequent court decisions supported 

the concept that non-wilderness 

multiple-use management prescriptions 

assigned to inventoried roadless areas in 

land management plans are permissive 

rather than a mandate or commitment to 

development because the ‘‘no action’’

alternative still exists for these areas. 

Environmental analysis and NEPA 

documents, for site-specific project 

proposals in inventoried roadless areas 

assigned to non-wilderness management 

prescriptions, must look at whether to 

develop, not just how to develop. 

Areas Previously Released by Congress 

Comment: The directives should 

clearly note in FSM 1923 that areas 

released from wilderness consideration 

by Congress in past wilderness bills will 

not be included as potential wilderness 

areas. 

Response: In the 1982 planning 

regulations, as amended, and the 

current 2005 planning regulations, there 

is a requirement to consider and 

evaluate, unless otherwise provided by 

law, all NFS lands possessing 

wilderness characteristics for 

recommendation as potential wilderness 

areas during the development or 

revision of a land management plan (36 

CFR 219.7(a)(5)(ii). The policy statement 

in FSM 1923 reiterates this requirement: 

‘‘Unless otherwise provided by law, all 

roadless, undeveloped areas that satisfy 

the definition of wilderness found in 

section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 

1964 shall be evaluated and considered 

for recommendation as potential 

wilderness areas during plan 

development or revision.’’ Although 

wording varies to some degree in the 

various wilderness bills, this wording 

usually considers these areas being 

subject to wilderness reviews during the 

plan revision process. 

Roadless Rule 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

restore the roadless rule. 

Response: On July 14, 2003, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Wyoming found the roadless rule to be 

unlawful and ordered that the rule ‘‘be 

permanently enjoined.’’ On May 13, 

2005, USDA promulgated a new rule at 

36 CFR part 294 entitled ‘‘State Petitions 

for Inventoried Roadless Area 

Management.’’ This new rule establishes 

a petitioning process that will provide 

Governors with an opportunity to seek 

establishment of or adjustment to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5148 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

management requirements for NFS 

inventoried roadless areas in their 

states. This opportunity for submitting 

state petitions is available until 

November 13, 2006. If a petition is 

accepted by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, the Forest Service will 

work cooperatively with the state to 

propose a state-specific rule that will 

address the provisions of the petition. A 

proposed rule will be accompanied by 

the appropriate NEPA documentation 

and made available for public review 

and comment. Following evaluation and 

consideration of all public comments, 

the Secretary can then promulgate the 

state-specific rule for the management of 

inventoried roadless areas in that state. 

Protect Roadless Areas 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

protect roadless areas. 

Response: Evaluating inventoried 

roadless areas for their wilderness 

potential, and the management of 

inventoried roadless areas not 

recommended for wilderness, takes 

place in the land management planning 

process that includes collaboration with 

and involvement of interested parties. 

Also, the United States Department of 

Agriculture promulgated the state 

petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area 

Management Rule on May 13, 2005, that 

established a petition process that 

provides Governors with an opportunity 

to seek establishment of or adjustment 

to land management requirements for 

NFS inventoried roadless areas in their 

states through a state-specific 

rulemaking. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Review of Potential Rivers 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

require a review of potential wild and 

scenic rivers during all forest plan 

revisions. 

Response: The final directives retain 

revisiting a wild and scenic river 

evaluation as changed circumstances 

warrant. Previously, a systematic 

inventory conducted to find eligible 

rivers or a comprehensive 

administrative unit-wide suitability 

study must have been documented in 

the planning record. 

Evaluation Factors 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

stress certain topics in the Forest 

Service directives’ Wild and Scenic 

Rivers section including consideration 

of adjacent wetlands and estuaries/ 

coastal zones, current condition of 

riparian and adjacent forest, 

catastrophic events, invasive species, 

the role of active management (vs. 

restrictions) to help maintain or 

enhance designations, and compatibility 

with other unique land allocations. 

Response: The final directives retain a 

detailed discussion of factors to 

consider in evaluating the suitability of 

an eligible river for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

(National System) in FSH 1909.12, 

section 82.41. These factors include the 

potential uses of land and water that 

would be enhanced, foreclosed, or 

curtailed by designation. Consideration 

of current conditions, including other 

land allocations, is also a part of 

eligibility as described in FSH 1909.12, 

sections 82.14 and 82.14a. 

Hydrology 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider unique or exemplary 

hydrology as a primary criterion for 

Wild and Scenic River designation. 

Response: The final directives retain 

hydrology as an example of ‘‘other 

similar values’’ for which a river may be 

found eligible (FSH 1909.12, sec. 

82.14a, para.7). 

Native Species 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

stress natural/native species, habitat 

diversity, and avoiding the spread of 

invasive species in Wild and Scenic 

River areas. 

Response: The final directives retain 

emphasis on resident/anadromous fish 

populations, indigenous wildlife 

species, and various aspects of 

associated habitat, including diversity, 

in determining whether such values are 

‘‘outstandingly remarkable’’ (FSH 

1909.12, sec. 82.14a, paras. 4 and 5). 

Botany may also be evaluated as an 

‘‘outstandingly remarkable’’ value; 

including emphasis on native species/ 

plant communities and habitat 

diversity. 

Corridor Widths 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

justify the one-quarter mile boundary. It 

seems arbitrary, especially when the 

role of topography is not acknowledged. 

Also, there is no mention of key 

wetlands, oxbows, estuaries, and so on, 

as part of study area. 

Response: For a legislatively 

mandated study, Congress established 

in section 4(d) of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act a boundary of one-quarter 

mile from the ordinary high water mark 

on each side of the river. The final 

directives retain a minimum boundary 

of one-quarter mile with the added 

guidance that such a boundary ‘‘may 

include adjacent areas needed to protect 

the resources or facilitate management 

of the river area’’ (FSH 1909.12, sec. 

81.3). 

River System or Basin Integrity 

Comment: While holistic, watershedbased management strategy seems 

appropriate, a vague and undefined 

suitability factor like ‘‘the contribution 

to river system or basin integrity’’

provides little or no understanding and 

focus for decisions. 

Response: The final directives retain 

‘‘contribution to river system or basin 

integrity’’ as one of the factors that may 

be used to evaluate the suitability of an 

eligible river for the National Forest 

System. Input from organizations and 

individuals familiar with specific river 

resources should be sought to define 

factors like the contribution to river 

system or basin integrity. 

Benefits From Designation 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

explain whether the wild and scenic 

river evaluation required in the Forest 

Service directives would include a 

disclosure of positive outcomes 

expected from specific management 

components of wild and scenic 

designation. 

Response: The final directives retain 

direction from section 4(a) of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act; for example, to 

address the reasonably potential uses of 

the land and water that would be 

enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed with 

designation. Such analysis would 

include the positive benefits to land and 

water from designation. The final 

directives retain providing ‘‘guidelines 

as integral parts of the alternative’’ (FSH 

1909.12, sec. 83.24). 

Vegetation Management and Roads 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider that while limiting access 

roads and tree/vegetation cutting in 

areas eligible for wild and scenic river 

status may be suitable for that 

designation, it may also significantly 

increase the risk of losing key values 

that contributed to the designation. 

Response: The final directives retain 

the ability to use a range of vegetation 

management and timber harvest 

practices in scenic and recreational river 

corridors provided these practices 

protect, restore, or enhance the river 

environment. Cutting of trees and other 

vegetation is not permitted in wild river 

corridors except ‘‘when needed * * * 

protect the environment, including 

wildfire suppression.’’

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Projects 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

provide more specific guidance in the 

Forest Service directives Wild and 

Scenic Rivers section in regard to 

authorized and prohibited fish and 

wildlife habitat management projects. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5149 

Response: The final directives retain 

existing guidance for evaluating wildlife 

and fish projects in addition to the 

requirement to evaluate any part of such 

project that has potential to affect the 

river’s free-flowing character as a water 

resources project. 

Projects To Control Non-Native Species 

Comment: Evaluating fish and 

wildlife habitat management projects, 

such as impoundments intended to 

prevent non-native or invasive species 

from migrating upstream as water 

resources projects may prevent or 

preclude activities needed to protect or 

restore native species. 

Response: The Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act has a three-fold purpose: 

protecting and enhancing a river’s freeflowing character, its water quality, and 

its ‘‘outstandingly remarkable’’ values. 

Free-flowing is defined broadly in the 

act as ‘‘flowing in natural condition 

without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, riprapping or other 

modification of the waterway.’’ The 

final directives retain guidance to 

evaluate any part of a wildlife or fish 

project that has potential to affect a 

river’s free-flowing character as water 

resources projects, consistent with the 

act. This requirement is not an 

automatic prohibition of in-stream 

wildlife or fish projects. 

Condition Classes 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider revising the Forest Service 

directives on wild and scenic river 

evaluation to add a requirement to 

assess and disclose the current 

anticipated ‘‘condition classes’’ of the 

riparian and adjacent forest to such 

major influences as wildfires, insects, 

and diseases. 

Response: The final directives retain a 

detailed discussion of factors to 

consider in evaluating the suitability of 

an eligible river for inclusion in the 

National Forest System in FSH 1909.12, 

section 82.41. These factors include the 

potential uses of land and water that 

would be enhanced, foreclosed, or 

curtailed by designation. 

Environmental and Heritage 

Preservation 

Environmental Protection 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

protect our environment for the benefit 

of future generations, protect animal 

and plant species, protect water 

resources, prevent global warming, 

protect from oil and logging interests, 

protect the air supply including 

visibility, and provide recreational 

opportunities. 

Response: The Forest Service is 

mandated by many statutes to protect 

and manage the NFS for multiple-use 

values. The Forest Service directives 

allow all these important environmental 

issues to be considered during the forest 

planning process as the Responsible 

Official deems appropriate. 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

start thinking in terms of habitat 

restoration and high rise dwellings to 

alleviate the pressure on wildlife. 

Response: Habitat restoration is 

certainly a management option that can 

be considered during the forest planning 

process. High rise dwellings are not in 

the scope of Forest Service directives. 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

support developing alternative sources 

of power and building materials. 

Response: These issues are outside 

the scope of the Forest Service 

directives. The Forest Service and 

United States Department of Agriculture 

did evaluate the potential for renewable 

energy development on NFS lands. The 

technical report titled, Assessing the 

Potential for Renewable Energy on 

National Forest System Lands, written 

by R. Karsteadt, D. Dahle, D. Heimiller 

and T. Nealon can be viewed at http:// 

www.osti.gov/bridge or paper copies are 

available for sale from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National 

Technical Information Service, 5285 

Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, 

telephone 865–576–8401, FAX 865–

576–5728 or e-mail mail to: 

reports@adonis.osti.gov. 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

protect heritage resources because the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 requires it. 

Response: The comment is correct 

and the Forest Service is legally 

mandated to protect heritage resources 

on NFS lands by the National Historic 

Preservation Act and a host of other 

statutes and Executive orders. 

Resource Extraction 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

stop oil and gas extraction and tree 

harvesting on NFS Lands. Others think 

that the Forest Service should maintain 

an even balance between resource 

extraction and protection of wild areas. 

One respondent stated that all historical 

improvements should be disclosed 

along with their cost and who paid for 

them. Some respondents believed that 

industries are being allowed to profit 

from the national forests at a cost that 

will be borne by future generations. 

Response: The Forest Service 

directives guide planning for the 

management of the NFS. The many legal 

authorities governing the Forest 

Service’s management of NFS lands 

require it to consider resource extraction 

and timber harvesting among the 

multiple uses to which those lands are 

subject. 

Mineral Extraction Activities 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

not allow the economic benefits of 

mineral extraction activities to outweigh 

environmental concerns. 

Response: Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, section 13.13d is in accord 

with the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). 

Under FLPMA, multiple-use includes 

Federal energy and mineral resources 

underlying NFS lands. Exploration and 

production of those resources is 

considered one of the ‘‘principle or 

major uses’’ under FLPMA which, 

under section 202(e)(1) of that act, are 

to be given special consideration in the 

planning process. 

Fire Management 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

thin and maintain the forest floor to 

properly manage fires to reduce the risk 

of catastrophic fires. Other respondents 

claim that thinning to reduce fuels will 

not promote public safety. 

Response: The Forest Service 

directives offer no specific guidance on 

management activities that should or 

should not be used to address 

catastrophic fires. However, the 

planning rule and the directives require 

that management activities be 

monitored for their effectiveness in 

reaching the objectives and desired 

conditions stated in the plan. 

Transportation 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

designate ‘‘no motor vehicle’’ areas and 

reclaim existing roads. Others think the 

Forest Service should stop subsidizing 

construction of roads for logging, 

mining, and energy interests. One 

respondent commented that the 

directives should contain a provision for 

‘‘no new road of any kind.’’

Response: The Forest Service 

disagrees that the directives should 

contain explicit direction on road 

management. The directives are 

intended to provide guidance on 

planning. This guidance directs the 

Responsible Official to consider some of 

the issues raised by the respondents 

when developing desired conditions, 

objectives, and guidelines for 

transportation. 

Water Resources Management 

Water Quality Data 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

be cautious when using water quality 

limited stream data generated by the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5150 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). 

Response: The Forest Service will use 

the best available data and use that data 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Data Quality Act (35 U.S.C. 3516). 

Watershed Planning 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

carry out intermediate watershed 

planning. 

Response: The Department of 

Agriculture along with several other 

Departments and Agencies developed a 

Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed 

Approach to Federal Land and Resource 

Management (65 FR 62566, Oct. 18, 

2000). This policy requires that a 

science-based approach be used for 

watershed assessments. The information 

generated during the assessments will 

become part of the basis for identifying 

management opportunities and 

priorities and for developing 

alternatives to protect or restore 

watersheds. The Forest Service has 

developed a science-based approach 

and has documented the procedures 

(Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed 

Scale, Federal Guide for Watershed 

Analysis Version 2.2, August 1995) 

available at the Northwest Forest Plan 

Information Center and Library (http:// 

www.reo.gov/library). Currently, each 

national forest conducts at least one 

watershed assessment a year dependent 

on funding availability. Information 

from these assessments may be used in 

the comprehensive evaluation. 

Water Rights 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

be more careful when addressing 

ownership of water rights. 

Response: The Responsible Official is 

directed to identify the method used to 

identify the unit’s non-consumptive 

water needs, and the options available 

to support the states’ water allocation 

process (FSH 1909.12, sec. 13.11c). 

Recreation Management 

Trails 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

make trails open and accessible to the 

public. It would be reasonable to fund 

forests that are used rather than those 

that are closed to the public. 

Response: The Forest Service 

directives do not restrict trail use by the 

public. 

Appalachian Trail 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

identify the Appalachian National 

Scenic Trail as a special management or 

geographic area under the Forest Service 

directives. This will help to define this 

as a special area with legislative 

designation and improve the chances for 

protection and consistent management 

across administrative boundaries. 

Response: Special areas such as the 

Congressionally-designated 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail are 

addressed under FSM 1921.02b, Special 

Area Designations. Forests are required 

to recognize that these areas are 

nationally important and that the plan 

provides appropriate guidance to 

protect, maintain, and enhance the 

values associated with these areas. 

Special areas will be described in the 

vision document as desired conditions. 

These desired conditions may be 

written for geographic conditions such 

as the Appalachian Trail that traverses 

several national forests in the East. The 

desired conditions describe the 

ecological, economic, and social 

attributes that characterize the outcome 

of land management and the 

Appalachian Trail. 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

determine the suitability of land for 

various resources, not just timber 

production because NFMA requires it. 

Suitability for recreational use of offroad vehicles is especially needed 

because off-road vehicle abuse damages 

the environment. 

Response: Off-road vehicle use is 

addressed separately in 36 CFR parts 

212, 251, 261, and 295, Travel 

Management; Designated Routes and 

Areas for Motor Vehicle Use issued on 

November 9, 2005. Section 212.55 

specifically addresses Criteria for 

designation of roads, trails, and areas. 

Due to the complex nature of this 

management issue, such choices and 

evaluations are best made at the local 

level, with full involvement of Federal, 

tribal, state, and local governments, 

motorized and non-motorized users, and 

other interested parties, as provided for 

in the 2005 planning rule. Forest 

Service directives for this rule have not 

been developed at this time. 

Lands Management 

Land Acquisition 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

put more emphasis on better 

management of existing lands rather 

than on land acquisition. The Federal 

government cannot afford to care for 

what it has let alone buy more. Jobs are 

cutout and these are jobs that are 

justified for forest management. This is 

either due to lack of funding or they are 

following projects such as the 

‘‘Wildlands Project’’ where a primitive 

setting is desired. This ideology is not 

practical in the 21st century and will 

prove to be a loss of resources for future 

generations. 

Response: Land acquisition is an 

important program for conserving 

resources that might not be protected if 

not federally owned. The Forest Service 

directives do provide some general 

guidelines for considering land 

acquisitions during the planning 

process at FSH 1909.12, section 13.13g. 

Land acquisition is considered a viable 

management option for the NFS and is 

authorized by several statutes. More 

detailed policy and guidelines can be 

found in FSM 5420, Land Purchases and 

Donations and FSH 5409.13, Land 

Acquisition Handbook. 

Special Areas 

Comment: The Forest Service should 

consider designating special areas and 

clarify who has the authority to 

designate such areas including 

recreational, wildlife, scenic, 

paleontological, and other areas not 

listed at FSM 1921. The directives 

should clarify who has the authority to 

designate such areas not just botanical 

and geologic. 

Response: FSM 1921, exhibit 01 

issued in interim directive 1920–2005–

2 has been moved to FSH 1909.12, 

section 11.15. The exhibit contains 

examples of some special areas that may 

be considered during the planning 

process. The exhibit is not a 

comprehensive list. 

Content of Directives 

The following is an overview of what 

the directives contain related to land 

management planning. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 

FSM 1900—Planning—Chapter Zero 

Code 

In general, the zero code sections of 

the directive coding scheme are used to 

identify general instructions, such as 

authority, objectives, and policy that 

apply to all subsequent direction within 

the section where the zero code is set 

out. The final directive changes 

definitions and other changes to be 

consistent with the 2005 planning rule. 

The final directive establishes policy 

that analysis should be appropriate to 

the decision being made and the risks 

associated with that decision, and that 

planning should be done in a reasonable 

manner, at reasonable costs, and in a 

reasonable amount of time. 

FSM Chapter 1920—Land Management 

Planning 

FSM 1920.2—Objectives 

The final directive revises objectives 

to reflect the principles of the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5151 

and to update sustainability wording 

consistent with the 2005 planning rule. 

FSM 1920.3—Policy 

The final directive adds that the 

responsible official must conduct 

sustainability evaluations within an area 

large enough to consider broad-scale 

factors and trends over large landscapes 

when plans are prepared or revised. 

FSM 1920.4—Responsibility 

The final directive reserves the 

authority to the Chief to approve the 

schedule of plan revisions at FSM 

1920.41. 

FSM 1921—Land Management Planning 

Under the 2005 Planning Rule 

The final directive changes the 

caption from ‘‘Regional Planning’’ to 

‘‘Land Management Planning Under the 

2005 planning rule.’’ Forest Service 

Manual 1921.03 adds policy that project 

or activity decisions should not be 

included in plans. Forest Service 

Manual 1921.04 adds responsibilities 

for Regional Foresters and Forest 

Supervisors. Forest Service Manual 

1921.1 includes direction on plan 

requirements and vegetation 

management requirements from the 

National Forest Management Act. 

Forest Service Manual 1921.12 adds a 

section on National Forest Management 

Act requirements. Forest Service 

Manual 1921.12a adds requirements for 

timber management in carrying out 

projects and activities. Forest Service 

Manual 1921.12b adds requirements for 

vegetation management guidance in 

land management plans. Forest Service 

Manual 1921.12c adds requirements for 

identifying lands not suitable for timber 

production with re-evaluation to occur 

every ten years. Forest Service Manual 

1921.12d adds requirements for 

estimating long-term sustained-yield 

capacity (LTSYC) and limitations on 

timber harvest on ‘‘lands generally 

suitable for timber harvest’’ to be equal 

to or less than the LTSYC. Also, adds 

exceptions to these limits of timber 

harvest and requirements for timber 

management projections. Forest Service 

Manual 1921.12e adds requirements for 

guidelines of maximum size limits for 

even-aged regeneration harvest. Forest 

Service Manual 1921.12f adds 

requirements for culmination of mean 

annual increment (CMAI) of growth and 

even-aged regeneration harvest and 

clarifies when the CMAI concept does 

not apply. Forest Service Manual 

1921.12g adds requirements for plan 

guidance on restocking. 

Forest Service Manual 1921.2 

includes direction on plan evaluations. 

Forest Service Manual 1921.21 requires 

the Responsible Official to review 

evaluations and determine if changes 

are needed in plan components. Forest 

Service Manual 1921.3 describes the 

Responsible Official’s discretion to 

determine the need for change in plan 

components and the need for a plan 

amendment or plan revision. Forest 

Service Manual 1921.4 describes plan 

implementation and FSM 1921.5 

describes plan monitoring. Forest 

Service Manual 1921.6 describes public 

participation and collaboration 

requirements. 

Forest Service Manual 1921.7 

describes social and economic 

evaluation, civil rights and 

environmental justice compliance, 

ecological evaluation, ecosystem 

diversity, species diversity, and plan 

components for sustainability. The final 

directive establishes at FSM 1921.73 

that the rigor of analysis should be 

proportional to the level of risk to 

ecosystems and species. A key 

requirement at FSM 1921.77c states that 

for species-of-concern, the plan should 

provide for appropriate ecological 

conditions that are of appropriate 

quality, distribution, and abundance to 

allow species populations to be well 

distributed and interactive, within the 

bounds of the life history, distribution, 

and natural population fluctuations of 

the species within the capability of the 

landscape and consistent with multipleuse objectives. 

Forest Service Manual 1921.8 

describes the role of science in 

planning, including uncertainty, review, 

and documentation. Forest Service 

Manual 1921.9 provides that an 

environmental management system 

(EMS) must be established for each 

National Forest System (NFS) unit 

developing, revising, and amending 

plans under 36 CFR 219.5 and 36 CFR 

219.14 and include the scope of the 

unit’s activities, products, and services 

implementing the plan. 

FSM 1922—Backcountry and Primitive 

Areas 

This section establishes a reserved 

code for backcountry and primitive 

areas for issuances of an interim 

directive or field supplementation. 

FSM 1923—Wilderness Evaluation 

At FSM 1923, guidance is added on 

what areas should be subject to 

evaluation based on direction from the 

1982 planning rule. Responsibilities are 

added for the forest, grassland, or prairie 

supervisor. Guidance is added on when 

a legislative environmental impact 

statement is required. Minor changes are 

made to text to agree with the 2005 

planning rule. 

FSM 1924—Wild and Scenic River 

Evaluation 

At FSM 1924, policy is added to 

complete legislatively mandated studies 

within a specified study period and to 

clarify conditions under which previous 

river studies may need to be revisited. 

A responsibility is added for the 

Regional Forester to prepare legislative 

proposals for river proposals and one 

was added for forest, grassland, or 

prairie supervisor to approve 

management direction for rivers found 

eligible or recommended for 

designation. 

FSM 1925—Management of Inventoried 

Roadless Areas 

This section provides a crossreference to another interim directive 

(id 1920–2004–1) on inventoried 

roadless areas, which became effective 

on July 16, 2004. 

FSM 1926—Land Management Planning 

Using Planning Regulations in Effect 

Before November 9, 2000 

Previous direction on FSM 1922 has 

been moved to FSM 1926. There are 

editorial changes from the previous text 

at FSM 1922 to be consistent with the 

2005 planning rule. The caption is 

changed from ‘‘Forest Planning’’ to 

‘‘Land Management Planning Using 

Planning Regulations in Effect before 

November 9, 2000.’’

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

FSH 1909.12—Land Management 

Planning Handbook 

The final directive to this handbook 

includes a change from a one-digit 

chapter coding scheme to a two-digit 

coding scheme; for example, chapter 2 

becomes chapter 20. The current 

direction in chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 

6 is removed in its entirety and those 

chapters, with two-digit coding, are 

revised to be consistent with the 2005 

planning rule at 36 CFR part 219. 

Chapter 80 (formerly chapter 8) and the 

zero code chapter contain changes to 

assure consistency with the 2005 

planning rule. 

Chapter 10—Land Management Plan 

This chapter provides direction on 

what constitutes a plan and direction on 

consideration of individual resources. 

Section 11 describes: (1) Desired 

conditions, (2) guidelines, (3) 

identification of areas generally suitable 

for various uses, (4) guidance for special 

conditions (5) objectives, (6) proposed 

and possible actions, (7) plan 

consistency, and (8) special areas and 

documentation. Section 12 includes 

guidance on the monitoring questions, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
5152 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

performance measures. Section 13 

includes guidance on consideration of 

various resources during the planning 

process, including air, water, fire, 

recreation, heritage resources, minerals, 

range, travel management, and land use. 

Chapter 20—The Adaptive Planning 

Process 

This chapter provides guidance on the 

adaptive planning process and includes 

procedural steps for amending and 

revising plans. Section 24 describes how 

to review and evaluate a plan and 

provides guidance on evaluation report 

content and format. Section 25 describes 

how to amend or revise a plan. Section 

28 describes content for the approval 

document for plan development, plan 

amendment, or plan revision. Section 29 

describes the application of plan 

direction to projects. 

Chapter 30—Public Participation and 

Collaboration 

This chapter provides guidance on 

public participation and collaboration. 

Chapter 40—Science and Sustainability 

This chapter provides guidance on 

science and sustainability. Section 41 

provides direction on science reviews 

and discusses purposes of a review, 

levels of review, review strategy, and 

identification of reviewers. Section 42 

describes social and economic 

sustainability and provides a framework 

for social and economic evaluation. 

Section 43 describes ecological 

sustainability and describes how to 

analyze ecosystem diversity and species 

diversity. 

Ecosystem Diversity and Analysis 

The steps in the ecosystem diversity 

analysis include: 

a. Selecting the appropriate scales; 

b. Identifying the characteristics of 

ecosystem diversity that will be the 

focus of the analysis; 

c. Developing information on the 

range of variation; 

d. Describing the current condition of 

the selected characteristics; 

e. Describing the current condition 

and trend of the selected characteristics 

of ecosystem diversity; 

f. Evaluating the status of ecosystem 

diversity; 

g. Describing risks to selected 

characteristics of ecosystem diversity; 

and 

h. Developing plan components for 

ecosystem diversity. 

Species Diversity Analysis 

The steps in the species diversity 

analysis include: 

a. Establishing the ecosystem context 

for species; 

b. Identifying listed species, speciesof-concern, and species-of-interest; 

c. Screening species-of-concern and 

species-of-interest for further 

consideration in the planning process; 

d. Collecting information; 

e. Identifying species groups/ 

surrogate species for analysis and 

management; and 

f. Developing additional plan 

components for species diversity if 

needed. 

Section 43.22b provides guidance to 

responsible officials in identifying 

species-of-concern and species-ofinterest. For instance, it states that the 

responsible official may identify species 

with ranks of G–1 through G–3 on the 

NatureServe ranking system as speciesof-concern. Additionally, section 43.22c 

specifies how responsible officials may 

review species with the ranks of S–1, S–

2, N1, or N2 on the NatureServe ranking 

system for potential species-of-interest. 

Species-of-interest may include hunted, 

fished, and other species identified 

cooperatively with state fish and 

wildlife agencies consistent with the 

Sikes Act. 

Chapter 50—Objection Process 

This chapter provides guidance for 

the pre-decisional objection process, 

including guidance on: computation of 

periods, evidence of timely filing, lead 

objector, dismissal of objections, 

timeframes for resolving objections, 

response of reviewing officials, and 

maintaining records. 

Chapter 60—Forest Vegetation Resource 

Planning 

This chapter adds guidance on timber 

and forest vegetation resource planning, 

including guidance on identifying lands 

generally suitable for timber production, 

suitability determinations at the project 

level, and long-term sustained-yield 

capacity. 

Chapter 80—Wild and Scenic River 

Evaluation 

This chapter revises terminology, 

such as the term ‘‘study report’’ to 

‘‘study report/applicable NEPA 

document’’ and updates terminology, 

such as, ‘‘management prescriptions’’ to 

‘‘management direction,’’ and so forth. 

In addition, chapter 80 provides more 

explicit guidance for the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (WSRs) study process that 

is consistent with a November 21, 1996, 

memorandum to Regional Foresters 

from the Directors, Ecosystem 

Management Coordination and 

Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness 

Resources Staffs, Washington Office, 

with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture-U.S. Department of the 

Interior Guidelines, and with the river 

study direction of other Federal 

agencies. These changes strengthen and 

reinforce the linkage of the river study 

process to land management planning. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Environmental Impact 

These final directives provide the 

detailed direction to agency employees 

necessary to carry out the provisions of 

the final 2005 planning rule adopted at 

36 CFR part 219 governing land 

management planning. Section 31.12 of 

FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 43208; Sept. 18, 

1992,) excludes from documentation in 

an environmental assessment or impact 

statement ‘‘rules, regulations, or policies 

to establish Service-wide administrative 

procedures, program processes, or 

instructions.’’ The agency’s conclusion 

is that these final directives fall within 

this category of actions and that no 

extraordinary circumstances exist as 

currently defined that require 

preparation of an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact 

statement. 

Regulatory Impact 

These directives have been reviewed 

under USDA procedures. The final 

directives would not have an annual 

effect of $100 million or more on the 

economy nor adversely affect 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, 

nor state or local governments. The 

directives would not interfere with an 

action taken or planned by another 

agency nor raise new legal or policy 

issues. Finally, the directives would not 

alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients of such programs. 

Moreover, the directives have been 

considered in light of Executive Order 

13272 regarding proper consideration of 

small entities and the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), which amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). No direct or indirect financial 

impact on small businesses or other 

entities has been identified. Therefore, it 

is hereby certified that these final 

directives will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as defined by 

the act. 

No Takings Implications 

These final directives have been 

analyzed in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 12360, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5153 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights, and it has been determined that 

they would not pose the risk of a taking 

of private property as they are limited 

to the establishment of administrative 

procedures. 

Energy Effects 

These final directives have been 

analyzed under Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. It has been 

determined that they do not constitute 

a significant energy action as defined in 

the Executive order. 

Civil Justice Reform 

These final directives have been 

reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform. These final 

directives will direct the work of Forest 

Service employees and are not intended 

to preempt any state and local laws and 

regulations that might be in conflict or 

that would impede full implementation 

of these directives. The directives would 

not retroactively affect existing permits, 

contracts, or other instruments 

authorizing the occupancy and use of 

National Forest System lands and would 

not require the institution of 

administrative proceedings before 

parties may file suit in court challenging 

their provisions. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538), which the President signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, the effects 

of these final directives on state, local, 

and tribal governments, and on the 

private sector have been assessed and 

do not compel the expenditure of $100 

million or more by any state, local, or 

tribal government, or anyone in the 

private sector. Therefore, a statement 

under section 202 of the act is not 

required. 

Federalism 

The agency has considered these final 

directives under the requirements of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has made a assessment that the 

final directives conform with the 

federalism principles set out in this 

Executive order; would not impose any 

significant compliance costs on the 

states; and would not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Moreover, these 

final directives address the land 

management planning process on 

national forests, grasslands, or other 

units of the National Forest System, 

which do not directly affect the states. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments 

These final directives do not have 

tribal implications as defined by 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, and therefore, advance 

consultation with tribes is not required. 

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

These final directives do not contain 

any record keeping or reporting 

requirements or other information 

collection requirements as defined in 5 

CFR part 1320 and, therefore, impose no 

paperwork burden on the public. 

Accordingly, the review provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and 

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320 do not apply. 

Conclusion 

These final directives provide 

consistent interpretation of the 2005 

planning rule for line and staff officers, 

and interdisciplinary teams. As a 

consequence, the agency can fulfill its 

commitment to improve public 

involvement and decisionmaking 

associated 1 with developing, 

amending, or revising a land 

management plan. The Forest Service 

has developed these planning directives 

to set forth the legal authorities, 

objectives, policy, responsibilities, 

direction, and overall guidance needed 

by Forest Service line officers, agency 

employees, and others to use the 2005 

planning rule. 

The full text of these manual and 

handbook references are available on 

the World Wide Web at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us.directives. Single paper 

copies are available upon request from 

the address and telephone numbers 

listed earlier in this notice as well as 

from the nearest regional office, the 

location of which are also available on 

the Washington Office headquarters 

homepage on the World Wide Web at 

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

Dated: January 10, 2006. 

Dale N. Bosworth, 

Chief. 

[FR Doc. 06–804 Filed 1–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–U 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES2