[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67514-67581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28580]



[[Page 67513]]

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

Part III





Department of Agriculture





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



Forest Service



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



36 CFR Parts 217 and 219



National Forest System Land Resource Management Planning; Final Rule

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

[[Page 67514]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Parts 217 and 219

RIN 0596-AB20


National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule describes the framework for National Forest 
System land and natural resource planning; reaffirms sustainability as 
the overall goal for National Forest System planning and management; 
establishes requirements for the implementation, monitoring, 
evaluation, amendment, and revision of land and resource management 
plans; and guides the selection and implementation of site-specific 
actions. The intended effects are to simplify, clarify, and otherwise 
improve the planning process; to reduce burdensome and costly 
procedural requirements; to strengthen and clarify the role of science 
in planning, and to strengthen collaborative relationships with the 
public and other government entities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective November 9, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert S. Cunningham, Assistant 
Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. 
Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 20090-6090, (202) 205-2494.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline displays the contents 
of the preamble to this final regulation.

General Background

The 1982 Planning Rule

Summary of Public Comment

Today's Final Rule

Response to General Comments

Section by Section Response to Public Comments

Purpose, Goals, and Principles

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

The Framework for Planning

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

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability

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

Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability

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

The Contribution of Science

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

Special Considerations

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

Planning Documentation

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

Objections and Appeals

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

Applicability and Transition

Proposed section 219.34  Applicability.
Proposed section 219.35  Transition.

Definitions

Proposed section 219.36  Definitions.

Regulatory Certification

Regulatory Impact

No Takings Implications

Civil Justice Reform Act

Unfunded Mandates Reform

Environmental Impact

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

Description of the Information Collection

Use of Comments--Federalism

General Background

    The Forest Service is responsible for managing the lands and 
resources of the National Forest System, which includes 192 million 
acres of land in 42 states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The 
system is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 
various other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
Agriculture (the Secretary).
    On October 5, 1999, the Forest Service published a proposed rule 
(64 FR 54074) to revise the Land and Resource Management Planning rule 
at 36 CFR part 219. The existing planning rule was adopted on September 
30, 1982 (47 FR 43026) and amended in part on June 24, 1983, (48 FR 
29122), and September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383). The rule is required by 
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (88 
Stat. 476 et seq.) as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 
1976, (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614) (hereafter, NFMA).
    This final rule will help the Forest Service improve forest 
planning and on-the-ground management and enable the agency to improve 
the long-term health of the national forests and grasslands while 
better meeting the needs of the American people. Consistent with the 
statutory mission of the Forest Service and applicable federal 
environmental laws, the final rule emphasizes four key concepts. First, 
it affirms sustainability as the overall goal for national forest and 
grassland management in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-
Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) (hereafter, MUSYA). Second, 
it requires extensive cooperation and collaboration with the public and 
other private and public entities. Third, it integrates science more 
effectively into the planning and management of national forests and 
grasslands. Finally, the rule eliminates burdensome analytical 
requirements

[[Page 67515]]

that were designed to govern the initial development of land and 
resource management plans and puts into place a new planning framework 
that addresses problems, issues, and opportunities identified through 
collaboration with the public, through monitoring or other scientific 
analyses, or by other means.
    The final rule is grounded in the laws that guide National Forest 
System management. It also provides for the incorporation of 
significant new scientific information and other lessons the agency has 
learned since it began implementing NFMA planning regulations in 1982. 
Indeed, much has been learned in developing, implementing, and 
litigating the original national forest and grassland plans and the 
numerous plan amendments and revisions that have been completed during 
the past two decades.
    Congress created the National Forest System ``to improve and 
protect'' federal forests (Act of June 4, 1897, ch. 2, 30 Stat. 34-36). 
The Forest Service is vested with broad authority to make rules ``to 
regulate [the Forests'] occupancy and use and to preserve the forests 
therein from destruction'' 16 U.S.C. 551.
    Sustainability of these lands and resources is the essence of 
Forest Service land and natural resource management from the very 
beginnings of the National Forest System. Over a century ago, Congress 
authorized the President to reserve ``public land bearing forests * * * 
whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations,'' Act of 
March 3, 1891, ch. 561, 26 Stat. 1095, 1103, to protect them from 
unsustainable uses that had damaged watersheds. Six years later in the 
Organic Administration Act of 1897, Congress provided further direction 
and management authority for these forest reserves and reaffirmed its 
intent to provide for sustainable protection and use of these forest 
reserves. That law provided for the establishment of forest reserves 
``to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the 
purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish 
a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens 
of the United States * * *'' 16 U.S.C. 475.
    In the MUSYA, Congress again affirmed the application of 
sustainability to the broad range of resources over which the Forest 
Service has responsibility. MUSYA confirms the Forest Service's 
authority to manage the national forests and grasslands ``for outdoor 
recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes'' 
(16 U.S.C. Sec. 528), and does so without limiting the Forest Service's 
broad discretion in determining the appropriate resource emphasis or 
levels of use of the lands of each national forest and grassland.
    Shortly after the passage of MUSYA, the public was becoming 
increasingly concerned about environmental decline throughout the 
United States. Congress responded to this concern by enacting several 
laws directed toward protecting or improving the natural environment, 
conserving natural resources to meet the needs of the American people 
in perpetuity, and providing for greater public involvement in agency 
decisionmaking. Specifically regarding forest land and resource 
management, Congress enacted the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1660(6)), which 
requires the Forest Service to manage the National Forest System lands 
according to land and resource management plans that provide for 
multiple-uses and sustained-yield in accordance with MUSYA (16 U.S.C. 
1604(e) and (g)(1)). In developing and maintaining these plans, NFMA 
calls for ``integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic 
and other sciences.'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(b)). As Sen. Humphrey stated, in 
explaining the significance of the NFMA: ``The days have ended when the 
forest may be viewed only as trees and trees viewed only as timber. The 
soil and the water, the grasses and the shrubs, the fish and the 
wildlife, and the beauty that is the forest must become integral parts 
of resource managers' thinking and actions'' (122 Cong Rec. 5618-19 
(1976)). Similarly, federal courts have recognized that NFMA and 
related statutes represent a congressional delegation of broad 
authority that allows the Forest Service to address issues of 
sustainability using an integrated ecological and socio-economic 
framework. See, e.g., Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 
1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994) aff'd 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996) * * * ``Given 
the current condition of the forests, there is no way the agencies 
could comply with the environmental laws without planning on an 
ecosystem basis.''
    NFMA also requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations ``that 
set out the process for the development and revision of the land 
management plans'' for units of the National Forest System, and 
specifies certain procedures, guidelines and goals that should be 
discussed in the regulations (16 U.S.C. 1604). NFMA expanded on MUSYA 
and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) authorities by including 
in the requirements for land use planning broad discretion to provide 
for ``diversity of plant and animal communities'' and ``to preserve the 
diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region 
controlled by the plan'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). Additionally, in 
response to public concerns regarding the sustainability of certain 
silvicultural techniques, Congress included several limitations and 
analytical requirements for timber harvest (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(D) 
through (F), (k), and (m)). NFMA also requires the Secretary to appoint 
a ``committee of scientists'' to assist in carrying out the task of 
developing and promulgating regulations in accordance with the purposes 
of the statute (16 U.S.C. 1604(h)).
    Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), ``to promote efforts which will 
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and 
stimulate the health and welfare of man, [and] enrich the understanding 
of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 
Nation'' (42 U.S.C. 4321). Under NEPA, all Forest Service proposals for 
major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment must include detailed statements of the environmental 
effects and alternatives to proposals (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)). 
Environmental effects include ecological effects ``such as the effects 
on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning 
of affected ecosystems'' (40 CFR 1508.8). NEPA also requires the Forest 
Service to ``initiate and utilize ecological information in the 
planning and development of resource-oriented projects'' (42 U.S.C. 
4332(H)).
    In addition to NEPA, the ESA also bounds the otherwise broad 
discretion that the Forest Service has over land and resource 
management. One of the purposes of the ESA is ``to provide a means 
whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened 
species depend may be conserved . . .'' (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)). The ESA 
requires federal agencies such as the Forest Service to ``utilize their 
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this [Act] by carrying 
out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened 
species'' in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)).

The 1982 Planning Rule

    In accordance with NFMA's direction to develop regulations 
regarding the development, maintenance, and revision of land and 
resource management plans for units of the

[[Page 67516]]

National Forest System, the Secretary promulgated a rule for 
implementation of the planning requirements on September 30, 1982 (47 
FR 43026), as amended (48 FR 29122, June 24, 1983), and (48 FR 40383, 
Sep. 7, 1983).\1\ The rule is codified at 36 CFR part 219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Secretary had initially promulgated these rules in 1979, 
but no forest plans were ever completed under the 1979 rules. Soon 
after a new Administration took office, the USDA Assistant Secretary 
for Natural Resources and Environment withdrew these planning rules 
and sought to revise them. Such controversy was generated as a 
result, that the Committee of Scientists involved in the development 
of the 1979 rules was reconvened and enlisted to work on what 
eventually became the 1982 planning rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many things have changed since the publication of the 1982 rule. 
Ideas and concepts, such as sustainability and ecosystem management 
have become more adequately understood and increasingly more important 
as human uses of natural resources has grown. The Forest Service has 
also gained a great deal of experience developing, implementing, 
amending, and revising the existing 127 land and resource management 
plans under the rule. The Forest Service is now in the process of 
revising many of these plans in accordance with NFMA's requirement that 
plans be revised at least once every 15 years. The agency has also 
developed innovative new planning tools, such as geographical 
information systems and is engaged in increased collaboration with the 
public and other federal agencies, tribes, state government, and other 
interested groups or persons, and uses independent scientific review 
more frequently.
    The concept of sustainability has become an internationally 
recognized objective for land and resource stewardship. In 1987, the 
Brundtland Commission Report (The World Commission on Environment and 
Development) articulated in ``Our Common Future'' the need for 
intergenerational equity in natural resource management. The Commission 
defined sustainability as meeting the needs of the present without 
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 
During the last twenty years, the world has increasingly come to 
recognize that the functioning of ecological systems is a necessary 
prerequisite for strong productive economies, enduring human 
communities, and the values people seek from wildlands.
    Similarly, the Forest Service and scientific community have 
developed the concepts of ecosystem management and adaptive management. 
Scientific advances and improved ecological understanding support an 
approach under which forests and grasslands are managed as ecosystems 
rather than focusing solely on single species or commodity output. 
Indeed, ecosystem management places greater emphasis on assessing and 
managing broad landscapes and sustaining ecological processes. 
Ecosystem management focuses on the cumulative effects of activities 
over time and over larger parts of the landscape. Planning and 
management under ecosystem management also acknowledge the dynamic 
nature of ecological systems, the significance of natural processes, 
and the uncertainty and inherent variability of natural systems. 
Ecosystem management calls for more effective monitoring of management 
actions and their effects to facilitate adaptive management, which 
encourages changes in management emphasis and direction as new, 
scientific information is developed. In accord with ecosystem 
management, regional ecosystem assessments have become the foundation 
for more comprehensive planning, sometimes involving multiple forests 
and other public land management units. The Northwest Forest Plan, for 
example, affects 17 national forests and 6 BLM districts in a three-
state region. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project encompasses 
25 percent of the entire National Forest System and ten percent of the 
public lands administered by the BLM nationwide.
    In the last 20 years, the number of federal, state and local 
agencies, Tribes, members of the public, and interested groups wanting 
to be involved in planning decisions and share stewardship 
responsibilities has skyrocketed. In many cases, Forest Service 
personnel have been able to learn significant information, create new 
understanding, build trust, obtain new resources for implementation and 
monitoring, and diffuse potential conflicts by engaging these parties 
more effectively in the planning process through collaboration. While 
collaborative approaches do not end conflict or necessarily result in 
consensus, by engaging people and identifying key issues early in the 
process, they enable the Forest Service to make better decisions and to 
manage conflict more effectively. Similarly, the Forest Service has 
learned that independent scientific and public review can greatly 
enhance the credibility of planning and validate the soundness of 
stewardship decisions and the reality of achievements.
    Taken together, ecosystem management, scientific reviews, and 
collaboration enable the Forest Service to identify key scientific and 
public issues and to target its limited resources on trying to resolve 
those issues at the most appropriate time and geographic scale. Based 
on these changes in the state of scientific and technical knowledge, 
the Forest Service's extensive experience, and a series of systematic 
reviews, the Forest Service has concluded that 36 CFR part 219 must be 
revised in order to better reflect current knowledge and practices and 
to better meet the conservation challenges of the future. Indeed, while 
the 1982 planning rule was appropriate for developing the first round 
of plans from scratch, it is no longer well suited for implementing the 
NFMA or responding to the ecological, social, and economic issues 
currently facing the national forests and grasslands.
    The Forest Service has undertaken two systematic reviews of the 
planning process mandated by the 1982 rules. The first began in 1989, 
when it conducted a comprehensive review of its land management 
planning process in cooperation with the Conservation Foundation and 
Purdue University's Department of Forestry and Natural Resources. The 
results of this review are documented in a summary report, Synthesis of 
the Critique of Land Management Planning, Volume One and ten 
accompanying detailed reports. Based in part on this review, the Forest 
Service published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 6508, 
Feb. 15, 1991) regarding possible revisions to the 1982 planning rule. 
The agency conducted four public meetings to explain and discuss ideas 
for revising the planning rule; and received comments from over 600 
individuals and groups. These comments were used in the development of 
a proposed rule published on April 13, 1995 (60 FR 18886). However, due 
to comments received on the 1995 proposed rule and lessons learned from 
experiences in developing the Northwest Forest Plan, regional 
assessments, and other regional ecosystem management strategies, the 
Secretary elected not to proceed with that proposal.
    The second systematic review was undertaken in December 1997, when 
the Secretary of Agriculture convened a 13-member Committee of 
Scientists to review the Forest Service planning process and offer 
recommendations for improvements within the statutory mission of the 
Forest Service and the established framework of environmental laws. The 
members of this Committee of Scientists represented a diversity of 
views, backgrounds, and academic expertise. The Committee's charter was 
to ``provide scientific and technical

[[Page 67517]]

advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest 
Service on improvements that can be made in the National Forest System 
Land and Resource Management Planning Process and to address such 
topics as how to consider the following in land and resource management 
plans: biological diversity, use of ecosystem assessments in land and 
resource management planning, spatial and temporal scales for planning, 
public participation processes, sustainable forestry, interdisciplinary 
analysis, and any other issues that the Committee identifies that 
should be addressed in revised planning regulations.'' The Committee 
was also asked to recommend improvements in Forest Service coordination 
with other federal, state, and local agencies, and tribal governments 
while recognizing the unique roles and responsibilities of each agency 
in the planning process.
    The Committee held more than 20 publicly noticed meetings and 
teleconferences across the country and heard from Forest Service 
employees, representatives of tribes, state and local governments and 
other federal agencies, members of the public, former Chiefs of the 
Forest Service, and members of the original Committee of Scientists 
regarding their concerns and ideas about the current planning process 
and the current management of national forests and grasslands.
    Following these meetings, the Committee of Scientists issued a 
final report on March 15, 1999, entitled Sustaining the People's Lands. 
The Committee found that, through careful management, National Forest 
System lands can continue to provide many diverse benefits to the 
American people in perpetuity. These benefits include clean air and 
water, productive soils, biological diversity, a wide variety of 
products and services, employment, community development opportunities, 
and recreation. The Committee recognized that many Forest Service 
managers have developed innovative ways to commingle science and 
collaborative public processes to improve land management decisions, 
and that these innovative strategies provided a good starting point for 
developing a more integrated, long-lasting, and flexible planning 
framework. The Committee concluded that the Forest Service can improve 
its planning and decisionmaking by relying on the concepts and 
principles of sustainable natural resource stewardship; by applying the 
best available scientific knowledge to management choices; and by 
effectively collaborating with a broad array of citizens, other public 
servants, and governmental and private entities. Accordingly, the 
Committee recommended a planning framework that would provide 
flexibility in dealing with a multitude of resource issues at various 
scales across the landscape and would require managers to integrate 
public collaboration and science to identify desirable outcomes and 
promote sustainable management. It also recommended use of adaptive 
practices, monitoring, performance measures, and budgeting strategies.
    Based on scientific advances in forestry, forest management and 
range science, the 1990 Critique of land and resource management 
planning and the Committee of Scientists' findings and recommendations 
as contained in its 1999 report, the various laws and regulations that 
guide National Forest System planning and management, and over 17 years 
of experience in developing and implementing the existing 127 land and 
resource management plans, a team of Forest Service employees from 
national, regional, and local offices, aided by an interagency steering 
committee, prepared the October 5, 1999, proposed rule to 
comprehensively revise the land and resource management planning 
regulation at 36 CFR part 219 (60 FR 18886 Oct. 5, 1999).

Summary of Public Comment

    In addition to the meetings held by the Committee of Scientists, 
the Forest Service conducted more than twenty public town meetings to 
solicit input on the proposed rule. At many of the locations, the 
Forest Service also conducted meetings with representatives from 
Tribes, state and local governments, and other federal agencies. The 
agency held town meetings in both rural and urban communities across 
the country, at the following locations:

St. Louis, MO--Tuesday, October 26, 1999
Hanover, NH--Tuesday, October 26, 1999
Duluth, MN--Thursday, October 28, 1999
Olympia, WA--Tuesday, November 2, 1999
Boise, ID--Monday, November 1, 1999
Juneau, AK--Thursday, November 4, 1999
Salem, OR--Thursday, November 4, 1999
Casper, WY--Tuesday, November 9, 1999
Reno, NV--Wednesday, November 10, 1999
Los Angeles, CA--Saturday, November 13, 1999
Denver, CO--Saturday, November 13, 1999
Little Rock, AR--Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Bozeman, MT--Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Jackson, MS--Thursday, November 18, 1999
Missoula, MT--Thursday, November 18, 1999
Coeur d'Alene, ID--Saturday, November 20, 1999
Montrose, CO--Tuesday, November 30, 1999
Grayling, MI--Wednesday, December 1, 1999
Albuquerque, NM--Thursday, December 2, 1999
Asheville, NC--Saturday, December 4, 1999
Salt Lake, UT--Tuesday, December 7, 1999
Sacramento, CA--Thursday, December 9, 1999
Phoenix, AZ--Thursday, December 9, 1999
    Approximately 1339 people attended the public meetings. The public 
comment period on the proposed rule closed on January 3, 2000, but was 
subsequently extended to February 10, 2000. Some 10,489 persons or 
entities submitted written comments on the proposed rule. The 
respondents consisted of a wide array of individuals, businesses, 
government agencies, and organizations. Most respondents agreed that 
the planning regulations needed to be revised and supported the 
objectives that the Forest Service proposed, but provided numerous 
comments on how to better achieve those objectives.

Today's Final Rule

    Today's final rule will help the Forest Service improve forest 
planning and on-the-ground management and enable the agency to improve 
the long-term health of the national forests and grasslands while 
better meeting the needs of the American people. The final rule affirms 
ecological, social, and economic sustainability as the overall goal for 
managing the National Forest System lands and makes the maintenance and 
restoration of ecological sustainability a first priority for 
management of the national forests and grasslands so these lands can 
contribute to economic and social sustainability by providing a 
sustainable flow of uses, values, products, and services.
    The final rule published here today also is designed to facilitate 
greater public collaboration in all phases of the planning process. The 
rule expands on existing requirements for collaboration to expand 
management choices, create new understanding, build trust, obtain

[[Page 67518]]

new resources for implementation and monitoring, manage conflict more 
productively, and more fully informed decisionmaking to ensure the 
long-term sustainability of the multiple resources of national forests 
and grasslands. The rule encourages land managers to more actively 
engage the American people, other federal, state and local agencies, 
Tribes, and interested groups in the planning and management of the 
national forests and grasslands. In collaborative settings that provide 
opportunities for early, open, and frequent public involvement, 
responsible Forest Service officials will play many roles, including 
serving as process conveners, facilitators, leaders, participants, and 
decision makers, as appropriate.
    The final rule creates opportunities for people, communities, and 
organizations to work together in the identification of key issues, 
discussions of opportunities for contributing to sustainability, and 
development and promotion of landscape goals. Indeed, under the rule, 
improvements to management practices would be made based upon 
cooperatively developed landscape goals and other issues which can 
emerge from a variety of sources such as collaboration, monitoring, 
evaluation, broad-scale assessments, local analyses, new laws and 
policies, or simply from discussions among interested persons. The 
proposed regulation would encourage the public to be involved in 
identifying concerns and problems, considering available information, 
assessing current conditions, and identifying potential solutions even 
before a proposal for agency action is written. This early public 
involvement would make more information available to the public, 
enhance its ability to participate in the process, and lead to better 
communication about expectations and outcomes. To further enhance the 
collaborative process, advisory committees could be used to assist the 
responsible official in determining whether there is a reasonable basis 
for proposing an action to address an issue.
    Additionally, the final rule would replace the post-decision appeal 
process with a pre-decisional objection process. The objection process 
would only apply to forest and grassland plan revisions and amendments. 
Under a pre-decisional objection process, a person could object to a 
pending decision before the agency makes a final decision, a process 
very similar to the protest procedures now in effect in the Bureau of 
Land Management. The intent is to provide the reviewing official with 
an opportunity to work more closely with the responsible official and 
those filing objections to resolve the objections before a decision is 
made. A pre-decisional objection process also will enhance interagency 
collaboration by standardizing objection procedures and will provide 
incentives to work out substantive differences rather than focus on 
procedural errors.
    The emphasis on collaboration is consistent with direction provided 
in NFMA and other statutes guiding land and resource management and in 
concert with the underlying philosophy of national forest management. 
As reflected in guidance provided by Gifford Pinchot in the first 
Forest Service administrative manual, Uses of the National Forests 
(1907), ``National Forests are made for and owned by the people. They 
should also be managed by the people * * * If National Forests are 
going to accomplish anything worthwhile the people must know all about 
them and must take a very active part in their management. What the 
people as a whole want, will be done. To do it, it is necessary that 
the people carefully consider and plainly state just what they want and 
then take a very active part in seeing that they get it.''
    Another key element in the final rule is greater emphasis on the 
use of science in planning. The final rule requires the use of the best 
available science to give the Forest Service and the people, 
communities, and organizations involved in the planning process sound 
information on which to make recommendations about the resource 
conditions and outcomes they desire. The final rule incorporates 
science in the planning and decisionmaking process in a number of ways.
    First, the rule recognizes the lessons learned in recent years 
about developing and analyzing information at the regional ecosystem 
level. Regional ecosystem assessments have proven to be an extremely 
valuable and efficient means of understanding the scientific, 
ecological, social, and economic issues and trends affecting national 
forests and grasslands and generating baseline data for use in planning 
and decisionmaking.
    Second, consistent with the 1990 Critique and the Committee of 
Scientists report, the final rule emphasizes monitoring and evaluation 
of resource conditions and trends over time so that management can be 
adapted as conditions change. Specifically, the required monitoring and 
evaluation will assist in determining if desired outcomes are being 
achieved and how to adapt if they are not. This emphasis is in keeping 
with NFMA's direction to ensure research on evaluation of the effects 
of each management system, based on continuous monitoring and 
assessment in the field, to the end that it will not produce 
substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land 
(16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C)). As noted by the Committee of Scientists, 
``Monitoring is a key component of planning * * * Monitoring procedures 
need to be incorporated into planning procedures and should be designed 
to be part of the information used to inform decisions. Adaptive 
management and learning are not possible without effective monitoring 
of actual consequences from management activities.''
    Third, the final rule provides for the establishment of science 
advisory boards to improve decision makers' and planners' access to 
current scientific information and analysis. It also provides for an 
independent scientific review of the effectiveness of land management 
plans in meeting the goal of sustainability during the revision 
process, and, when appropriate, science consistency evaluations to 
determine whether the planning process is consistent with the best 
available science. As the Committee of Scientists observed, ``To ensure 
public trust and support innovation, scientific and technical review 
processes need to become essential elements of management and 
stewardship * * * The more that conservation strategies and management 
actions are based on scientific findings and analysis, the greater the 
need for an ongoing process to ensure that the most current and 
complete scientific and technical knowledge is used.''
    Fourth, the proposed rule affirms the Forest Service's commitment 
to the viability of all species in accordance with the NFMA requirement 
to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities and 
recognizes the unique contributions national forest and grassland 
stewardship can make in maintaining species viability. At the same 
time, the rule recognizes the limits of our scientific understanding 
and financial and technical capability to conduct viability 
assessments. To assess the viability of appropriate species of flora 
and fauna, the rule calls for the use of focal species as indicators of 
ecological conditions and the best available science and information, 
including professional opinion and the principles of conservation 
biology.
    Finally, the final rule provides a planning framework that 
facilitates the identification and responsive resolution to emerging 
problems. The final rule simplifies required planning steps to enable 
responsible officials to more readily address emerging issues than is

[[Page 67519]]

possible under the 1982 rule. For example, the final rule would clarify 
that, where appropriate, multiple planning activities of one or more 
national forests or grasslands can be combined along administrative 
boundaries. Additionally, current requirements for detailed analyses, 
such as those required for benchmark analyses, would be streamlined or 
eliminated. Moreover, planning would be done at the most appropriate 
scale in order to address key issues, and forest and grassland plans 
and projects would use the same planning framework. The final rule also 
allows the steps in the planning framework to be coordinated with the 
scoping requirements under the Forest Service NEPA procedures when 
appropriate. This will reduce duplication in the preparation of 
environmental documents associated with management of the National 
Forest System.
    In summary, the final rule will enable the Forest Service to make 
better decisions about the National Forest System and guide Forest 
Service planning and management clearly and effectively well into the 
21st Century. Grounded in law and experience, the final rule affirms 
sustainability as the overall goal for national forest and grassland 
management, requires greater cooperation and collaboration with the 
public and other private and public entities, and more effectively 
integrates science into Forest Service planning and management. At the 
same time, the rule also includes the essential features of National 
Forest System planning that Chief Gifford Pinchot established almost a 
century ago and that the Forest Service has used throughout the history 
of the agency. These features include detailed inventories, monitoring 
of forest conditions, determination of sustainable levels of uses, and 
exclusion of uses, where necessary, to protect watershed and other 
resources (1906 Use Book).

Response to General Comments

    Many of the comments received did not address specific sections of 
the proposed rule, but were more general in nature. These comments and 
responses are summarized below.
    Comment: Committee of Scientists Report. A common concern involved 
the incorporation of the Committee of Scientists' report findings into 
the proposed planning rule. Some people felt recommendations in the 
Committee of Scientists report should lay the groundwork for management 
and guide future management actions. Others, however, believed this 
report should be subject to peer review by other qualified science 
professionals. Additionally, some people proposed that the Committee of 
Scientists' report be open to public scrutiny, requiring public 
meetings and a public comment period for review of the report. Other 
respondents suggested that the proposed planning rule include the names 
and qualifications of the Committee of Scientists' members.
    Response: The Committee of Scientists, established by the Secretary 
of Agriculture under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, represented a 
spectrum of disciplines and views related to planning for the National 
Forest System. While formal, scientific peer review of the 
recommendations of the Committee was not undertaken, the process used 
in the development of the Committee's report provided for external 
review and comment. In developing its recommendations, the Committee 
utilized a very open, deliberative process which included open public 
meetings, an internet web site accessible to the public which contained 
its working drafts and related papers, and public meetings. The names 
and qualifications of the members of the Committee are listed in the 
report and available on the Committee's web site (www.cof.orst.edu/org/scicomm).
    Comment: National Forest Management Act requirements. Many 
reviewers said that the proposed rule did not clearly identify how it 
complied with NFMA requirements. These reviewers felt that the intent 
of NFMA can be realized without revising the current land and resource 
management planning process.
    Response: The preamble of the proposed rule described how the 
planning rule complied with specific sections of NFMA and reasons for 
revising the existing planning regulations.
    Comment: Need for revising the existing rule. According to several 
respondents, the Forest Service should demonstrate the need for 
revising the existing planning rule. In particular, some believed that 
the length of time the existing rule has been in effect is not 
justification for implementing a new rule. Others argued that the 
existing system already fulfills NFMA and NEPA requirements and that 
some individual forest plans are very effective, and there is no reason 
for changing the process. Several people argued that the proposed rule 
does not address deficiencies in the existing rule. The Forest Service 
should document the inadequacies inherent in the existing planning 
process. Some commenters asserted that the existing rule should be 
improved before a new planning rule is implemented.
    Response: This comment has previously been addressed in the 
preamble of the proposed rule and in this final rule document.
    Comment: Public trust and credibility. Many respondents expressed 
concerns regarding the purpose of the proposed planning rule. Some felt 
the primary objective of the planning process was to establish public 
trust and credibility. They believed that the trust in Forest Service 
structure and management was waning and recommended that the agency 
take steps to rectify this. In addition, the Forest Service should 
assume the leadership role in the effort to ensure healthy forests.
    Response: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is concerned 
with the lack of trust expressed about the Forest Service by the 
respondents. The revised planning process is designed to encourage 
effective communication and cooperation among diverse national forest 
and grassland users. The Forest Service will continue to participate 
with others indeveloping management strategies to conserve healthy 
forests and grasslands.
    Comment: Discretionary authority. Some reviewers were concerned 
that the proposed regulations would broaden the discretionary power of 
Forest Service officials. These individuals asserted that the current 
discretionary authority of the Forest Service has resulted in increased 
litigation. They were concerned that further increase in authority 
could result in additional appeals and lawsuits.
    Response: The Department does not agree with the comment that 
increased discretion creates increased litigation. Increased 
discretionary authority may provide the needed flexibility to craft 
appropriate solutions to complex natural resource issues acceptable to 
a wide variety of interests. It has been the experience of the Forest 
Service and others that inflexible policies are often the genesis of 
misunderstandings and eventual litigation. The planning rule is 
intended to improve opportunities to collaborate with a wide variety of 
people and reach well-reasoned and sustainable solutions to natural 
resource issues.
    Comment: Statutory authority. Many public comments focused on the 
statutory authority for the proposed planning rule stating that the 
proposed rule should both recognize and comply with existing laws. Some 
people felt that the proposed rule provided improved integration of 
environmental laws and regulations; while, others said that the 
proposed rule goes beyond legal limitations and that only Congress can 
make such changes in national policy.

[[Page 67520]]

    Response: The Department agrees that the planning rule improves the 
integration of current laws and recognizes it as consistent with the 
laws that guide all Forest Service activities. A full discussion 
related to this concern is addressed in this preamble under the heading 
statutory authority.
    Comment: Public Lands Planning and Management Improvement Act. Some 
reviewers noted that the Public Lands Planning and Management 
Improvement Act (PLPMIA) offered provisions for meeting human and 
wildlife needs. They felt that act should be used to help streamline 
the management process, resolve contradictory laws, and modernize the 
land management laws.
    Response: The Congress is considering the proposed legislation, but 
it is not law and therefore does not apply. Moreover, the Department 
believes human and wildlife needs are adequately represented in the 
final planning rule, see sections 219.20 and 219.21, and the management 
process is streamlined.
    Comment: Conflicts over values. In the words of one respondent, 
``Most of the crises that beset the Forest Service since the age of 
environmentalism have concerned conflicts over values, not individual 
land use decisions.'' Value conflicts can only be resolved through 
effective policymaking, this person contended, and the Forest Service's 
policymaking efforts are in need of improvement.
    Response: The planning framework outlined in the regulation is 
intended to provide a flexible mechanism to identify and solve issues 
before they mature into intractable problems pitting people against one 
another, rather than seeking mutually beneficial results. There is no 
intention to diminish the importance of the values people possess with 
regard to the use and enjoyment of national forests and grasslands. 
Better policies are the result of people working together to solve 
common problems.
    Comment: Analysis of prior appeals. Some respondents suggested that 
the Forest Service address prior appeals against Forest Service 
decisions as part of the proposed planning rule. They believed that 
interviews with people who filed appeals should be incorporated into 
the planning process.
    Response: Appeals and the concerns of national forest and grassland 
users were considered in development of the planning rule. The team 
that developed the proposed regulation and response to public comment 
based their work on years of experience in addressing the concerns of 
interested citizens. The increased emphasis that the planning rule 
places on collaboration is a direct response to improve working 
relationships among interested citizens.
    Comment: Vested water rights. Some respondents are concerned that 
discretionary authority granted to forest planners in the proposed 
planning rule may override states' water rights. They asserted that no 
law allows ecological needs to surpass vested state water rights.
    Response: The planning regulation does not override existing water 
rights adjudication procedures.
    Comment: Selling the national forests. One person suggested that 
the Forest Service sell some of the national forest land back to United 
States citizens in order to generate tax revenue.
    Response: This rule addresses management of lands in public 
ownership. Planning conducted in accordance with this rule may address 
land ownership adjustment needs where that is an issue. It is beyond 
the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to sell national forests 
and grasslands to generate tax revenue.
    Comment: Civil rights analysis. One reviewer asked if the proposed 
rule would require a civil rights impact analysis, as required by 
Departmental Regulation 4300-4, ``since the rule will affect various 
publics.''
    Response: A civil rights impact analysis has been prepared and is 
available upon request from the person listed at the beginning of this 
final rulemaking document under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The 
analysis describes the increased opportunities many people will have to 
become engaged in National Forest System planning under the new rule. 
It concludes that ``no adverse civil rights impacts are anticipated on 
the delivery of benefits or other program outcomes on an 
underrepresented population, to U.S. populations or communities, or 
employees of USDA on a national level.''
    Comment: General clarity. Many comments reflected a need to 
reevaluate the clarity of the language used in the proposed planning 
rule. Many contended the general comprehensibility of the language 
needed to be improved to allow the public to better understand the 
concepts of the rule. Many of the respondents felt that the document 
was too verbose and redundant to understand. Further, some people 
argued that the proposed rule was too complex for most citizens to 
comprehend. In addition, some contended that the format of the proposed 
rule inundated the reader with a multitude of long and tedious 
subdivisions, which made the document difficult to follow.
    Response: The Department has made a genuine effort to simplify the 
language of the final rule. The length of the text has been reduced, 
and several technical terms (e.g. ecological integrity and watershed 
integrity) have been eliminated to improve readability. The text about 
sustainability has been rearranged to combine analysis requirements 
related to sustainability with other analysis requirements. In 
addition, the goals and principles are simplified in the final rule.
    Comment: Discretionary versus compulsory direction. Many people 
indicated that the language of the proposed planning rule was too 
discretionary. Words like ``should'' and ``may,'' many believed, should 
be replaced with more definitive wording such as ``shall'' or ``must.'' 
These respondents asserted that the nebulous nature of the rule would 
weaken its enforceability. By contrast, others said that the proposed 
regulation had too many ``must'' and ``shall'' statements and would, 
therefore, be impossible to implement because of all the restrictions 
imposed.
    Response: The Department has carefully considered which provisions 
of the final planning regulation should be discretionary versus 
compulsory direction and the use of this language should not be viewed 
as either increasing or decreasing the importance of the planning 
procedures in developing sound solutions to natural resource issues. 
The final rule does not contain any ``shall'' statements.

Section-by-Section Response to Public Comments

    The majority of comments addressed specific sections of the 
proposed rule. These comments and responses are summarized below.

Purpose, Goals, and Principles

    In the proposed rule this chapter is named ``Purpose, Goals, and 
Principles.'' In the final rule, it is shortened to `` Purpose and 
Principles.'' Revisions were made to clarify and simplify language in 
the final rule.
    Proposed Section 219.1--Purpose. This section described the purpose 
of the proposed rule. The proposed rule guides planning efforts toward 
the overall goal of sustainability. Purposes are to: (1) Guide 
stewardship; (2) set forth a process for amending and revising plans 
and for monitoring plan implementation; and (3) guide selection and 
implementation of site-specific actions. The national forests were set 
aside and protected from exploitation to

[[Page 67521]]

embrace, as a matter of national policy, a system of sustainable forest 
reserves to protect water resources and ensure a continuous supply of 
timber for benefit of the American public. The proposed rule 
incorporated language recommended by the Committee of Scientists (see 
Chapter 8, ``Sustaining the People's Lands'').
    Comment: Ecological Sustainability and Compliance with the 
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the Organic Administration 
Act. Many respondents felt that the agency erred in placing ecological 
sustainability as the first priority. They felt that the agency was 
ignoring its legislative mandates for multiple-use and had slighted the 
importance of humans and their needs in the management of National 
Forest System lands.
    According to some respondents, changing the emphasis of planning to 
ecological sustainability would virtually make it impossible to comply 
with the MUSYA. They were concerned that the MUSYA requirement, to 
ensure a continued supply of products and services in perpetuity, would 
be jeopardized. Additional public comments expressed concern that 
provisions of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 could not be 
achieved with ecological sustainability as the primary objective.
    Response: The proposed rule's focus on sustaining ecosystems is 
fully compatible with the Forest Service's underlying statutes. In 
order to ensure that the multiple-uses can be sustained in perpetuity, 
decisions must be made with sustainability as the overall guiding 
principle. Ecological sustainability lays a necessary foundation for 
national forests and grasslands to contribute to the economic and 
social needs of citizens. Without first maintaining, and where 
appropriate restoring, ecologically sustainable systems the 
productivity of the land for various social and economic uses could be 
impaired, therefore, planning for multiple-use, sustained-yield 
management of national forest and grasslands must operate within a 
baseline level that ensures the sustainability of ecological systems. 
Although some respondents perceived a conflict between emphasis on 
sustainable ecosystems and legislative mandates, the Department does 
not believe this is true. Instead, the Department sees ecological 
sustainability not only as a complement to multiple-use, sustained-
yield management, but also as a prerequisite for it.
    It is the Department's view that the rule is consistent with the 
Forest Service's conservation and legislative mandates. Contrary to 
some comments received, the proposed rule did not change the 
overarching purpose for planning. Rather, it affirmed the direction in 
the MUSYA. As used in the final rule, sustainability embodies the 
congressional mandates of multiple-use and sustained-yield without 
impairing the productivity of the land. In the final rule, 
sustainability is described as comprising three intricately linked 
elements that integrate the ecological, social, and economic aspects of 
our world. It is virtually impossible to separate one element from the 
other.
    For example, without a sound social and economic system in place, 
people are more likely to over-exploit the natural world to meet basic 
human needs. At the same time, ecological resources constitute the 
foundation upon which our ability to meet other needs ultimately rests. 
Ecological elements are the capital, the investment in our future. 
Sustainability provides for meeting needs of the present generation 
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 
needs. In response to public comment, language is added at the end of 
section 219.1 of the final rule to clarify the relationship among 
ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
    Under the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the forest reserves 
were set aside and protected from exploitation, with the intention to 
embrace a system of sustainable forest reserves that would protect 
water resources and ensure a continuous supply of timber for the 
benefit of the American public. As the U.S. population grows and the 
environmental consequences of human activities are better understood, 
it is not only logical, but it is imperative that knowledge and skills 
are applied to ensure the sustainable, continuous use and enjoyment of 
our natural resource legacy as described in the Organic Administration 
Act.
    Ecological sustainability has always been the linchpin of managing 
national forests and grasslands. The final rule provides for 
progressively improving the understanding of how to achieve sustainable 
use and enjoyment of the National Forest System through monitoring 
results and effective engagement of scientific knowledge and the skills 
and interests of citizens, elected officials, and others. The increased 
use of national forests and grasslands requires increased knowledge and 
understanding of sustainable multiple-uses. If the ecological basis of 
the national forests and grasslands is compromised in providing 
products, services uses, and values, then a ``continuous supply of 
products and services'' will not be achieved in ``perpetuity'' as 
required by MUSYA.
    Proposed Section 219.2--Goals and principles for planning. This 
section of the proposed rule identified five major goals for land and 
resource management planning, with each goal having a set of supporting 
principles. In the final rule, this section has been renamed 
``Principles.''
    Comment: Quantifiable information. Many believed the proposed 
planning rule should include objective and quantifiable information. In 
particular, some respondents recommended that the proposed planning 
rule provide statistical data to support the need for the plan 
revisions. They felt that access to quantifiable information could 
allow the public to offer more informed comments. Others suggested that 
the proposed rule include measures to assess goal achievement in forest 
planning. One respondent contended that beauty and inspiration are too 
subjective to use as points of consideration in land resource and 
management planning.
    Response: A premise of the final rule is science-based 
decisionmaking, including use of the best available information. 
Sections 219.5, 219.20, and 219.21 in the final rule describe 
appropriate assessments and analyses needed prior to proposing a site-
specific action or a plan amendment or revision. The rule also stresses 
the development and implementation of monitoring strategies to use in 
evaluating plan implementation and achievement of sustainability 
(section 219.11). The development of both qualitative and quantitative 
information described in the planning rule will improve the overall 
understanding and sustainable use of the National Forest System.
    Comment: Sampling interested parties to determine resource 
objectives. Developing, achieving, and evaluating planning goals and 
objectives elicited a number of comments. One recreational organization 
recommended that the Forest Service survey a random sample of parties 
interested in National Forest System lands when determining specific 
resource objectives. They suggested by using a random sampling scheme, 
the agency could assure that all interests have an opportunity to 
provide input in the planning process.
    Response: The final rule does not require specific tools or 
analytical approaches to sampling user preferences. The information and 
analysis described in section 219.21 may be obtained through sampling 
in appropriate circumstances. The rule

[[Page 67522]]

also provides opportunities for interested and affected people to 
participate in planning for the use and enjoyment of their national 
forests and grasslands. While sampling methods may prove useful for 
many tasks, the Department believes it is imperative that people 
participate with Forest Service personnel in planning.
    Comment: Long-term planning. Several respondents suggested that the 
proposed planning rule emphasize long-term planning. These people felt 
that long-term forest health should take precedence over short-term 
economic gains by resource extraction companies.
    Response: While the planning rule does not set forth specific 
short-term versus long-term standards, the planning rule is designed to 
ensure that short-term uses do not damage or otherwise harm the long-
term sustainability of each national forest and grassland.
    Comment: Ecological values. Some respondents believed that 
ecological values should be defined as intrinsic goals rather than 
constraints. The conservation of ecological values was important for 
many who recommended that the proposed planning rule be used as a guide 
in preserving national forests. They expressed concern that the 
increasing human population will ultimately encroach on the few natural 
places left. They asserted preservation of National Forest System lands 
to offset this loss is imperative.
    Response: The final planning rule states that the first priority 
for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands is to maintain 
or restore ecological sustainability. If the preservation of a unit of 
land is necessary to ensure long-term sustainability, that decision 
would be made through the planning process in a plan amendment or 
revision receiving full public review and comment within the Forest 
Service NEPA procedures.
    Comment: Balancing economic and social needs. Several people 
expressed the belief that balancing economic and social needs should be 
a priority in national forest planning. Specifically, one person 
suggested that balancing selective logging practices, road maintenance, 
and access to national forest lands is crucial for successful forest 
management. Others recommended that the proposed rule's effects on 
industries and communities be evaluated prior to implementation.
    Response: Balancing the production of multiple values, uses, 
products, and services from each national forest and grassland is a 
continual process achieved through collaboration and planning. The 
planning rule is intended to enhance collaboration and the balancing of 
social and economic needs in a sustainable environment. A cost-benefit 
analysis was done for the planning rule and is available. Regulatory 
implications are discussed later in this preamble.
    Comment: Restricting corporate industry. Some respondents felt that 
restricting corporate industry use of national forests and grasslands 
should be a priority in planning. Respondents contended that, 
relatively speaking, large corporations pose greater detrimental 
impacts to national forests than do recreational users. The Forest 
Service should focus on improving and maintaining forests, rather than, 
as one person commented, ``catering to degrading commercial ventures.'' 
In contrast, others felt that the restoration of ecosystems as a 
guiding principle is not a valid, achievable planning goal.
    Response: The Department believes that it is appropriate for both 
large corporations as well as small companies to have an active role in 
the management and stewardship of national forests and grasslands. In 
the planning rule, no group is provided an unfair advantage or 
disadvantage in securing use or access to natural resources.
    Comment: Balancing the world's resource needs. Other respondents 
asserted that Forest Service's mission statement should include 
balancing the world's resource needs. ``With both balance and 
agreement, the Forest Service can once again be the world's leader in 
land and natural resource management,'' they contended. Some citizens 
feared the scope of the proposed planning effort might make the United 
States dependent on other countries for raw materials. ``Since we have 
some of the best environmental laws to deal with,'' they write, ``it 
makes little sense globally to obtain raw materials from countries who 
do not have adequate restrictions.''
    Response: As described in the NFMA, the Forest Service * * * ``has 
both a responsibility and an opportunity to be a leader in assuring 
that the Nation maintains a natural resource conservation posture that 
will meet the requirements of our people in perpetuity.'' Regarding the 
global nature of today's world, it is certainly appropriate to consider 
the resource needs, uses, and practices of our national trading 
partners and others. The planning rule sets the stage for the wise, 
sustained use of the national forests and grasslands, and provides a 
link to national level planning, though which national policy makers 
can consider methods to improve the production and use of renewable 
natural resources in the United States and elsewhere.
    Comment: Limiting planning to smaller areas. Some people felt that 
forest plans should be directed toward unit-sized planning efforts. 
These respondents believed that keeping planning limited to smaller 
areas ensures greater understanding by both the public and forest 
managers.
    Response: The planning regulations provide for adjusting the 
boundaries of planning based on the scope and scale of issues 
addressed. In many places, planning and involvement with the public 
will take place in areas smaller than a national forest or grassland. 
Only in the revision process is it required that the entire national 
forest or grassland be considered. Even in that circumstance, decisions 
may be made that apply only to geographic areas within or among 
administrative units.
    Other changes. In the final rule, this section has been reorganized 
and restructured for clarity and readability. Goal statements have been 
removed from this section in the final rule to prevent confusion with 
the term ``goal'' used in other contexts. Much of the text in the 
proposed rule provided background information regarding the principles 
of planning. The final rule provides more of an outline format to 
specifically highlight six planning principles and their key 
characteristics.
    Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule provided that ``planning must be 
directed toward assuring the ecological sustainability of our 
watersheds, forests, and rangelands.'' The final rule has added 
language to maintain or restore the ecological sustainability of 
national forests and grasslands. This change is made to recognize the 
importance of ``restoration'' of national forest and grasslands.
    Paragraph (a)(2) in the final rule provides that ``scientifically 
based strategies for sustainability'' benefit from independent 
scientific review. This change was made to this section from the 
proposed rule to acknowledge the importance of independent scientific 
review in this new planning structure.

The Framework for Planning

    Proposed Section 219.3--Overview. This section of the proposed rule 
described the overall framework for planning, the levels of planning 
and decisionmaking, and the key elements of the planning framework.
    Comment: Clarification of the planning framework. Many respondents 
felt that the planning framework needs more specific guidance and

[[Page 67523]]

requirements. Claiming that the framework will not assure consistency 
between different units of the National Forest System, some people 
recommended that the planning rule include uniform guidance applicable 
to each national forest and grassland. Other respondents asserted that 
the objectives of the framework are too vague and should include 
specific objectives for planning. Many people believed the planning 
rule inadequately addresses standards and guidelines that they think 
could result in a lack of agency accountability, inability to achieve 
planning goals, and inadequate protection of the environment. Some of 
these respondents suggested maintaining the minimum management 
requirements of the current rule. Others recommended including specific 
and enforceable standards and guidelines in the proposed planning rule, 
while some asked that these types of standards be established in 
individual national forest and grassland plans.
    Response: The Department believes that less specific planning 
guidance is needed after almost two decades of experience implementing 
NFMA. The planning process included in the final rule is essentially 
unchanged from the proposed rule, and provides a flexible process that 
is responsive to issues associated with current conditions and 
experience with implementing the current plan. Standards required in 
all plans are addressed in section 219.7. Plan requirements for 
ecological sustainability are found in section 219.20(b).
    Comment: Decisionmaking authority. Some respondents felt that the 
Forest Service is attempting to avoid its responsibility by emphasizing 
collaborative processes and recommended that the planning rule should 
further emphasize the agency's decisionmaking responsibility. Other 
respondents requested clarification on decisionmaking. They suggested 
that the planning rule describe national level planning processes as 
well as decisionmaking authority on multi-forest or regional projects. 
Other respondents expressed general concern regarding the 
implementation of the proposed rule and recommended making trial runs 
on a few forest plans before implementing the changes system-wide.
    Response: It is the responsibility of the Forest Service to 
encourage involvement with the public in the management of the public's 
lands. The Forest Service is redeeming this responsibility by providing 
for early involvement and collaboration through the planning framework. 
Instead of working in an isolated environment, the agency will openly 
address the issues confronting the national forests and grasslands, 
enlisting the assistance of interested and affected parties through 
expanded public involvement and collaboration. The intent is to foster 
a good faith effort to reach resolution on agreed upon problems before 
final decisions are made, and to hopefully reduce the level of costly 
lawsuits. However, the definition of ``responsible official'' makes it 
clear that this individual and the Forest Service have the authority 
and responsibility to oversee the planning process and make decisions 
on proposed actions.
    Linkage to the national strategic plan has been added or clarified 
in several places in the final rule, including section 219.3(b). 
Multiple-forest and regional decisions are also addressed in this 
section.
    Comment: Local-level planning and decisionmaking. Several 
respondents felt that the planning rule should emphasize local-level 
planning and decisionmaking, while others believed the proposed rule 
places too much responsibility at the local level. Some of the people 
favored increased focus and responsibility at the local level contended 
that the proposed rule's provisions not only are costly and 
inefficient, but also allow senior Forest Service authorities to 
undermine local decisions and planning efforts. Such actions, they 
contended, will alienate the public. These respondents suggested that 
the final rule limit national and regional level planning and 
decisionmaking. Other people who support a local level focus believed 
that local Forest Service officials are more knowledgeable about their 
specific forest or grassland than national officials and therefore are 
able to make better planning decisions. These respondents recommended 
increasing the decisionmaking authority of local agency officials. In 
contrast to these views, some respondents believed the proposed rule 
would place excessive authority at the local level. These people 
primarily felt that either additional requirements or higher levels of 
oversight were necessary to ensure consistency in planning among 
national forests or grasslands. Several of these respondents 
recommended that the proposed rule provide specific rules and 
guidelines for Forest Supervisors, while others suggested that the 
proposed rule maintain requirements for regional guidance and 
oversight.
    Response: Fundamental to this rule is the notion that there is a 
hierarchy of scale to be considered when addressing resource management 
issues, and that it is the nature of the issue that guides the 
selection of the appropriate scale and level of the organization to 
address it. By not tying decisionmaking authority to a specific 
organizational position, the Department is promoting flexibility to do 
what makes sense for the issues ripe for consideration. The National 
Forest or Grassland Supervisor is the person most familiar with the 
resources and publics interested in his or her forest or grassland, and 
often the most appropriate to make decisions affecting those lands.
    The rule should not be interpreted as excluding higher-level 
officials from decisions made at the forest and grassland level. If an 
issue warrants higher-level study and decisionmaking, such tasks can be 
undertaken. Also, through the objection process (section 219.32) the 
higher-level officials actually join the problem-solving process before 
an administrative decision is adopted. Advisory committees (section 
219.18) provide yet another source of input to local decisionmaking.
    Comment: Adequacy of funding. Many respondents felt that the 
implementation of the proposed planning process will require 
significant additional resources. They asserted that funding, staffing, 
and equipment needs will make the proposed planning processes 
prohibitively expensive. Several respondents believed that the proposed 
rule would restrict needed planning proposals based on inadequate 
funding. ``Plans should identify necessary actions even if adequate 
funding does not exist,'' wrote one organization. More specifically, 
other respondents focused more on funding for particular management 
actions. One such person suggested that the proposed rule address 
funding to mitigate potential damage from forest management activities.
    Response: The Department believes that, rather than requiring 
significant additional resources, the planning framework, as adopted in 
the final rule, will put more resource earlier in the planning process 
and require less at the end of the process. This will shift the 
planning process from one of confrontation to collaboration. The scope 
of the planning effort will also be more focused on the issues selected 
for evaluation.
    While funding of planning and projects remains an item under the 
prerogative of Congress, the Department hopes that Congress will 
support projects built using this collaborative process. In addition, 
the revised rule will promote a closer link to the budget process 
through requirements for

[[Page 67524]]

ongoing consideration of budgetary information (section 219.30). By 
evaluating the alternatives at the current or likely budgets, while 
considering other spending levels, as appropriate, the analysis will be 
based on realistic expectations and be more useful as strategic 
documents.
    Other changes. Paragraph (a) in the proposed rule included five 
premises of the planning framework. Premise (1) is found in sections 
219.5 and 219.12 of the final rule. Premise (2) is included as 219.3(c) 
in the final rule. Premise (3) is included in section 219.30 ``Plan 
documentation'' of the final rule. Premise (4) is included as 
219.3(b)(4) and 219.10 of the final rule. Premise (5) is a general 
description of the planning framework and included in sections 219.3-
219.11 of the final rule.
    Paragraph (b) in the proposed rule, described the levels at which 
planning may occur, and who may be the responsible official. In the 
final rule, paragraph (b) is restructured in outline form. Planning 
will be conducted at the appropriate level depending on the scope and 
scale of the issues. In addition, the final rule specifically 
recognizes the role of the Forest Service national strategic plan 
required under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
(GPRA). The GPRA directs government agencies to establish national 
long-term goals, outcome measures, and strategies. The final rule 
clarifies that these are to be considered in managing the National 
Forest System. In particular, it provides for the development of 
outcome measures to evaluate ecological, social, and economic impacts, 
accountability, and management performance. The development of outcome 
measures will be included in the Forest Service directives System.
    Paragraph (c) in the proposed rule lists the key elements. The list 
in the final rule has been changed slightly to line up with the 
subsequent sections of the planning framework and use consistent 
terminology. Cooperatively developed landscape goals are no longer 
specifically listed, however, they are still included in section 219.12 
and may be considered as issues (section 219.4). This change was made 
to clarify the key elements of planning.
    Proposed Section 219.4--Topics of general interest or concern. This 
section of the proposed rule established a process for identifying, 
discussing, and, if appropriate, acting on topics of general interest 
or concern that might emerge from a variety of sources. The process for 
identifying these topics was to be used for both plan amendments and 
revisions as well as for site-specific plans. In the final rule, this 
section has been renamed ``Identification and consideration of 
issues.''
    Comment: Identification of issues. Many respondents believed that 
the proposed rule should provide additional details about how issues 
will be identified. Specifically, some people felt that current Forest 
Service public involvement methods do not provide an accurate 
representation of the interested public. They recommended that the 
Forest Service conduct unbiased sampling to determine public opinion 
about forest plans.
    Response: The proposed rule established a collaborative process 
that will be used in addition to current public involvement methods. 
This approach is retained in the final rule. This process will improve 
the identification of issues. Also, the flexibility in approaches is 
very important to the collaborative process. Sampling is addressed in 
section 219.1 of the preamble.
    Comment: Evaluation of topics. Many respondents expressed concern 
about the evaluation of topics of concern. Most of these people felt 
that the proposed rule gives the responsible official too much 
discretion in considering whether action will be taken on these topics. 
Many of these respondents felt the discretion in the rule could allow 
responsible officials to ignore important concerns.
    Response: The regulation actually increases the accountability of 
the responsible official for addressing issues that are ``ripe'' for 
resolution. As now, the decision to move an issue forward for 
resolution is an agency prerogative. Accountability is increased 
however through the more open and collaborative process for identifying 
issues.
    Comment: Limiting discretion. Several people advocated limiting 
discretion and suggested a number of remedies to this perceived problem 
such as establishing requirements for reasonableness and timeliness in 
the evaluation of topics of general concern, creating guidelines for 
the consideration and documentation of topics of general concern and 
requiring that the responsible official's decisions on topics of 
concern should be subject to administrative appeal or judicial review.
    Response: The Department does not agree. It is imperative that the 
responsible officials maintain sole responsibility to review the 
circumstances surrounding an issue before investing time and agency 
resources in addressing one or more aspects of the issue. Each day, 
each responsible official has a host of possible issues pressed 
forward. It is through experience and collaboration with others that 
the issues that should be addressed are addressed. As described in the 
planning rule, there are several ways that a host of people, including 
higher-level officials, can become engaged in the identification and 
potential resolution of issues important in the plan area.
    Other changes. The most noticeable change in this section, as 
adopted in the final rule, is replacement of ``topics of general 
interest or concern'' with the term ``issues.'' Although some members 
of the Committee of Scientists found ``issues'' to have a negative 
connotation, and to imply that some action must be taken, many found 
the terminology of the proposed rule to be vague and verbose. 
Therefore, the final rule refers to ``issues.'' This is consistent with 
the current planning regulations and more familiar with the public and 
within the agency.
    Editorial changes were made to the proposed rule, including changes 
in terminology, to remain consistent with other parts of the rule (for 
example, ``ecological sustainability'' and ``range of expected 
variability''). The words ``consistent'' and ``consistency'' in the 
proposed rule are changed to avoid confusion with the use of that 
terminology in NFMA and section 219.10.
    Proposed Section 219.5--Information development and interpretation. 
This section of the proposed rule described information needed to 
further consider a topic of general interest or concern. It provided 
direction on conducting broad-scale assessments and local analyses.
    Comment: Discretion of responsible official. Some respondents felt 
that the discretionary authority given to the responsible official in 
the proposed rule may conflict with provisions for the use of 
scientific and collaborative input. These people recommended that the 
proposed rule limit the discretion of the responsible official in 
determining whether the available information is sufficient or 
additional data collection is needed.
    Response: Implementation of the planning process of this rule 
promotes collaborative problem solving. The responsible official has 
access to a wide variety of information from staff specialists and a 
knowledgeable and often active national forest or grassland user 
community. A decision to initiate collection of additional data is a 
managerial choice that may be assisted by scientific review and science 
advisory boards, as appropriate. As many years of experience have

[[Page 67525]]

demonstrated for many issues, when authorities closely match 
responsibilities, the quality of decisions and overall public service 
improves.
    Comment: Development of information. Some people recommended 
restricting large-scale planning to non-decisional, data collection 
efforts. Still others believed accurate data are essential for the 
Forest Service to assess the need for actions and to measure the 
effectiveness of its actions in planning. These people suggested that 
the proposed rule emphasized collecting and maintaining sufficient 
natural resource data. Some citizens asserted that the proposed rule 
should specify appropriate analysis tools and models to ensure 
consistency between national forests and grasslands.
    Response: The Department agrees with the importance of applying the 
best available data, and has emphasized that need in the final rule. It 
encourages multi-scale assessments and analyses prior to proposing any 
actions. The final rule also promotes monitoring to obtain data, and 
scientific review of its use. In order to be able to respond promptly 
to scientific advances, the Department has avoided including specific 
analysis tools or models in a regulation. The Department believes that 
large-scale decisions may be necessary to respond to some issues; 
however, it does not expect every broad-scale assessment to lead to 
broad-scale decisions.
    Comment: Public Involvement. Public involvement in information 
development and interpretation was a significant concern for many 
people. These people contended that the proposed rule's provisions on 
information development and interpretation do not provide sufficient 
opportunities for public input or review. Some of these people 
suggested that the proposed rule include provisions requiring 
collaboration in information development and interpretation, while 
others requested that the proposed rule comply with NEPA requirements. 
Another respondent believed that the final planning regulations should 
incorporate the guidelines for interdisciplinary planning teams from 
the 1982 planning regulations.
    Response: The planning rule has several provisions for encouraging 
the public to participate in the identification and resolution of 
natural resource management issues. As described in sections 219.12 to 
219.18, it is the intent of the rule that the Forest Service 
participate with others in building stewardship capacity--the ability 
to develop ideas, take action, and solve problems (section 219.2). The 
planning framework is characterized by an interdisciplinary 
collaborative approach (section 219.3). In addition, the NEPA process 
applied to planning must be interdisciplinary. The final rule also 
provides that each broad scale assessment should be designed and 
conducted with the assistance of scientists, resource professionals, 
government entities, and other individuals and organizations 
knowledgeable of the assessment area (section 219.5(a)(2)).
    Comment: Interest group involvement. Some respondents expressed 
concerns regarding what groups will be involved in information 
development and interpretation. Some of these people felt that the 
Forest Service does not recognize or respect the knowledge and past 
stewardship of private property holders and lessees. These individuals 
recommended that the proposed rule emphasize the role of lessees and 
private property holders in information development and interpretation. 
Other respondents specifically suggested that the Forest Service engage 
environmental groups in conducting ecological assessments.
    Response: As described in the planning rule, it is the intent of 
the Department and the Forest Service that a wide variety of people, 
including property holders and lessees and environmental groups engage 
in the consideration of their natural resources and in the stewardship 
of their national forests and grasslands (see sections 219.16 and 
219.17). The final rule also provides that each broad scale assessment 
be designed and conducted with the assistance of scientists, resource 
professionals, government entities, and other individuals and 
organizations knowledgeable of the assessment area (section 
219.5(a)(2)).
    Comment: Consideration of activities outside of national forest 
boundaries. Believing that the failure to address national supply and 
demand trends could lead to an oversupply of specific resources, one 
respondent recommended that the proposed rule require the consideration 
of these trends in decisions specifically regarding grazing permits. 
Another person felt that consideration of activities outside National 
Forest System unit boundaries in planning could restrict resource 
extraction. This person suggested that the Forest Service be prohibited 
from restricting resource use on such a basis. Other respondents 
believed that the proposed rule fails to address the effects of agency 
planning on lands outside of National Forest System lands. These people 
recommended that the proposed rule should explicitly recognize these 
impacts.
    Response: The planning process is designed to enable the Forest 
Service to address each of the above comments at the appropriate time 
and place. For example, if the supply and demand of a particular 
natural resource is relevant at a national scale, the Chief of the 
Forest Service, working with others, may address the concern. Likewise, 
if the supply of a local resource use is of concern to one or more 
communities, that may very well be an issue that is addressed in the 
revision or amendment to a plan. Planning is tailored to fit the needs 
of people in the use and enjoyment of their national forests and 
grasslands. Section 219.17(c) of the final rule was changed to include 
consideration of the effects of managing National Forest System lands 
on adjacent lands.
    Comment: Use of broad-scale assessments. Many respondents expressed 
preferences about the use of broad-scale assessments in national forest 
planning. Some people opposed the use of broad-scale assessments, 
feeling that these efforts will be excessively expensive and that this 
expense will hinder the implementation of project proposals. Some 
respondents supported the use of broad-scale assessments in planning, 
and they believe private lands adjacent to national forests and 
grasslands should be included in such assessments. Focusing more on who 
should oversee the development of assessment processes, other 
respondents recommended that the final rule require the Forest Service 
to lead broad-scale assessments. These people felt that the proposed 
rule allows unacceptable influence by nongovernmental entities and that 
this could lead to decisions that are not in the best public interest.
    Response: The amount and level of data collection and synthesis 
needed varies with the issue and the nature of the decision to be made. 
The responsible official is to determine if the information on hand is 
sufficient, or if additional information is desirable and can be 
obtained at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. Where the issue 
is broad in scale, a broad-scale assessment is often needed. Where the 
issue is more limited in scale, local analyses are more appropriate. 
The final planning rule provides a flexible process that yields the 
data appropriate to address an issue, rather than mandating one 
approach. Information and data may be solicited and accepted from a 
variety of sources, including broad-scale assessments prepared or led 
by others. Managers must use their professional judgment to gauge the 
usefulness, reliability, and value of the information received.

[[Page 67526]]

    Comment: Broad-scale assessments and NEPA public involvement 
requirements. Some respondents' comments focused on the proposed rule's 
relationship with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public input 
requirements. These respondents felt that the provisions of the 
proposed rule allow the development of large-scale or national planning 
parameters outside the scope of public scrutiny. These people suggested 
that broad-scale assessments should not be used in place of the NEPA 
scoping process.
    Response: Broad-scale assessments do not constitute a decision 
point--they are a source of data and information that may be used in 
later decisionmaking by the agency or others. The preparation of broad-
scale assessments is intended to be an open and collaborative process, 
one that encourages participation by interested and affected parties. 
Involvement in broad-scale assessments in no way supplants or 
eliminates the requirement for scoping under NEPA or other public 
involvement in other aspects of the planning framework. The text of the 
regulation in section 219.6, Proposed actions, emphasizes that NEPA 
requirements must be met for every proposed action, and activities 
associated with broad-scale assessments are intended to complement, 
rather than replace the scoping process of NEPA for subsequent 
decisionmaking.
    Comment: Adequacy of data in broad-scale assessments. Many 
respondents expressed concern regarding the adequacy of data used in 
broad-scale assessments. Some of these people felt that the proposed 
rule would allow the use of inadequate or out-dated data. According to 
one person, the use of this data ``leads to erroneous conclusions; 
these erroneous conclusions lead to poorly thought-out 
recommendations.'' Other respondents asserted that the proposed rule 
weakens existing requirements for the use of current data. One 
respondent specifically requested that the agency seek additional funds 
to perform broad-scale assessments to avoid impacting Forest Service 
research station budgets.
    Response: The planning rule has several provisions for the 
inclusion of the best available science in all activities associated 
with planning as described in sections 219.22 to 219.25. Through 
science advisory boards and the use of science consistency evaluations, 
the best available science is sought for each key step in the planning 
process.
    Comment: Local analyses. A few respondents suggested that the 
proposed rule emphasize local analyses, while others requested that the 
rule include clarification on what local analyses entail. One person, 
claiming that the Forest Service lacks the information necessary to 
make informed planning decisions, recommended that the proposed rule 
require landscape assessments be conducted on all national forests and 
grasslands.
    Response: The planning process is designed to ensure that the 
appropriate information is gathered and evaluated before decisions are 
made. The extensive collaboration among interested and affected people 
as well as the increased involvement of science in the planning process 
are intended to highlight information needs and ensure appropriate 
consideration of all elements affecting sustainable use of national 
forests and grasslands. The rule encourages the use of local analyses 
as a basis for proposals at a comparable scale.
    Comment: Terminology to describe spatial scales. One respondent 
questioned the use of ``broad'' and ``local'' to describe the scale of 
analysis in the proposed planning regulations. ``Coarse'' and ``fine 
filters'' are the technical terms most often used in Forest Service 
management plans and this person felt these widely used and clearly 
defined terms should replace ``broad'' and ``local'' in the final rule.
    Response: Even though the terms ``coarse'' and ``fine'' filters are 
used frequently among some natural resource professionals, they are not 
identical to scale descriptors. We do refer to these terms in our 
response to comments for section 219.20. We believe that the use of the 
terms ``broad'' and ``local'' in the final rule describe the extent of 
assessments and analyses to a larger number of national forest and 
grassland users.
    Comment: Scope of spatial and temporal scales. Several respondents 
supported the collection and analysis of ecological data on a variety 
of spatial and temporal scales. One respondent suggested that the final 
rule expand the scale of analysis to include cumulative effects of 
global magnitude. Conversely, some individuals questioned the use of a 
variety of spatial and temporal scales. Such a mandate requires funding 
and staffing beyond the means of the current Forest Service structure, 
according to these respondents. One citizen questioned the utility of 
using varying scales, asserting that such a hierarchical approach would 
lead to specific project plans containing forgiving, default language 
that lacks serious standards and thresholds.
    Response: The variable scale planning process envisioned by the 
planning rule is intended to enable planners, managers, and the public 
to identify and act upon important issues at the appropriate scale for 
their resolution. Through the identification of issues that may cross 
many political boundaries, interested and affected people can work 
together to reach common solutions among many landowners and natural 
resource users. Cumulative impacts will also be addressed through 
agency NEPA procedures. Appropriate analyses and monitoring of results 
are used to ensure that the cumulative effects of small actions do not 
result in unwanted or unanticipated impacts. The responsible official 
has the authority to determine the appropriate scope and scale of 
analysis and data collection. In making this determination, the 
responsible official appropriately applies collaborative processes and 
uses the best available science.
    Other changes. The proposed rule stated that the Regional Forester 
is responsible for National Forest System participation in broad-scale 
assessments. The final rule requires Station Directors and Regional 
Foresters to have joint responsibility for Forest Service participation 
in broad-scale assessments. It no longer addresses Forest Service 
participation in broad-scale assessments led by others. The Department 
believes it is not necessary to address the possible actions of others 
in this rule.
    The requirement to use the best available scientific information 
and analysis is moved to sections 219.22 and 219.23 in the final rule. 
Examples of possible uses of assessment information in the proposed 
rule are generalized to ``other purposes'' in the final rule, and the 
language made consistent with the description of uses of local 
analysis. The final rule clarifies that assessments be used to evaluate 
the factors that contribute to the conditions and trends observed and 
is important in gaining understanding of issues.
    The proposed rule stated that the purpose of local analyses was to 
provide information to aid in the identification of possible actions or 
projects to achieve desired conditions. The final rule expands the use 
of local analyses so that an analysis could be tailored to the scope of 
issues rather than potential actions. Similarly, the final rule 
provides for the use of social or economic analysis units for local 
analyses if warranted by the scope and context of the issues under 
consideration.
    The components of both broad-scale assessments and local analyses 
were described as mandatory in the proposed rule. The amount and level 
of data

[[Page 67527]]

collection and synthesis needed varied with the issue and the nature of 
the decision to be made. The responsible official was to determine if 
the information on hand was sufficient, or if additional information 
was desirable and could be obtained at a reasonable cost and in a 
timely manner. Where the issue was broad in scale, a broad-scale 
assessment was often needed. Where the issue was more limited in scale, 
local analyses were more appropriate. The final rule provides for a 
flexible process that yields the data appropriate to address an issue, 
eliminating unnecessary analysis requirements. Information and data can 
be solicited and accepted from a variety of sources, including broad-
scale assessments prepared or led by others. Managers must use their 
professional judgment to gauge the usefulness, reliability, and value 
of the information received.
    Proposed Section 219.6--Proposed actions. This section identifies 
the point at which a responsible official initiates a decisionmaking 
process to resolve an issue, based on the information that has been 
developed and interpreted. No public concerns explicitly related to 
this section were identified in the analysis of public comment. 
Paragraph (b) was redrafted in the final rule to make it clear that 
public involvement and collaborative activities, related to issue 
identification and analyses of information, can be used as part of the 
scoping process required in the Forest Service NEPA procedures.
    Proposed Section 219.7--Plan decisions that guide future actions. 
This section of the proposed rule described categories of decisions in 
land and resource management plans that would guide future agency 
actions. The title was changed in the final rule to ``Plan decisions.''
    Comment: Consistency of plan decisions among plan areas. Some 
people question how the Forest Service will maintain consistency 
between national forests if regional guides are eliminated as indicated 
in the proposed rule
    Response: The proposed rule allowed the scope of decisions to be 
tailored to the scope of the issues relevant to the plan area. 
Decisions may be made simultaneously for multiple administrative units, 
in a manner similar to what has occurred with regional guide amendments 
under the current rule. Section 219.3 of the final rule authorizes and 
encourages joint planning on multiple administrative units. In 
addition, the objection process (section 219.32), the addition of 
science consistency evaluations (section 219.24), and the requirement 
to incorporate regional guide direction into agency procedures or plan 
decisions (section 219.35) ensure consistency among national forests 
and grasslands.
    Comment: Desired conditions. Many people commented on the proposed 
planning rule's emphasis on desired conditions. Some contended that the 
emphasis on desired conditions was an improvement over the Forest 
Service's perceived current focus on products and services. One 
respondent recommended that specific requirements for detailed 
descriptions of desired future conditions be included in plans. Some 
respondents believed that the proposed rule did not clearly define how 
``desired future conditions'' would be developed.
    Response: The Department agrees that emphasis on the desired 
conditions, rather than an estimate of what may or may not be produced 
from a unit of land, provides a more meaningful basis for people to 
discuss suitable and unsuitable uses of specific areas within national 
forests and grasslands. The planning rule uses the term ``desired 
condition'' rather than ``desired future condition'' to stress the 
point that there are many areas of national forests and grasslands that 
are now in a ``desired condition'' and that use of the term ``future'' 
was not necessary. In addition, the term ``goal'' was removed as a 
planning decision. A clear explanation of a desired condition for all 
or a part of a plan area included statements that describe the 
conditions sought or the ``goals'' of the area. Therefore, it is not 
necessary to have a category of plan decisions that are called 
``goals.'' The Department believes that the responsible official should 
evaluate and address conditions relevant to the issues and the scope of 
the decision being made, and does not feel it is appropriate to include 
in the rule more specific requirements for how to develop desired 
conditions.
    Comment: Standards and guidelines. Some respondents asserted that 
the existing rule is unclear about the difference between standards and 
guidelines and that this has ``caused a lot of confusion, false 
expectations, and conflict.'' These people recommended clarifying the 
difference between guidelines and standards in the proposed rule. 
Others believed that the proposed planning regulations should establish 
enforceable criteria for the development of objectives, standards, and 
guidelines in forest planning rather than relegating such criteria to 
the Forest Service Manual.
    Response: This concern is addressed in the final rule by modifying 
the definition for standards (section 219.7) and by removing the term 
``guidelines.'' This was done because the use of both terms, standards 
and guidelines, was confusing. In the proposed rule, the mandatory or 
discretionary nature of a provision was contained in the description of 
that provision, not by whether it was labeled a standard or a 
guideline. In the final rule, a provision that is labeled as a standard 
in a plan can be either mandatory or discretionary depending upon the 
language of the standard and the scope of its requirements.
    Comment: Range of management alternatives. Of those respondents who 
address requirements for forest plans in the proposed rule, many felt 
that ``consideration of a full range of management alternatives'' will 
``allow planners to identify important management options, thresholds, 
and trade-offs.'' These people suggested the proposed rule include 
provisions requiring the Forest Service to develop a full range of 
management alternatives in its forest plans. One organization contended 
that the proposed planning regulations should retain programmatic 
consultation as a means to challenge land and resource management 
plans.
    Response: The Department believes that the collaboration emphasized 
by this rule will lead to a thorough examination of the options and 
tradeoffs relevant to the issues that have been identified. A full 
range of management alternatives that meets the purpose and need for 
changes in the proposed plan is required in accordance with Forest 
Service NEPA procedures. Neither the proposed nor final rule directly 
addressed Endangered Species Act consultation procedures, which are 
described in 50 CFR part 402. The final rule does require the 
incorporation of non-discretionary terms of biological opinions into 
plans (section 219.20(b)(3)).
    Comment: Preservation of ecological diversity. Several respondents 
cited the current rule's requirements for the prevention of ``large-
scale conversions of national forest lands to a single-tree species'' 
as an example of the imperative language they would like to see 
retained in the final rule.
    Response: The final rule provides for ecological diversity in 
section 219.20, wherein plan decisions must provide for ecosystem 
composition and structure similar to that which would be expected under 
natural disturbance regimes. The Department believes that large-scale 
type conversions would not meet this requirement and that more 
imperative language is not necessary.
    Comment: Preservation of scenic beauty. One person requested that 
the proposed rule require specific

[[Page 67528]]

guidelines for the preservation of scenic beauty. Asserting that one of 
the primary values of national forests mentioned by the public is 
scenic beauty, this respondent feels the Forest Service should address 
this concern in the final rule.
    Response: The final rule requires that standards be developed for 
each plan that includes methods of achieving aesthetic objectives.
    Comment: Watershed restoration. Several individuals felt the 
proposed rule needed to include specific guidelines for restoring and 
protecting water resources. Some suggested that the criteria for 
watershed restoration and protection be expanded. Several individuals 
believed the proper functioning of all the physical components of 
watersheds is an essential prerequisite to attaining ecological 
sustainability.
    Response: The Department believes that it has given high priority 
to watershed restoration by including aquatic and riparian systems as a 
component of ecological sustainability (section 219.20(a)(1)(i)(B)), 
and focusing on ecological sustainability. In addition, watershed 
condition is one of the factors in section 219.28 used for the 
identification of lands were timber may not be harvested.
    Comment: Restorative employment. One individual believed that the 
Forest Service should shift emphasis from fostering an extractive 
economy to championing restorative employment on national forests.
    Response: This rule establishes ecological sustainability as the 
first priority for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands 
(section 219.19). It also requires the Forest Service to consider 
opportunities to provide social and economic benefits to communities 
through natural resource restoration strategies (section 219.21).
    Comment: Invasive species. Believing that invasive species disrupt 
expected ecosystem functions, several citizens felt that the failure to 
sufficiently address this concern was a major flaw in the proposed 
rule. One respondent asserted that roads are the major vectors for the 
spread of noxious weeds throughout national forests. Road construction 
and off-road vehicle use need to be restricted, this individual 
asserted, if the spread of noxious weeds is to be slowed. Conversely, 
another individual believed the proposed planning regulations should 
qualify the mandate to control the spread of non-native species. 
Although this person stated that the Forest Service should not 
knowingly spread invasive species, this individual believed that there 
are situations where these processes occur naturally and therefore it 
would be ``extremely expensive if not impossible for the agency to 
prevent the phenomena.'' Another respondent requested that the proposed 
planning regulations address the ecological and human health impacts of 
chemical applications to control invasive species.
    Response: The final rule includes invasive or noxious plant or 
animal species as factors to consider in evaluating and providing for 
ecosystem diversity (section 219.20). Where such factors are 
contributing to loss of ecological sustainability, the Department 
expects invasive species to be an issue that is sufficiently addressed. 
Use of chemicals or other kinds of treatments would not normally be 
determined as part of a plan decision, as described by this rule. 
Separate national road management and roadless area policy initiatives 
are addressing road construction and management. Off-road vehicle use 
would be addressed through the planning process at a local level.
    Comment: Fire management strategies. Some respondents felt that the 
Forest Service should suppress fires. Allowing forests to burn was seen 
as a waste of resources to these people. Others asserted that the 
Forest Service should allow fires to burn, proposing that restoring 
fire disturbance regimes will, in turn, help restore ecological 
sustainability. One respondent questioned how the Forest Service would 
prescribe fire to restore ecosystems while maintaining the air resource 
value of visibility. This individual felt that the proposed planning 
regulations should clarify how this conflict will be resolved.
    Response: The Department does not believe that this rule is the 
appropriate place to resolve questions of fire management policy. 
However, the planning framework provided by this rule will facilitate 
resolving them at the appropriate scale. Fire may be an issue handled 
at the national or regional scale. For example, the Forest Service has 
recently developed new information about the risk of catastrophic fires 
that may be useful for planning at a national or regional level. 
Planning could also happen at the forest plan or landscape level if 
scientific information or a local community suggested that fire was an 
issue that should be addressed through a specific project or series of 
projects and the responsible official determined that the issue should 
be considered and sufficient information existed to address it. The 
collaborative and flexible planning process outlined in this final rule 
is fully consistent with ongoing efforts at the Forest Service to 
address fire risks to communities and the environment.
    Comment: Wildlife on grazing allotments. Believing that hunting has 
greater economic potential than that of grazing, another person 
suggested that game species be given priority over cattle in management 
area allocations. Elk and bison are not only endemic, but they would 
also provide hunting revenues according to this individual.
    Response: The Department does not believe that this rule is the 
appropriate place to resolve questions of livestock and big game 
conflicts. However, the planning framework provided by this rule will 
facilitate resolving conflicts at the appropriate scale.
    Other changes. The introductory paragraph in the final rule differs 
in two ways from the proposed rule. The paragraph clarifies that 
decisions may apply to all or parts of a plan area and must reflect the 
ongoing and anticipated actions of landowners adjacent and within 
national forest and grassland boundaries. It acknowledges the 
possibility that plan decisions may commit resources to site-specific 
uses in some cases.
    The proposed rule described four categories of decisions. The final 
rule lists five and shortens the descriptions of each. Standards are 
separated from objectives because these are considered to be different 
types of decisions. Objectives describe intended results over a 
projected period of time. Standards describe the limitations necessary 
to achieve objectives. Standards are adopted, when needed, to achieve 
objectives and desired conditions.
    In paragraph (c) of the final rule, standards have been defined 
more specifically than in the proposed rule to emphasize that they are 
requirements, rather than statements of intent, and that they apply to 
land uses and management actions rather than outcomes. The proposed 
rule included three standards required by NFMA. The final rule adds a 
fourth general category of standards that must be included to ensure 
achievement of sustained multiple-use of national forests and 
grasslands.
    Paragraph (d) in the final rule was paragraph (c) in the proposed 
rule and addresses suitable land uses. Livestock grazing is added to 
the list of suitable land uses within the National Forest System based 
on comments received for section 219.26. Paragraph (e) in the final 
rule was paragraph (d) in the proposed rule. This section requires an 
identifiable monitoring and evaluation

[[Page 67529]]

strategy that is required by each plan in section 219.11.
    Proposed Section 219.8--Amendment. This section of the proposed 
rule addressed amendments to plans as an addition to or the 
modification or deletion of one or more of the decisions listed in 
section 219.7. An amendment to a plan was defined as a plan decision. 
It also addressed the process through which amendments must be made. 
There were no additional requirements beyond those presented in the 
rest of the planning framework and Forest Service NEPA procedures.
    Comment: Timeframes. Many respondents expressed concerns regarding 
the time period of Forest Service planning efforts. Some of these 
people felt that the proposed rule's provisions allow for various 
parties to delay amendment and revision processes. Some of these 
respondents recommended that the proposed rule include specific time 
limitations on revisions and amendments, while one person suggested 
that the proposed rule include provisions allowing ongoing activities 
to continue during plan amendments. Some believed the proposed planning 
regulations should require consideration of impacts to the entire 
planning area during amendment, revision, and objection procedures.
    Response: The Department envisions that proposed amendments and 
revisions be completed in a timely manner considering the complexity of 
the issues and public interest in pending proposals. Ongoing activities 
may continue while an existing plan is being amended or revised (40 CFR 
1506.1(c)). Impacts must be considered in accordance with NEPA 
procedures.
    Comment: Significant plan amendments. One person felt that the 
proposed rule circumvents the criteria for determining ``significant 
amendments'' described in the NFMA. In the proposed and final rule, a 
proposed plan amendment that may create significant environmental 
impact is deemed to be a significant amendment as described in NFMA. 
This person suggested that the proposed rule does not comply with the 
NFMA requirements in that a plan amendment that may create large social 
or economic effects should require a significant plan amendment. 
However, a plan amendment that would create only social or economic 
effects would not necessarily require preparation of an environmental 
impact statement. A change in the projected level of timber production 
was cited as an example of such a situation.
    Response: The Department believes that any plan amendment that may 
create significant environmental effects should be considered as a 
significant amendment as described in the NFMA. It is unreasonable to 
conclude that a plan amendment may create only social or economic 
effects apart from physical or biological effects. The proposed 
amendment that may create significant environmental effects would 
require preparation of an environmental impact statement and a 90-day 
public review period for the draft environmental impact statement. Such 
an amendment would be a significant amendment to a plan.
    Comment: Provisions related to amendments and revisions need 
additional requirements. A few people recommended the proposed rule 
include specific criteria for initiating amendments and revisions. 
Another respondent recommended that the proposed rule include specific 
provisions for the review of environmental impact statements generated 
by other federal agencies for actions impacting national forest plans.
    Response: The Department expects that amendments will occur 
frequently in response to new information and newly identified issues. 
If conditions have changed significantly throughout the plan area, the 
responsible official may revise the plan. In the final rule, the 
decision to propose an amendment or a revision, if under the legal time 
limit, remains discretionary, as in both the current and proposed 
rules. This enables the responsible official to consider resource and 
administrative factors, and other applicable information prior to 
proposing to amend a plan. While not specifically mentioned in the 
rule, the Department expects the Forest Service to consider 
environmental impact statements prepared by other agencies as potential 
sources of issues to be addressed.
    Other changes. The final rule references other applicable sections 
of the rule for additional requirements to consider in making an 
amendment. The final rule changes the focus of paragraph (b) from 
addressing ``Plan amendments in conjunction with site-specific 
decisions'' to ``Environmental review of a proposed plan amendment.''
    Proposed Section 219.9--Revision. This section of the proposed rule 
described the process to be used periodically to review the plan. 
Paragraph (a) of this section of the rule describes revision as a 
process that is required in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5).
    Comment: Adaptability. Contending that the current planning process 
is so slow that it produces obsolete plans, some respondents supported 
the proposed rule's emphasis on adaptability. One person even asserted 
that, given ongoing updates, the requirement for revisions every 
fifteen years is unnecessary and should be eliminated.
    Response: The fifteen-year timeframe for revisions is a statutory 
requirement. The final rule has been changed, however, so that it does 
not incorporate a specific timeframe. Rather, it allows the timeframe 
to be governed by applicable law. Under the rule, the scope of revision 
is not open-ended, but focuses on the identified issues. If there are 
few issues, the process should be focused and simplified accordingly.
    Comment: Relationship to the proposed Roadless Area Conservation 
Rule. Some individuals explicitly requested that the Forest Service 
clarify the relationship between the proposed Roadless Area 
Conservation Rule (proposed roadless rule) and the planning rule and 
how the planning rule will account for the proposed roadless rule 
through the planning process. In addition, some respondents suggested 
that the local planning process is better suited to determine future 
management direction than national rulemaking for roadless areas, 
particularly for those roadless areas not yet identified.
    Response: The final rule clarifies the relationship of the planning 
rule with the proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule (proposed 
roadless rule) described in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated May, 2000 and 65 
FR 30276, May 10, 2000. The terms ``inventoried roadless areas'' and 
``unroaded areas'' are described in the planning rule to clarify the 
relationship of the final planning rule to the proposed roadless rule 
and the Forest Service's recently proposed road management policy. The 
proposed road management policy describes analysis methods and 
procedures that would complement the planning-related activities of 
national forests and grasslands. The proposed rule regarding roadless 
areas would prohibit road construction and reconstruction in 
inventoried roadless areas. It would also require land managers to 
consider certain roadless area characteristics during plan revision and 
to then decide in the context of overall multiple-use objectives 
whether additional protections should be afforded inventoried roadless 
areas or other unroaded areas. Similarly, the proposed planning rule 
would require the responsible official to consider designating roadless 
areas during plan

[[Page 67530]]

revision along with any needed plan decisions related to such areas. 
The final planning rule clarifies that analyses and decisions regarding 
inventoried roadless areas and other unroaded areas, other than the 
national prohibitions that may be established in the final Roadless 
Area Conservation Rule, will be made through the planning process 
articulated in this final rule. Under this final rule, the responsible 
official is required to evaluate inventoried roadless areas and 
unroaded areas and identify areas that warrant protection and the level 
of protection to be afforded.
    Public comments suggested, and the Department agrees, that the 
procedures described in the proposed roadless rule were very similar to 
those outlined in the proposed planning rule. Moreover, comments 
suggested that appropriate roadless area protections could be best 
considered using the explicit collaboration, science, sustainability, 
and planning requirements of the planning rule.
    The Department has determined that the review of the roadless 
characteristics contemplated by the proposed roadless rule is an 
explicit function of land management planning and should be addressed 
through this rule. Moreover, most of the roadless area characteristics 
identified in section 294.13 of the proposed roadless rule are 
characteristics otherwise required to be analyzed during plan revision 
or at other times as deemed appropriate by the responsible official. In 
the final planning rule, the requirements for identifying roadless 
areas and additional roadless area protections are an explicit part of 
the plan revision process as described in section 219.9(b)(8). The 
analysis and treatment of characteristics of roadless areas as 
identified in the proposed roadless rule are listed below as they 
compare to the requirements of the final planning rule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proposed roadless rule                Final planning rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
294.13(a) At the time of plan  Section 219.9(b)(8) requires the
 revision, the quality and      responsible official to consider
 importance of nine             inventoried roadless areas and unroaded
 characteristics of             areas in all plan revisions and at other
 inventoried roadless areas     times as appropriate through the
 and unroaded areas must be     criteria in section 219.20(a) and
 evaluated.                     219.21(a). Those sections require
                                development and analysis of information
                                at a variety of spatial and temporal
                                scales.
294.13(a)(1) Soil, water, and  219.20(a)(1)(i)(B) Water resources: the
 air; and.                      diversity, abundance, and distribution
294.13(a)(2) Sources of         of aquatic and riparian systems
 public drinking water.         including streams, stream banks, coastal
                                waters, estuaries, groundwater, lakes,
                                wetlands, shorelines, riparian areas,
                                and floodplains; stream channel
                                morphology and condition, and flow
                                regimes.
                               219.20(a)(1)(i)(C) Soil resources: soil
                                productivity; physical, chemical, and
                                biological properties; soil loss; and
                                compaction.
                               219.20(a)(1)(i)(D) Air resources: air
                                quality, visibility, and other air
                                resource values.
                               219.20(a)(2)(i)(F) An evaluation of the
                                effects of air quality on ecological
                                systems including water.
                               219.20(a)(2)(i)(G) An estimation of
                                current and foreseeable future Forest
                                Service consumptive and non-consumptive
                                water uses and the quantity and quality
                                of water needed to support those uses
                                and contribute to ecological
                                sustainability.
294.13(a)(3) Diversity of      219.20(a)(2)(ii) Evaluations of species
 plant and animal communities.  diversity must include, as appropriate,
                                assessments of the risks to species
                                viability and the identification of
                                ecological conditions needed to maintain
                                species viability over time.
                               219.36 Ecological conditions: Components
                                of the biological and physical
                                environment that can affect the
                                diversity of plant and animal
                                communities, including species
                                viability, and the productive capacity
                                of ecological systems. These could
                                include the abundance and distribution
                                of aquatic and terrestrial habitats,
                                roads and other structural developments,
                                human uses, and invasive and exotic
                                species.
294.13(a)(4) Habitat for       219.20(a)(2)(ii)(A) The viability of each
 threatened, endangered,        species listed under the Endangered
 proposed, candidate, and       Species Act as threatened, endangered,
 sensitive species and for      candidate, and proposed species must be
 those species dependent on     assessed. Individual species assessments
 large, undisturbed areas of    must be used for these species.
 land.
                               219.20(a)(2)(ii)(B) For all other
                                species, including other species-at-risk
                                and those species for which there is
                                little information, a variety of
                                approaches may be used, including
                                individual species assessments and
                                assessments of focal species or other
                                indicators used as surrogates in the
                                evaluation of ecological conditions
                                needed to maintain species viability.
                               219.36 Species-at-risk: Federally listed
                                endangered, threatened, candidate, and
                                proposed species and other species for
                                which loss of viability, including
                                reduction in distribution or abundance,
                                is a concern within the plan area. Other
                                species-at-risk may include sensitive
                                species and state listed species. A
                                species-at-risk also may be selected as
                                a focal species.
294.13(a)(5) Primitive, semi-  Section 219.27(c) The consideration of
 primitive non-motorized, and   recreation-related uses of land is
 semi-primitive motorized       addressed in the planning framework and
 classes of dispersed           within administratively designated areas
 recreation.                    that may include inventoried roadless
                                areas and unroaded areas as well as
                                motorized and non-motorized public use
                                areas.
294.13(a)(6) Reference         219.20(a)(2)(i)(H) An identification of
 landscapes.                    reference landscapes to provide for
                                evaluation of the effects of actions.
294.13(a)(7) Landscape         The consideration of landscapes and
 character and scenic           scenic integrity is within the
 integrity.                     development of landscape goals (section
                                219.12(b)) and consideration of issues.
294.13(a)(8) Traditional       219.21(a) For plan revisions, and to the
 cultural properties and        extent the responsible official
 sacred sites.                  considers to be appropriate for plan
                                amendments or site-specific decisions,
                                the responsible official must develop or
                                supplement the information and analyses
                                related to the following:
                               219.21(a)(1) Describe and analyze, as
                                appropriate.
                               219.21(a)(1)(i) Demographic trends; * * *
                                cultural and American Indian tribe land
                                settlement patterns; social and cultural
                                history; * * * and other appropriate
                                social and cultural information.

[[Page 67531]]

 
294.13(a)(9) Other locally     219.5 The responsible official, in his or
 identified unique              her discretion, may choose the methods
 characteristics.               and determine the scope of information
                                development and interpretation for an
                                issue under consideration. A broad-scale
                                assessment or a local analysis may be
                                developed or supplemented if appropriate
                                to the scope and scale of an issue.
                               219.5(b) Local analyses. Local analyses
                                provide ecological, social, or economic
                                information as deemed appropriate by the
                                responsible official. Local analyses may
                                cover watersheds, ecological units, and
                                social and economic units, and may tier
                                to or provide information to update a
                                broad-scale assessment. Local analyses
                                should provide the following, as
                                appropriate.
                               219.5(b)(6) Recommendations for proposals
                                (Sec.  219.6(a)) or identification of
                                other issues (Sec.  219.4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other changes. The final rule clarifies that the revision process 
is completed when the responsible official signs a record of decision 
for a plan revision. Language to this effect was in paragraph (a) of 
the proposed rule and is found in the final rule in paragraph (e). 
Paragraph (b) lists steps to be taken to initiate the revision process. 
A number of clarifying changes were made in these steps. In paragraph 
(b)(2), issues were added to the list of information sources to be 
summarized. Paragraph (b)(2) in the proposed rule was separated into 
two parts, (b)(3) and (b)(4). Between them, they make it clear that the 
evaluations of sustainability presented in sections 219.20 and 219.21 
must be performed on the current plan prior to revision, in order to 
assess the plan's contribution to sustainability.
    Paragraph (b)(3) of the proposed rule is renumbered (b)(5) in the 
final rule. Based on response to public comments the text in (b)(3) of 
the proposed rule is moved to (b)(8) and revised to include the 
identification and evaluation of inventoried roadless areas and 
unroaded areas. A sentence requiring the determination of warranted 
protections of these areas during the revision process or at other 
appropriate times is added to this section to ensure that plan 
decisions address these areas. Paragraph (b)(4) of the proposed rule is 
renumbered (b)(6) in the final rule and the term ``priority'' is 
deleted to avoid the appearance of decisions being made at this early 
stage of the process. Regarding paragraph (b)(9) in the final rule, 
outcomes are to be projected for the 15-year the life of the plan, 
rather than 10 years, which is consistent with section 219.30.
    Paragraphs (c) and (d) in the proposed rule are reorganized. As 
mentioned above, the meaning of revision is clarified. The only 
substantive change is the removal of specific requirements for the 
content of the Notice of Intent to revise plan decisions, and the 
requirement for a 45-day review period that were included in the 
proposed rule, paragraph (d). Because paragraph (e) in the final rule 
requires each plan revision to have an environmental impact statement 
that in turn requires an accompanying Notice of Intent, the content of 
the Notice of Intent would be governed by Forest Service NEPA 
procedures.
    Paragraph (e) of the final rule was changed to be consistent with 
the intent of section 219.32, which prohibits the responsible official 
from approving a plan amendment until the conclusion of the objection 
process.
    Paragraph (h) of the proposed rule required establishment of a 
revision schedule. This requirement is moved to section 219.35, as part 
of the transition process.
    Proposed Section 219.10--Site-specific decisions and authorized 
uses of land. This section of the proposed rule described the basic 
steps and requirements that apply to planning for site-specific 
decisions. It also addressed the statutory requirement between permits, 
contracts, and other instruments be considered with the applicable land 
and resource management plan. In the final rule, this section has been 
renamed ``Site-specific decisions.''
    Comment: Site-specific amendments. Many respondents felt that the 
proposed planning rule should clarify how amendments to approve site-
specific decisions will apply to national forest and grassland plans. 
They asserted that inconsistencies between site-specific plans and 
national forest plans be clarified in the final rule. One organization 
recommended that the Forest Service develop and include specific 
criteria and guidelines pursuant to determining the appropriate action 
regarding site-specific decisions.
    Response: Detailed guidance for addressing potential 
inconsistencies with the plan has been provided by Forest Service 
directives. The Department intends to streamline the planning process, 
and therefore does not believe there is a need to add more detailed 
information to the final planning regulation to address this concern.
    Comment: Appropriateness of including site-specific decisions. Some 
respondents believed that the proposed planning rule should emphasize 
site-specific planning actions on national forests. Specifically, 
unique ecosystems contained within broad-scale analysis areas, they 
contended, needed to be addressed independently in forest planning 
efforts. Conversely, others believed the proposed planning rule should 
not address project-level planning. ``Requiring that project planning 
follow the same process as set forth for forest plans,'' one person 
asserted, ``will essentially mean an end to project planning, as it 
will be entirely too cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive.''
    Response: The Department believes that joining site-specific 
planning and forest planning into one shared planning framework will 
result in better project integration and an increased measure of 
efficiency, both in terms of the planning process and in achieving 
resource objectives. One framework will make it easier for the public 
to understand and participate in Forest Service planning at all levels. 
Sections of the framework applicable to site-specific planning have 
been specifically identified in the final rule to ensure that project 
planning will be conducted efficiently. The Department believes that 
this approach will encourage appropriate treatment of unique ecosystems 
through planning at an appropriate scale.
    Comment: Exemptions. Some respondents felt that the proposed 
planning rule should provide specific criteria for granting exemptions 
to forest plans. An appeals process for exemption decisions, they 
asserted, should also be included. The proposed planning rule should 
include reasonable and negotiated schedules for compliance for non-
exempted authorized uses, some contended.
    Response: The NFMA requires that authorized uses be consistent with 
applicable plans. It provides for amendment of plans, but not for 
exemptions from them. The proposed

[[Page 67532]]

rule provided for an exemption process. The Department now believes 
that the same purposes can be achieved through an amendment or revision 
process that addresses issues related to ongoing authorized uses.
    Other changes. Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule required the 
application of the planning requirements of the entire subpart to site-
specific decisions. The final rule clarifies which sections are 
relevant to project decisions. Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule 
describes the options available to a responsible official if a proposed 
site-specific decision is not consistent with an applicable land and 
resource management plan. Similar guidance is currently found in the 
Forest Service directive system and is not included in the final rule.
    Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule contained extensive directions 
on what to do with existing permits, contracts, and other instruments 
authorizing the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands when 
a plan is amended or revised, including an exemption process. Many 
people are distrustful of exemptions from plan decisions. NFMA 
explicitly provides for amendment of plans, but not for exemptions from 
them. The same purposes can be achieved through an amendment or 
revision process that addresses issues related to ongoing authorized 
uses. The paragraph is not included in the final rule. For such 
authorizations, paragraph (b) also requires consistency with existing 
plans at the time of their issuance. In the final rule, authorized uses 
of land are included as site-specific decisions. The title of this 
section was changed to reflect the relationship of authorizations and 
site-specific decisions.
    Proposed Section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation. This section of 
the proposed rule described the monitoring and evaluation requirements 
for site-specific actions and land and resource management plans. To 
more accurately reflect the use of monitoring information in developing 
appropriate adjustments to ongoing and planned actions, this section of 
the final rule is renamed ``Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive 
management''.
    Comment: Monitoring for site-specific decisions. Many respondents 
felt that monitoring and evaluation is essential to assess the 
effectiveness of management activities. They recommended that the 
planning rule emphasize monitoring and evaluation, especially for site-
specific decisions.
    Response: The proposed rule emphasized the importance of monitoring 
in achieving sustainability. The final rule retains this emphasis. 
Monitoring and evaluation is a key component of adaptive management and 
dealing with uncertainty and risk in managing complex natural systems.
    Comment: Monitoring and evaluation requirements. Many people were 
concerned with the flexibility of the monitoring and evaluation 
requirements, and some respondents believed that the proposed rule 
should include criteria for developing monitoring strategies.
    Others felt that the proposed rule's requirements are too 
restrictive. ``Research demonstrates that determining sample size, 
sampling frequency, and even sampling methods is an adaptive process,'' 
one person wrote, ``therefore, including details on frequency of 
sampling and sampling protocols in the land and resource management 
plan will constrain the monitoring system such that effective 
monitoring will be less likely.''
    Response: The Department does not believe there was unwarranted 
flexibility in the requirements for monitoring and evaluation in the 
proposed rule. There was a lack of clear descriptions of monitoring 
requirements in this section of the proposed rule. This section is 
revised to improve its clarity and readability.
    For ecological sustainability, the final rule requires the 
monitoring strategy to include an assessment of the status and trend of 
selected physical and biological characteristics of ecosystem diversity 
(section 219.20(a)(1)). It must also assess the status and trends of 
ecological conditions known or suspected to support focal species and 
selected species-at-risk including population monitoring for some 
species. For social and economic sustainability, the final rule 
requires the monitoring strategy to include periodic review of 
national, regional, and local supply and demand for products, services, 
and values, with special consideration given to those uses, values, 
products, and services that the Forest Service is uniquely poised to 
provide.
    The proposed rule required the monitoring strategy to include the 
frequency of measurement and sampling protocols. In the final rule, the 
selection of monitoring methods, as well as reasons for selection of 
the methodologies, must be documented as part of the monitoring 
strategy. In addition, the final rule provides that, unless required by 
the monitoring strategy, monitoring methods may be changed to reflect 
new information without plan amendment or revision. The Department does 
not believe that including details on frequency of sampling and 
sampling protocols in the monitoring strategy will constrain the 
monitoring system.
    Comment: Specific monitoring requirements. One person contended, 
``No level of monitoring, linked with current understanding of 
ecological systems, can provide the information necessary to determine, 
unequivocally, long-term sustainability.'' This person recommended the 
elimination of monitoring requirements for different management 
practices. Others suggested that the planning rule specifically address 
water quality monitoring methods in the proposed rule.
    Response: The proposed rule does not provide for the information 
necessary to determine, unequivocally, long-term sustainability. 
Rather, it views monitoring and evaluation as a key component of 
adaptive management, enabling the Forest Service to deal with 
uncertainty and risk in managing complex natural systems. The final 
rule retains this emphasis on monitoring and evaluation.
    The proposed rule did not specifically address methods for 
monitoring for water quality. The final rule requires assessment of the 
status and trend of selected physical and biological characteristics of 
ecosystem diversity (section 219.20(a)(1)). These include the 
diversity, abundance, and distribution of aquatic and riparian systems 
including streams, stream banks, coastal waters, estuaries, 
groundwater, lakes, wetlands, shorelines, riparian areas, and 
floodplains; stream channel morphology and condition, and flow regimes. 
The Department believes that methods for water resource monitoring are 
best documented in the monitoring strategy for a plan rather than 
included in the planning rule.
    Comment: Quality and type of data collected. Some people felt that 
poor quality data will continue to impact the agency's ability to 
conduct adequate assessments. They recommended that the proposed rule 
require the collection of adequate monitoring data. Other respondents 
addressed concerns regarding the use of models as tools for monitoring. 
One person asserted that ``all models are inherently wrong and 
similarly the assumptions of models are always violated.'' Several 
people suggested that the planning rule recognize the limitations of 
planning models and emphasize proven monitoring methods, especially 
field monitoring.
    Response: The primary focus of monitoring and evaluation is based 
upon on-the-ground results and measures of how well activities provide 
for sustainability and fulfill desired

[[Page 67533]]

conditions and objectives. In the final rule, each plan must contain a 
practicable, effective, and efficient monitoring strategy. Data and 
models used to address the monitoring requirements are to use the best 
science available. Under the adaptive approach to management described 
by the planning framework, many management activities are continually 
tested against planned and actual results. Appropriate adjustments can 
be made as new information becomes available.
    Comment: Coordination among interested groups. Some recommended 
that the proposed rule be strengthened to ensure that monitoring 
efforts are coordinated with appropriate and interested parties. Some 
respondents specifically suggested that state and local government 
representatives be involved in monitoring activities. Various 
respondents expressed preferences about who should conduct or assist 
with monitoring efforts. Some people felt that monitoring activities 
should be restricted to qualified parties, while others recommended the 
inclusion of diverse interests in these activities.
    Response: In the proposed rule, monitoring and evaluation is 
coordinated and, to the extent practicable, conducted jointly with 
other federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, 
scientific and academic communities, or other interested parties. In 
addition, the proposed rule required the responsible official to 
provide appropriate opportunities for the public to be involved in 
monitoring and evaluation. The final rule retains only the former 
provision as the latter provision was viewed as redundant.
    The Department believes that monitoring is an important opportunity 
for the public to become directly involved with the conservation and 
stewardship of their national forests and grasslands. As in other steps 
of the planning framework, the expectation is that responsible 
officials will ensure opportunities are provided for appropriate 
collaboration.
    Comment: Adequacy of funding to support the monitoring and 
evaluation requirements. Some respondents did not favor the requirement 
that the responsible official shall ensure that adequate funding is 
available for monitoring specifically required in project-level 
decision documents. Many people feared that inadequate funding could 
hinder the implementation of necessary projects. The Congressional 
budget process, they asserted, needs to be considered in developing the 
proposed rule. Other respondents, concerned about the adequacy of 
funding for monitoring, believed that the proposed rule's monitoring 
requirements will be excessively expensive and suggested that the rule 
emphasize that monitoring should not require significant additional 
costs.
    Response: The Department believes that it is reasonable to expect 
the responsible official to make a fairly accurate prediction of future 
funding. First, the responsible official has the budget history of the 
unit and should be able to make a reasonable estimate on funding 
availability. Second, the responsible official has the flexibility to 
adjust the size and complexity of projects to reduce funding. Finally, 
the responsible official sets the stage for monitoring by documenting 
what is needed for specific projects in preliminary budget proposals. 
As noted by the Committee of Scientists, monitoring is an indispensable 
part of land and resource stewardship. To date, it has not been 
integrated into the planning and implementation process. Yet, including 
monitoring within the planning process may be the single most important 
shift that can happen in forest stewardship. The monitoring process 
creates the information necessary for future decisions, reduces the 
cost of future inventory analysis, and lessens the likelihood of 
management mistakes.
    Comment: Linkage of project approval to monitoring funding. Many 
people voiced general support for the proposed rule's provisions 
requiring adequate funding for monitoring as a condition for project 
approval. Conversely, several other respondents felt that project 
approval should not be connected to funding for monitoring. These 
people asserted that this condition will hinder project implementation 
and conflicts with congressional budgetary authority. Focusing more on 
accountability, a few respondents suggested that the proposed rule 
require that responsible officials include their rationale for 
supporting expectations of adequate funding for monitoring in decision 
documents.
    Response: The Department has retained language in the final rule 
concerning adequate funds for monitoring and evaluation of site-
specific decisions. It is important to clarify that monitoring is not 
required for all site-specific projects. Where it is identified as 
important to understanding and ensuring sustainability, monitoring is 
considered as part of the project in the decision process.
    Comment: Mechanisms for funding monitoring. Several respondents 
felt that it is unfair to require industrial interests to fund 
monitoring for projects that these interests propose. These people 
asserted that the proposed rule should not include such provisions. 
Other respondents recommended that the Forest Service seek legislative 
approval to establish a fund specifically for monitoring.
    Response: The Department has retained language in the final rule 
concerning adequate funds for monitoring and evaluation of site-
specific decisions. References were not made to industrial or non-
industrial interests funding monitoring in the proposed or final rule. 
Monitoring is considered as part of the cost of doing the project where 
it is required.
    Comments: Monitoring and evaluation of social and economic 
sustainability. Some respondents believed that the proposed rule has 
inadequate requirements for the evaluation of economic and social 
sustainability and recommended an expansion of the evaluation criteria 
in the final rule. Other respondents requested clarification of the 
requirements for review of national, regional, and local supply and 
demand for products, services, and values. One organization believed 
that the proposed rule should emphasize monitoring and evaluation 
processes that focus on the products, services, and values that both 
the Forest Service and local governments specifically provide. One 
person explicitly suggested that the Forest Service remove the term 
``values'' from the proposed rule's items for consideration when 
monitoring for economic and social sustainability because it ``will 
allow a manager to use a variety of undefined and arbitrary `values' to 
counteract a demand for products or services.'' Another person asked 
the Forest Service to require inventories of timber resources. 
Inventories of areas not suited for timber production, this person 
contended, are essential to gauge economic sustainability.
    Response: The requirements for evaluating economic and social 
sustainability are identified in sections 219.5 and 219.21. 
Coordination of monitoring with partners is encouraged in section 
219.11(e). The requirements for evaluating ecological, economic, and 
social sustainability have been increased in the final rule. The plan 
monitoring strategy must provide periodic reviews of national, 
regional, and local supply and demand for products, services, and 
values. It requires the responsible official to evaluate the 
effectiveness of information and analyses described in 219.21 (a) in 
providing reliable information regarding social and economic 
sustainability. This

[[Page 67534]]

provides an adaptive approach to address many of the concerns made by 
the respondents, including inventories of areas not suited for timber 
production and assessing supply and demand for products, services, and 
values.
    Other changes. The monitoring and evaluation section of the final 
rule is reorganized to more clearly describe the strategy of monitoring 
plan decisions and characteristics of sustainability required by each 
plan. Each plan will contain a practicable, effective, and efficient 
monitoring strategy to evaluate sustainability by monitoring 
appropriate plan decisions and characteristics of sustainability. 
Section 219.5 provides that this type of information will be prepared 
within ``reasonable costs and in a timely manner.''
    In the proposed rule paragraph (a), ``Monitoring and evaluation 
requirements,'' is reorganized and renamed ``Plan monitoring strategy'' 
to more accurately describe requirements. To simplify the presentation 
of required information, specific requirements for the use of 
monitoring information listed in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule are 
moved to paragraph (d), ``use of monitoring information,'' in the final 
rule. Monitoring methods described in paragraph (a) of the proposed 
rule are moved to paragraph (c) of the final rule to distinguish these 
requirements from the monitoring strategy, thus ensuring that 
appropriate adjustments in sampling frequencies and technical methods 
are implemented as monitoring progresses. The final rule clarifies that 
changes in monitoring methods are not plan decisions unless they are 
specifically required within the monitoring strategies described in a 
plan.
    Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule, ``Coordination,'' described the 
need for collaboration and coordination in the development and 
implementation of monitoring programs. This paragraph is renumbered as 
paragraph (e) of the final rule, simplified, and renamed, 
``Coordination of monitoring and evaluation.''
    Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule, ``Project monitoring,'' is 
renamed ``Monitoring of site-specific actions'' and renumbered 
paragraph (b) in the final rule. The text of the paragraph is modified 
to specify that the responsible official must determine funding will be 
adequate to complete specifically described monitoring and evaluation 
before authorizing a site-specific action. The proposed rule is not 
specific regarding who is responsible for a determination of the 
appropriate funding prior to authorization of an action.
    Paragraph (d) in the proposed rule, ``Monitoring and evaluation 
report,'' is moved to paragraph (f) in the final rule, ``A summary of 
the results of monitoring.'' Two items required for ``Identification of 
topics of general interest or concern,'' and ``A list of amendments, 
revisions and summaries of outcomes,'' are removed from this section in 
the final rule. These items are required by section 219.30, ``Plan 
documentation,'' and not necessary to repeat as a requirement in the 
monitoring and evaluation report.
    Paragraphs (e) and (f), ``Monitoring of ecological, social, and 
economic sustainability'' in the proposed rule, are redrafted to follow 
the content of sections 219.20 and 219.21 of the final rule. They are 
incorporated into paragraph (a), ``Plan monitoring strategy,'' in the 
final rule. Because sustainability is the foundation for providing 
multiple uses of national forest and grasslands and monitoring 
activities are directed toward effective and efficient strategies to 
evaluate sustainability, it is appropriate that the characteristics of 
sustainability are described in conjunction with development of the 
plan monitoring strategy.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability

    In the proposed rule, sections 219.12 to 219.18 outlined the 
opportunities for the public and others to be actively engaged in the 
Forest Service's land management planning process. Collaboration with 
the public is one of the overriding themes of this rule. The agency 
recognizes that these are the ``people's lands'' and the public should 
be actively involved in their planning and management. These sections 
identify multiple opportunities for early and continuous involvement by 
the public.
    Proposed Section 219.12--Collaboration and cooperatively developed 
landscape goals. This section detailed opportunities for the public to 
become involved in the development of landscape goals for national 
forests and grasslands. This section also detailed the role the 
responsible official will play in fostering an understanding of the 
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act.
    Comment: Resolving conflicts. Some people suggested that the 
proposed rule include guidelines regarding what should be involved in 
collaboration and how potential conflicts among different parties will 
be handled. The responsible official, one business contended, needs to 
ensure that the parties involved in collaboration are all interested in 
problem solving. ``The collaborative approach only works when you have 
a group that is interested in the solutions to the problems,'' wrote 
this business representative. ``It is a disaster when only part of the 
group wants to find solutions.'' One person addressed a different 
perceived shortcoming of collaboration. ``When the outcome of 
collaboration is different from what participants want,'' this person 
wrote, ``they often distrust the Forest Service and choose not to 
participate in future collaborate efforts.''
    Response: Based on comments, section 219.12(a) of the final rule 
has been strengthened to provide that the ``responsible official'' must 
seek to ``actively engage'' the public and others in stewardship and 
planning of National Forest System lands. This change was made to 
emphasize the importance of actively working with the public and other 
agencies in forest planning. As noted in the Committee of Scientists 
Report, collaboration is about working together on issues of mutual 
concern in a manner that best fits the needs of people, place, and 
issues of concern.
    In response to the comment on the commitment of parties to resolve 
problems, the final rule does not list any specific criteria for 
participation in the collaborative process. It is incumbent on the 
responsible official to identify the parties that will be ``actively 
engaged'' in the planning process. Section 219.12(a) of the final rule 
states that ``the responsible official shall consider the distinct 
roles, jurisdictions, and relationships of interested and affected 
governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.''
    In regard to the comment on the Forest Service's role in the 
outcome of collaboration, the final rule provides that the 
``responsible official shall provide early and frequent opportunities 
for people to participate openly and meaningfully in planning and has 
discretion to determine how to provide these opportunities.'' The 
overall intent of this rule is to have the Forest Service working 
together with others to cooperatively resolve natural resource issues.
    Collaborative planning is not a stop-and-start activity but rather 
an ongoing effort, with varying levels of intensity. Its purpose is to 
reach out to communities and other stakeholders and build stewardship 
relationships needed to achieve an integrated landscape for planning to 
achieve goals of sustainability.
    Comment: Discretionary authority. The discretionary authority of 
the Forest Service was another source of concern for many respondents. 
Specifically, the

[[Page 67535]]

proposed provision stating that, ``The responsible official has full 
discretion to determine how and to what extent to use the collaborative 
process'' evoked fears that the decision maker will be able to, in the 
words of one respondent, ``manipulate the process to achieve a 
predetermined target under the collaborative decisions label.'' To 
prevent this perceived abuse of discretionary power, several people 
recommended that the proposed planning rule require the responsible 
official to adhere to certain procedures such as documenting the 
rationale for choosing a given collaborative process and specifying 
when and how public input will be solicited. Others suggested that the 
proposed planning regulations retain current requirements for 
collaboration because they believe existing guidelines are more 
stringent in requiring opportunities for involvement with the public.
    Response: The proposed rule provided that the responsible official 
has ``full discretion * * *  to determine how and to what extent'' to 
use the collaborative processes outlined in certain sections of the 
proposed rule. Based on comments, this provision in the final rule has 
been changed in section 219.12(a) to provide the responsible official 
``has discretion to determine how to provide these opportunities.'' The 
language ``to what extent'' has been removed from the final rule. The 
Department made this change to emphasize that the agency would use 
collaborative techniques in planning and stewardship of national 
forests and grasslands. Section 219.12(a) of the final rule recognizes 
that the responsible official may play several roles, such as leader, 
organizer, facilitator, or participant, in achieving collaboration.
    In addition, discretion of the agency to consider ``cooperatively 
developed landscape goals'' has been modified in the final rule. 
Section 219.12(b)(3) provides that the responsible official ``shall 
consider'' (emphasis added) the cooperatively developed landscape goals 
as an issue for planning.
    In regard to the comment on involvement with the public 
requirements, the rule does not conflict with any other public 
involvement processes the agency currently uses. In fact, the rule 
complements the existing public involvement requirements and increases 
opportunities for collaboration with the public throughout the planning 
process.
    Comment: Implementation. The proposed planning rule, several 
believed, should clarify how collaborative planning goals relate to 
NEPA requirements and other goals proposed in the planning rule. In 
particular, the Forest Service must not substitute proposed 
collaborative processes for NEPA analysis, according to one 
organization. Clarification is also needed, one person wrote, regarding 
how the proposed collaborative planning process is different from the 
scoping process under NEPA. Other people suggested that the planning 
rule include recognition of the fact that collaboratively developed 
goals may not be consistent with other proposed goals such as 
ecological sustainability or emphasis on science. Some respondents 
agreed that collaborative planning is a laudable goal but, doubt that 
it will be realized. Citing a variety of past examples in which the 
Forest Service perceivably discounted local interests, several 
respondents wondered whether the Forest Service will actually adopt 
management directions developed through collaborative efforts. The 
Forest Service, others suggested, should disclose how public comments 
are used in forest planning.
    Response: The proposed rule provided that the responsible official 
should use collaboration to develop landscape goals for ``ecological 
units'' that may be associated with National Forest System lands. In 
the final rule, this provision has been changed to using collaborative 
efforts ``to develop or propose landscape goals for areas that include 
National Forest System lands.'' The Department made this change to 
broaden the use of collaboratively developed landscape goals, not just 
to ecological units, but to all lands associated with the National 
Forest System. With respect to the comment on consistency of 
collaboratively developed landscape goals and ecological 
sustainability, Section 219.4 of the final rule provides that the 
responsible official should consider the extent to which addressing the 
issues relates to or provides an opportunity to contribute to the 
``restoration or maintenance of ecological sustainability.''
    In regard to landscape goals and NEPA, the language in section 
219.12(b)(2) in the proposed rule has been retained in the final rule 
that recognized the importance and understanding of collaborative 
efforts and the National Environmental Policy Act. Section 219.12(b)(2) 
of the final rule explicitly recognizes the link between NEPA and 
collaborative planning. In section 219.5 of the final rule, the 
Department has clarified that ``the results from broad-scale 
assessments, local analyses, monitoring activities, and other studies 
that are not plan or site-specific decisions or proposals . . . are not 
subject to Forest Service NEPA procedures.'' The Department made this 
change to clarify that these landscape goals are broad landscape goals 
and not decisions requiring NEPA analysis. With respect to public 
comments during the planning process, all public comments are available 
for review. In regard to scoping and collaborative planning, the 
Department views collaborative planning as complementary to the NEPA 
scoping process. This is one more avenue for the agency to actively 
engage the public in land and resource planning.
    In regard to the comments about the Forest Service adopting 
management directions developed in collaborative efforts, the overall 
intent and emphasis in the rule is for the Forest Service, along with 
other parties, to ``actively engage'' in a collaborative planning 
process to problem solve and identify mutual goals and interests. The 
collaborative process does not ensure what decision will be made by the 
responsible official.
    Comment: Efficiency. Other people worried that the involvement of 
``uninformed'' parties, single-issue organizations, or individuals or 
groups that cannot demonstrate a ``relevant relationship to the subject 
matter of a proposed plan'' results in an inefficient and laborious 
collaborative process. Similarly, some respondents asserted that if the 
Forest Service were required to consider all landscape goals initiated 
by various individuals and groups, decisionmaking would be slowed 
considerably. One organization cautioned, ``Decisions not incorporating 
all the conflicting goals will end up in litigation and further waste 
of taxpayer resources.''
    Response: The proposed rule provided that collaboration in land and 
resource management planning ``enhances the ability of people to work 
together, build their capacity for stewardship, and achieve ecological, 
economic, and social sustainability.'' In section 219.12(a) of the 
final rule, the Department has strengthened this provision by stating 
``to promote sustainability, the responsible official, must seek to 
actively engage the American public, interested organizations, private 
landowners, state, local, and Tribal governments, and other federal 
agencies in the stewardship of National Forest System Lands by 
providing early and frequent opportunities for people to participate 
openly and meaningfully in planning.'' The Department continues to 
believe that meaningful collaboration by the agency with all interested 
parties is the

[[Page 67536]]

best way to manage the national forest and grasslands. With respect to 
potential litigation and collaboratively developed landscape goals, 
section 219.4(b) of the final rule provides that the responsible 
official has the discretion to determine ``whether and to what extent 
an issue is appropriate for consideration.'' Litigation risks cannot be 
determined at this time. Collaboratively developed landscape goals are 
not subject to Forest Service NEPA procedures. Section 219.12(b)(3) of 
the final rule provides that cooperatively developed landscape goals 
are considered as an issue within the framework of planning. Section 
219.12 of the final rule encourages an efficient and effective approach 
among interests to utilize limited human and financial resources that 
enable use of the latest technology and adoption of creative approaches 
to collaboration. It positions the agency in a leadership role and 
commits, as appropriate and practical, the responsible official to use 
creative collaborative approaches to supplement traditional NEPA 
processes.
    Comment: Local Groups. Some people worried that Forest Supervisors 
may interpret the guidance in the proposed rule encouraging responsible 
officials to ``initiate or seek to join ongoing collaborative efforts 
to develop or propose landscape goals'' as a mandate to rely on local 
groups such as the Quincy Library Group. These people did not want the 
Forest Service to give special consideration to local collaborative 
groups and recommended that the proposed rule explicitly state that 
input from collaborative groups will be considered equally with input 
from other sources.
    Response: The proposed rule provided that the responsible official 
and those involved in planning should invite and encourage others to 
engage in the collaborative development of landscape goals. Section 
219.12(b)(1) of the final rule retains this language. The Department 
believes that this language is broad enough to ensure that one group 
does not have special consideration during the planning process. The 
intent of this section is to provide opportunities for all parties 
interested in forest planning to have an active role in the development 
of landscape goals and the collaborative process. As noted in the 
Committee of Scientists Report, collaborative planning is a shared 
process within which agencies cooperate with one another, work with 
other public and private organizations, and engage communities and 
citizens in envisioning and working toward a sustainable future of the 
national forests and grasslands.
    Proposed Section 219.13--Coordination among federal agencies. This 
section of the proposed rule addressed coordination with other federal 
agencies in national forest and grassland planning and decisionmaking.
    Comment: Sentiments were mixed among those respondents who 
specifically addressed coordination among federal agencies in national 
forest planning. While some supported the proposed planning rule's 
emphasis on participation and coordination of various federal agencies 
in forest planning, others were concerned that this focus on 
coordination might unduly influence other agencies' management actions.
    Response: Section 219.13 of the proposed rule provided that the 
responsible official must provide ``early and continuous coordination'' 
for other interested or affected federal agencies to participate in 
identification of issues and formulation of proposed actions that may 
affect their programs. Section 219.13 of the final rule changed the 
language from ``continuous coordination'' to ``frequent coordination'' 
for working with other federal agencies. This change was made to 
clarify that there would be multiple opportunities for other federal 
agencies to participate in planning. Agencies are also urged to 
contribute to streamlined coordination of federal agency policies, 
resource management plans, or programs. Other federal agencies may 
further engage in a variety of tasks throughout the NEPA process, 
examples include: assist the agency in EA and EIS development, 
participate in public scoping, develop information and analyses in 
which they have special expertise, contribute staff and resource 
support, participate on interdisciplinary planning teams, and share 
information and data. These actions strengthen the final outcome for 
sound management of public resources.
    In regard to the comment on the influence of the Forest Service to 
other agency management actions, section 219.12 of the final rule 
recognizes the distinct jurisdictions, policies and legislative 
mandates of the other federal agencies. This language was retained from 
the proposed regulations.
    Proposed Section 219.14--Involvement of state and local 
governments. This section of the proposed rule described the 
involvement of state and local governments in the land and resource 
management planning and decisionmaking.
    Comment: Suggestions for creating a useful collaboration process. 
Many people who responded to the proposed planning regulations support 
the idea that the Forest Service should actively collaborate with state 
and local governments. Forest Service officials, several respondents 
claimed, often require state and local governments to participate in 
planning in the same manner as members of the public rather than create 
specific outreach mechanisms for these governmental entities. These 
people offered a variety of suggestions for creating a useful 
collaboration process designed for state and local governments. These 
included requiring early and continuous coordination with state and 
local governments, consulting with state and local government 
officials, establishing state and local agencies as cooperating 
agencies under NEPA, obtaining the consensus of local governments 
before establishing topics of concern, providing documented rationale 
for the acceptance or rejection of local governmental concerns and 
suggestions, and establishing a process for intergovernmental 
information exchange.
    Response: Section 219.14 of the proposed rule stated that the 
responsible official must provide opportunities for involvement of 
state and local governments in the planning process, including 
opportunities to participate in identification of topics of interest or 
concern related to the planning area. Based on comments, the Department 
has strengthened section 219.14 of the final rule to provide ``early 
and frequent'' opportunities for state and local governments to be 
actively involved in the planning process. In addition, the Department 
has also included language in section 219.14(b) of the final rule that 
acknowledges the need to coordinate resource management plans and 
programs with state and local governments. The final rule directs the 
continued building and fostering of these relationships.
    Comment: Resolving conflict. Some respondents expressed 
reservations regarding the potential success of collaborative efforts 
with local and state governments. ``Local governments,'' one 
organization claims, ``may exercise their rights to maintain roads and 
trails counter to the desires of other interests within the 
`collaborative' decisionmaking process--leading to additional conflict, 
litigation, and wasted resources.''
    Response: Section 219.12(a) of the final rule provides that the 
responsible official should recognize the ``distinct roles, 
jurisdictions, and relationships of interested and affected 
governments, organizations, groups and individuals.'' The Forest 
Service will conduct

[[Page 67537]]

collaborative planning consistent with all applicable federal laws and 
regulations. This rule does not abrogate any federal responsibility to 
state government.
    Comment: Discretionary authority. Although many respondents like 
the proposed planning rule's general emphasis on collaboration with 
state and local governments, several argued that the rule does not 
provide adequate assurance that these governments will be meaningfully 
involved in collaborative efforts. These people suggested that the 
Forest Service clarify how local and state governments will be engaged 
in forest planning by eliminating discretionary language and providing 
more specific direction in the proposed planning regulations. In 
particular, the proposed rule, one person suggested, should specify 
that municipalities and special districts would be consulted in forest 
planning. This respondent asserted that national forest management 
often affects water and sewage districts; thus, the Forest Service 
should involve these affected parties.
    Response: Section 219.14 of the final rule identifies some of the 
key steps where state and local governments will be engaged in 
planning. State and local governments will be involved in the 
identification of issues as described in section 219.4(a) of the final 
rule. Further, section 219.14 in the final rule provides that the 
responsible official must provide early and frequent opportunities for 
state and local governments to participate in the planning process. 
This language strengthens the intent of the rule to have the agency 
work with state and local governments in planning. In addition the rule 
recognizes the need for the Forest Service and state and local 
governments to coordinate plans and programs.
    Comment: Coordination. Several people suggested this is a critical 
component of effective collaboration procedures. Whether they want the 
Forest Service to retain existing requirements for coordination and 
review procedures or adopt the Bureau of Land Management's coordination 
requirements, these people generally believed that the rule must be 
explicit in requiring the Forest Service to strive for consistency 
among various plans and policies.
    Response: Based on comments, the Department has added section 
219.14(b) that recognizes the need for the Forest Service to coordinate 
resource management plans and programs with state and local 
governments. In addition, section 219.13 of the final rule describes 
the process for the Forest Service to coordinate their plans and 
programs with other federal agencies.
    Proposed Section 219.15--Interaction with American Indian Tribes 
and Alaska Natives. This section of the proposed rule described the 
interaction with American Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives in National 
Forest System planning and decisionmaking.
    Comment: Several people believed that the proposed planning rule 
should more explicitly recognize the Forest Service's responsibility to 
consult with American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives in forest 
planning. The proposed rule, one respondent asserted, must require that 
Forest Service decisions that may potentially impact tribal trust 
resources be specifically analyzed for compliance with fiduciary 
obligations of the United States. According to this respondent, ``More 
emphasis needs to be placed on the recommendations and desires of 
American Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives through the planning process 
because much of these lands involve aboriginal and ancestral lands of 
American Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives.'' The involvement of tribes 
and natives in forest planning was important for several respondents 
who do not think tribes should be treated in the same manner as members 
of the public or state agencies are treated. American Indian Tribes and 
Alaska Natives, these people asserted, must be partners in the initial, 
pre-scoping stages of Forest Service planning. Another respondent 
recommended that formal agreements be developed with tribal governments 
regarding planning priorities and joint management in areas where 
common boundaries exist.
    Response: Section 219.15 of the final rule retains language from 
the proposed rule declaring that the Forest Service shares in the 
federal government's overall trust responsibilities and recognizes the 
government-to-government relationships with American Indian Tribes and 
Alaska Natives. It also retains language calling for collaboration in 
the early identification of treaty rights, treaty-protected resources, 
tribal trust resources, and other tribal consultation and 
participation. Section 219.3(c) of the final rule provides that 
American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives are to be engaged in an 
``interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to planning.'' The 
Department believes that section 219.15(c) of the proposed rule, which 
is retained in the final rule, provides explicit language for the 
Forest Service to consult with American Indian tribes. There is no 
discretionary language in this section of the rule.
    Comment: Tribal treaty requirements. In order to exercise their 
rights, one tribal organization asserted that the Forest Service must 
acknowledge the significant treaty requirements for protection of fish, 
wildlife, and plants. This organization claimed that national forest 
lands must be managed for a productive yield to allow tribes to 
exercise their preexisting legal rights.
    Response: Section 219.15 of the final rule emphasizes 
identification of treaty rights and treaty and trust resources. The 
planning regulations provide for early and frequent communication among 
Forest Service personnel and American Indians and Alaska Natives. The 
planning rule does not modify tribal treaty requirements.
    Proposed Section 219.16--Relationships with interested individuals 
and organizations. This section of the proposed rule addressed 
relationships with interested individuals and organizations in national 
forest and grassland planning and decisionmaking.
    Comment: Encouraging public involvement. Many people who commented 
on the proposed planning rule agreed that public involvement should be 
an integral part of forest planning. However, respondents' perceptions 
varied as to whether the proposed planning regulations will, in effect, 
increase or decrease public involvement opportunities. Nevertheless, 
the Forest Service, they contended, should encourage more public 
involvement throughout the entire forest planning process to account 
for the needs and wants of different forest users. Some further 
suggested that the Forest Service clarify what incentives will be 
offered to encourage people to become involved early in the planning 
process.
    Response: Section 219.16 of the proposed rule, which is retained in 
the final rule, described a process for the responsible official to 
involve the public in the planning process. Based on comments, the 
Department has strengthened this section in the final rule by 
describing specific steps where interested individuals and 
organizations will be ``actively'' engaged in planning. As noted in the 
Committee of Scientists Report, multiple mechanisms of public dialogue 
need to be devised to enhance the capacity of the American people to 
effectively engage in the planning process. The Committee of Scientists 
also wrote that planning must provide mechanisms for broad-based, 
vigorous, and ongoing opportunities for open public dialogue. These 
dialogues must

[[Page 67538]]

be open to any person, conducted in non-technical terms, and structured 
to accommodate differing schedules, capabilities, and interests. The 
Department continues to support a comprehensive public involvement 
process that has multiple opportunities for diverse interests to 
participate in the forest planning process. It recognizes that the 
planning process must be fair, meaningful, and open to persons with 
diverse opinions and values. Through this process, the responsible 
official must provide early and frequent opportunities for interested 
parties to participate, work together, and collaborate to improve 
understanding. A central function of the planning process aims at 
facilitating community building by providing opportunities for people 
to come together. There are not explicit incentives to participate in 
the collaborative planning process in the rule; however, the rule does 
ensure the opportunity for the agency and interested parties to 
collaboratively develop plans for our national forests and grasslands.
    Comment: Reducing bias in decisionmaking. Many people asserted that 
when the Forest Service develops public outreach strategies, it must 
both engage a broad range of constituents in the collaborative process 
and equally consider the diverse interests of these constituents. 
Whether they believe the Forest Service may give undue preference to 
the views of local residents, logging companies, or environmentalists, 
many respondents strongly insisted that the proposed planning rule 
should reduce bias in decisionmaking by requiring equal outreach and 
consideration processes for different stakeholders. The Forest Service, 
some contended, must clarify how collaborative processes will weigh the 
input from different interests. Offering a specific suggestion for 
reducing bias in forest planning, one person proposed ``each national 
forest be governed by a set of elected officials who would be 
responsible to the public for the management of the national forests.'' 
By electing designated representatives, the Forest Service, this person 
contended, would be able to balance non-local interests and local 
interests as well as the interests of those who have the time and 
resources to participate and those that do not.
    Response: The final rule retains the language in section 219.16 of 
the proposed regulations that recognized the need for engaging diverse 
interests in collaborative planning. As noted in the Committee of 
Scientists Report, collaborative planning must recognize the 
inevitability of legitimate, yet competing, values in National Forest 
System management. It must encourage divergent interests to 
collectively deal with their differences while pursuing shared goals 
for the national forests and grasslands. With respect to the comments 
on bias of planning, this rule provides a framework for developing 
plans that provides equal opportunities for all interested parties to 
participate in a meaningful and open collaborative planning process.
    Comment: Involvement in collaborative planning. Some respondents 
offered specific ideas regarding who should or should not be involved 
in collaborative efforts. Several people argued that the Forest Service 
must focus collaboration at the local level and give priority 
consideration to local concerns. In the words of one person, the Forest 
Service should ``listen to the local people who use the forests.'' 
Others did not want corporate interests involved in collaboration; 
these ``faceless corporate giants,'' they perceived, used money and 
well-spoken representatives to unjustly influence the decisionmaking 
process. Similarly, some people suggested that paid lobbyists be 
excluded from the collaborative process as well. Some town meeting 
attendees felt that the Forest Service should clarify the difference 
between interested and affected parties in the collaboration process.
    Response: The proposed rule provided language that would 
``encourage participants to work collaboratively and directly with one 
another to improve understanding.'' In the final rule, the Department 
has expanded the language to ``encourage interested individuals and 
organizations to work collaboratively and directly with one another to 
improve understanding.'' In addition, section 219.16(b) of the final 
rule includes language that directs the responsible official to 
initiate a planning process that is ``fair, meaningful, and open to 
persons with diverse opinions.'' The Department believes that this 
language encompasses not only local citizens and interest groups, but a 
national constituency as well. The Department recognizes that all 
Americans own the national forests. The language in the final rule 
provides a framework for all interested parties to actively participate 
in the planning process. Section 219.12 of the final rule provides that 
the responsible official has the authority to consider the distinct 
roles, jurisdictions, and relationships in identifying participants in 
the collaborative process.
    Comment: Outreach methods for soliciting public comment. Some 
respondents asserted that the Forest Service does not currently do 
enough to encourage involvement of all interested parties and should 
explore more creative ways of informing people about public involvement 
opportunities. Several people offered a variety of different 
suggestions for improving Forest Service outreach efforts. These 
included using different media to disseminate information such as the 
telephone, internet sites, industry-specific newsletters, radio 
programs, and bulletin boards, providing adequate notice and time for 
public comment opportunities, holding meetings within local communities 
and at convenient times, using neutral group facilitators and a small 
group format for public meetings, incorporating funding for outreach 
efforts in the annual Forest Service budget, maintaining databases of 
people who have expressed interest in forest planning, establishing 
partnerships with interested groups and individuals, and training 
Forest Service personnel in collaboration procedures. Regardless of 
which specific outreach method the Forest Service uses in planning, 
some respondents asked that the proposed rule include the NFMA mandate 
that requires the Forest Service to ``hold public meetings or 
comparable processes at locations that foster public participation in 
the review of such plans and revisions.''
    Response: The proposed rule provided a framework to actively engage 
the public in a meaningful collaborative planning process. The 
Department continues to support that framework in the final rule. The 
Department acknowledges that the agency has multiple roles in the 
collaborative process including leader, organizer, facilitator, or 
participant. As noted in the Committee of Scientists Report, 
information is a key element in building an accessible planning process 
and an honest relationship between the agency and communities. The 
Committee further noted that where key information about the resources 
and management of national forests and grasslands is readily available 
in a range of locations and formats, open information policies could 
provide any interested individual the ability to understand, critique, 
and participate in planning processes. The Department agrees with the 
respondents about using different media and requires alternative 
formats for persons with disabilities when disseminating information to 
the public. The planning framework outlined in the final rule requires 
the Forest Service to use a variety of media to engage the public and 
tribal

[[Page 67539]]

governments in planning. The overall intent of the rule is to 
``actively engage'' the public in collaborative planning. The rule 
emphasizes the need to utilize multiple methods to disseminate planning 
information.
    In regard to the comment about holding public meetings on changes 
in the plans, the agency will continue to have public involvement in 
accordance with Forest Service NEPA procedures. There is no intent to 
eliminate these requirements from Forest Service planning.
    Comment: Role as an educator. The Forest Service's role as an 
educator evoked comments from several respondents. These people 
believed the Forest Service should establish educational programs that 
provide the public with both environmental and forest management 
planning information. These people contended that informed stakeholders 
will help expedite the planning process and contribute to improved 
forest plans.
    Response: The proposed rule acknowledged the multiple roles the 
agency has in the collaborative planning process. The final rule 
retains the multiple roles for the agency in the collaborative planning 
process. The Department acknowledges that the agency will not only be a 
convener, facilitator, leader, or participant, but will also be an 
educator. The principles in the final rule provide that ``planning 
meaningfully engages the American people in the stewardship of their 
national forests and grasslands.'' The Department believes that the 
agency will be learning along with the public in a collaborative 
planning process. One of the themes of the rule is to inform and 
educate the public about the Forest Service's planning process. Section 
219.16(e) of the final rule provides for the Forest Service to work 
with parties to identify information needs for planning. The rule 
provides a framework for the Forest Service to be an educator as well 
as a participant in the planning process.
    Proposed Section 219.17--Interaction with private landowners. This 
section of the proposed rule described the interaction with private 
landowners in National Forest System planning and decisionmaking.
    Comment: Few people specifically addressed this section. One 
individual believed that the language of the proposed rule is too 
discretionary about requirements for engaging private landowners in 
forest planning.
    Response: Section 219.17 of the final rule describes the process 
for the responsible official to engage private landowners in the 
planning process. The final rule provides that the Forest Service will 
work with adjacent landowners on issues of mutual concern that may 
affect them or management of National Forest System lands.
    The final rule retains the requirement that the responsible 
official seek to engage private landowners. The information to be 
requested is expanded by the Department to include local knowledge, 
potential actions and partnerships, potential conditions and activities 
on National Forest System lands that may affect adjacent private lands, 
and issues relating to the plan area. The Department added these 
provisions to more clearly identify the types of information that were 
being sought from private landowners.
    The Department has removed the phrase in the proposed regulations 
``consideration of the pattern and distribution of land ownership in 
assessment and plan areas is critical'' in the final rule. The 
Department is confident that the language in the final rule adequately 
recognizes the interrelationships between private landowners and the 
Forest Service. The Department has added a new item (b) in the final 
rule that recognizes opportunities for partnerships between Forest 
Service and private landowners.
    Proposed Section 219.18--Role of advisory groups and committees. 
This section of the proposed rule described the role of advisory 
committees and groups in land and resource management and 
decisionmaking. This section has been renamed in the final rule to 
``Role of advisory committees.''
    Comment: Influence of local interests. Many who wanted the proposed 
provision for advisory groups eliminated from the planning regulations 
claim that local commodity or economic interests will dominate these 
groups. Advisory groups composed of mostly local interests, these 
people argued, will likely advocate damaging land management practices 
rather than emphasizing the needs and desires of a broad spectrum of 
interests. In contrast, some respondents believed that local advisory 
groups are long overdue in national forest planning. They contended 
that these groups are needed to provide a means for rural communities 
to voice concerns about Forest Service projects that may have local 
impacts. In formalizing the concept of the proposed advisory groups, 
several people suggested that the Forest Service establish the groups 
as permanent committees accountable to the Forest Service leadership 
team.
    Response: Because the Forest Service cannot carry out the mission 
of sustainability alone, the Committee of Scientists recommended that 
it develop both formal and informal collaborative structures that 
engage the broader community of interests and responsible governments 
to work together. Mechanisms for ensuring ongoing, long-term, broadly 
inclusive public relationships that build the capacity for creating 
effective collaborative stewardship are necessary for effective 
planning. It is the obligation of every line officer to build and 
maintain strong relationships with members of the public, interested 
organizations, other governments, and appropriate federal agencies. In 
some areas, especially when communities are spread over a large area, 
multiple, informal, localized networks can be a useful approach to 
maintaining these relationships. In other cases, especially when large 
landscape plans cross multiple social communities and other political 
boundaries, formal advisory boards may be the appropriate mechanism for 
ensuring full and representative participation. Section 219.18 of the 
final rule describes the roles and responsibilities of advisory 
committees in the planning process. The Department believes that Forest 
or Grassland Supervisors must have access to an advisory committee. 
These groups can raise issues and communicate other information vital 
to the planning process. They should not be construed to only allow 
local participation. Effective committees will respect all of those 
interested in or affected by national forest system management. The 
Department believes these groups will provide important information for 
planning and decisionmaking.
    Comment: Composition of advisory groups. Whether they explicitly 
expressed support of or opposition to the proposed advisory groups, 
many respondents asked that the groups represent diverse interests. 
Fearing that these advisory groups may be biased toward one particular 
interest group, these people requested that specific guidance be 
included in the planning regulations directing the Forest Service to 
create well-balanced committees. Several respondents offered 
suggestions for the specific guidance they wanted included in the 
regulations. These included criteria for selection of committee 
members, requirements to ensure that groups represent diverse values, 
and clarification regarding the relationship between proposed advisory 
groups and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. In addition, some people 
made specific requests for the composition of these groups such as 
excluding vested financial interests

[[Page 67540]]

from participating and ensuring American Indian and Alaska Native 
representation.
    Response: As noted by the Committee of Scientists, formal advisory 
boards, chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, can provide an immediate, 
legitimate, representative, and predictable structure within which 
public dialogue can occur so that Forest Service relationships with a 
broad and dispersed community of interests can be efficiently 
maintained. The NFMA authorizes the formation of such advisory 
committees. These committees should contain representatives of the 
diversity of interested institutions and individuals, as currently 
required in the law. Thus, when they are the appropriate mechanism, the 
Forest Service should not hesitate to formally charter advisory boards 
at the individual national forest level or at the large landscape 
level, whichever provides the greatest opportunity to gain 
representative, structured, and focused public interactions through 
which the key issues can be most effectively and meaningfully 
addressed. Section 219.18 also provides for the Forest Service to 
utilize groups already established by other governmental agencies. In 
addition, the Department has added a new subparagraph (c) that provides 
for the responsible official to emphasize the importance of Forest 
Service participation in community based groups such as local watershed 
councils. With respect to the concern about providing specific guidance 
in the planning regulations, the rule provides only the framework for 
establishing advisory committees. It does not include specific language 
for representation on these advisory committees. This will be 
determined by the specific circumstances and needs for an advisory 
committee.

Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability

    Section 219.19--Ecological, social, and economic sustainability. 
This section of the proposed rule described goals and priorities for 
sustainable management of National Forest System lands.
    Comment: Definition of sustainability. The definition of 
sustainability evoked numerous concerns from the people responding to 
the proposed planning regulation. Some believed that the ambiguity of 
the term needed to be addressed. Because there are many different 
meanings of sustainability, its use created confusion throughout the 
proposed rule, according to one respondent. Many felt that the term 
should be used consistently throughout not only the proposed planning 
regulations but also the entire federal planning process.
    Response: The Department agrees that the inconsistent use of 
sustainability in the proposed rule was a source of potential 
confusion. A definition of sustainability has been included in the 
final rule. Section 1(b)(3) defines sustainability as being composed of 
interdependent ecological, social, and economic elements, embodying the 
principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield without impairment to 
the productivity of the land, and meeting needs of the present 
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to 
meet their needs. Impairment of the productivity of the land means 
managing lands in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of 
ecological sustainability in section 219.20. It is beyond the scope of 
the current rule-making effort to propose consistent treatment of 
sustainability in all federal planning processes.
    Comment: Implications for resource management. Some respondents 
were concerned that the adoption of the sustainability goal will 
prescribe activities on national forests that are considered 
nonrenewable. They felt the proposed rule should address how actions 
such as mining can be conducted in a sustainable manner. Others were 
equally concerned that their personal access to national forests will 
be limited by the proposed rule. They questioned what activities would 
be allowed and feared their activity on national forests might be 
excluded by the attempt to attain the goal of sustainability. These 
respondents sought reassurances that such a scenario will be avoided.
    Response: The proposed rule did not specifically address how 
nonrenewable activities can be addressed in a sustainable manner or 
define activities that would be allowed on the national forests and 
grasslands. Likewise, these topics are not addressed in the final rule. 
Rather, the rule establishes a process for identifying, discussing, 
and, if appropriate, acting on issues that may emerge from a variety of 
sources (section 219.4).
    The Department believes that this rule, and in particular, its 
sustainability requirements, will not by itself preclude mining 
activities. Analysis and collaboration conducted under the requirements 
of the rule, and following all applicable laws, will determine where 
mining is appropriate and what mitigation measures will be required. 
The rule's emphasis on ecosystem health, collaboration, and the role of 
science may very well result in the identification and implementation 
of effective and efficient mitigating measures applicable to mining 
operations, improving the overall sustainability of the use and 
development of what are commonly referred to as nonrenewable resources.
    Comment: Assessing ecological, social, and economic sustainability. 
Many respondents felt the ecological, economic, and social benefits 
derived from national forest management must outweigh the costs 
involved. This is the standard by which the Forest Service should 
measure sustainability, according to these citizens. Others asserted 
that ecological, economic, and social sustainability should receive 
equal consideration in the proposed rule. Citing the fact that social 
and economic sciences are currently not being integrated into Forest 
Service decisions, they believed that this perceived oversight be 
corrected in the final planning rule. In addition, one respondent 
wanted the proposed rule to set a discrete time period over which 
sustainability is to be measured. Finally, other people applauded the 
choice of sustainability as the guiding principle of forest management 
because they believe such a goal is admirable and attainable.
    Response: Requirements for achieving sustainability are found in 
sections 219.19, 219.20, and 219.21 of the final rule. The proposed 
rule did not specify how social and economic sustainability was to be 
achieved in relation to ecological sustainability. In the final rule, 
social and economic sustainability is achieved by providing a range of 
uses, products, services, and values, consistent with ecological 
sustainability (section 219.20(b)). The first priority for stewardship 
of the National Forest System, which is to maintain and restore 
ecological sustainability, is unchanged from the proposed rule. The 
Department believes that these requirements will result in ecological, 
economic, and social benefits that are greater than the costs. As noted 
by the Committee of Scientists, ``* * * ecological sustainability lays 
a necessary foundation for national forests and grasslands to 
contribute to the economic and social components of sustainability, 
making contributions to strong productive economies and creating 
opportunities for enduring human communities.''
    In the proposed rule, information on ecological sustainability is 
collected at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. This requirement 
has been retained in the final rule. The proposed and final rules are 
silent on the temporal scale for

[[Page 67541]]

the evaluation of social and economic sustainability. The proposed rule 
acknowledges social and economic analyses being undertaken at various 
spatial scales. The final rule requires the planning process to include 
analyses for social and economic information at variable scales, 
including national, regional, and local scales. The responsible 
official has the authority to determine the appropriate scope and scale 
of analysis and data collection. In making this determination, the 
responsible official appropriately applies collaboration and the best 
available science.
    As noted in section 219.20(a) of the final rule, the collection and 
analysis of information at a variety of spatial and temporal scales is 
important in providing for maintenance or restoration of ecosystems. 
These scales include geographic areas such as bioregions and 
watersheds, scales of biological organization such as communities and 
species, and scales of time ranging from months to centuries. For this 
reason, the Department has not adopted a discrete time period over 
which sustainability is to be measured.
    The Department agrees that sustainability is the guiding principle 
of National Forest System management. This section of the proposed rule 
referred to sustainability as the overall goal for the management of 
National Forest System land. The Department has retained this reference 
in the final rule.
    Comment: Linkage between ecological, economic, and social 
sustainability. Some people believed that the Forest Service should 
emphasize the link among the three types of sustainability outlined in 
the proposed planning regulations. Others sought clarification 
regarding the link between ecological and socioeconomic sustainability, 
as well as what role extraction industries will play in achieving 
ecological sustainability.
    Response: The Department agrees that the linkage between 
ecological, social and economic sustainability was not sufficiently 
emphasized in the proposed rule. Language was added to the final rule 
to rectify this insufficiency. In the final rule, sustainability, 
composed of interdependent ecological, social, and economic elements, 
embodies the MUSYA without impairment to the productivity of the land 
and is the overall goal of management of the National Forest System. 
The first priority for stewardship of the national forests and 
grasslands is to maintain or restore ecological sustainability to 
provide a sustainable flow of uses, values, products, and services from 
these lands.
    To contribute to economic and social sustainability, the 
responsible official involves interested and affected people in 
planning for National Forest System lands (Sec. 219.12-219.18), 
provides for the development and consideration of relevant social and 
economic information and analyses, and a range of uses, values, 
products, and services. Plan decisions contribute to social and 
economic sustainability by providing a range of uses, products, 
services, and values, consistent with ecological sustainability 
(section 219.21(b)).
    The proposed rule did not define a specific role for extractive 
industries in achieving ecological sustainability. Nor has such a role 
been defined in the final rule. The final rule does include provisions 
such as Sec. 219.21(a)(1)(iii) that require the responsible official to 
consider opportunities to provide social and economic benefits to 
communities through natural resource restoration strategies. The rule 
establishes a process for identifying, discussing, and, if appropriate, 
acting on issues that may emerge from a variety of sources (section 
219.4). The Department believes that the role of extractive industries 
in achieving ecological sustainability is most appropriately addressed 
using this process.
    The final rule would not, by itself, result in environmental 
consequences. Rather, adverse effects or benefits would only be 
realized when the new rule is applied on national forests and 
grasslands through forest and project level planning. Because 
application of the rule requires consideration of site-specific 
information that pertains to the planning unit, it is not possible, 
from a programmatic viewpoint, to determine short or long-term 
environmental, social, or economic consequences of the final rule. The 
Department believes that this rule, and in particular, its 
sustainability requirements, will not by itself preclude mining or 
other economic activities. Analysis and collaboration conducted under 
the requirements of the rule, and following all applicable laws, will 
determine where mining is appropriate and what mitigation measures will 
be required. The rule's emphasis on ecosystem health, collaboration, 
and the role of science may very well result in the identification and 
implementation of effective and efficient mitigating measures 
applicable to mining operations, improving the overall sustainability 
of the use and development of what are commonly referred to as 
nonrenewable resources. As noted above, mitigation of the effects of 
mining activities through the application of the planning rule may 
reduce the overall environmental impacts of mining within national 
forests and grasslands.
    Similarly, any short-term or long-term effects on the availability 
of forest products and services would occur on a forest-by-forest basis 
once forest plans were revised under the final rule. For this reason, 
quantifiable impacts to the availability of forest products and 
services cannot be determined at this time. The Forest Service 
speculates that by implementing the rule, the Forest Service will put 
greater emphasis on maintaining and restoring ecosystem health in order 
to promote sustainable forest use. As a result, it is possible that 
there could be less timber volume made available for commodity purposes 
in the future. At the same time, more timber volume could be made 
available as a result of efforts to increase timber harvest for 
stewardship purposes.
    Comment: Adoption of Montreal Criteria: One respondent recommended 
that the rule be used to build greater consistency between sustainable 
forest management, including national commitments to sustainable 
forestry and the Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda, and national 
forest planning. Adoption of the seven Montreal Process Criteria within 
the regulation was specifically recommended to provide a framework for 
measuring and organizing information and performance related to 
sustainability.
    Response: The Committee of Scientists, while acknowledging their 
potential usefulness, had a number of qualifications about the use of 
criteria and indicators for gauging sustainability on the National 
Forest System lands. First, the Committee found that they might not be 
sufficient, by themselves, to gauge ecological sustainability. As an 
example, the ``maintenance of productive capacity of forest 
ecosystems'' does not appear to include the amount of dead trees for 
wildlife habitat as an indicator. Second, the Committee believed that 
the criteria and indicators are generally non-spatial and seem to lack 
a landscape view. They focus on measuring acres in certain condition 
without the aggregation needed for judgments about areas. The lack of 
integrative concepts on the use of the criteria and indicators may make 
it difficult to use them to make overall judgments. Finally, the 
Committee felt that they could consume much of the agency's resources 
for inventorying and monitoring, leaving little to other important 
measures of sustainability.
    The Department is guided by the qualifications of the Committee of 
Scientists concerning the use of criteria and indicators for gauging 
sustainability

[[Page 67542]]

on National Forest System lands. The specific framework for 
illustrating the linkage between sustainability and the Montreal 
Criterion are under development and are expected to be included in 
Forest Service directives as they become available.
    Other changes: The final rule refers to sustainability as the 
embodiment of the principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield 
without impairment to the productivity of the land. This language is 
not contained in the proposed rule. The Department has included this 
language to more clearly describe the linkage of sustainability to the 
requirements of the MUSYA. The phrase ``without impairment to the 
productivity of the land'' in this statute is key in defining both 
multiple-use and sustained-yield and is acknowledged in the final rule.
    Other changes in the final rule are made to eliminate redundancy, 
improve clarity, or incorporate changed terminology. The proposed rule 
required that management be consistent with laws and regulations. This 
reference is removed from the final rule because this is a requirement 
of all actions by each civil servant and not unique to management of 
national forests or grasslands. The proposed rule referred to 
sustainability as the overall goal of National Forest System management 
and this reference is retained in the final rule. Similar language is 
found in section 219.1(b) of the final rule. Finally, section 
219.1(b)(3) of the proposed rule made reference to the interdependent 
elements of sustainability. This reference is included in this section 
of the final rule to emphasize the importance of consideration of the 
interdependent nature of ecological, social, and economic 
sustainability.
    Section 219.20--Ecological sustainability. This section of the 
proposed rule described the key principles and desired outcomes for 
ecological sustainability.
    Comment: The definition of ecological sustainability. Some felt 
that the proposed regulations should include humans and their impacts 
on the environment in the definition. Of those respondents that use the 
terms ecological sustainability and forest health interchangeably, some 
suggested the proposed rule clarify the definition of forest health.
    Response: The Department believes that humans and their impacts on 
the environment are included in the definition of ecological 
sustainability. The Department also believes that forest health is also 
encompassed in this definition. Ecological sustainability is defined in 
section 219.36 of the final rule as the maintenance or restoration of 
the composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems including the 
diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capacity 
of ecological systems.
    Comment: Ecological sustainability and discretionary language. 
Numerous people cited the use of discretionary language, such as 
``may'' and ``should,'' as a serious flaw in the proposed regulations. 
These individuals would like to see the inclusion of imperative 
language, such as ``shall'' and ``must,'' to ensure that ecological 
sustainability is achieved.
    Response: The Department has retained the discretionary language in 
the final rule. It does not believe that the use of discretionary 
language in referring to ecological sustainability is a serious flaw. 
The planning rule is intended to provide numerous opportunities to 
reach well-reasoned and sustainable solutions to natural resource 
issues. Discretionary authority often provides flexible and appropriate 
solutions to complex natural resource issues among competing interests. 
It has been the experience of the Forest Service and others that the 
net result of inflexible policies often results in poorer solutions.
    Comment: Specific guidelines for ecological sustainability. Several 
respondents that supported the goal of ecological sustainability felt 
that the proposed planning rule lacks specific guidelines. They 
requested that the Forest Service include clear, direct standards and 
goals for achieving ecological sustainability in the final rule. Others 
asserted that ecosystem recovery should occur before the maintenance of 
sustainability is undertaken. A few respondents urged the Forest 
Service to recognize the link between timber harvest and ecological 
sustainability. They were adamant that fuel loads and overstocked 
forests pose a more serious threat to forest health than logging does.
    Response: The Department agrees that the proposed rule did not 
include clear, direct standards and goals for achieving ecological 
sustainability. This section of the final rule was revised in response 
to this concern. Requirements for achieving ecological sustainability 
are found in section 219.20(b) of the final rule.
    The proposed rule did not require ecosystem recovery to occur 
before the maintenance of sustainability is undertaken. Nor did it 
recognize the link between timber harvest and ecological 
sustainability. The Department did not include either of these issues 
in the final rule. The rule does establish a process for identifying, 
discussing, and, if appropriate, acting on issues that may emerge from 
a variety of sources (section 219.4). The Department believes that 
these issues are most appropriately addressed using this process.
    Finally, as noted above, the Department believes that the 
definition of ecological sustainability encompasses forest health.
    Comment: Ecological sustainability as the over-reaching goal of 
forest planning. Some respondents cited the loss of jobs and an 
increase of appeals and litigation as reasons not to support the goal 
of ecological sustainability. One respondent asserted that ecological 
sustainability is unattainable under the current ecological 
circumstances. Invasive species such as cheatgrass have irretrievably 
altered the landscape, this person contended, precluding the 
possibility of attaining ecological sustainability. Others believed the 
goal of ecological sustainability is too nebulous a concept to use as a 
standard upon which to judge forest health.
    Response: The Department does not believe that the goal of 
ecological sustainability will result in a loss of jobs or an increase 
in appeals and litigation. As noted by the Committee of Scientists, ``* 
* * ecological sustainability lays a necessary foundation for National 
Forests and Grasslands to contribute to the economic and social 
components of sustainability, making contributions to strong productive 
economies and creating opportunities for enduring human communities.'' 
The intent of the objection process (section 219.32) is to encourage 
resolution of issues before decisions are made. In the long run, the 
objection process is expected to resolve many potential conflicts, 
reducing litigation.
    The proposed rule stated that where ecosystems have been altered to 
the extent that it is not possible to return them to conditions within 
the historical range, other scientifically credible approaches may be 
used to maintain or restore ecological sustainability. The final rule 
states that where it is not practicable to make measurable progress 
toward conditions within the expected range of variability, plan 
decisions may provide for ecosystem composition and structure outside 
the expected range of variability. Other independently peer-reviewed 
methods must be used to provide for ecosystem diversity. The Department 
believes this language in the final rule provides for ecological 
sustainability where circumstances, such as invasive species, have 
irretrievably altered the landscape.

[[Page 67543]]

    Finally, as noted above, the Department changed this section to 
provide clear, direct standards and goals for achieving ecological 
sustainability.
    Comment: The maintenance of the composition, structure, and 
processes of ecosystems. Some respondents asserted that the 
discretionary and nebulous nature of this mandate will lead to 
arbitrary and inconsistent decisions. Others believed that the proposed 
rule does not address the physical characteristics of ecosystems. 
According to these individuals, the Forest Service should emphasize 
soil, water, and air as much as biological factors when conducting 
ecological analyses.
    Response: As noted above, the Department changed this section to 
provide clear, direct standards and goals for achieving ecological 
sustainability. As also noted above, the use of discretionary language 
in referring to ecological sustainability is appropriate.
    The proposed rule required ecological information and analyses on 
the following physical characteristics: soil conditions, air and water 
quality, stream channel morphology, and instream flows. The final rule 
requires evaluations of soil resources, including soil productivity, 
physical, chemical and biological properties, soil loss, and 
compaction, and air resources, including air quality, visibility, and 
other air resource values. The final rule also requires an evaluation 
of the effects of air quality in ecological systems, including water, 
and an estimate of current and foreseeable future Forest Service 
consumptive and non-consumptive water uses and the quantity and quality 
of water needed to support those uses and contribute to ecological 
sustainability. The Department believes the requirements in the final 
rule appropriately address the physical characteristics of ecological 
sustainability.
    Comment: Value of medicinal plants. The extraction of trees, while 
fostering immediate economic gains, may be destroying valuable plants, 
according to one respondent. Claiming that medicinal plants have the 
potential to not only generate income but also save lives, this 
respondent requested that the value of medicinal plants growing in 
national forests be considered in the final rule.
    Response: Medicinal plants will continue to be an important 
consideration in the management of national forests and grasslands. The 
procedures for the identification of functioning ecosystems described 
in section 219.5 and the use of the issue identification process in 
section 219.4 ensure appropriate attention and management action is 
directed toward medicinal plants on National Forest System lands.
    Comment: Pre-European settlement conditions. A few respondents 
supported the concept of pre-European settlement conditions as it is 
presented in the proposed regulations. They felt that using such a 
standard would help the Forest Service avoid past mistakes. A majority 
of respondents, however, presented numerous and diverse reasons for not 
supporting these concepts. Many believed that the goal of pre-European 
settlement conditions was unattainable. One individual cited airplane 
over-flights as an example of the impossibility of returning forests to 
the pre-European settlement conditions. Some respondents requested the 
Forest Service clarify exactly what pre-European settlement conditions 
are. Other respondents feared that this benchmark would be used to 
restrict human access to national forests. One respondent believed that 
adopting the pre-European settlement standard will shift forest product 
demands onto less resilient forests around the world. Such a shift will 
impact global biodiversity according to this respondent. Others 
believed that the goal of pre-European settlement conditions 
contradicts the letter and the spirit of the MUSYA. The resource needs 
of the nation today cannot be met, they asserted, if such a standard is 
adopted.
    Response: The Department agrees that a goal of pre-European 
settlement conditions is unattainable. Given climate change, land-use 
change, and changing landscape conditions, the use of the conditions of 
pre-European settlement as a reference was not realistic for many 
environments. For this reason, the Department has eliminated the use of 
this terminology from the final rule.
    As discussed for more fully below, the final rule partially relies 
on information from the historical natural disturbance regimes of 
ecosystems, but does not purport to return ecosystems to the dynamics 
of pre-European settlement. Rather, these requirements use the regimes 
of natural disturbances of the current climatic period to estimate an 
expected range of variability for characteristics of ecosystem 
composition and structure that can be used in planning at broad spatial 
scales across major ecological types.
    Comment: Historical range of variability. Some respondents believed 
that a lack of information makes a definitive determination of 
historical range of variability unattainable. They felt that the Forest 
Service should clearly define what the historical range of variability 
means and how it will be applied. Others felt the term is too 
discretionary and will allow the Forest Service to make arbitrary 
management decisions. Some felt that the proposed planning regulations 
should account for potential misuse of the historical range of 
variability. They asserted that the concept can be exploited to support 
extractive activities that do not necessarily support ecosystem 
sustainability. Various respondents suggested that the final planning 
rule provide specific guidance for instances when the historical range 
of variability for a site is not clearly defined. Because they believed 
that the determination of historical range of variability for specific 
sites could take years to complete, several individuals requested that 
the proposed planning regulations require the implementation of interim 
protection guidelines for areas of high ecological value. Some 
respondents wished to see the incorporation of heritage research in the 
ecosystem management process. They believed such research was essential 
to determine the historical range of variability. Some respondents 
supported the benchmark of historical range of variability to measure 
ecosystem integrity.
    Response: The proposed rule described the concept of ecological 
integrity and the historical range of variability, which, in turn, used 
pre-European settlement as a reference period. Considering variable and 
changing climate, land-use, and landscape conditions, the approach in 
the proposed rule was changed.
    The proposed rule contained important, essential ideas about 
natural history and disturbances. It is well accepted in the scientific 
community that the ecosystems and species of today are a product of 
historical disturbance regimes as well as current environments. It is 
also widely accepted that disturbances play a major role in creating 
ecological diversity and productivity. The current species are adapted 
to recent climatic and disturbance regimes of landscapes and contain a 
long record of environmental history in their genetic structure. 
Consequently, one cannot ignore the role of the past when attempting to 
sustain ecological conditions into the future, even when that future 
environment will be different.
    Human desires, however, need to be in sync with ecological 
capacities. When those desires include maintaining and enhancing 
current biological diversity, or slowing the rate of its change, then 
information from the past must be used to help sustain or

[[Page 67544]]

transition ecosystems into future states at rates that are socially 
acceptable. The role of ecosystem management in this process is to 
manage change in ecosystems such that the rate and direction of change 
is consistent with ecological potential and social desires. It is 
extremely difficult to establish desired conditions for species and 
complex ecosystems without some reference to how they have functioned 
in the past. When used carefully and in a limited way, historical 
information can play an important role in sustaining desired ecosystems 
into the future.
    The final rule uses information from the historical natural 
disturbance regimes of ecosystems, but does not purport to return 
ecosystems to the dynamics of pre-European settlement. Rather, these 
requirements use the regimes of natural disturbances of the current 
climatic period to estimate an expected range of variability for 
characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure. The expected 
range of variability for characteristics of ecosystem composition and 
structure in a landscape or region can be estimated from general 
knowledge of disturbance frequencies, severities, and rates of 
vegetation development.
    The Department believes that providing ecological conditions within 
the expected range of variability across all major ecological types 
will reduce threats and risks to the sustainability of native and 
desired non-native species and ecosystems on national forests and 
grasslands. Many of the current threats to species and ecosystems on 
these lands have their origin in accelerated rates and intensities of 
human activities such as intensive management for timber production and 
overgrazing or reduced rates of disturbance from fire suppression that 
have altered the abundance, structure and composition of ecosystems at 
multiple spatial scales. Providing ecological conditions within the 
expected range of variability will also contribute to ecosystem 
productivity and diversity and options for sustaining social, and 
economic goods and services such as water, forage, and wood and 
recreation. This requirement is intended to be set at relatively broad 
province scales and for major ecological types that correspond to 
potential natural vegetation series.
    The proposed rule did not include interim protection guidelines for 
areas of high ecological value; nor has the Department included such 
interim guidelines in the final rule. The Department believes that, 
unlike the historic range of variability, the estimation of the 
expected range of variability can be accomplished without the need to 
provide interim protection for areas of high ecological value.
    The use of the expected range of variability is not intended to 
preclude commercial timber harvest. Any short-term or long-term effects 
on the availability of forest products and services would occur on a 
forest-by-forest basis once forest plans were revised under the final 
rule. For this reason, quantifiable impacts to the availability of 
forest products and services cannot be determined at this time.
    Comment: Reference landscapes. Some citizens suggested that the 
final planning rule clarify the process of identifying reference 
landscapes. They felt specific guidelines would help define which 
landscapes will be deemed suitable for such a designation. A few 
respondents questioned the possibility of finding suitable areas for 
reference landscape designation. They believed the Forest Service will 
be hard pressed to find large areas affected by natural disturbance 
regimes yet still undisturbed by human activity. One individual 
believed the establishment of reference landscapes is a usurpation of 
Congressional authority. Since these landscapes are to be set aside in 
perpetuity as benchmarks, this individual asserted that such an action 
is a de facto wilderness designation. This respondent felt that such a 
designation can be exploited to amass large land areas and then exclude 
access to these lands.
    Response: The Committee of Scientists noted that managers need some 
guidance about the amount of environmental variation that is acceptable 
and is within the biota's ability to respond adaptively to it. 
Estimates of an acceptable range of variability in composition, 
structures, and processes provide reference distributions or conditions 
against which competing management scenarios are compared. The 
conditions found in reference landscapes may be the ``coarse filters'' 
within which the current physical landscape and biota evolved. To the 
degree that future management scenarios can achieve the conditions in 
reference landscapes, the more likely it is that the ``coarse filter'' 
will achieve the objectives for ecological sustainability and the less 
likely that ``fine-filter'' strategies will be needed for individual 
species.
    The Department has not included specific guidelines in the final 
rule to define which landscapes will be deemed suitable for such a 
designation. Reference landscapes are rarely uniform ``snapshots'' of 
the past. Considerable variability caused by climate change and 
disturbance by fire, flood, insects, disease, and other natural factors 
typically affects reference conditions. Reference conditions vary 
within an ecosystem over time, and the proportions of old-growth 
forests or early seral conditions are never in a true equilibrium 
state. These conditions also vary between ecosystems.
    The Department agrees that it will be difficult finding suitable 
areas for reference landscape designation. In general, it is easier to 
reconstruct disturbance regimes (e.g., fire frequency and intensity) 
than the effect of those regimes, so reference landscapes are rarely 
precise. Nevertheless, they play a key role in evaluating the ``coarse 
filter'' proposed by future management plans.
    Finally, the establishment of reference landscapes is not a 
usurpation of Congressional authority. The final rule does not set 
aside reference landscapes in perpetuity as benchmarks.
    Comment: Scientific foundation of ecosystem integrity. Some 
respondents felt that the concept of ecosystem integrity cannot 
currently be scientifically gauged. These respondents believed that the 
lack of scientific measurement standards has led to the unfair labeling 
of road building and logging activity as indicators of ecosystem 
integrity. Such a designation, they asserted, leads to the prohibition 
of road building and logging. One respondent, citing the complexity and 
breadth of ecosystem processes, requested clarification on the 
definition of the concept of a ``complete'' ecosystem. Another 
respondent asserted that, ``Grouping species based on particular value 
judgments and then using these groupings to evaluate * * * integrity 
introduces enormous bias into the evaluation.''
    Response: The proposed rule defined integrity as the completeness 
of an ecosystem, at multiple spatial and temporal scales, that 
maintains its characteristic diversity of biological and physical 
components, spatial patterns, structure, and functional processes 
within its approximate range of historic variability. These processes 
include disturbance regimes, nutrient cycling, hydrologic functions, 
vegetation succession, and species adaptation and evolution. Ecosystems 
with integrity are resilient and sustainable in the presence of human 
management actions and natural disturbances. Ecological integrity is an 
intuitively appealing concept that is well established in the 
ecological literature, but its definition is contentious. This 
contention stems from the various (and often conflicting) perspectives 
that include: Structural

[[Page 67545]]

(keep the parts), functional (maintain ecosystem functions and 
processes), and human uses (accommodating the derivation of goods and 
services from ecosystems for humans).
    Ecological integrity was defined in the Committee of Scientists' 
report as the state of being unimpaired and sound, and the quality or 
condition of being whole or complete. Furthermore, the Committee of 
Scientists recommended that a suite of indicators be used to evaluate 
integrity that includes species composition, ecosystem composition, 
ecosystem processes, and appropriate reference distributions against 
which to judge management decisions. This definition has its basis in 
the structural and functional perspectives defined above and was put 
forth as a way to encapsulate the state of the ecosystem in the absence 
of social and economic considerations.
    There are a number of potential concerns tied to directly using 
ecological integrity in the proposed rule, including: the lack of an 
unambiguous definition in the literature; a tendency to be viewed as a 
single state of absolute condition rather than recognizing the dynamic 
nature of ecosystems; an inclination to link integrity measures to 
goals (e.g., the historical range of variability of pre-European 
conditions); and a redundancy with the concept of ecological 
sustainability.
    There is a relatively rich literature on the conceptual aspects of 
ecological integrity. What is lacking is a generally accepted set of 
scientific norms regarding integrity measures. For this reason, actual 
applications of ecological integrity in a management context are rare 
in the literature, making it difficult to use the concept of ecological 
integrity in natural resource planning. Some applications of integrity 
have focused on a single ecosystem stated as having integrity. The 
concept does not lend itself to classify each system as having or not 
having integrity. This approach fails to recognize the dynamic nature 
of ecosystems.
    The context for understanding the ecological integrity of any 
specific landscape must be couched in terms of the goals and 
expectations for the landscape. This translates, in part, to defining 
some standard against which integrity will be measured. Often this 
standard is based on some ecological condition like the historic range 
of variability as reflected under pre-European settlement conditions. 
Defining ecological integrity to be within the historic range of 
variability and requiring that ecological conditions should be 
maintained within that range does not capture the full meaning of 
integrity as described in the literature. Linking only to historical 
conditions, without framing the current and probable future climatic 
system, is not supported by scientific understanding of environmental 
change.
    The proposed rule stated that ``to achieve ecological 
sustainability, it is necessary to maintain and restore ecological 
integrity.'' The Department found it difficult to separate ecological 
integrity from the broader notion of ecological sustainability. 
Ecological integrity and ecological sustainability are intended to 
reflect the overall state of an ecosystem as a whole.
    The language ``ecological integrity'' is not included in the final 
rule. Integrity is viewed as a component of ecological sustainability 
along with other system attributes like resiliency, health, and 
vitality. The Department concluded that the explicit application of 
ecological integrity as an analysis or performance requirement in the 
final rule was unnecessary given the rule's focus on ecological 
sustainability. The Department believes the concept of ecological 
integrity is within the concept of sustainability as described by the 
rule.
    Comment: Indicators of ecosystem integrity. One respondent wondered 
how the Forest Service will choose specific indicators to gauge the 
integrity of ecosystems when, by definition, ecosystems are constantly 
changing, dynamic systems. This person also questioned how, and by 
whom, good and bad effects will be determined. Some respondents 
supported the inclusion of water quality and water flow regimes as 
indicators of ecosystem integrity in the final rule.
    Response: As noted above, the Department found that ecological 
integrity indicators are an unnecessary addition to the evaluation of 
sustainability.
    As also noted above, the final rule requires the estimation of an 
expected range of variability for characteristics of ecosystem 
composition and structure that can be used as planning objectives at 
broad spatial scales across major ecological types. The expected range 
of variability in a landscape or region can be estimated from general 
knowledge of disturbance frequencies, severities and rates of 
vegetation development.
    With respect to the integrity of ecosystems, neither the proposed 
nor final rule described how good and bad effects will be determined. 
The requirements for ecosystem diversity (section 219.20(b)(1)) use the 
expected range of variability to provide for the maintenance and 
restoration of the characteristics of ecosystem composition and 
structure.
    The final rule provides for an evaluation of ecological 
sustainability, which includes characteristics of ecosystem and species 
diversity (section 219.20(a)). The characteristics to be evaluated 
include water quality and flow regimes.
    Comment: Species definitions. While some respondents sought general 
clarification of focal species, others suggested the final rule 
specifically elucidate the distinction between focal species and 
management indicator species. Another respondent questioned whether 
introduced species, such as the wolf, can be considered under the 
definition of species-at-risk. In addition, certain respondents felt 
the proposed definitions of focal species and species-at-risk create a 
statutory conflict with endangered and threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act. Some respondents wonder whether the Forest 
Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service will designate focal species 
and species-at-risk. One individual believed the definition of species-
at-risk should be expanded to include any species identified by 
conservation organizations or state natural heritage programs as 
imperiled. Another felt any documented declining species should be 
designated. Conversely, numerous respondents supported the concept of 
focal species, species-at-risk, and demand species as they are 
currently defined in the proposed rule.
    Response: In the current rule, management indicator species (MIS) 
are selected in order to estimate the effects of management actions on 
fish and wildlife populations. MIS include, where appropriate, 
threatened and endangered species; species with special habitat needs 
that may be significantly influenced by planned management programs; 
species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped; non-game species of 
special interest; and species whose population changes are believed to 
indicate the effects of management activities on other species of 
selected major biological communities or on water quality.
    In the proposed rule, focal species are selected for use as 
surrogate measures in the assessment of ecological integrity, including 
the diversity of native and desired non-native species. Their status 
and time trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger 
ecological system to which they belong. Species selected would 
represent the range of environments within the assessment area, and 
would serve an umbrella function, or play key roles in maintaining 
community structure or

[[Page 67546]]

processes. Focal species have been retained in the final rule.
    In the proposed rule, species-at-risk were defined as endangered, 
threatened, candidate, proposed, and sensitive species, and species for 
which significant local reductions in distribution or density are 
concerns. The final rule defines species-at-risk as federally listed 
endangered, threatened, candidate, and proposed species and other 
species for which loss of viability, including reduction in 
distribution or abundance, is a concern. In the final rule, an 
introduced species could be designated as a species-at-risk.
    The Department does not believe the definitions of focal species 
and species-at-risk in the proposed rule created a statutory conflict 
with endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species 
Act. In addition, the responsible official designates focal species and 
those species-at-risk not designated as threatened, endangered, 
candidate, and proposed species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
in the proposed rule. This language is retained in the final rule 
(section 219.20(a)).
    The proposed rule did not require inclusion of species listed by 
state natural heritage programs or conservation organizations as 
species-at-risk. The Department believed that the state natural 
heritage programs or conservation organizations listed species for 
reasons other than viability concerns. In defining species-at-risk, the 
Department sought a grouping of species based solely on viability 
concerns. For this reason, the Department inserted language in the 
final rule that species-at-risk include other species for which loss of 
viability, including reduction in distribution or abundance, is a 
concern within the plan area. These other species-at-risk may include 
sensitive species and state listed species. Viability is the criterion 
which determines what is included as a species-at-risk.
    Comment: Game species. Some respondents felt habitats for abundant 
game species have been enhanced at the expense of habitats for less 
common and more sensitive species. They asserted that such practices 
indicate the need for a shift of emphasis from demand species to focal 
species and species-at-risk. In contrast, some felt that many species 
of big game are not receiving the management attention they warrant.
    Response: Demand species are those plants and animal species of 
high social, cultural, or economic value. In the proposed rule, plan 
decisions must provide for ecological conditions needed to achieve 
sustainable use levels of demand species. This provision was deleted 
from the final rule to ensure that the treatment of demand species 
would not take place at the expense of habitats for focal species and 
species-at-risk.
    Comment: Use of focal species. Some respondents believed the Forest 
Service should reconsider the use of focal species as indicators of 
ecosystem integrity. One citizen asserted, ``There is not enough money 
in the federal treasury to fund the numerous surveys and analyses that 
will ultimately be required.'' Others agreed with this sentiment, and 
added that the emphasis of the final rule should be shifted from focal 
species to habitat capability. The Forest Service should be monitoring 
for habitat, they declared, because it is not only easier than 
monitoring for populations, but it also allows the appropriate entity, 
the individual stated, to manage and monitor wildlife species.
    Response: The Department acknowledges an increase in analysis and 
monitoring in the proposed rule for ecological sustainability, 
including focal species. Continued declines in the cost of analysis and 
monitoring are expected in the future, however, with advances in 
information technology. Furthermore, the Department believes that no 
significant additional resources will be required for implementation of 
the final rule as the planning framework shifts resources from later to 
earlier in the planning process. For these reasons, the Department has 
retained the provisions for appropriate analysis and monitoring in the 
final rule.
    Comment: Assessing viable populations of species. Population 
sampling and monitoring of species, especially threatened and 
endangered species, needs to be a mandate in the final rule, some 
respondents asserted. These respondents felt that without actual 
population surveys, species viability will not be sustained. Another 
individual wondered if scientists have reached any consensus on broad-
scale methods and strategies for providing species viability. This 
person asserted that such a model does not exist and hence the 
attainment of species viability will be marred by confusion and 
conflict.
    Response: In the proposed rule, population sampling is appropriate 
when the risk of local or broader extirpation is high or there is high 
uncertainty about the habitats and conditions needed for species 
viability. In the final rule, the plan monitoring strategy may require 
population monitoring for some focal species and some species-at-risk 
as appropriate.
    The responsible official's decision to monitor populations and the 
responsible official's choice of methodologies for monitoring selected 
focal species and selected species-at-risk in the final rule may be 
based upon factors that include, but are not limited to, the degree of 
risk to the species, the degree to which a species' life history 
characteristics lend themselves to monitoring, the reasons that a 
species is included in the list of focal species or species-at-risk, 
and the strength of association between ecological conditions and 
population dynamics. The Department believes this language provides 
assurance that species viability will be sustained.
    Many scientists have reached a consensus on broad scale methods and 
strategies for providing species viability. These scientists believe 
that taking an ecosystem diversity approach increases the potential to 
meet the needs of the preponderance of species. This is particularly 
important because it is financially and technically impractical to 
individually assess each species.
    Ecological sustainability has two primary indicators in the final 
rule: ecosystem diversity and species diversity. Ecosystem diversity 
provides a ``coarse filter'' approach for sustaining ecosystems. 
Ecological diversity is defined in a broad context by language 
throughout section 219.20 of the final rule. Characteristics of 
ecosystem diversity include, but are not limited to, major vegetation 
types, water resources, soil resources, air resources, and focal 
species. Evaluation of ecological diversity includes information about 
focal species, biological and physical properties, principal ecological 
processes, effects of human activities, estimations of the range of 
variability of characteristics, effects of air quality, water uses, and 
reference landscapes. Species diversity provides a ``fine filter'' 
approach for sustaining ecosystems in the final rule by addressing 
those species that may not remain viable under the coarse filter 
approach. These species typically include those that are currently 
thought to have a high extinction risk within an area of interest. The 
combination of coarse and fine filters in the final rule has the 
advantage of efficiency; the responsible official assumes adequate 
representation of ecological conditions by maintaining or restoring a 
diversity of ecosystems and checks this assumption through assessments 
of viability of a subset of individual species.
    Comment: Use of plant and invertebrate species in evaluating 
species viability. Many respondents exhorted the Forest Service to 
reconsider the use of plant and invertebrate species in evaluating 
species viability. Most of these

[[Page 67547]]

respondents felt that insufficient scientific data exists to implement 
this increase in the scope of analysis. Other respondents applauded the 
inclusion of plant and invertebrate species viability as an indicator 
of ecological integrity. Of these respondents, at least one individual 
suggested the Forest Service expand the species viability criteria to 
include organisms from all the biological kingdoms.
    Response: The proposed rule implemented the NFMA requirement to 
provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities by expressly 
defining species to include any taxon of the plant or animal kingdom. 
The current rule only requires that viable populations of vertebrate 
fish and wildlife be maintained. In the final rule, a species is 
defined as any member of the animal or plant kingdom that is described 
as a species in a peer-reviewed scientific publication and is 
identified as a species by the responsible official pursuant to a plan 
decision.
    The Department acknowledges an increase in requirements for species 
viability. But as noted above, continued declines in the cost of 
information technology, such as personal computers and the application 
of remote sensing technologies, are anticipated. In addition, it is 
expected that the application of broad-scale assessments and subsequent 
smaller-scale analyses and decisionmaking will build on one another and 
improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of planning 
activities.
    The Department has not expanded the species viability criteria to 
include organisms from all the biological kingdoms. NFMA's requirement 
is specific to plant and animal communities.
    Comment: Sustaining viable populations of non-native species. Some 
respondents wondered why the Forest Service would wish to maintain 
species that, by definition, disrupt the ecological integrity of an 
ecosystem. One respondent wanted the Forest Service to recognize that 
planning, in and of itself, cannot ensure species viability. This 
person supported this assertion by noting that the American Chestnut, 
once the dominant, climax tree species in eastern forests, has been 
wiped out by chestnut blight. Forest planning has no effect on the loss 
of such major ecosystem components, this respondent asserted. Another 
citizen applauded the agency's acknowledgment of incomplete 
information, uncertainty, and the inherent variability of ecological 
systems. Such an acknowledgment should be heeded, this person asserted, 
and precaution and prudence should be used when implementing any new 
management practices.
    Response: The proposed rule defined desired non-native species as 
those species of plants or animals that are not indigenous to an area 
but which represent a significant, and usually remnant segment of a 
gene pool. The final rule retains its reference to desired non-native 
species, which are defined as those species of plants or animals which 
are not indigenous to an area, but valued for their contribution to 
species diversity or their high social, cultural, or economic value.
    The Department agrees that planning, in and of itself, cannot 
ensure species viability. The Forest Service can only affect certain 
ecological conditions on land it manages, such as the abundance and 
distribution of habitat, roads, other structural developments, many 
human uses, and some invasive or exotic species. Other factors beyond 
the control of the Forest Service may influence the viability of 
species.
    As noted above, the final rule provides that where it is not 
practicable to make measurable progress toward conditions within the 
expected range of variability, plan decisions may provide for ecosystem 
composition and structure outside the expected range of variability. 
Other independently peer-reviewed methods must be used to provide for 
ecosystem diversity.
    An alternative method of providing for ecosystem diversity, which 
was described in the proposed rule, is the historic range of 
variability referenced to pre-European settlement conditions. Yet 
another approach would be a range of variability referenced using a 
time period more recent than pre-European settlement conditions. This 
would provide for ecological sustainability where circumstances, such 
as the Chestnut blight, which have irretrievably altered the landscape. 
In the future there may also be other methods that have not yet been 
fully tested or envisioned.
    The proposed rule acknowledged the uncertainty and inherent 
variability of ecological systems (sections 219.20(a)(10) and 
219.20(b)(1)). The Department agrees with respondents that welcomed the 
inclusion of this language. The final rule retains this language and 
relocates it to section 219.22, The overall role of science in 
planning.
    Comment: Discretionary language. Many respondents felt that 
specific, imperative language should be used in section 219.20 (b) of 
the proposed rule. Discretionary language is too vague to be 
enforceable, they asserted. One person asserted that phrases such as, 
``Maintain the more likely conditions within the range,'' and ``provide 
for * * * redundancy of habitat as necessary to buffer disturbances 
characteristic of dynamic systems,'' needs less jargon and more 
clarification. Another respondent felt that the final rule should 
consider the variability of species distributions and density over 
time.
    Response: The Department acknowledges a lack of clarity in the 
proposed rule and has revised paragraph (b) in section 219.20 to 
improve its clarity and readability.
    The species viability criteria do not specifically address the 
variability of species distributions and density over time. These are 
factors to be addressed during plan revisions as required by NFMA, to 
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the 
suitability and capability of the specific land area, in order to meet 
overall multiple-use objectives (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).
    Comment: Species viability requirements. Numerous respondents felt 
that the Forest Service should use clear, specific, imperative language 
to guide the maintenance of species viability. Some of these 
respondents also believed the final rule should specify a discrete time 
period over which species viability will be measured. Although dissent 
exists among the public and even within the Committee of Scientists, 
one respondent believed this should not preclude the Forest Service 
from including requirements for sustaining viable populations. The 
majority of respondents that supported requirements for sustaining 
viable populations believed the final rule should contain specific 
guidelines in this respect, rather than the vague ``high likelihood'' 
standard. Conversely, some respondents believe the Forest Service 
should reconsider the requirement in the proposed rule to sustain 
viable populations. They felt that such a mandate makes wildlife the 
dominant, if not exclusive, goal of forest planning. Others questioned 
whether funding sources will be available to support such a mandate.
    Response: As noted above, the Department does not believe there is 
a lack of imperative language in section 219.20(b). It does acknowledge 
less than clear descriptions in this section of the proposed rule. 
Paragraph (b) in section 219.20 is revised in the final rule to improve 
its clarity and readability.
    As also noted above, the collection and analysis of information at 
a variety

[[Page 67548]]

of spatial and temporal scales is important in providing for 
maintenance or restoration of ecological sustainability. These scales 
include geographic areas such as bioregions and watersheds, scales of 
biological organization such as communities and species, and scales of 
time ranging from months to centuries. For this reason, the Department 
has not adopted a discrete time period over which species viability is 
to be measured.
    The Department is adopting the ``high likelihood'' language to 
emphasize the importance it places on the viability of plant and animal 
species. The current rule states ``Fish and wildlife habitat shall be 
managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired 
non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.'' Furthermore, the 
rule states that ``a viable population shall be regarded as one which 
has the estimated number and distribution of reproductive individuals 
to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning 
area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained. * 
* *''. Together, the phrases ``shall be managed to maintain'' and 
``ensure'' have been perceived by some people to be a 100 percent 
certainty that all species would remain viable at all times. This 
expectation in the face of known as well as unknown uncertainty, 
imperfect and incomplete information, as well as acknowledgment of 
systemic environmental variation is a standard that is arguably a 
technical impossibility--unattainable in the absolute. The Department 
has adopted the high likelihood standard, as an administrative rather 
than technical standard, to provide a reasonable level of assurance 
that species will remain viable and correct what is perceived by many 
to be a technical conundrum.
    The Department revised the language in the final rule to clearly 
apply the high likelihood standard to ecological conditions rather than 
to the populations of species and their viability. This recognizes that 
the Forest Service can only affect certain ecological conditions on the 
land it manages. These conditions include the abundance and 
distribution of habitat as well as other factors such as roads, other 
structural developments, many human uses, and some invasive or exotic 
species. Other factors beyond the control of the Forest Service may 
influence the viability of some species. These factors include 
fragmented land ownership patterns, adjacent activities, climate, 
disease, and factors that may preclude a species from maintaining 
viability within National Forest System lands.
    The Department has retained the requirement in the final rule to 
sustain viable populations. As noted above, the first priority for 
stewardship of the National Forest System, which is to maintain and 
restore ecological sustainability, is unchanged from the proposed rule. 
Ecological sustainability has two primary indicators in the final rule: 
ecosystem diversity and species diversity. Ecosystem diversity provides 
a ``coarse filter'' approach to the conservation of biological 
diversity. Species diversity requirements specified in the final rule 
defines what is commonly considered a ``fine filter'' approach. The 
combination of coarse and fine filters in the final rule has the 
advantage of efficiency: the responsible official assumes adequate 
representation of ecological conditions by maintaining or restoring a 
diversity of ecosystems and checks this assumption through assessments 
of viability of a subset of individual species.
    The Department acknowledges an increase in requirements for species 
viability. But as noted above, continued declines in the cost of 
information technology are expected in the future. Furthermore, the 
Department believes that, in total, no significant additional resources 
will be required for implementation of the final rule.
    Comment: Mandates to maintain habitat. Many respondents support 
maintenance of habitat. However, several people believed that as 
private lands become developed, the national forests and grasslands 
could become increasingly important refuges for sensitive species. They 
felt that the proposed regulations should include requirements to 
restore or maintain disproportionately greater amounts of habitat in 
national forests and grasslands for sensitive species. One individual 
requested clarification regarding the concept of redundancy of habitat. 
One organization suggested that the requirement to provide for 
redundancy of habitat would only lead to more litigation.
    Response: In the proposed rule, consideration is given to National 
Forest System lands that have a unique opportunity to provide a 
disproportionately greater contribution to ecological conditions needed 
to reduce the likelihood of species becoming listed under the 
Endangered Species Act or to contribute to the recovery of listed 
species. In response to this comment, the final rule strengthens this 
provision by requiring plan decisions to reflect the unique 
opportunities that National Forest System lands provide to contribute 
to recovery of listed species.
    Section 219.20(b)(8)(v) in the proposed rule required structural 
and functional redundancy of habitat as necessary to buffer 
disturbances characteristic of dynamic systems. This provision was not 
retained in the final rule and is best addressed in site-specific 
planning.
    Other changes. This section has been substantially reorganized from 
the proposed rule and terms redefined. This was done to add clarity and 
respond to public comments and staff review. None of the changes in 
section 219.20 are intended to change the overall intent of the section 
as originally proposed.
    ``Ecosystem diversity and species diversity'' are specifically 
stated as the components of ecological sustainability in the final rule 
and provide a focus to reorganize information in this section. The 
proposed rule included, but did not explicitly identify ecosystem 
diversity and species diversity as the two components of ecological 
sustainability.

             Comparison of the Components in Section 219.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Components               Proposed rule          Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spatial and temporal scales.  (a) Includes NEPA     (a) NEPA requirement
                               under list of         already exists and
                               methods.              is not included.
                                                     Language added for
                                                     responsible
                                                     official to
                                                     determine
                                                     information and
                                                     analyses needed for
                                                     plan revisions,
                                                     amendments, and
                                                     site-specific
                                                     decisions.
Characteristics of ecosystem  ....................  (a)(1) New language
 and species diversity.                              added for clarity.
Ecosystem diversity.........  (a)(1), (a)(7),       (a)(1)(i) Soil
                               (b)(6), (b)(7).       resource language
                                                     added to level of
                                                     detail consistent
                                                     with water and air
                                                     resources.

[[Page 67549]]

 
Species diversity...........  (a)(1), (a)(7)......  (a)(1)(ii).
Evaluation of ecological      (a), (a)(5), (a)(8).  (a)(2) Language
 sustainability.                                     added that
                                                     describes
                                                     evaluations of
                                                     ecological
                                                     sustainability.
Focus species...............  (a)(7)(i)...........  (a)(2)(i)(A).
Biological and physical       (a)(1)..............  (a)(2)(i)(B).
 properties of ecosystems.
Ecological processes........  (a)(2)..............  (a)(2)(i)(C) Adds
                                                     specific
                                                     information to be
                                                     included in the
                                                     description of
                                                     other ecological
                                                     processes and
                                                     feasibility of
                                                     maintaining
                                                     ecological
                                                     processes (e.g.
                                                     dispersal,
                                                     migration, nutrient
                                                     cycle, food web
                                                     dynamics,
                                                     waterfowls, etc.)
Effects of human activities.  (a)(3)..............  (a)(2)(i)(D).
Effects of air quality......  (b)(7)..............  (a)(2)(i)(F).
Estimates of water use......  (b)(6)..............  (a)(2)(i)(G).
Plan decision requirements    (b)(6), (b)(7)......  (b)(1) Language not
 for soil, water and air.                            retained,
                                                     requirements
                                                     included within
                                                     overall statement.
Identification of reference   (a)(6)..............  (a)(2)(i)(H).
 landscapes.
Definitions: Focal species,   (a)(7)(i),            Section 219.36,
 Species-at-risk.              (a)(7)(ii).           Definitions.
Species viability...........  (a)(8)(i)...........  (a)(2)(ii)
                                                     Situations where
                                                     risks to viability
                                                     are high not
                                                     included, enough
                                                     language is
                                                     included to analyze
                                                     these situations.
Measures of ecological        (a)(8)(ii)..........  Provides for
 integrity.                                          evaluation of a
                                                     comprehensive list
                                                     of physical and
                                                     biological
                                                     indicators.
Individual and group species  (a)(8)(i)...........  (a)(2)(ii) Language
 assessments.                                        added requiring
                                                     individual species
                                                     assessments of
                                                     federally listed
                                                     species, otherwise
                                                     allowing for group
                                                     assessments. Group
                                                     assessments
                                                     necessary for
                                                     financial and
                                                     technical
                                                     feasibility.
Variability of ecological     (a)(10), (b)(1).....  Section 219.22.
 systems.
Consistency of planning       (b).................  Section 219.7
 level decisions and                                 adequately
 existing rights and legal                           describes these
 requirements.                                       requirements.
Plan decision for             (b)(2), (b)(3)......  (b)(1).
 maintenance or restoration
 of ecosystems.
Conditions within the range   (b)(3)(i),            (b)(1)(i) New
 of variability.               (b)(3)(iv) for        language provides
                               exception.            an exception,
                                                     (b)(1)(iv), when
                                                     staying within the
                                                     range is
                                                     unacceptable.
Conditions outside the range  (b)(3)(ii),           (b)(1)(ii) New
 of variability.               (b)(3)(iv) for        language provides
                               exception.            an exception,
                                                     (b)(1)(v), when
                                                     staying outside the
                                                     range is
                                                     acceptable.
Range of variability cannot   (b)(3)(iv)..........  (b)(1)(iii) New
 be defined.                                         language ensures
                                                     other peer-reviewed
                                                     methods are used.
Natural disturbance           (b)(3)(iii).........  (a)(2)(i)(E).
 processes.
Future stewardship choices..  (b)(4)..............  (b)(1) Language not
                                                     retained, intent
                                                     addressed.
Reference landscapes........  (b)(5)..............  (b)(1) Language not
                                                     retained, intent
                                                     addressed.
Plan decisions affecting      (b)(8), (b)(8)(ii),   (b)(2).
 species diversity.            (b)(8)(iii),
                               (b)(8)(i) replaced
                               by new language
                               referencing methods.
Exceptions for plan           (b)(8)(iv)..........  (b)(2)(ii).
 decisions affecting species  (b)(8)(ii)..........  (b)(2)(iii) New
 diversity.                                          language to prevent
                                                     species extirpation
                                                     and support
                                                     viability.
                                                     (b)(2)(iv) Added to
                                                     support viability
                                                     where infeasible to
                                                     restore ecological
                                                     conditions.
Redundancy of habitat to      (b)(8)(v)...........  Language not
 buffer disturbances.                                retained,
                                                     requirements of the
                                                     section provide a
                                                     comprehensive
                                                     ecological
                                                     approach.
Federally listed species....  (b)(10).............  (b)(3)(i) Language
                                                     that actions not
                                                     contribute to
                                                     species listing is
                                                     covered under ESA
                                                     and restated only
                                                     for conservation
                                                     agreements.
Biological opinions and       (b)(9)..............  (b)(3)(ii) Specific
 recovery plans.                                     language for
                                                     recovery plans is
                                                     replaced by
                                                     requirement for
                                                     plan decisions and
                                                     ESA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 219.21--Social and economic sustainability. This section of 
the proposed rule described a process for developing a comprehensive 
understanding of sustainable social and economic environments.
    Comment: Definition of economic and social sustainability. Many 
respondents express confusion over the myriad of definitions of social 
and economic sustainability contained in the proposed planning 
regulations. Clear, concise, and consistent definitions are needed, 
according to numerous citizens. Several

[[Page 67550]]

people believe the use of discretionary language in this section is 
rampant, and therefore makes all the subsequent guidelines moot.
    Response: The Department acknowledges a lack of clear, concise, and 
consistent definitions in the proposed rule concerning social and 
economic sustainability. The final rule has been revised in response to 
this concern.
    In the final rule, social and economic sustainability is defined as 
meeting the economic, social, aesthetic, and cultural needs and desires 
of current generations without reducing the capacity of the environment 
to provide for the needs and desires of future generations, considering 
both local communities and the nation as a whole. It also involves the 
capacity of citizens to communicate effectively with each other and to 
make sound choices about their environment.
    The Forest Service contributes to social and economic 
sustainability by developing and considering relevant social and 
economic information and analyses, providing early and frequent 
opportunities for interested and affected people to participate in 
National Forest System planning and stewardship, and providing a range 
of uses, values, products, and services. These uses, values, products, 
and services include but are not limited to outdoor recreation; forage; 
timber; wildlife and fish; biological diversity; productive soils; 
clean air and water; and minerals. They also afford intangible benefits 
such as beauty, inspiration, and wonder.
    The final rule requires the responsible official to develop or 
supplement information and analyses (section 219.21(a)), including 
specific social and economic analyses (section 219.21(a)(1)) and 
analyses of community or regional risk and vulnerability (section 
219.21(a)(2)).
    Comment: Goal of economic and social sustainability. Several people 
felt that social and economic concerns have received little 
consideration in past Forest Service decisions. These people do not 
think the proposed regulations will prevent such transgressions. To 
help emphasize these concerns, one person requested that social and 
economic sustainability be split into two separate sections. Another 
individual asserted that the Forest Service should establish the 
achievement of economic and social sustainability as the first priority 
among the goals of the proposed rule. Of those that believe the social 
and economic section needs to be emphasized and expanded, many 
requested that the Forest Service promulgate specific, mandatory 
guidelines for achieving social and economic sustainability. Some 
believed the proposed rule should not emphasize economic and social 
sustainability, because they fear such an emphasis will result in the 
reallocation of time and money away from natural resource management. 
Improving local stewardship capacities and collaboration were also 
offered as ways to attain social and economic sustainability.
    Response: In the final rule, the Department has not split social 
and economic sustainability into two separate sections. Nor has it 
established the achievement of economic and social sustainability as 
the first priority among the goals of the proposed rule. Finally, the 
Department has not included in the final rule specific, mandatory 
guidelines for achieving social and economic sustainability.
    Requirements for achieving sustainability are found in sections 
219.19, 219.20, and 219.21 of the final rule. As noted above, social 
and economic sustainability is achieved by providing a range of uses, 
products, services, and values, consistent with ecological 
sustainability (section 219.20(b)). The first priority for stewardship 
of the National Forest System, which is to maintain and restore 
ecological sustainability, is unchanged from the proposed rule. As 
noted by the Committee of Scientists, ``* * * ecological sustainability 
lays a necessary foundation for National Forests and Grasslands to 
contribute to the economic and social components of sustainability, 
making contributions to strong productive economies and creating 
opportunities for enduring human communities.''
    The Department agrees that improving local stewardship capacities 
and collaboration are ways to attain social and economic 
sustainability. The proposed rule provided that the responsible 
official and those involved in planning should invite and encourage 
others to engage in the collaborative development of landscape goals. 
This language has been retained in the final rule (section 
219.12(b)(1)). As noted in the Committee of Scientists' report, 
collaborative planning is a shared process within which agencies 
cooperate with one another; work with tribes, other public, and private 
organizations; and engage communities and citizens in envisioning and 
working toward a sustainable future on the national forests and 
grasslands.
    Comment: Role of timber harvest in economic and social 
sustainability. One respondent believed that the Forest Service must 
realize that timber harvest is necessary to achieve economic and social 
sustainability. In contrast, another individual asserted that the 
Forest Service has no responsibility or reason to sustain certain 
cultural and economic practices such as commodity extraction. No 
federal agency should maintain a particular lifestyle over another, 
according to this respondent.
    Response: The proposed rule did not consider timber harvest or more 
generally, commodity extraction, necessary to achieving economic and 
social sustainability. Nor did the Department include either of these 
issues in the final rule. The rule does establish a process for 
identifying, discussing, and, if appropriate, acting on issues that may 
emerge from a variety of sources (section 219.4). The Department 
believes that these issues are most appropriately addressed using this 
process.
    Comment: Analysis of economic and social sustainability. Many 
respondents offered various ideas to help achieve social and economic 
sustainability in national forest communities. One person suggested the 
Forest Service adopt better modeling tools to improve analysis. Others 
cited the need to expand the analysis criteria to include adjacent 
communities and elected officials in management decisions. One person 
believed the Forest Service should reconsider the requirement to 
analyze social and economic sustainability on a large scale. Such 
analysis, this person asserted, masks the impacts on small and sparsely 
populated communities.
    Response: The Department agrees that better modeling tools should 
be adopted to improve analysis. The final rule requires that the best 
available science be considered in planning (section 219.22(a)).
    The Department has not expanded the analysis criteria to include 
adjacent communities and elected officials in the analysis of 
management decisions. As noted above, section 219.14 of the final rule 
identifies some of the key steps where state and local governments will 
be engaged in planning. State and local governments will be involved in 
the identification of issues as described in section 219.4(a). In 
addition, the rule recognizes the need for the Forest Service and state 
and local governments to coordinate plans and programs. Section 
219.3(c) provides opportunities for state and local governments to 
participate in the collaborative planning process.
    The proposed rule encouraged appropriate analysis within the 
relevant scales of influence for national forest and grassland planning 
and decisionmaking. This language has been

[[Page 67551]]

retained in the final rule. Large-scale studies may not be appropriate 
to determine the impacts of an action within a particular village or 
small town. Conversely, looking only at economic or social 
relationships within a village or small town may mask identification of 
regional trends and emerging events. As with many topics, the early 
identification of issues and their appropriate scope and scale are 
critical to successful planning and natural resource management.
    Comment: Measurement of social sustainability. The exact means by 
which social sustainability will be measured needs to be clarified for 
many respondents. Some felt that the proposed regulations should expand 
the criteria of future social analyses to include the input of adjacent 
communities and their elected officials. Numerous people cited the use 
of discretionary language, such as ``may'' and ``should,'' as a serious 
flaw in the proposed regulations. These individuals would like to see 
the inclusion of imperative language, such as ``shall'' and ``must,'' 
to ensure that social analysis is, in fact, undertaken.
    Response: The proposed rule did not describe the exact means by 
which social sustainability will be measured. This information was not 
included in the final rule. Instead, this information will be included 
in the Forest Service Manual.
    As noted above, the Department has not expanded the criteria of 
analyses to include the input of adjacent communities and their elected 
officials. Section 219.14 of the final rule identifies some of the key 
steps where state and local governments will be engaged in planning. 
State and local governments will be involved in the identification of 
issues as described in section 219.4(a). In addition, the rule 
recognizes the need for the Forest Service and state and local 
governments to coordinate plans and programs. Section 219.3(d) provides 
opportunities for state and local governments to participate in the 
collaborative planning process.
    As noted above, the Department agrees that the use of discretionary 
language, such as ``may'' and ``should,'' was a serious flaw in the 
proposed rule. The final rule requires the responsible official to 
develop or supplement information and analyses (section 219.21(a)), 
including specific social analyses (section 219.21(a)(1)(i)) and 
analyses of community or regional risk and vulnerability (section 
219.21(a)(2)).
    Comment: Social data and effects. Specific clarification regarding 
social data collection is needed according to many respondents. Local 
values, social standards, and changes in social values were mentioned 
as criteria that need to be further clarified. The social effects of 
the loss of timber industry jobs, specifically on rural communities, 
were also a concern. Several respondents asserted that their quality of 
life is at least partially, if not wholly, dependent on the health of 
the national forests.
    Response: The Department agrees that the proposed rule was not 
specific concerning the collection of social information. As described 
above, the final rule requires the responsible official to develop or 
supplement information and analyses (section 219.21(a)), including 
specific social analyses (section 219.21(a)(1)(i)). Additional 
specificity will be provided in the Forest Service Manual.
    Included in section 219.21(a)(1)(i) of the final rule is the 
requirement to develop or supplement information on social and cultural 
opportunities provided by National Forest System lands. The Department 
believes this language encompasses the social effects of the loss of 
timber industry jobs, including those effects on rural communities.
    The Department agrees that quality of life is at least partially 
dependent on the health of the national forests. As noted above, the 
first priority for stewardship of the National Forest System, which is 
to maintain and restore ecological sustainability, is unchanged from 
the proposed rule.
    Comment: Economic analysis of Forest Service management. Several 
people felt that previous economic analyses of national forests have 
been myopic in scope, and hence the proposed rule should expand the 
criteria of future economic analysis to include adjacent communities 
and elected officials in management decisions. Some cited the need for 
a comprehensive economic analysis of the entire Forest Service and its 
management activities.
    Response: As noted above, the Department has not expanded the 
criteria of analyses to include the input of adjacent communities and 
local elected officials. Section 219.14 of the final rule identifies 
some of the key steps where state and local governments will be engaged 
in planning. State and local governments will be involved in the 
identification of issues as described in section 219.4(a). In addition, 
the rule recognizes the need for the Forest Service and state and local 
governments to coordinate plans and programs. Section 219.3(c) provides 
opportunities for state and local governments to participate in the 
collaborative planning process.
    An economic analysis of the entire Forest Service and its 
management activities is beyond the scope of this rule.
    Comment: Valuation of non-market benefits. Several respondents felt 
that the Forest Service has been ignoring the indirect and often time 
invisible benefits of forest systems. They believed that non-commodity 
resource benefits, such as carbon sequestration, oxygen production, and 
water filtration, should be factored into any economic analysis of 
forest management activities. One citizen urged the Forest Service to 
assign a monetary value to these traditionally priceless benefits. This 
individual felt that such an exercise would ensure that the loss of 
these benefits would be a factor in economic cost-benefit analysis.
    Response: The proposed rule provided for, but did not require, the 
consideration of the financial and opportunity costs derived from 
market and non-market use. Section 219.21(a)(1)(ii) of the final rule 
requires the development of information on the range and estimated 
long-term value of market and non-market goods, uses, services, and 
amenities that can be provided by National Forest System lands 
consistent with the requirements of ecological sustainability. This 
includes the cost of providing them, and the effect of providing them 
on regional and community well-being, employment, and wages. The 
Department believes this language in the final rule requires the 
inclusion of commodity and non-commodity resource benefits in economic 
analyses, with values assigned to these benefits.
    Comment: Economic impacts on ecosystems. Some respondents felt that 
the long-term ecological consequences have not been considered when 
conducting cost-benefit analysis of past forest management activities. 
One individual cited the long-term loss of water quality incurred from 
the short-term economic benefit of logging as an example. Another 
citizen stated that timber harvest often has adverse economic impacts, 
citing the loss of windbreak and temperature regulation that a nearby 
forest once provided local families. Some respondents suggested that 
the cost-benefit analysis of past logging expand in scope to include 
any and all costs associated with specific projects.
    Response: The proposed rule did not provide for cost-benefit 
analysis of past forest management activities. The Department has not 
included such a provision in the final rule. While

[[Page 67552]]

acknowledging that timber harvest in the past may have had adverse 
economic impacts, the Department does not believe that quantifying past 
economic impacts would significantly improve the planning process.
    As noted above, the final rule requires the development of 
descriptions and analyses, including the estimated long-term value of 
market and non-market goods, uses, services, and amenities that can be 
provided by National Forest System lands consistent with the 
requirements of ecological sustainability.
    Comment: Economic impacts on local economies. Some respondents felt 
that the final rule will further restrict timber harvest, and this 
restriction will adversely affect the economies of local companies and 
communities. Other individuals cited the need for the Forest Service to 
specifically identify the economic impacts the proposed rule may have 
on local economies. Many felt that the small, rural communities 
associated with national forests have experienced, and will continue to 
experience, the majority of impacts any change in forest management 
policy engenders. Thus, they asserted, local communities, especially 
those where the majority of adjacent land is federally owned, warrant 
special consideration.
    Response: The proposed rule provided for, but did not require, the 
consideration of economic estimates of the National Forest System 
contribution to present and future society benefits. As noted above, 
section 219.21(a)(1)(ii) of the final rule requires the development of 
information on the range and estimated long-term value of market and 
non-market goods, uses, services, and amenities that can be provided by 
National Forest System lands consistent with the requirements of 
ecological sustainability. This includes the cost of providing them, 
and the effect of providing them on regional and community well-being, 
employment, and wages. The Department believes this language helps 
identify the economic impacts on local economies.
    Comment: Direct and indirect costs. Another person felt the 
language in the current rule better ensures that direct and indirect 
costs are included in such an economic analysis. This person suggested 
the Forest Service retain the current language rather than adopt the 
less stringent proposed language. Such language will lead to more 
divisiveness, according to this individual. In addition to including 
traditional expenses, these people believed the Forest Service should 
include the costs of general overhead and possible litigation in their 
economic analysis.
    Response: In the proposed rule, lands not suited for timber 
production included lands where the costs of timber production were not 
justified by the ecological, social, or economic benefits (section 
219.28(b)(5)). This provision has not been retained in the final rule. 
In the final rule, the responsible official may establish timber 
production and its possible harvest as a multiple-use value and plan 
objective within the plan area where timber may be harvested if the 
costs of timber production are justified by the ecological, social, or 
economic benefits (section 219.28(b)). The Department believes the 
costs and benefits referenced in this Section of the final rule include 
all direct and indirect costs and benefits.
    Comment: Economic analysis and demographics. Several respondents 
believed that the Forest Service should conduct economic analyses 
suited to local demographics. The densely populated, sparsely forested 
East Coast is demographically distinct from the sparsely populated, 
densely forested western regions. Some asserted that such demographics 
should be incorporated into the economic analysis of Forest Service 
activities. The dearth of forests and plethora of humans in the eastern 
region of the United States dictates that the value of tourism should 
outweigh the value of timber in eastern economic analyses, according to 
these respondents.
    Response: The proposed rule provided for, but did not require, the 
consideration of the demographics, including current demographics 
related to direct, indirect, and induced effects on income, population, 
and industry employment, and the ability of communities to adapt to 
change. The final rule requires the development of descriptions and 
analyses, but its treatment of demographics is limited to social 
trends.
    Other changes. The Department acknowledges the frequent use of 
discretionary language in this section of the proposed rule. In 
contrast, the final rule requires the responsible official to develop 
or supplement information and analyses, including specific social and 
economic analyses and analyses of community or regional risk and 
vulnerability, paragraph (a).
    The proposed rule did not include requirements for plan decisions 
that may affect economic and social sustainability. The final rule 
requires that plan decisions contribute to social and economic 
sustainability by providing a range of uses, products, services, and 
values, consistent with ecological sustainability, paragraph (b). This 
paragraph also contains new language concerning the scope and scale of 
decisions, issues addressed, and analyses conducted in previous 
provision of this section. The language was added to clarify that plan 
decisions affecting economic and social sustainability would be made 
consistent with the principles of ecological sustainability and 
applicable laws, including the MUSYA.
    The Department acknowledges respondent's concerns regarding 
definitions for social and economic sustainability in the proposed rule 
that are clear, concise, and consistent. Section 219.21 is revised to 
reduce redundancy and improve clarity and readability, as described 
below:

             Comparison of the Components in Section 219.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Components               Proposed rule          Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning involves interested  (a).................  Opening paragraph
 and affected                                        references sections
people......................                         219.12 through
                                                     219.18.
Social and economic           (b), (c), (d).......  (a) Language added
 information.                                        that requires
                                                     social and economic
                                                     information and
                                                     analyses for
                                                     planning.
Economic effect.............  (b)(4), (b)(5),       (a).
                               (b)(7).
Social and economic analyses  (b)(3), (b)(4),       (a) Adds monitoring
                               (c)(1), (c)(2),       results to the list
                               (d)(1), (d)(2).       of methods.

[[Page 67553]]

 
Demographic trends..........  (b)(1), (e).........  (a)(1)(i) Language
                                                     added to include
                                                     social and cultural
                                                     opportunities,
                                                     community
                                                     assistance needs,
                                                     and other
                                                     appropriate
                                                     information to
                                                     provide a
                                                     comprehensive list
                                                     of social
                                                     indicators.
Employment, income, and       (b)(3-6)............  (a)(1)(ii) Language
 other economic trends.                              added includes long-
                                                     term costs and
                                                     benefits provided
                                                     by National Forest
                                                     System lands and
                                                     their effects on
                                                     community well-
                                                     being to provide a
                                                     comprehensive list
                                                     of economic
                                                     indicators.
Benefits of restoration       (b)(2)..............  (a)(1)(iii).
 strategies.
Other information...........  ....................  (a)(1)(iv) Added to
                                                     provide for issues
                                                     being considered by
                                                     the responsible
                                                     official, section
                                                     219.4.
Risk and vulnerability        (c)(3), (g).........  (a)(2).
 analyses.
Evaluate social and economic  ....................  (b) Requires
 sustainability.                                     responsible
                                                     official to use the
                                                     information
                                                     analyses developed
                                                     in (a).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Contribution of Science

    Section 219.22--The role of assessments, analyses, and monitoring. 
This section of the proposed rule described the role of assessments, 
local analyses, and monitoring. In the final rule, this section has 
been renamed ``The role of science in assessments, analyses, and 
monitoring.'' It has been designated as section 219.23.
    Comment: Integrating science into the planning process. While many 
people agree with using science as a management tool, respondents 
expressed a variety of opinions on how to best integrate science into 
the planning process. One person suggested replacing the phrase ``best 
available science'' with the phrase ``broadly accepted scientific 
principles, information, and analysis'' in order to maintain continuity 
in scientific assessment. Others contended that science must be 
statistically sound and supportable.
    Response: The Committee of Scientists' report emphasized that 
``Collaborative planning rests upon a foundation of scientific 
information developed by scientists and other knowledgeable people in 
an open, public process.'' The Committee identified at least five 
different tasks for scientists in collaborative planning: creating 
knowledge of relevance to collaborative planning, developing 
integrative science for bioregional assessments, helping managers 
understand the application of scientific and technical knowledge, 
helping to design effective monitoring procedures and adaptive 
management experiments, and evaluating the use of scientific 
information in planning and implementation.
    Planning is based on scientific and other forms of knowledge. Where 
scientific information is used, the quality of such information should 
be ensured by using appropriate levels of independent peer review, 
quality assurance protocols for monitoring and other data, as well as 
free and open access by the public (including the scientific community) 
to data, assumptions, and conclusions.
    The final rule acknowledges these roles for science and the 
responsibilities of the Forest Service Research and Development 
Program. It requires the responsible official to ensure that the best 
available science is considered in planning (section 219.22). It also 
sets mechanisms in place through involvement of Forest Service Research 
and Development, Science Advisory Boards (section 219.25), science 
consistency evaluations (section 219.24), and scientific peer reviews 
(section 219.22) to ensure that the best science is available to 
decision makers, is properly analyzed and interpreted, and can be 
applied with scientific credibility.
    Comment: Human values and multiple perspectives. Even though many 
believe that the use of scientists in national forest planning is 
important, some requested that human values and multiple perspectives 
be integrated with science to evaluate sustainability.
    Response: The role of science in the final rule (section 219.22) is 
to ensure that the best available science, including social science, is 
available and soundly considered in planning. Collaborative planning 
involving other federal agencies, state and local governments, American 
Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives, private landowners, and other 
interested individuals and organizations (sections 219.12 to 219.18) is 
encouraged to ensure that a broad range of human values and 
perspectives is brought to bear, along with the best science available, 
in land management planning. Through these processes, a locally 
appropriate balance of ecological conditions and social issues, goals, 
and proposed actions will be identified to ensure that scientifically 
sound management decisions are made to sustain ecological conditions 
for the future while meeting current desires and requirements of 
humans. Furthermore, the final rule underscores that science provides 
information, not decisions, and it is the responsible official who has 
final decision authority.
    Comment: Balance between economic, social, and biological sciences. 
Many respondents asserted that economic and social sciences must be 
weighed equally with biological sciences in the decisionmaking process.
    Response: Section 219.22(a) of the final rule includes new language 
requiring consideration of the best available science in the 
development of recommendations or conclusions. This includes all 
scientific fields appropriate to natural resource issues, which will be 
considered by the responsible official along with other forms of input 
in decisionmaking.
    Other changes: The introductory paragraph of the proposed rule has 
not been retained in final rule. This information is already contained 
in section 219.5.
    Section 219.23--The participation of scientists in planning. This 
section of the proposed rule described expectations and roles for 
scientists in National Forest System planning and decisionmaking. In 
the final rule, this section has been renamed ``The overall role of 
science in planning.'' It has been designated as section 219.22.
    Comment: Use of sound science. Various individuals suggested that 
the

[[Page 67554]]

regulations clarify the definition of ``scientist.'' The real issue, 
according to some of these respondents, is the use of sound science 
information and scientific methods--not who brings the information or 
methods to the process.
    Response: The Department agrees, and section 219.22 of the final 
rule shifts the emphasis from scientists, as the deliverers of 
scientific information, to the role of science in the planning process. 
This shifts the focus from individuals who may participate in the 
process, to an embracing of science as an integral part of National 
Forest System planning--thus including scientific knowledge, scientific 
methods, and expert scientific review and opinion, including analyses 
based on the latest scientific information.
    Comment: Influence of science advisory panels. Enthusiasm for 
science in land management was tempered by concerns regarding the level 
of authority and influence of science advisory panels. Some felt that 
the scientific advisory board should support Forest Service staff and 
should not be involved in decisionmaking.
    Response: The final rule requires the responsible official to 
ensure that the best available science is considered in planning. It 
clarifies the intent that science consistency evaluations (section 
219.24) and science advisory boards (section 219.25) are to inform this 
process, not to advocate a particular decision, and clearly states that 
all decision authority rests with the responsible official.
    Comment: Cost and effectiveness of scientific input. Some 
respondents questioned the cost and effectiveness of increasing the 
required levels of scientific input into the forest planning process. 
Others expressed concern that the Forest Service does not have the 
budget or resources to effectively evaluate the credentials of non-
governmental science professionals.
    Response: The final rule requires that the best scientific 
information be considered in planning (section 219.22(a)), but 
recognized that all plan decisions do not require detailed and costly 
broad-scale assessments, science consistency evaluations, or similar 
costly approaches, to achieve this goal (section 219.5). Concerns 
regarding scientific efficacy are addressed by increasing peer review 
of science input (section 219.22), involving the Deputy Chief for 
Research and Development, Research Station Directors, and Science 
Advisory Boards (sections 219.24 and 219.25).
    Comment: Use of science advisory boards. Forest Service officials 
are granted too much discretion in determining the use of peer reviews 
and science advisory boards, many respondents contended. Additionally, 
many respondents worry about the potential for bias in the selection of 
scientists. One person recommends using professional literature 
searches to ensure an efficient and cost effective means for gathering 
and documenting information. Others recommended publishing the names 
and qualifications of those selected to serve on science advisory 
boards.
    Response: The final rule requires full consideration of the best 
available science in plan development, including peer review and 
science consistency evaluations. Peer reviews and public involvement 
provide powerful mechanisms to detect scientific or other bias in 
decisionmaking. Furthermore, the final rule clarifies that the 
responsible official, not scientists or others, makes the decision. 
Membership on advisory boards would be public information, and the 
Department assumes that literature searches would be a part of applying 
the best available science where appropriate.
    Other changes. Section 219.23 in the proposed rule, paragraphs (b) 
and (c) are not retained in the final rule. These are functions of 
scientists listed in the proposed rule, which are only illustrative and 
not needed in the final rule. In the proposed rule, general assistance 
in applying relevant scientific information is addressed in paragraph 
(a), to the extent necessary in the rule, by science consistency 
evaluations in section 219.25. The material related to issues in 
paragraph (d) of the proposed rule, is also not retained. It is 
referenced in section 219.4 which suggests that the responsible 
official consider the scientific basis and merit of available data and 
analyses in determining whether an issue is appropriate for 
consideration. Section 219.23 in the final rule addresses the role of 
science in information development and interpretation. Since the final 
rule does not focus on scientists, the last sentence in paragraph (d) 
of the proposed rule discussing their employer is not included.
    Section 219.24--Science consistency evaluations. This section of 
the proposed rule described responsibilities for scientific review of 
planning processes to ensure that proposed actions and supporting 
procedures are consistent with current scientific understanding.
    Comment: Some reviewers felt that the planning regulations should 
clarify what science consistency guidelines may be used if the 
responsible official chooses not to consult with the science advisory 
board.
    Response: The final rule requires the responsible official to 
consider the best available science in plan development and subsequent 
decisions; it is at her/his discretion as to how this can best be 
accomplished. The final rule makes it clear that the use of advisory 
boards is one means identified in the final rule to assist, others 
include: Direct informal and formal involvement of scientists and 
technical experts, peer reviews of draft analyses and plans, and 
science consistency evaluations. All of these, as well as others, are 
available to the responsible official. The method employed for a 
planning activity is to be selected by the responsible official, but at 
a minimum, the responsible official must periodically consult with an 
advisory board.
    Other changes. There are two important changes in paragraph (a). 
The first clarifies the purpose of science consistency evaluations. The 
proposed rule initially stated that decisions must be consistent with 
available science. It then restates the test as whether information 
gathered, evaluations conducted, or analyses and conclusions reached in 
the planning process are consistent with the best available scientific 
information and analysis. A finding of inconsistency that results from 
this process does not necessarily mean that a decision is ``wrong.'' It 
does mean that the information and analysis supporting that decision 
should be revisited, which may in turn lead to a change in the 
decision. The final rule states the purpose of the science consistency 
evaluation is to determine whether information, evaluations, analyses, 
or interpretations used in proposals for plan decisions are consistent 
with the best available science.
    The second change in paragraph (a) concerns the role of the science 
advisory boards in this process. In the proposed rule, the responsible 
official may use them to assist in the science consistency evaluation. 
In the final rule, the responsible official must use them to determine 
when a science consistency evaluation is appropriate. This change is 
consistent with the change in emphasis away from who is performing 
analysis. While the proposed rule did not require participation of the 
science advisory boards, it gave too much weight to this one approach. 
In addition, giving the science advisory boards a role in determining 
when to conduct science consistency analysis addressed the concern that 
there are no criteria for when such an analysis should occur.

[[Page 67555]]

    Section 219.25--Science advisory boards. This section of the 
proposed rule described establishment of National and Regional Science 
Advisory Boards and work groups
    Comment: Representation of interests. A large number of comments 
recommended that the proposed regulations establish protections against 
bias and unequal representation of interests. Many people advocated 
that the proposed planning regulations require representation from a 
broad range of scientific fields in peer evaluations and advisory 
boards. For example, some suggested that the Forest Service should 
better recognize university professionals and other federal agency 
scientists as resources in planning. Others argued that the use of non-
Forest Service scientists be explicitly required in forest planning to 
minimize agency influence over scientific conclusions.
    Response: Sections 219.25(a) and (b) of the final rule now 
stipulate that: ``Board membership (of National and Regional Science 
Advisory Boards) must represent a broad range of scientific disciplines 
including, but not limited to, the physical, biological, and social 
sciences.'' The Department believes that the purpose of the science 
advisory boards, as specified in section 219.25(a) of the final rule, 
is to advise on matters of science. It is not, however, a role of 
Advisory Board members to represent or advocate special interests. 
Sections 219.22(b) and 219.24(a) should help expose and mitigate any 
perceived bias.
    Comment: Role of Forest Service scientists. Many respondents 
believe the role of Forest Service scientists needs to be clarified. 
Several people state that the proposed regulations will unduly burden 
Forest Service research station personnel and potentially compromise 
their integrity as field experts. Conversely, several people indicate 
that the regulations should encourage land managers to utilize research 
station professionals more extensively.
    Response: The final rule specifies that ``the best available 
science'' must be considered and obtained from those individuals 
possessing appropriate scientific credentials. In some cases this may 
include Forest Service scientists. In others cases it may not.
    This section of the final rule differs from the proposed rule in 
that the Deputy Chief for Research and Development must establish a 
National Science Advisory Board to advise on issues of national 
importance, rather than the Chief as required in the proposed rule. The 
final rule also states that Station Directors and the Deputy Chief for 
Research and Development must personally chair the science advisory 
board(s) they establish, or appoint the chair(s).
    The proposed rule states that work groups could be established with 
the concurrence of ``Forest Service officials.'' The final rule 
specifies that concurrence must be by the Deputy Chief for Research and 
Development for the National Science Advisory Board, or the Research 
Station Director for a Regional Science Advisory Board.
    Other changes. Paragraph (a) in the final rule requires the 
establishment of a national science advisory board. This board is 
required by paragraph (b) in the proposed rule. The role remains to 
provide advice on issues of national significance. The final rule 
clarifies that the Chief of the Forest Service will identify these 
issues. The composition of the science advisory boards generated many 
public comments, including some advocating a stronger role for Forest 
Service research scientists. In response, the final rule gives the 
Deputy Chief for Research and Development the responsibility for 
establishing and chairing the national science advisory board. In the 
proposed rule, the Chief of the Forest Service is responsible for 
establishing the national advisory board.
    Paragraph (b) in both the proposed and final rules requires the 
appropriate Forest Service Research Station Director(s) to establish 
regional science advisory boards. As a result of public comments, in 
the final rule, this director or directors shall chair the advisory 
board or appoint a chair. The final rule clarifies the geographic 
boundaries of the boards need not align with National Forest System 
Regional boundaries.

Special Considerations

    Proposed Section 219.26--Identifying and designating suitable uses. 
This section of the proposed rule identified the suitability of various 
uses on national forests and grasslands and provided criteria for 
making a determination of suitability within the planning framework. 
Designation of suitable land uses was one of the decisions that must be 
included in plans (see Section 219.7).
    Comment: Multiple-use as the guiding principle. Multiple-use should 
continue to be the guiding principle for management of national 
forests, according to many individuals. Like a number of respondents 
who view this section as a significant departure both from relevant 
statutes and from the existing planning rule, these individuals saw the 
proposed planning regulations as de-emphasizing multiple-use to the 
extent that they ``violate the mandates prescribed in the NFMA and the 
MUSYA as well as other applicable rules and regulations.'' In 
particular, some respondents suggested that the planning rule encourage 
industrial commodity production and extraction. One person, though, 
asked the Forest Service to define the term multiple-use since the term 
may include connotations other than resource extraction.
    Response: National forest and grasslands will continue to be 
available for a wide variety of multiple uses as long as those uses do 
not conflict with one another and they are appropriate for the location 
where they may occur. This section of the planning rule provides 
criteria for making this determination.
    Comment: Criteria to identify and designate suitable uses. Some 
respondents believed that in comparison to the current NFMA planning 
regulations, the proposed criteria to identify and designate suitable 
uses is thoroughly inadequate. These individuals contended that the 
proposed rule should provide clear suitability standards--particularly 
regarding livestock grazing, mineral extraction, and timber removal. To 
this end, some respondents suggested that the Forest Service retain the 
existing suitability requirements since the current guidelines are more 
prescriptive than those included in the proposed regulations. In 
addition, several people asserted that the final rule's suitability 
requirements must not grant excessive discretion to Forest Service land 
managers. Specifically, they suggested replacing the word ``should'' 
with ``shall'' throughout the subsection. Such a change would require 
land managers to consider the possible uses listed in this section, 
they asserted. Several other people asked the Forest Service to clarify 
the statutory authority by which Executive Orders can restrict suitable 
uses of national forests. One respondent wondered how forest plans 
would designate and map management areas for specific uses.
    Response: The Department has added criteria to the rule related to 
impairment of the productivity of the land and compatibility with plan 
decisions. With these changes, the Department believes that it has 
provided sufficient guidance for amendment and revision of plans. The 
current regulation was put in place to enable the agency to prepare 
comprehensive national forest and grassland plans. Detailed 
instructions were necessary and appropriate for completion of the first 
round of planning. Each national forest and grassland now has a plan in 
place, and the task at hand is to evaluate and improve upon each of 
these. Detailed

[[Page 67556]]

procedures regarding the integration of natural resource management 
practices are no longer appropriate. Rather, as described in the 
planning regulation, it is now appropriate to look to ways to improve 
existing plans and provide for needed adjustments in uses.
    Comment: Access to national forests and grasslands. Several 
respondents feared that the proposed rule would limit access to 
national forest lands. Among those that felt access will be restricted, 
some asserted that if national forests really are the ``people's 
lands,'' then the people have the right to access them for recreation, 
such as hiking, biking, off-highway travel, and snowmobiling. ``I have 
a right as a taxpayer and a law abiding citizen to use these lands,'' 
wrote one respondent. Recreational access is especially crucial for 
visitors with disabilities, according to many. ``I cannot park a car in 
a trailhead parking lot and hike into areas that non-handicapped 
persons can,'' one citizen said. ``I should be able to access the same 
public lands as non-handicapped persons,'' this person stated.
    Response: Congress has given the Secretary of Agriculture the 
responsibility to regulate use of the National Forests System. The 
MUSYA acknowledges that not all lands must be available for all uses. 
Any changes to access for specific uses under this rule will occur 
using the framework for planning, will involve collaboration with the 
affected and other publics, and will use the best available science to 
identify the uses that are suitable within the plan area.
    Comment: Mining. Many respondents felt that the proposed rule fails 
to emphasize mining as a legitimate use of national forests. At the 
very least, according to one person, the proposed rule should clarify 
how nonrenewable resources, such as minerals, will be regulated. If 
mining is to be allowed, others asserted, its effects must be 
mitigated.
    Response: Unlike current planning rule, the revised rule does not 
try to provide direction for specific uses. It focuses instead on 
sustainability of the economic, social, and ecological systems. Mining 
is one of many uses of national forests, and it may occur where it is a 
suitable use, consistent with plans. Other federal statutes applicable 
to mining must also be considered in determining where and how mining 
may occur.
    The Department believes that this rule, and in particular, its 
sustainability requirements, will not by itself preclude mining 
activities. Analysis and collaboration conducted under the requirements 
of the rule, and following all applicable laws, will determine where 
mining is appropriate and what mitigation measures will be required. 
The rule's emphasis on ecosystem health, collaboration, and the role of 
science may very well result in the identification and implementation 
of effective and efficient mitigating measures applicable to mining 
operations, improving the overall sustainability of the use and 
development of what are commonly referred to as nonrenewable resources.
    Comment: Grazing. Requiring monitoring and enforcement of grazing 
standards on national forest lands, some contended, will ameliorate the 
negative effects of grazing. To this end, wrote one person, the 
proposed rule should clarify how science will aid in determining the 
suitability of lands for grazing.
    Response: This level of detail is not appropriate for this rule. 
The role of science is generally described in section 219.22, which 
requires the use of best available science in all aspects of planning, 
including suitability determinations.
    Comment: Recreation. One respondent contended that limiting access 
to portions of public land might shift increasing visitor pressure into 
other, ever-dwindling, public use areas. Conversely, others 
specifically requested access restrictions for types of recreation that 
degrade public lands. Activities that are allowed on Forest Service 
lands--be they recreational or commercial-must not degrade forest 
resources, many argued. Still others questioned what role recreation 
should have in forest planning.
    Response: Outdoor recreation is one of the uses of national forests 
recognized in the MUSYA. The NFMA requires that plans provide for these 
uses. In accordance with this rule, all potential uses, and decisions 
to limit access must be considered in the context of overall 
sustainability.
    Comment: Biodiversity. One respondent suggested that the planning 
rule should require that public lands be evaluated for their role in 
maintaining and protecting biodiversity.
    Response: Section 219.20 requires this evaluation.
    Comment: Relationship with private land. Several respondents 
suggested that the proposed planning rule address the relationship 
between resource extraction on national forests and that on private 
lands. Another respondent argued for conservation easements across 
deeded lands.
    Response: Section 219.17 requires the Forest Service to interact 
with private landowners, which may include the relationship between 
resource extraction on national forests and that on private lands and 
conservation easements across deeded lands.
    Other changes. The final rule characterizes the process as 
identifying lands not suited for particular uses, whereas the proposed 
rule required identification of lands suited for certain uses. The 
approach in the final rule is more in line with the introductory 
statement that national forests and grasslands are suitable unless they 
are designated unsuitable.
    Additional criteria are added to the final rule for identifying 
lands not suitable for particular uses. These are: (1) Incompatibility 
with policies of the National Forest System, (2) causing substantial 
and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land, and (3) 
incompatibility with one or more plan decisions. With these changes, 
the Department believes that it has provided sufficient guidance for 
amendment and revision of plans. The current regulation was put in 
place to enable the agency to prepare comprehensive national forest and 
grassland plans. Detailed instructions were necessary and appropriate 
for completion of the first round of planning. Each national forest and 
grassland now has a plan in place, and the task at hand is to evaluate 
and improve upon each of these. Detailed procedures regarding the 
integration of natural resource management practices are no longer 
appropriate. Rather, as described in the planning regulation, it is now 
appropriate to look to ways to improve existing plans and to provide 
for needed adjustments in uses.
    Proposed Section 219.27--Special designations. The proposed rule 
identified types of special designations the Forest Service can 
recommend through the plan amendment or revision process. It required 
all roadless, undeveloped areas of sufficient size to be considered for 
wilderness designation. It required special areas designated by statute 
to be incorporated in the plan.
    Comment: List of special designations. A state agency believed that 
the proposed planning regulations should clarify which special 
designations, in addition to those listed, will be allowed. In the 
minds of some respondents, the list in section 219.27 contains too many 
designations. In particular, many believed that public access would be 
unnecessarily limited by special designations such as wilderness and 
research natural areas. Others contended that Forest Service officials 
simply have too much discretion to authorize special designations. 
This, they believed, is an abrogation of

[[Page 67557]]

Congressional powers. Conversely, several people suggested that the 
Forest Service broaden the list of special designations to include 
heritage management areas, unique botanical areas, indigenous religious 
sites, and utility corridors. Some recommended protecting and 
strengthening existing special designations areas such as reference 
landscape areas and research natural areas.
    Response: The lists of both Congressionally and administratively 
designated areas are examples, and not all-inclusive. The 
recommendation or designation of these or other kinds of special areas 
is within the scope of existing laws and regulations and is within the 
authority of planning as designated in NFMA. The framework for planning 
allows for the development of issues leading to the proposal of special 
designations, and also gives ample opportunity for the public and 
others to collaborate on the issue at all levels of planning.
    In response to comments, and to more clearly delineate the 
authorities related to special designations, the final rule separates 
Congressionally designated areas, paragraph (a), from administratively 
designated areas, paragraph (c). Based on public comment, specific 
requirements for evaluating inventoried roadless areas and unroaded 
areas are included in section 219.9(b)(8) of the final rule to 
emphasize that the responsible official must evaluate these areas 
during the revision process. The Forest Service may adopt special 
designations or recommend designation to higher authorities through the 
planning process. In the final rule, the Forest Service is not limited 
to the classifications listed in the rule, and the Forest Service, 
Department, or Administration may designate areas as appropriate.
    Comment: Wild and Scenic Rivers. Many respondents urged the Forest 
Service to protect watersheds, wetlands, and riparian areas. According 
to a few respondents, affected rivers must be evaluated for Wild and 
Scenic River designation as per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 
Specifically, The Draft Unified Federal Policy for Ensuring a Watershed 
Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management was cited by a state 
agency as a model for watershed restoration. Correspondingly, a water 
users' association believed that the Forest Service's founding mandate 
dictates that the agency ensure certain and stable water flows from 
national forests. ``While the Cache La Prouder Water Users Association 
approves in concept the long-term, sustainable management of the 
forests, we are concerned that the proposed rule's emphasis on 
sustainability may in practice subvert and cripple one of the original 
purposes of the national forests--favorable conditions of water flows 
for use by the people.'' Conversely, one respondent asked the Forest 
Service to justify the purpose of maintaining riparian buffer zones.
    Response: Authorities governing the development and the management 
of the National Forest System include the Organic Administration Act, 
the Clean Water Act, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The 
requirements of these must be followed. This rule does not reiterate 
those requirements, but it does create a framework for planning to meet 
them. Specific methods for the protection of watersheds, wetlands, and 
riparian areas and the use of riparian buffer zones are not addressed 
in this rule. These are developed through the planning process using 
the best available science.
    Comment: Evaluating areas for wilderness. One respondent stated 
that the language of section 219.27(a) ``clearly singles out and 
emphasizes wilderness as a consideration for management and in the next 
paragraph says that roadless areas should receive a full range of 
management options.'' The wilderness biases should be eliminated from 
the text of the rule, this person believed. During any analysis of 
proposed wilderness, wrote one organization, an ecological, social, and 
economic cost-benefit analysis should be conducted. Some respondents 
suggested specific suitability criteria. ``There should be some sort of 
release criteria to prevent unsuitable areas from remaining in `limbo' 
for decades as wilderness study areas do now,'' one respondent stated. 
Others called for using either environmental impact statements or site-
specific analyses (in accordance with RARE I and II) as the appropriate 
tools to evaluate roadless areas for wilderness designation. Others 
questioned the efficacy of considering roadless areas for wilderness 
designation at this time--they suggest changing section 219.27(a) to 
exempt wilderness consideration ``during this round of plan 
revisions.''
    Response: The Department believes that the best process for 
determining suitability for wilderness designation is the planning 
process embodied in this rule, and conducted at a scale that can 
address unique characteristics of each area. The Department does not 
see a need to change the wilderness suitability process significantly 
from the one that was used to develop current plans. Wilderness review 
is intrinsic to planning. Wilderness designation will be subject to the 
planning and public involvement requirements of this rule. A 
responsible official may establish management direction for areas not 
recommended for wilderness, consistent with requirements of this and 
other applicable rules. The Department does not believe this section of 
the rule establishes a bias or preference for wilderness designation.
    Comment: Evaluating roadless areas. Many people supported the 
proposed rule's directive to evaluate roadless areas for wilderness 
designation. One person suggested that, at the very least, commercial 
activities should be prohibited in roadless areas.
    Response: The Forest Service's proposed Roadless Area Conservation 
Rule would provide protections for inventoried roadless areas by 
prohibiting certain activities in inventoried roadless areas. In 
addition, as discussed above, the final planning rule clarifies that 
the responsible official will have to evaluate inventoried roadless and 
unroaded areas and consider additional protections during the time of 
plan revision.
    Comment: ``Roadless'' and ``unroaded'' areas. A pervasive theme 
among respondents'' comments was the need for the Forest Service to 
clarify the definition and relationship of ``roadless area'' and 
``unroaded area.'' Specifically, some questioned the appropriateness of 
using the term unroaded since, according to one group, ``Congress has 
never legally recognized the term.'' Another respondent, however, asked 
that the final planning rule clarify the definition of unroaded to 
address the size, configuration, composition, and inherent values of 
unroaded areas. The proposed rule was vague, according to a 
recreational organization, as to whether ``the Forest Service will 
undertake a comprehensive inventory of the unroaded areas.'' Many feel 
that the Forest Service should perform such an inventory since, 
according to one individual, ``the existing inventories on many forests 
were never performed accurately during the RARE II process.''
    Response: To reduce this confusion, the final planning rule renames 
``roadless'' areas ``inventoried roadless areas.'' Definitions of 
inventoried roadless area and unroaded areas in the final planning rule 
are consistent with the Forest Service's proposed roadless area 
conservation rule and road management policy. An unroaded area is any 
area, without the presence of a classified road, of a size and 
configuration sufficient to protect the inherent characteristics 
associated with its roadless condition. As noted above,

[[Page 67558]]

the final rule clarifies that during the revision process the 
responsible official must evaluate inventoried roadless areas and 
unroaded areas and identify areas that warrant protection and the level 
of protection to be afforded.
    Comment: Protection of roadless areas. Many believed all remaining 
roadless areas on National Forest System lands--particularly roadless 
areas of 1,000 acres or more--should be protected. A primary reason 
cited for this view was the need to preserve ecologically significant 
areas upon which plant and animal species are dependent. Some believed 
the Tongass National Forest exhibited these qualities and argued that 
the Tongass not be exempted from roadless area protection. Others 
suggested biodiversity protection can be achieved by basing roadless 
area management on the recommendations found in the Committee of 
Scientists' report.
    Response: The Forest Service's proposed Roadless Area Conservation 
Rule would provide protections for inventoried roadless areas by 
prohibiting certain activities in inventoried roadless areas. In 
addition, as discussed above, the final planning rule (section 
219.9(b)(8)) clarifies that the responsible official must evaluate 
inventoried roadless and unroaded areas and consider additional 
protections during plan revision. This evaluation must include 
information and analyses developed to assess ecological sustainability, 
including assessments of ecosystem and species diversity at the 
appropriate spatial and temporal scale. The final planning rule does 
not include special provisions for the Tongass National Forest.
    The Department believes it inappropriate to predetermine the size 
or configuration of unroaded areas to be analyzed and considered 
through plan revisions. In some areas, 1,000-acre unroaded areas may be 
an appropriate standard. In other areas, management criteria, such as 
the scarcity or abundance of unroaded and inventoried roadless areas, 
may require the consideration of smaller or larger sized areas. 
Responsible officials may determine that other size, configuration, or 
resource criteria may be appropriate to best evaluate and protect the 
important social and ecological characteristics of unroaded and 
inventoried roadless areas. Unroaded areas should be of a size, shape, 
and position within the landscape to reasonably achieve the long-term 
conservation of roadless characteristics such as soil, water, and air 
quality; sources of drinking water; diversity of plant and animal 
communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, 
and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, 
undisturbed areas of land; primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and 
semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation; reference 
landscapes, landscape character and scenic integrity; traditional 
cultural properties and sacred sites; and other locally identified 
unique characteristics. Areas may include those that provide important 
corridors for wildlife movement, or areas that share a common boundary 
of considerable length with an inventoried roadless area, with a 
component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or with 
unroaded areas 5,000 acres or more on lands administered by other 
federal agencies. In selecting areas, the responsible official should 
consider the distance from, and the scarcity of, other unroaded areas, 
particularly for those areas east of the 100th meridian.
    Comment: Access to public lands. Many argued against the withdrawal 
of roadless areas because access for active management practices was 
needed to maintain forest health. Additionally, many stated that access 
to public lands for recreation was an essential component of multiple-
use. Furthermore, the fact that motorized vehicle use had been 
authorized in certain areas in the past should ensure future access for 
this activity, according to some.
    Response: This final rule does not withdraw roadless areas from 
active management or prohibit access to public lands. The proposed 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule proposes prohibiting certain activities 
in inventoried roadless areas, but it does not propose closing trails 
or roads, prohibiting off-road vehicle use, changing current forest 
access, or interfering with access granted by statute, treaty, or 
reserved or outstanding rights. Under the proposed roadless rule, 
decisions about recreational activities (other than those that depend 
on road construction and reconstruction) on National Forest System 
lands would continue to be made through the planning process with the 
full involvement of trail riders and other interested people.
    Indeed, the final planning rule establishes a process for 
identifying, discussing, and, if appropriate, acting on issues that may 
emerge from a variety of sources and on a variety of special and 
temporal scales (section 219.3). This rule anticipates that issues will 
be resolved at the appropriate level--national, regional, or local--
through the planning process. In some places, activities such as 
mineral exploration or recreational access to the national forests and 
grasslands may become issues. As such, these issues would be considered 
using the explicit collaboration, science, sustainability, and planning 
requirements articulated in the final planning rule.
    Comment: Legal mandates and proposed roadless area conservation 
rule. Many respondents felt the proposed roadless rule must not violate 
existing statutes such as the Wilderness Act and the MUSYA. Several 
individuals expressed concern that the proposed roadless rule 
circumvents Congressional authority to designate wilderness areas. 
Among those who explicitly argued against the proposed roadless rule, 
the need to comply with forest management and multiple-use mandates 
were two prominent reasons offered in support of their position.
    Response: Consistent with all applicable law, the Forest Service's 
proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule would provide protections for 
inventoried roadless areas by prohibiting certain activities in 
inventoried roadless areas. In addition, as discussed above, the final 
planning rule (section 219.9) clarifies that the responsible official 
will have to evaluate inventoried roadless and unroaded areas and 
consider additional protections during the time of plan revision. These 
procedures are in accordance with existing statutory direction, 
including the Wilderness Act and the MUSYA.
    Other changes. The final rule expanded the list of special 
designations to be more inclusive than that of the proposed rule. The 
final rule clarifies that an amendment or revision of a plan is a 
mechanism by which the Forest Service establishes management direction 
for special designations.
    Section 219.28--Determination of land suitable for timber harvest. 
This section of the proposed rule established two classifications of 
land suitability for timber harvest. The first was the classification 
of lands not suited for timber production. The second was the 
classification of lands where timber harvest would be permitted.
    Comment: Suitability classifications. The proposed rule listed two 
classifications of land relative to timber production: ``land not 
suited for timber production'' and ``land where timber harvest is 
permitted.'' A number of respondents claimed that these classes are not 
consistent with NFMA. Others suggested retaining the suitability 
determination requirements in the existing regulations. Some 
individuals suggested adding additional classifications such as ``lands 
unavailable for timber production'' or

[[Page 67559]]

other classifications that take into account forest health harvests or 
long-term harvest rotations.
    Response: The final rule has been reorganized to better incorporate 
the intent of the NFMA, and also to better accommodate innovative 
management approaches to achieving sustainability. The final rule, 
identifies three separate classifications of land in section 219.28: 
(a) Lands where timber may not be harvested; (b) lands where timber may 
be harvested for timber production; and (c) lands where timber may be 
harvested for other multiple-use values.
    Comment: Consistency with NFMA requirements. Some respondents 
wanted the proposed planning rule to include various specific 
provisions from NFMA. Other people voiced reservations regarding the 
criteria for determining lands not suited for timber production as 
detailed in the proposed rule. These criteria are too vague and should 
be eliminated, according to several people. Expressing a common 
sentiment among respondents, one wood products industry representative 
believed that ``interpretation of the phrases `ecosystem integrity,' 
and `lands where the costs of timber production are not justified by 
the ecological, social, or economic benefits,' would be costly and 
controversial at best, and most likely would contribute to further 
planning gridlock.''
    Response: Criteria for lands where timber harvest may not occur are 
taken directly from NFMA section 6(e). In order to determine lands 
where timber harvest is an objective, the responsible official must 
complete the planning process to determine that the projected costs of 
timber production are justified by the overall benefits. The Department 
believes that these criteria are straightforward and legally sound. In 
the final rule, criteria for where timber may be harvested from lands 
not suited for timber production, include the term ``ecological 
sustainability'' instead of ``ecosystem integrity,'' and the rule 
elaborates on its meaning in 219.20. The rule also defers the 
determination of the need to harvest timber until site-specific 
information is available.
    Comment: Land withdrawn form timber harvest. The proposed rule 
lists a number of lands not suited for timber production--one category 
being ``lands that have been withdrawn from timber harvest by the 
Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service.'' Several 
respondents question this executive branch authority that they believe 
is reserved for Congress alone.
    Response: Authority to withdraw land from availability for timber 
harvest may be undertaken by the Secretary of Agriculture or Chief of 
the Forest Service for specific reasons such as, but not limited to, 
public health and safety, accomplishments of other multiple-use 
objectives, and other appropriate uses of the land.
    Comment: Lands where technology is not available for conducting 
timber harvesting. The proposed planning rule also describes lands 
``where technology is not available for conducting timber harvesting * 
* *'' as another land-class not suited for timber production. One wood 
products industry representative recommends striking this provision 
based on the belief that ``technology is ever changing, and tomorrow 
systems will be available that we aren't even thinking of today.''
    Response: This language is a requirement of NFMA. The fact that 
technology changes was recognized by the additional requirement in NFMA 
(and this section of the rule) to review lands determined to be not 
suited for timber production at least every ten years, or as prescribed 
by law.
    Comment: Lands where the costs of timber production are exceeded by 
benefits. The proposed planning regulations defined one classification 
of lands not suitable for timber production as ``lands where the costs 
of timber production are not justified by the ecological, social, or 
economic benefits'' (section 219.28(b)(5)). Respondents raised a number 
of related concerns regarding this classification.
    First, some believed that timber production costs should be 
exempted from consideration during suitability determinations for 
timber production because to do otherwise, they contended, would 
constitute a violation of NFMA suitability criteria. Second, a number 
of people asked the Forest Service to clarify what they mean by below-
market cost timber sales. In other words, what ``costs'' are being 
considered in such determinations? Are they ecological, social, or 
economic? A possible solution offered by one respondent requires the 
Forest Service to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of ecological, 
social, and economic factors in conjunction with proposed timber 
removal actions. Third, if ecological, social, or economic benefits do 
not outweigh the cost of conducting a timber sale; such projects should 
be prohibited, according to some.
    Response: Section 6(k) of the NFMA requires the Secretary of 
Agriculture to identify lands, which are not suited for timber 
production, considering physical, economic, and other pertinent 
factors. Under this authority, it is appropriate to consider the 
relative costs and benefits from timber production. In the final rule, 
regarding lands that are not classified as unsuitable for timber, the 
responsible official may establish timber production as a multiple-use 
objective in the plan if the costs of timber production are justified 
by the ecological, social, or economic benefits. With regard to 
individual timber sales, no economic test is required on lands where 
timber production has been established as a plan objective based on 
plan-level analysis. On lands where timber production is not an 
objective, analysis must be used to determine that timber harvest is 
necessary to achieve other objectives. However, the Department does not 
believe this rule should limit use of timber harvest as a management 
tool in these situations based on the ability to recover economic 
costs.
    Comment: Lands where timber harvest is permitted. Several 
respondents argued that in order to achieve the goals of multiple-use 
sustained-yield, the Forest Service must require active timber 
management through its planning regulations. For some, this even meant 
harvesting timber from roadless areas. In addition to the statutory 
foundation for this position, these individuals cited the need to 
improve both forest health and wildlife habitat.
    Response: Plans prepared pursuant to this planning regulation may, 
in response to issues that have been identified, require active timber 
management to achieve their objectives, the Department does not believe 
that it is appropriate to mandate such action on each national forest 
and grassland at the national level. The planning rule provides ample 
direction and opportunity for the responsible official to provide for 
timber production.
    Comment: Salvage and Sanitation harvests. A few people asked the 
Forest Service to clarify the language of section 219.28(d), which, 
according to one person, ``seems to allow salvage logging on all 
national forest lands not protected by wilderness status.'' The bottom 
line for these individuals is that the Forest Service needs to clearly 
differentiate between salvage, sanitation, and green timber harvests. 
However, assuming that the proposed rule does, in fact, allow salvage 
logging on all non-wilderness lands, other respondents urged the Forest 
Service to eliminate salvage and sanitation harvests entirely. They 
questioned the efficacy of such harvests to actually control fires or 
curb insect infestations. They also cited perceived past abuses of the 
salvage sale program as reason enough to be skeptical of the program in 
the future. In contrast, others supported planning rule provisions for

[[Page 67560]]

salvage and sanitation harvests. These, they claimed, are essential to 
local economies and to improving forest health.
    Response: Both sanitation and salvage harvest of timber are 
legitimate, tested, silvicultural practices that may be appropriate to 
curb or manage the harmful impacts of undesirable insect and disease 
attacks. The Department believes that the language in this section on 
suitability is appropriate regardless of the kind of timber harvesting 
activity. The reference to the sanitation and salvage harvest has been 
removed from this section. No exceptions are made for salvage and 
sanitation harvests in this rule. They will be allowed on lands where 
timber may be harvested for timber production, and on lands where it 
may be harvested for other values as long as the criteria for harvest 
from such lands are met. NFMA requires keeping separate records of 
salvage and sanitation harvest volume.
    New language has been added to section 219.29 which states, based 
on NFMA: ``For purposes of limiting the amount of timber harvest, the 
harvest of timber from areas that are substantially affected by fire, 
wind, or other events, or for which there is an imminent threat from 
insects or disease may either substitute such timber for timber that 
would otherwise be sold or, if not feasible, sell such timber over and 
above the plan volume * * *''
    Other changes. The final rule emphasizes that a decision to harvest 
timber must be consistent with plan decisions, in accordance with 
section 219.10.
    Paragraph (b)(2) in the proposed rule designated all lands that do 
not meet the definition of forested land as not suited for timber 
production. That provision is not in the final rule; rather, paragraph 
(b) allows a decision on such lands to be based on an evaluation of the 
costs and benefits of timber production. Lands that do not meet the 
definition of forested land are by their nature, not suitable for 
timber production. NFMA requires that lands determined to be not 
suitable for timber production be reviewed at least once every ten 
years. In accordance with paragraph (b), all lands other than those 
selected pursuant to this paragraph are not suited for timber harvest, 
and subject to this review requirement.
    Proposed Section 219.29--Limitation on timber harvest. This section 
of the proposed rule required the estimation of the long-term 
sustained-yield capacity of timber. In addition, it provided for the 
calculation of an allowable sale quantity for any decade that departs 
from the projected long-term average sale quantity.
    Comment: Exceeding sustained-yield limits. Most respondents agreed 
that the concept of sustained-yield is, in principle, a positive goal. 
However, some people took exception to how this actually will be 
implemented through the proposed regulations. For example, some saw 
section 219.29(c)(2) as providing a loophole for truly sustainable 
timber removal. These people argued that this section allows the 
responsible officials the discretion to exceed sustained-yield limits 
``whenever they want as long as the sale is disclosed.''
    Response: The text of the proposed rule regarding the procedures 
that must be used when a departure in timber harvest levels is 
necessary is not retained in the final rule. Because this text was 
taken from the language of NFMA, it is believed that in the rare 
circumstance when a departure in projected timber harvests may be 
necessary, it is best to rely on the exact language of NFMA. Also, the 
calculation for long-term, sustained-yield limitations is separated 
into two categories in the final rule. The first is a limitation on the 
harvests that may take place from timber production lands. The second 
is a limitation on the harvests that may take place for the removal of 
timber to accomplish multiple-use objectives other than timber 
production. The two calculations cannot be combined to increase harvest 
levels from either category of land.
    Comment: Ecologically sustainable timber harvest. Some respondents 
urged the Forest Service to adopt specific standards and criteria to 
achieve ecologically sustainable timber harvests. Several respondents 
suggested possible means to this end: adopting guidelines to ensure a 
diversity of tree age classes on national forests rather than simply 
evaluating sustainable biomass removal; measuring sustained-yield at a 
finer scale than the current provision that allows combining forests 
less than 200,000 acres in size; or using the Sustainable Fisheries Act 
as a model for sustainable logging. Sections 219.29(a) and (c) of the 
proposed rule used the term ``perpetuity.'' One respondent wondered how 
``perpetuity'' will be calculated-is this a mathematical estimation and 
who would determine this figure?
    Response: In accordance with section 219.20, plans must provide for 
ecosystem diversity, which includes many characteristics such as 
distribution and abundance of successional stages of vegetation. The 
Department intends and believes that timber harvest levels that result 
from implementation of this rule will be consistent with ecological 
sustainability.
    Comment: Allowable sale quantity. Many public concerns centered on 
the concept of allowable sale quantity (ASQ). Some saw the proposed 
rule as a detrimental move away from existing ASQ requirements, which 
were thought to be important for sustaining the economies of timber-
dependent communities. Moreover, one wood products industry 
representative contended that pursuant to NFMA requirements, the 
proposed rule should require that ASQ determinations be made at the 
forest level and that ``any significant up or down departure from 
planned allowable sale quantities should trigger a forest plan 
amendment.'' In contrast, others requested that ASQ provisions be 
entirely eliminated from the proposed rule or revised to require that 
ASQ determinations reflect salvage and sanitation harvest volumes.
    Response: The topic of ASQ has long caused confusion for those 
concerned with the management of the national forests. NFMA authorizes, 
but does not require, the establishment of an ASQ where it is necessary 
to plan harvest of more timber in a decade than what could be removed 
on a sustained-yield basis (16 U.S.C. 1611). The current planning rule 
required the establishment of an ASQ for every plan based on its 
projected sale schedule (36 CFR 219.16(b)). In accordance with NFMA, 
both the sustained-yield quantity (long-term sustained-yield capacity) 
and ASQ were intended to impose limits on the sale of timber from a 
national forest rather than to establish targets. Nevertheless, many 
individuals have viewed ASQ as a target to be achieved. However, many 
factors beyond the control of the agency have influenced and will 
continue to influence actual harvest levels. These include the budget 
received from Congress, new listings and designations of critical 
habitat under the Endangered Species Act, weather, and the requirements 
of other statutes and Executive Orders.
    The proposed rule, while not requiring the establishment of an ASQ, 
did require the establishment of a long-term sustained-yield capacity 
at the forest level, which set the upper cap on the sale of timber from 
lands where timber production was an objective. In addition, the 
proposed rule required that plans contain a display of actions, 
outcomes, and projected products and services that could be used for 
reasonable estimates of likely timber

[[Page 67561]]

harvest levels. These provisions are retained in the final rule. In 
addition, a limitation on the amount of timber that may be removed from 
lands unsuited for timber production is added to the final rule. 
Language from NFMA has been added to clarify the relationship of 
salvage and sanitation sales to harvest volume limits. To simplify the 
text and acknowledge the intended limited use of the term, ``allowable 
sale quantity,'' it is no longer used in the rule, but may be found in 
the referenced section of NFMA.
    Comment: Logging methods. Logging methods and techniques were very 
important for many who comment on the proposed planning rule. In order 
to ensure minimal environmental impact during logging activities, some 
suggested using small equipment for timber cutting and removal 
procedures. One person requested that the Forest Service design timber 
harvest units to mimic stand composition and structure created by 
natural disturbance events. Indeed, to some, mimicking disturbance 
events requires an explicit commitment by the Forest Service to 
continue the practice of clearcutting. Clearcuts, they claimed, 
contribute to a multi-age forest structure and serve as habitat for a 
variety of wildlife species. Still, there must be limits on individual 
clearcut size, some argued. One person suggested using the Committee of 
Scientists report as a guide for establishing size limits based on the 
characteristics of natural disturbance regimes. Many other respondents 
called for a complete ban on clearcutting in national forests. To them, 
clearcuts are ecologically destructive and reduce the capacity of 
forests to act as wind buffers for human communities in some regions of 
the country.
    Response: Clearcutting is a legitimate and sometimes needed 
silvicultural tool for managing certain forested landscapes. Forest 
silviculture and ecosystem disturbance ecology support this view. At 
the same time, the Department shares the concerns over inappropriate 
application of clearcutting. The Department is confident that the 
planning framework and the collaborative, science-based approach to 
ecological diversity it contains will result in clearcutting being used 
appropriately. It remains agency policy that clearcutting be used only 
when and where it is appropriate and fully supported by science.
    Other changes. Paragraph (a) in the final rule requires calculation 
of the amount of timber that could be sold in perpetuity on a 
sustained-yield basis from lands where timber harvest is not 
prohibited. In the proposed rule, this calculation was required only 
for those lands where timber production was identified as an objective. 
NFMA does not make this distinction, and in the final rule the 
requirement applies to all lands not identified in paragraph (a). 
Estimates for lands that may be harvested for other purposes may be 
difficult to make and less reliable than for timber production lands. 
For that reason, and to avoid excessive harvest from either type of 
land, the volume estimates for the two areas may not be combined. 
Paragraph (b) imposes separate limits on the volume that may be sold 
from lands that are suited for timber production and those lands that 
are not suited for timber production, but available for the harvest of 
timber to fulfill other multiple use objectives.

Planning Documentation

    Proposed Section 219.30--Land and resource management plan 
documentation. This section of the proposed rule described the 
documentation requirements for the plan, including the summary 
document, a display of land suitable for selected uses, a display of 
decisions for the plan area, a list of actions to achieve desired 
conditions, the minimum level of monitoring and evaluation, a display 
of budgetary information, and a list of reference materials. In the 
final rule, this section has been renamed ``Plan documentation.''
    Comment: Many people found the ``living document'' idea appealing 
although they doubt the ability of the Forest Service to meet the goals 
set out in this subsection of the proposed rule. Some people claimed 
that ``existing forest plans are already living documents'' due to 
rapidly changing conditions which require revisions. Other people 
questioned the ability of the Forest Service to keep up with 
expectations outlined in the proposal. ``This is a lot of disparate 
information to keep track of, connected, integrated, and continually 
updated.'' A few respondents asked how the documentation will work and 
how it will be organized. Will the living document result in ``the same 
sort of unintelligible documents that appeared during the first round 
of planning,'' another person asked? Others had specific suggestions 
for the kind of budget and output information to include.
    Response: In general, section 219.30 of the final rule retains the 
language in the proposed rule. The Department does not view the plan 
documentation as an undue burden. The items to be displayed already 
exist within agency records. By following the plan documentation 
process, information relative to plan and site-specific decisions as 
well as future implementation would be readily available to the public. 
The intent of this section of the rule is to provide one location for 
all the documents that pertain to plan decisions on the forest or 
grassland. As noted in the Committee of Scientists Report, the 
integrated plan is the assemblage of all policies and decisions 
affecting an administrative unit. The Department agrees with the 
comment that forest plans currently can be viewed as ``living 
documents.'' However, the Department believes that the planning 
structure outlined in the final rule provides for more timely and 
flexible planning based on the appropriate scale of the issue.
    Other Changes. The term ``guidelines'' in the proposed rule has 
been removed from this section in the final rule. There was some 
confusion about the terms ``standards and guidelines'' and their 
meaning in the proposed rule. The term ``standards'' has been retained 
in the final rule. New language is added in the final rule referring to 
``maintenance or restoration of sustainability.'' This language has 
been added to emphasize the goals of sustainability in the final rule. 
The language referring to ``watershed protection or restoration'' in 
paragraph (a) from the proposed rule is removed in the final rule. The 
Department believes that the language in the final rule referring to 
``ecological'' environments within the plan area encompasses watershed 
protection and restoration.
    Some editing and clarifying changes to paragraph (b), ``Display of 
public uses,'' and paragraph (c), ``Plan decisions,'' are made in the 
final rule. There is also some editing and clarifying changes to 
paragraph (d), ``Display of actions and outcomes.'' Paragraph (d)(4), 
regarding the projected range of outcomes for uses, values, and 
services is changed from 10-year projection in the proposed rule to a 
15-year projection in the final rule to coincide with the required 
revision schedule for plans.
    Proposed Section 219.31--Maintenance of the plan and planning 
records. This section of the proposed rule described the requirements 
that keep plans up-to-date and readily available to the public. It also 
described the types of administrative changes to plans that are 
considered maintenance.
    Comment: Many people believed that the maintenance of planning 
documents under the proposed rule would become an insurmountable 
obstacle to effective management. They were concerned about the staff 
time it will take to comply with the reporting periods. One

[[Page 67562]]

person wrote that at a two-year cycle for documentation maintenance 
would be a better use of staff time. Others argued that posting the 
entire plan record on the Internet is not feasible. Some people 
requested that complete sets of documents be maintained at district 
offices. Distances can sometimes be ``unduly burdensome for staff and 
citizens to have to travel to the Supervisor's office,'' they asserted. 
Some respondents feared that special interest groups would be able to 
unduly influence management by initiating revisions. Other people felt 
that stability is more important than flexibility in a forest plan.
    Response: The Department believes it is reasonable to expect the 
requirements under this provision to be successfully followed by the 
Forest Service. The documents should be available in an electronic 
format. However, the reference to the Internet in section 219.31(a) in 
the proposed rule has been eliminated from the final rule to allow for 
development and use of other applicable electronic media for 
information exchange. The Department has removed the language in 
section 219.31(b) of the proposed rule referring to ``complete and 
current data'' associated with planning records. This language was 
removed because these terms have specific legal interpretations.
    The Department has also added a new item (4) under subsection (b) 
that would exempt changes in monitoring methods from Forest Service 
NEPA procedures. The Department made this change to make sure that any 
changes in monitoring methods would be considered administrative 
corrections, and not plan revisions or amendments subject to NEPA.

Objections and Appeals

    Proposed Section 219.32--Objections to amendments or revisions. In 
the proposed rule, this section described the process by which the 
public could challenge plan revisions or amendments. This process will 
provide the public an opportunity to challenge Forest Service planning 
prior to the responsible official making a final decision. This section 
requires the responsible official in the planning process to respond to 
all objections prior to approving an amendment or revision of the plan. 
This process will provide the Forest Service and the public with an 
opportunity to address issues before a final decision is made.
    Comment: Objection process. Many people feared the objection 
process would reduce the influence that the current appeals process 
provides to some individuals. They claimed the 30-day objection period 
is insufficient time to identify issues and generate an administrative 
record. Many believed the proposed objection process would undermine 
their ability to establish standing for possible litigation. Although 
some respondents felt that the objection process is an inadequate 
protection of public interests, others felt that requirements for 
standing should be much more stringent to prevent needless obstruction. 
Many respondents noted that there is no time limit for the agency to 
respond to objections. To achieve conflict resolution and efficiency in 
the objection process, ``time limits are essential,'' wrote one 
individual. However, one forest products industry representative 
believed that the pre-decisional objection process would allow managers 
to implement decisions without ``excessive appeals.''
    Response: The objection process applies only to amendments and 
revisions of a land and resource management plan. The process 
recognizes the interest of people engaged in stewardship and the 
achievement of sustainability is grounded in the recommendations of the 
Committee of Scientists. It furthers the intent of the collaborative 
dialogue outlined in sections 219.12 to 219.18 and supports the premise 
of the problem-solving and decisionmaking model envisioned in the 
framework for planning (sections 219.3 to 219.11). The process 
complements and is consistent with the maintenance of established 
relationships, commitments, and responsibilities necessary to 
continuing solving problems for effective stewardship prior to 
finalizing a pending plan amendment or revision.
    The final rule, as a whole, addresses the weaknesses in the current 
36 CFR part 217 appeal process through integration of the objection 
process with the framework for planning (sections 219.3 to 219.11) and 
supplementing traditional NEPA public involvement with collaborative 
planning for sustainability (sections 219.12 to 219.18). In the long 
run, the objection process is expected to resolve many potential 
conflicts. The purpose of the objection process is to encourage 
resolution of issues before decisions are made. The intent is to 
provide the reviewing officer with an opportunity to work more closely 
with the responsible official and those filing objections to resolve 
the objections before a decision is made. A predecisional objection 
process will also enhance interagency collaboration by standardizing 
objection procedures and provide incentives to work out substantive 
differences rather than focus on procedural errors.
    Critical to the success of the objection process is the active 
effort of the responsible official and others to engage in early and 
frequent opportunities for public involvement and dialogue. An 
objection must be filed, in writing, within 30 calendar days of public 
notice of the appropriate NEPA documentation. The 30-day objection 
period mirrors a similar existing process used successfully by the 
Bureau of Land Management, and the Department feels that it should not 
prove a barrier to those who wish to utilize it--particularly if they 
have been involved in the collaborative processes. Establishing a time 
limit for the agency to respond to objections would burden the 
collaborative process with an unnecessary constraint. The focus of the 
objection process is on joint problem solving to resolve issues, not on 
pressing a decision to meet an artificial deadline.
    Comment: Current appeals process. Many respondents argued for the 
retention of the current appeal process. They felt that appeals ensure 
cumulative analysis, allow public oversight of Forest Service policy, 
and are a citizen's right. Changing the process, some declared, will 
destroy confidence in the integrity of the Forest Service. Many people 
believed an appeals process provides the option to resolve conflict 
before litigation becomes necessary.
    Response: Under the current 36 CFR part 217 appeal process, the 
agency and the public expend significant human and financial resources 
in fulfillment of procedural requirements. Under the existing rule, 
some individuals and interest groups have little trust in the integrity 
of the current process and perceive they have a better chance of 
achieving their interests through costly appeal and litigation 
processes. Often, a polarized relationship develops where there is no 
real incentive to address natural resource issues, creating a cycle of 
``bulletproofing environmental documentation'' and expending both human 
and financial capital, often without long-lasting solutions. The 
objection process provides for the consideration of a pending plan 
amendment or revision without restricting citizens' legal rights. The 
responsible official, the reviewing officer and the objector have the 
opportunity to seek reasonable solutions to conflicting views before a 
plan amendment or revision is adopted.
    Comment: Analysis of prior appeals. Some respondents suggested that 
the Forest Service address prior appeals

[[Page 67563]]

against Forest Service decisions as part of the proposed planning rule. 
They believed that interviews with people who filed appeals should be 
incorporated into the planning process.
    Response: Appeals and the concerns of national forest and grassland 
users were considered in the development of the final planning rule. 
The team that developed the proposed rule and response to public 
comment based their work on years of experience in addressing the 
concerns of interested citizens. The increased emphasis that the 
planning rule places on collaboration is a direct response to improve 
working relationships among interested citizens. In the objection 
process, the reviewing officer can step in and review the procedures as 
well as the substance of a pending decision and seek a suitable 
resolution of an objection.
    Subparagraph (b) has been added to the final rule which provides 
for objectors and other parties to participate in meetings with the 
responsible official to discuss their objection, narrow differences, 
agree on facts, and explore opportunities for resolution. Any person 
would be allowed to object to a pending decision. The objection 
submittal requires copies of all documents addressing the issue or 
issues that were submitted during the planning process by the objecting 
party or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed 
for the record. Unlike the current 36 CFR part 217 rule, the objection 
process in section 219.32 of the final rule does not have a specific 
time limit for resolving objections. The current appeal process 
prevents a higher level intervention or participation in issue 
resolution or problem solving because of the need to avoid ex parte 
communication by higher-level reviewing authorities and also to 
maintain an independent, objective review of the record, at the higher 
level of appeal. Under the objection process, to expedite resolution of 
any objection, the responsible official would not be allowed to approve 
an amendment or revision under objection until a decision on the 
objection has been reached and documented in an appropriate decision 
document. Also, the reviewing officer must promptly render a response, 
in writing, setting forth the rationale for the response. The reviewing 
officer's response regarding an objection is the final decision of the 
Department of Agriculture.
    Other changes. The Department added new language in paragraph (a) 
in the final rule, which requires the responsible official to publish 
notice of all objections in a newspaper of record. This language was 
added to ensure that the list of objections would be disclosed to the 
public. The Department removed the section of paragraph (b) in the 
proposed rule pertaining to the Notice of Intent and multi-agency 
planning. The Department believes that this language is not necessary 
in the final rule. The Department also removed paragraph (c) of the 
proposed rule pertaining to review and final response to an objection. 
The Department determined that the objection process should not be 
viewed as a legal process.
    Proposed Section 219.33--Appeals of site-specific decisions. This 
section of the proposed rule addressed appeals of site-specific 
decisions. The appeal process is the same as the existing requirements 
provided in 36 CFR part 215.
    Comment: Although many people wanted to keep the existing appeals 
process, some felt that the objection process is a good direction for 
the Forest Service and is appropriate for site-specific decisions as 
well. Others believed that the Forest Service must clarify the 
relationship between the pre-decision objection process for plan 
decisions and the appeal process for site-specific decisions. A few 
people argued that objection process violates due process requirements 
for site-specific decisions.
    Response: While there is merit in having an objection process for 
site-specific decisions, amending the appeal process is beyond the 
scope and authority for developing these planning regulations under the 
NFMA. For this reason, the administrative appeal process for site-
specific decisions remains unchanged in the final rule.
    The Department added language to this section to clarify the 
relationship between the objection processes for plan decisions and the 
appeal process for site-specific decisions. Other revisions have been 
made to incorporate changed terminology.
    The Department does not believe that objection process violates due 
process requirements for site-specific decisions. The agency's NEPA 
procedures provides for both public comment and appeal of site-specific 
decisions.

Applicability and Transition

    Proposed Section 219.34--Applicability. This section of the 
proposed rule provided that the direction in the rule applied to all 
units of the National Forest System and remains unchanged in the final 
rule. The agency did not receive any specific comments on this section.
    Proposed Section 219.35--Transition. This section of the proposed 
rule addressed the shift in planning from the use of the existing 
regulation to the new rule, including the initiation of transition, the 
length of time existing plans remain in effect, the review of 
unsuitable land for timber production, the timing for completion of 
ongoing amendment or revision efforts, the relationship between 
transition and site-specific decisions, and the withdrawal of regional 
guides. This section outlined the process by which the Forest Service 
will transition from the 1982 planning regulations.
    Comment: Many respondents requested a clear distinction between 
forest plans and project-level plans in terms of when they must conform 
to requirements in the proposed rule. Existing NEPA regulations still 
apply to project plans, stated one person. In addition, the application 
of the proposed regulations to recently revised forest plans was a 
significant concern of many people. One respondent said that the new 
regulations could overturn environmental safeguards developed in 
revised forest plans. Some commented that a timeframe must be set in 
order that proposed projects, which can take years to develop, don't 
come into conflict with forest plans under the new regulations.
    Response: The final rule adequately describes the relationship 
between plan decisions, site-specific decisions, and the agency's NEPA 
procedures. The transition from the existing regulations to the new 
rule and the relationship between transition and site-specific 
decisions is addressed in section 219.35. The Department does not 
believe that the new rule could overturn environmental safeguards 
developed in revised forest plans. For site-specific decisions, section 
219.35(d) provides a three-year time period for transition between the 
existing regulations and the new rule.
    Comment: The use of Regional Guides after implementation of the 
proposed planning regulations should be discussed in more detail some 
contended. One respondent suggested that Regional Guides should be 
withdrawn ``on a forest-by-forest basis.'' Another requests they not 
apply until the next scheduled plan revision. Several people asserted 
that provisions must be in place to prevent delays in revision of 
forest plans through ``endless extensions.'' On a separate note, one 
person wanted requirements for evaluating suitability for multiple-uses 
specified in the transition section instead of ``just sustainability.''
    Response: The management direction contained within each Regional 
Guide would be transferred to the Forest

[[Page 67564]]

Service directives system or to applicable plans. The direction 
contained within Regional Guides will be used to develop plan 
revisions. Section 219.35(f) of the final rule provides that the 
Regional Forester will have 1 year from the effective date of this rule 
to withdraw the regional guide. In regard to the comment about delays 
in planning, the rule provides a transition framework that will 
expeditiously amend or revise existing forest plans. In addition, the 
rule establishes a framework for incorporating this new planning 
structure into project planning as well as forest and grassland plans. 
In regard to the comment about suitability, the identification and 
designations of suitable uses will be implemented in accordance with 
Section 219.26 of the final rule. It is the intent of this rule to 
provide that suitable uses will be evaluated during the transition 
period.
    Other Changes. Some editing and clarifying changes are made to this 
section of the final rule. In addition, the Department has added new 
text in paragraph (a) of the final rule requiring the responsible 
official to consider the ``best available science to implement, and, if 
appropriate, amend the current plan.'' This text is added in the final 
rule in order to require the Forest Service to incorporate the best 
science within current plans. The Department intends this to be 
incorporated within existing forest plans that have been prepared under 
the 1982 planning structure, too.
    New text in paragraph (b) of the final rule is added to allow for 
the completion of an ongoing plan amendment or revision under the 1982 
rule if an environmental assessment or draft environmental impact 
statement has been issued within six months of the effective date of 
the new planning rule. The responsible official may complete the 
amendment or revision under the new rule. This addition to the final 
rule was made to ensure that ongoing plan amendments or revisions 
nearing completion were not delayed. Implementation of the new planning 
rule would take place as described by the transition process.
    New language in paragraph (e) requiring the Regional Forester to 
withdraw the regional guide within one year of the effective date of 
the regulation is added to the final rule. The language in the proposed 
rule that required all the forests within a region to complete their 
revisions prior to withdrawal of the regional guide has been removed. 
This change was made to ensure the expeditious withdrawal of regional 
guides. The information in the regional guide will be transferred to a 
regional supplement of the Forest Service directives system or to 
existing forest plans. Public notice for these actions will be 
announced in the Federal Register. The Department has included new 
language in paragraph (f) of the final rule that provides for the 
transfer of information from the regional guide to other plans does not 
constitute new decisionmaking subject to additional Forest Service NEPA 
procedures.
    A new subparagraph (g) is added to the final rule that requires the 
Chief of the Forest Service to prepare a schedule for completion of the 
plan revisions within one year. This section was moved from section 
219.9, Revision, of the proposed rule to this section in the final 
rule. The change was made to emphasize this is one of the major 
responsibilities during the transition period. This language will 
enable the Chief of the Forest Service to prioritize plan revisions and 
provide the necessary resources to complete them in a timely manner.

Definitions

    Proposed Section 219.36--Definitions. This section of the proposed 
rule defines terms used in the rule. This section has been retained in 
the final rule, with some changes in terms.
    Comment: Many people requested that a variety of terms be defined 
this section of the proposed planning rule. Other respondents offered 
specific comments regarding the need for the clarification of terms 
already defined in the proposed planning regulations.
    Response: The changes in the definitions and terms from the 
proposed rule to the final rule are as follows:
    Assessment or analysis area. The definition of assessment or 
analysis area was retained from the proposed rule, with some minor 
clarifying language. The term ``geographic'' has been added to describe 
the area of analysis.
    Broad-scale assessment. The proposed rule included a definition for 
this term. The definition of broad-scale assessment has been moved to 
section 219.5(a) of the final rule.
    Candidate species. The term candidate species has been retained in 
the final rule. The phrase ``a list of such species prepared by the 
USFWS and published in the Federal Register'' has been removed. The 
Department believes that this language is unnecessary and redundant.
    Conservation agreement. The term conservation agreement was defined 
in the proposed rule has been retained in the final rule. There are no 
changes to the definition.
    Current climatic period. This term has been added to the final 
rule. The Department believes that this term is important to understand 
the timeframe for species and ecosystems within the final rule.
    Demand species. This term was defined in the proposed rule. It has 
been removed from the final rule. The Department believes that the 
final rule should concentrate on protection of species that may have 
viability concerns. Demand species, as defined in the proposed rule, 
may not have viability concerns.
    Desired condition. This term has been modified in the final rule by 
deleting the phrases pertaining to the description of the range of 
natural variability. The Department removed this language because there 
is a new definition for range of variability.
    Desired non-native species. This term has been modified in the 
final rule to recognize that non-native species can have ``high social, 
cultural, or economic value.'' This term could include ``demand 
species,'' as defined in the proposed rule.
    Disturbance processes. This term has been changed from 
``disturbance processes'' to ``disturbance regime'' in the final rule. 
The Department believes that this term better describes disturbances. 
The Department also removed the term ``land use development'' from the 
list of human caused disturbances. The Department believes that the 
list of disturbances in the final rule describes all of the activities 
that could occur on national forests and grasslands.
    Diversity of plant and animal communities. The Department has 
retained this term in the final rule.
    Ecological composition. This term, which was defined in the 
proposed rule, has been removed from the final rule. The Department 
believes that the characteristics of ecological composition are defined 
in the definitions for the terms ecosystem composition, ecosystem 
processes, and ecosystem structure.
    Ecological conditions. The Department has removed the term 
``ecological sustainability'' from the list of components of the 
biological and physical environment. The term ``ecological 
sustainability'' has been defined in the final rule. The Department has 
also added the phrase ``abundance and distribution'' to the list of 
ecological conditions. This phrase was added to ensure that planning 
takes into consideration these factors in identifying ecological 
conditions.
    Ecological sustainability. This term, which was defined in the 
proposed rule,

[[Page 67565]]

has been retained in the final rule with some modifications. The 
Department has removed the language in the proposed rule referring to 
``plan area.'' The Department believes that this definition should not 
be limited to only the plan area.
    Ecosystem. This term, which was defined in the proposed rule, has 
been removed from the final rule. The Department believes that this 
term is adequately defined within the definitions of ecosystem 
structure, ecosystem processes, and ecosystem composition.
    Ecosystem composition. The Department has added this definition to 
the final rule to clarify what ecological elements are included within 
this term.
    Ecosystem integrity. This term has been removed from the final 
rule. The Department believes that the terms ecosystem composition, 
ecosystem processes, and ecosystem structure provide adequate 
definitions for this term in the final rule.
    Ecosystem processes. The Department has added this term to the 
final rule. The Department believes that it is important for 
participants in the planning process to have an understanding of the 
elements of ecological processes.
    Ecosystem structure. This term was defined in the proposed rule. It 
has been retained in the final rule, with some modifications. The 
Department has removed the language listing the specific 
characteristics for identifying ecosystem structure. The Department 
believes that this information is not necessary.
    Focal species. The proposed rule did not define this term. The 
Department has added this term to the final rule because of its 
importance in determining viability of species. This is a term that is 
used broadly by the scientific community.
    Forest Service NEPA procedures. The Department has retained this 
definition in the final rule.
    Historical range of variability. The Department has removed this 
term from the final rule. It has included a new definition for range of 
variability in the final rule. The Department removed this term because 
it wanted to ensure that range of ecosystem processes considered in the 
new planning process are within the current climatic period, but not 
limited to pre-European settlement time period.
    Inherently rare species. This term was not defined in the proposed 
rule. The Department has added this term to the final rule. The 
Department has defined this term because it is important for the agency 
and public to understand that there may be species that are ``rare'' 
because of natural circumstances.
    Inventoried roadless areas. The Department has added this term in 
the final rule. This was done to further clarify the terms of 
``roadless areas'' and ``unroaded areas'' in the proposed rule and make 
the definition consistent with Forest Service Roadless Area 
Conservation Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary and Proposed 
Rule, dated May 2000.
    Local analysis. The Department has removed this definition from the 
final rule. This term is defined in Section 219.5, Information 
development and interpretation.
    Major vegetation types. The Department has added a definition of 
this term to the final rule. This term was added to describe the 
predominant plant communities within a region or sub-region.
    Native species. The Department has made minor editorial changes to 
this definition in the final rule. The substance of the definition 
remains unchanged.
    Plan area. This term was defined in the proposed rule. It is 
defined in the final rule, with some modifications. The Department has 
added the term ``geographic.'' The Department believes that this 
addition is important for describing the plan area.
    Productive capacity of ecosystems. The Department has changed this 
term to ``productive capacity of ecological systems'' in the final 
rule. The Department believes that this better describes ecosystem 
processes in the planning structure.
    Range of variability. The Department has added this term to the 
Definition section in the final rule. As mentioned above, the 
definition on historical range of variability is no longer included in 
the final rule. The new definition states that the natural disturbance 
regimes are in the current climatic period. The Department believes 
that this language better characterizes the range of variability for 
planning on national forests and grasslands.
    Reference landscapes. The Department has redefined this term in the 
final rule. The Department removed the phrases referring to 
``historical range of variability'' and ``terrestrial and aquatic 
areas.'' The Department has added new language that describes the 
``reference landscapes'' as places within the ``plan area.'' The 
Department believes that this new language better describes the types 
of reference landscapes that can be used in the planning process.
    Responsible official. The Department has modified this definition 
in the final rule by removing the language referring to more than one 
line officer. The Department believes that this phrase is not 
necessary. The Department has also removed the language referring to 
``line officer,'' and has added new language that provides for the 
responsible official to be the person who oversees the planning 
process.
    Reviewing officer. The Department has added this term in the final 
rule. The Department wanted to clarify who this individual is and what 
their responsibility is in the planning framework.
    Roadless areas. The Department has renamed this term ``inventoried 
roadless areas'' to further differentiate it from unroaded areas.
    Salvage harvest of timber. The Department has removed this 
definition from the final rule. The Department believes that it is not 
necessary to specifically define this term.
    Sanitation harvest of timber. The Department has removed this 
definition from the final rule. The Department believes that this term 
does not need to be defined in the final rule.
    Sensitive species. The Department has removed this definition from 
the final rule. The term is only referred to in the Definition section 
for ``species-at-risk'' in the final rule and the Department believes 
it is not necessary to specifically define it.
    Social and economic sustainability. The Department added this 
definition in the final rule based on public comment.
    Species. The definition in the proposed rule stating that ``any 
native taxon of the plant or animal kingdom'' is defined as a species 
has been changed in the final rule to ``any member of the plant or 
animal kingdom.'' The Department made this change to broaden the 
definition to include native and non-native species.
    Species-at-risk. The Department has defined this new term in the 
final rule. The Department wanted to clarify that these are federally 
listed and other species that have a viability risk within the plan 
area.
    Species viability. The Department has retained this definition in 
the final rule, with some modifications. The Department has removed the 
language in the proposed rule referring to the ``genetic diversity'' of 
self-sustaining populations. The Department removed this language 
because it believes that viability should be interpreted in the 
broadest manner.
    Successional stages. The Department has added this term to the 
final rule. The Department believes there is a need to define the 
various phases of

[[Page 67566]]

vegetation development within the context of sustainability.
    Timber production. This definition is unchanged from the proposed 
rule.
    Undeveloped areas. This term was added to the final rule. This term 
refers to all areas of sufficient size that are ``untrammeled'' by 
human beings that are appropriate to evaluate for wilderness 
designation in the planning process.
    Unroaded areas. This term is revised to be consistent with the 
definition used in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement Summary and Proposed Rule, dated May 
2000.
    Vegetation Management. This term has been removed from the final 
rule. The term is defined within the content of sections 219.4, 
Identification and consideration of issues, 219.28, Determination of 
land suitable for timber harvest, and 219.29, Limitation on timber 
harvest.
    Watershed integrity. This term has been removed from the final 
rule. It is defined within the content of section 219.20, Ecological 
Sustainability.

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Impact

    This rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive 
Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been determined 
that this is not an economically significant rule. This rule will 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. This rule will 
not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor 
raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. 
However, because of the extensive interest in National Forest System 
planning and decisionmaking, the Office of Management and Budget has 
determined this rule to be significant and thus, subject to OMB review 
under Executive Order 12866.
    The cost-benefit analysis focused on key activities in land and 
resource management planning for which costs could be estimated under 
the existing and final planning rules. Those major activities included 
regional guides, land and resource management plan revisions, land and 
resource management plan amendments, and advisory committees. The final 
rule would reduce costs by eliminating regional guides and reducing the 
length of the planning process. Increased costs would result from new 
requirements for FACA-type advisory boards and science advisory boards. 
The cost of broad-scale assessments will also be a new planning 
expense, which is assumed to be at least equal to the cost of 
maintaining regional guides. Based on the quantified costs, the final 
rule is estimated to result in an average annual cost savings of $2.4 
million compared to the existing rule. This estimate is a conservative 
estimate of cost savings, since it is assumed that the cost of 
significant amendments under the existing rule is zero (based on the 
rarity of application), and no cost savings are estimated as a result 
of improved efficiencies, streamlined processes, and reduced litigation 
costs because of improved methods for dealing with planning conflicts. 
The cost-benefit analysis can be obtained by contacting: the Director, 
Ecosystem Management and Coordination, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 
96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090, (202) 205-1697.
    Moreover, this rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it has been 
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act. The 
rule imposes no requirements on either small or large entities. Rather, 
the rule sets out the process the Forest Service will follow in 
planning for the management of the National Forest System. The rule 
should increase opportunities for small businesses to become involved 
in both site-specific and national forest and grassland plan decisions. 
Moreover, by streamlining the planning process, small businesses should 
see more timely site-specific decisions that affect outputs of products 
and services.
    Eight comments from law firms or representatives of small mining 
operators, outfitters and guide permit holders, and small timber 
companies challenged the Forest Service assertion that the proposed 
rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on small 
businesses and other entities. Several of these reviewers asserted that 
the shift to ecological sustainability would result in reductions in 
resource allocations and thus would have severe adverse effects on 
small businesses and communities within and adjacent to National 
Forests. One commenter also challenged the assertion that the proposed 
rule streamlined the planning process. One organization representing 
the 8,000 recreation outfitters and guides operating under permit on 
the national forests and grasslands contended that the proposed 
planning rule would reduce recreation opportunities with corollary 
reductions in commercial outfitting and guiding.
    Several representatives of small mining operators also asserted 
that the proposed planning rule, in combination with actions by the 
Bureau of Land Management, would violate the small miners 
Constitutional rights. Finally, all these respondents quoting various 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, believed that the Forest 
Service had not complied with the Act, either by not preparing Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, or not presenting a factual basis for why 
an IRFA was not required.
    The Department finds that the planning rule would not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
as defined by the Small Business Act. Those who allege severe shifts in 
resource allocations have not offered facts and data to prove their 
point.
    This planning rule establishes a process for planning of national 
forest and grasslands and does not directly regulate any business. The 
process that is being established under this rule offers greater 
opportunity for small entities to actively participate in the planning 
process than in the past. Forest dependent businesses and communities 
may choose to become involved in planning if the issues are relevant 
and important to them.

No Takings Implications

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, and it has been determined 
that the rule does not pose the risk of a taking of Constitutionally 
protected private property. This rule establishes a process for 
amending and revising land and resource management plans for national 
forests and grasslands. Several respondents commented that the proposed 
regulations would impose ``takings'' of private property. After careful 
review of the proposed and final regulations, the Department finds that 
there are no ``takings'' implications by this rule. As stated 
previously, the rule establishes a process and only applies to national 
forests and grasslands, not private property.

Civil Justice Reform Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil 
Justice Reform. As adopted, (1) all state and local laws and 
regulations that are in conflict with this rule or which would impede 
its full implementation are to be

[[Page 67567]]

preempted; (2) no retroactive effect is given to this rule; and (3) it 
does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file 
suit in court challenging its provisions. Several respondents commented 
about the federal government's authority to preempt state and local 
laws. The Department has carefully reviewed this language and finds 
that this is entirely consistent with the legal responsibilities of the 
federal government.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

    The President signed into law on March 22, 1995, direction 
regarding unfunded mandates. The Department has assessed the effects of 
this rule on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private 
sector. This rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or 
more by any state, local, or tribal governments or anyone in the 
private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is 
not required. Several respondents commented that the proposed 
regulations imposed an ``unfunded mandate'' on state and local 
governments. The Department disagrees with this comment. These 
regulations do not impose any mandatory requirements on states, tribes, 
or local governments. These regulations only apply to land and 
management planning for national forests and grasslands. It is 
discretionary for state and local governments and tribes to participate 
in the planning process detailed in this rule.

Environmental Impact

    This rule deals with the development and adoption of Forest Service 
land and resource management plan decisions as well as procedures for 
developing site-specific decisions that may include decisions regarding 
the occupancy and use of National Forest System land. An environmental 
assessment has been completed with a finding of no significant impact. 
Several respondents asked why the Forest Service did not prepare an 
environmental impact statement. As stated previously, the Department 
prepared an environmental assessment consistent with the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The environmental assessment prepared by the 
Forest Service includes a Cost-Benefit Analysis and Civil Rights Impact 
Analysis. The environmental assessment can be obtained by contacting: 
Director, Ecosystem Management and Coordination, Forest Service, USDA, 
P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090, (202) 205-1697. Subsequent 
NEPA documents will be written when land and resource management plans 
and site-specific plans are undertaken.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the information collection or reporting requirements 
included in the rule have been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) and assigned control number 0596-0158.
    Section 219.32 Objections and Appeals would establish a new process 
for citizens and groups to object to a forest plan amendment or 
revision decision. Instead of appealing a decision after it is made 
under the rules of 36 CFR part 217, the rule would allow interested and 
affected persons and groups to file an objection before the decision is 
made. The final rule also includes a provision for other parties to 
participate in the objection process. The objection process should be 
open and inclusive of all parties. In addition, language has been added 
to the final rule that provides for objectors and other parties to 
participate in meetings with the reviewing officer to discuss their 
concerns regarding a proposed plan amendment or revision. This is an 
opportunity for all parties to explore possible resolution of their 
concerns with the responsible official.
    The rule sets out the information that an objector would need to 
provide in order to file an objection to a proposed decision. This 
information is the same information that is currently required by the 
rules at 36 CFR part 217, which provides post-decisional administrative 
appeal and review of land and resource management plan decisions. An 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB initialed number.
    The agency received comments on this section for the proposed 
regulation. Respondents indicated that language in the proposed rule 
was nebulous and confusing. There were concerns stated for replacing 
the appeal process with a pre-decisional objection process and 
including site-specific decisions in the land and resource management 
plan. Respondents said that the direction for analysis and 
documentation would not reduce paperwork under the proposed rule.
    The language in the final rule clarifies the language used in the 
proposed rule. The new objection process replaces the paperwork 
required in the appeal process with upfront discussions until the 
objection is resolved. Site-specific decisions are required to be 
identified in the two-year budgetary documentation of the Land and 
Resource Management Plan and be consistent with the planning processes. 
Site-specific decisions will continue to be conducted consistent with 
applicable NEPA procedures.

Use of Comments--Federalism

    The agency has considered this rule under the requirements of 
Executive Order 12612 and made a preliminary assessment that the rule 
will 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. Therefore, the agency has determined that no further 
assessment on federalism implications is necessary at this time. In 
addition, the agency has reviewed the consultation requirements under 
Executive Order 13132, which is effective on November 2, 1999. This 
Order calls for enhanced consultation with state and local governmental 
officials and emphasizes increased sensitivity to their concerns. In 
the spirit of these new requirements, the agency consulted with the 
Western Governors' Association and the Natural Resources Committee of 
the National Governors' Association for comments on a draft version of 
the rule. Representatives of the Western Governors' Association 
indicated that the rule fits the principles espoused in their 
organization's ENLIBRA policy, which encourages greater participation 
and collaboration in decisionmaking, focuses on outcomes rather than 
programs only, and recognizes the need for a variety of tools beyond 
regulation that can improve environmental and natural resource 
management. The National Governors' Association also has adopted the 
ENLIBRA policy. Many state and local government representatives 
attended town meetings on the proposed rule. Department representatives 
also met with and shared information about the proposed planning rule 
with the International City and County Management Association, National 
Conference of State Legislators, The Council of State Governments, 
National Association of Counties, Western Governors Association, U.S. 
Conference of Majors, and National League of Cities.
    The rule calls for enhanced collaboration with state and local 
governments. Section 219.14 shows sensitivity to federalism concerns 
from a substantive standpoint. Under the rule, the responsible official 
must provide opportunities for involvement of state and local 
governments in the

[[Page 67568]]

planning process, including opportunities to participate in the 
identification and consideration of issues related to planning.
    Respondents appreciated the consultation required with state and 
local governments in the proposed rule. One respondent felt the role of 
states and local governments was diminished by so much emphasis on 
collaborative relationships with the public. Respondents were concerned 
that public meetings on the proposed rule were not held in more local 
communities. In the context of planning activities, there was concern 
that this was the province of the city and county governments and that 
the Forest Service should not promote community organization around a 
set of agency determined goals.

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 217

    Administrative practice and procedure, National forests.

36 CFR Part 219

    Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact 
statements, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Forest and forest 
products, National forests, Natural resources, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Science and technology.
    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the 
authority of 16 U.S.C. 551, chapter II of title 36 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 217--[REMOVED]

    1. Remove Part 217.

    2. Revise Part 219 to read as follows:

PART 219--PLANNING

Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning

Purpose and Principles

Sec.
219.1  Purpose.
219.2  Principles.

The Framework for Planning

219.3  Overview.
219.4  Identification and consideration of issues.
219.5  Information development and interpretation.
219.6  Proposed actions.
219.7  Plan decisions.
219.8  Amendment.
219.9  Revision.
219.10  Site-specific decisions.
219.11  Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability

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

Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability

219.19  Ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
219.20  Ecological sustainability.
219.21  Social and economic sustainability.

The Contribution of Science

219.22  The overall role of science in planning.
219.23  The role of science in assessments, analyses, and 
monitoring.
219.24  Science consistency evaluations.
219.25  Science advisory boards.

Special Considerations

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

Planning Documentation

219.30  Plan documentation.
219.31  Maintenance of the plan and planning records.

Objections and Appeals

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

Applicability and Transition

219.34  Applicability.
219.35  Transition.

Definitions

219.36  Definitions.
Subpart B--[Reserved]

Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management 
Planning

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; and Secs. 6 and 15, 90 Stat. 2949, 
2952, 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613).

Purpose and Principles


Sec. 219.1  Purpose.

    (a) Land and resource management planning guides how the Forest 
Service will fulfill its stewardship of the natural resources of the 
National Forest System to fulfill the designated purposes of the 
national forests and grasslands and honor their unique place in 
American life. The regulations in this subpart set forth a process for 
amending and revising land and resource management plans, hereafter 
referred to as plans, for the National Forest System and for monitoring 
the results of plan implementation under the Forest and Rangeland 
Renewable Resources Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq. The regulations in this 
subpart also guide the selection and implementation of site-specific 
actions. The principal authorities governing the development and the 
management of the National Forest System include: the Organic 
Administration Act of 1897, as amended (16 U.S.C. 473 et seq.); the 
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.); the 
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1121 et. seq.); the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the Forest and Rangeland 
Renewable Resource Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.); and the Clean Water 
Act of 1948, as amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987 and other laws (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1323 et seq.).
    (b) The National Forest System constitutes an extraordinary 
national legacy created by people of vision and preserved for future 
generations by diligent and far-sighted public servants and citizens. 
These are the peoples' lands, emblems of the nation's democratic 
traditions.
    (1) The national forests and grasslands provide a wide variety of 
uses, values, products, and services that are important to many people, 
including outdoor recreation, forage, timber, wildlife and fish, 
biological diversity, productive soils, clean air and water, and 
minerals. They also afford intangible benefits such as beauty, 
inspiration, and wonder.
    (2) To assure the continuation of this array of benefits this 
regulation affirms sustainability as the overall goal for stewardship 
of the natural resources of each national forest and grassland 
consistent with the laws that guide management of these lands.
    (3) Sustainability, composed of interdependent ecological, social, 
and economic elements, embodies the principles of multiple-use and 
sustained-yield without impairment to the productivity of the land. 
Sustainability means meeting needs of the present generation without 
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. 
Planning contributes to social and economic sustainability without 
compromising the basic composition, structure, and functioning of 
ecological

[[Page 67569]]

systems. The progress toward achievement of sustainability is assessed 
through monitoring and evaluation.


Sec. 219.2  Principles.

    The planning regulations in this subpart are based on the following 
principles:
    (a) The first priority for planning to guide management of the 
National Forest System is to maintain or restore ecological 
sustainability of national forests and grasslands to provide for a wide 
variety of uses, values, products, and services. The benefits sought 
from these lands depend upon long-term ecological sustainability. 
Considering increased human uses, it is essential that uses of today do 
not impair the functioning of ecological processes and the ability of 
these natural resources to contribute to sustainability in the future.
    (1) Planning provides the guidance for maintaining or restoring the 
diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capacity 
of ecological systems, the core elements of ecological sustainability.
    (2) Planning is based on science and other knowledge, including the 
use of scientifically based strategies for sustainability and benefits 
from independent scientific peer review.
    (3) Planning is based on the temporal and spatial scales necessary 
for sustainability.
    (4) Planning includes the monitoring and evaluation of the 
achievement of goals.
    (b) Planning contributes to social and economic sustainability by 
providing for a wide variety of uses, values, products, and services 
without compromising the basic composition, structure, and function of 
ecological systems.
    (1) Planning recognizes and fosters a broad-based understanding of 
the interdependence of national forests and grasslands with economies 
and communities.
    (2) Planning fosters strategies and actions that provide for human 
use in ways that contribute to long-term sustainability.
    (c) Planning is efficiently integrated into the broader geographic, 
legal, and social landscape within which national forests and 
grasslands exist. Other agencies, governments, corporations, and 
citizens manage land in and around the national forests and grasslands. 
Planning, therefore, is outward looking with the goal of understanding 
the broader landscape in which the national forests and grasslands lie.
    (1) Planning fosters coordination among all affected federal 
agencies.
    (2) Planning proceeds in close cooperation with state, tribal, and 
local governments.
    (3) Planning recognizes the rights of American Indian tribes and 
Alaska Natives.
    (4) Planning is interdisciplinary, providing analyses and options 
that are responsive to a broad range of ecological, social, and 
economic.
    (5) Planning acknowledges the limits and variability of likely 
budgets.
    (d) Planning meaningfully engages the American people in the 
stewardship of their national forests and grasslands. Just as the 
Forest Service can help the American people learn about the limits and 
capabilities of the national forests and grasslands, managers also 
should be guided by the knowledge and values of the American people.
    (1) Planning encourages extensive collaborative citizen 
participation and builds upon the human resources in local communities 
and throughout the nation.
    (2) Planning actively seeks and addresses key issues and promotes a 
shared vision of desired conditions.
    (3) Planning and plans are understandable.
    (4) Planning restores and maintains the trust of the American 
people in the management of the national forests and grasslands.
    (e) Planning is an ongoing process, where decisions are adapted, as 
necessary, to address new issues, new information, and unforeseen 
events.
    (1) Planning is innovative and practical.
    (2) Planning is expeditious and efficient in achieving goals.
    (f) Planning seeks to manage National Forest System resources in a 
combination that best serves the public interest without impairment of 
the productivity of the land consistent with the Multiple-Use 
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.

The Framework for Planning


Sec. 219.3  Overview.

    (a) The planning framework. Land and resource management planning 
is a flexible process for fitting solutions to the scope and scale of 
needed action. Planning, conducted according to the planning framework 
outlined in Secs. 219.3-219.11, involves engaging the public 
(Secs. 219.12-219.18) and applying the best available science 
(Secs. 219.22-219.25) to contribute to sustainability (Secs. 219.19-
219.21) in the use and enjoyment of National Forest System lands.
    (b) Levels of planning. Planning may be undertaken at the national, 
regional, national forest or grassland, and/or ranger district 
administrative levels depending on the scope and scale of issues.
    (1) The Chief of the Forest Service is responsible for national 
planning. National planning includes the Forest Service national 
strategic plan required under the Government Performance and Results 
Act of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 306, 31 U.S.C. 1115-1119 and 9703-9704) that 
establishes national long-term goals, outcome measures, and strategies 
to be considered in managing the National Forest System and the 
Resources Planning Act Program (16 U.S.C. 1600).
    (2) The Forest or Grassland Supervisor is the responsible official 
for a plan amendment or revision, except to the extent the Regional 
Forester or Chief decides to act as the responsible official.
    (3) When appropriate, two or more Forest or Grassland Supervisors, 
one or more Regional Foresters, or the Chief of the Forest Service may 
undertake planning which may amend or revise one or more plans.
    (4) The Chief of the Forest Service, Regional Foresters, National 
Forest and Grassland Supervisors, or District Rangers may authorize and 
implement site-specific actions.
    (c) An interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to planning. An 
interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to planning may be achieved 
by engaging the skills and interests of appropriate combinations of 
Forest Service staff, consultants, contractors, other federal agencies, 
states, American Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, or local government 
personnel, or other interested or affected people consistent with 
applicable laws.
    (d) Key elements. The planning cycle begins with the identification 
and consideration of issues and concludes with the monitoring and 
evaluation of results. Based upon the scope and scale of issues, 
planning includes one or more of the following key elements:
    (1) Identification and consideration of issues (Sec. 219.4);
    (2) Information development and interpretation (Sec. 219.5);
    (3) Proposed actions (Sec. 219.6);
    (4) Plan decisions (Sec. 219.7);
    (5) Amendment (Sec. 219.8);
    (6) Revision (Sec. 219.9);
    (7) Site-specific decisions (Sec. 219.10); and
    (8) Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management 
(Sec. 219.11).


Sec. 219.4  Identification and consideration of issues.

    (a) Origination of issues. Issues may originate from a variety of 
sources including, but are not limited to:

[[Page 67570]]

inventories, assessments, analyses, monitoring and evaluation of 
projects; discussions among people and proposals by organizations or 
governments interested in or affected by National Forest System 
management; Presidential, Departmental, and Forest Service conservation 
leadership initiatives; cooperatively developed landscape goals 
(Sec. 219.12(b)); evaluation of sustainability (Sec. 219.9(b)(4)); 
enactment of new laws; policies such as the Forest Service national 
strategic plan; and applications for authorization for occupancy and 
use of National Forest System lands.
    (b) Consideration of issues. The responsible official has the 
discretion to determine, at any time, whether and to what extent an 
issue is appropriate for consideration.
    (1) In making this determination, the responsible official should 
consider:
    (i) The scope, complexity, and geographic scale of potential 
actions that may address an issue;
    (ii) Statutory requirements;
    (iii) Organizational and community capabilities and available 
resources, including current and likely Forest Service budgets;
    (iv) The scientific basis and merit of available data and analyses;
    (v) The relationship of possible actions to the Forest Service 
national strategic plan, other existing plans, adopted conservation 
strategies, biological opinions, or other strategies applicable within 
all or a portion of the plan area; and
    (vi) The opinions of interested or affected individuals, 
organizations, or other entities and the social and cultural values 
related to an issue.
    (2) The responsible official should consider the extent to which 
addressing the issue relates to or provides:
    (i) Opportunities to contribute to the achievement of cooperatively 
developed landscape goals;
    (ii) Opportunities for the national forests and grasslands to 
contribute to the restoration or maintenance of ecological 
sustainability, including maintenance or restoration of watershed 
function, such as water flow regimes to benefit aquatic resources, 
groundwater recharge, municipal water supply, or other uses, and 
maintaining or restoring ecological conditions needed for ecosystem and 
species diversity;
    (iii) Opportunities for the national forests or grasslands to 
contribute to social and economic sustainability;
    (iv) Opportunities to recover threatened or endangered species and 
maintain or restore their habitat;
    (v) The potential for negative environmental effects, including 
human health, economic and social effects, upon minority and low income 
communities;
    (vi) Opportunities to maintain or restore ecological conditions 
that are similar to the biological and physical range of expected 
variability (Sec. 219.20(b)(1)); and
    (vii) Opportunities to contribute to knowledge about and 
preservation of historic and cultural resources.


Sec. 219.5  Information development and interpretation.

    If the responsible official determines an issue should receive 
consideration, the responsible official should review relevant 
information such as inventories, broad-scale assessments, local 
analyses, or monitoring results to determine if additional information 
is desirable and if it can be obtained at a reasonable cost and in a 
timely manner. The responsible official, at his or her discretion, may 
choose the methods and determine the scope of information development 
and interpretation for an issue under consideration. A broad-scale 
assessment or a local analysis may be developed or supplemented if 
appropriate to the scope and scale of an issue. Broad-scale 
assessments, local analyses, monitoring results, and other studies are 
not site-specific or plan decisions or proposals for agency action 
(Sec. 219.6(a)) subject to Forest Service NEPA procedures.
    (a) Broad-scale assessments. Broad-scale assessments provide 
information regarding ecological, economic, or social issues that are 
broad in geographic scale, sometimes crossing Forest Service regional 
administrative boundaries. Ecological information and analyses that may 
be provided in an assessment are addressed in Sec. 219.20(a). Social 
and economic information and analyses that may be provided in an 
assessment are addressed in Sec. 219.21(a).
    (1) Broad-scale assessment should provide the following as 
appropriate:
    (i) Findings and conclusions that describe historic conditions, 
current status, and future trends of ecological, social, and/or 
economic conditions, their relationship to sustainability, and the 
principal factors contributing to those conditions and trends. The 
responsible official may use these findings and conclusions to identify 
other issues (Sec. 219.4), develop proposals for action (Sec. 219.6), 
or for other purposes.
    (ii) Identification of needs for additional research to develop new 
information or address conflicting interpretations of existing 
information.
    (2) Station Directors and Regional Foresters must have joint 
responsibility for Forest Service participation in broad-scale 
assessments. Each broad-scale assessment should be designed and 
conducted with the assistance of scientists, resource professionals, 
governmental entities, and other individuals and organizations 
knowledgeable of the assessment area.
    (b) Local analyses. Local analyses provide ecological, social, or 
economic information as deemed appropriate by the responsible official. 
Local analyses may cover watersheds, ecological units, and social and 
economic units, and may tier to or provide information to update a 
broad-scale assessment. Local analyses should provide the following, as 
appropriate:
    (1) Characterization of the area of analysis;
    (2) Description of issues within the analysis area;
    (3) Description of current conditions;
    (4) Description of likely future conditions;
    (5) Synthesis and interpretation of information; and
    (6) Recommendations for proposals (Sec. 219.6(a)) or identification 
of other issues (Sec. 219.4).


Sec. 219.6  Proposed actions.

    (a) Proposal. The responsible official may propose to amend or 
revise a plan, propose a site-specific action, or both.
    (b) NEPA requirements. Unless otherwise provided by law, the 
responsible official must analyze the effects of the proposal and 
alternative(s) in conformance with Forest Service NEPA procedures. The 
responsible official may use issues identified and information reviewed 
pursuant to Secs. 219.4-219.5 for scoping required in Forest Service 
NEPA procedures.


Sec. 219.7  Plan decisions.

    Plan decisions guide or limit uses of National Forest System 
resources and provide the basis for future agency action. Plan 
decisions link the requirements of laws, regulations, Executive Orders, 
policies, and the Forest Service national strategic plan to specific 
national forests and grasslands. While plan decisions generally do not 
commit resources to a site-specific action, plan decisions provide a 
framework for authorizing site-specific actions that may commit 
resources. In making decisions, the responsible official should seek to 
manage National Forest System resources in a combination that best 
serves the public interest without impairment of the productivity of 
the land consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. 
Plan decisions may apply to all or part of a plan area. Paragraphs (a)

[[Page 67571]]

through (e) of this section describe the decisions in a plan.
    (a) Desired resource conditions. These plan decisions define the 
resource conditions sought within all or portions of the plan area. 
Desired resource conditions may include, but are not limited to, the 
desired watershed and ecological conditions and aquatic and terrestrial 
habitat characteristics.
    (b) Objectives. These plan decisions are concise statements 
describing measurable results intended to contribute to sustainability 
(Sec. 219.19), including a desired level of uses, values, products, and 
services, assuming current or likely budgets and considering other 
spending levels as appropriate. Objectives include an estimate of the 
time and resources needed for their completion.
    (c) Standards. These plan decisions are the requirements and 
limitations for land uses and management actions necessary for the 
achievement of desired conditions and objectives and compliance with 
applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and policies. Standards 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Limitations on even-aged timber harvest methods;
    (2) Maximum size openings from timber harvest;
    (3) Methods for achieving aesthetic objectives by blending the 
boundaries of vegetation treatments; and
    (4) Other requirements to achieve multiple-use of the national 
forests and grasslands.
    (d) Designation of suitable land uses. These plan decisions 
identify lands within the National Forest System that are or are not 
suitable for specific uses (Sec. 219.26), including, but not limited 
to: the transportation system; livestock grazing; special designations 
as described in Sec. 219.27; and lands where timber production is an 
objective (Sec. 219.28).
    (e) Monitoring strategy. A monitoring strategy is required by each 
plan as described in Sec. 219.11(a).


Sec. 219.8  Amendment.

    (a) Amending plans. A plan amendment may add, modify, or rescind 
one or more of the decisions of a plan (Sec. 219.7). An amendment 
decision must be based on the identification and consideration of 
issues (Sec. 219.4), applicable information (Sec. 219.5), and an 
analysis of the effects of the proposed amendment (Sec. 219.6). In 
developing an amendment, the responsible official must provide 
opportunities for collaboration consistent with Sec. 219.12 through 
Sec. 219.18.
    (b) Environmental review of a proposed plan amendment. For each 
proposal for a plan amendment, the responsible official must complete 
appropriate environmental analyses and public involvement in accordance 
with Forest Service NEPA procedures. A proposed amendment that may 
create a significant environmental effect and thus require preparation 
of an environmental impact statement is considered to be a significant 
change in the plan. If a proposal for amendment requires the 
preparation of an environmental impact statement, the responsible 
official must give public notice and an opportunity to comment on the 
draft environmental impact statement for at least 90 calendar days.


Sec. 219.9  Revision.

    (a) Application of the revision process. Revision of a plan is 
required by 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5). The revision process is a review of 
the overall management of a unit of the National Forest System and an 
opportunity to consider the likely results if plan decisions were to 
remain in effect.
    (b) Initiating revision. To begin the revision process, the 
responsible official must:
    (1) Provide opportunities for collaboration consistent with 
Sec. 219.12 through Sec. 219.18;
    (2) Summarize those issues the responsible official determines to 
be appropriate for consideration (Sec. 219.4), any relevant 
inventories, new data, findings and conclusions from appropriate broad-
scale assessments and local analyses, monitoring and evaluation 
results, new or revised Forest Service policies, relevant portions of 
the Forest Service national strategic plan, and changes in 
circumstances affecting the entire or significant portions of the plan 
area;
    (3) Develop the information and complete the analyses described in 
Sec. 219.20(a) and Sec. 219.21(a);
    (4) Evaluate the effectiveness of the current plan in contributing 
to sustainability (Secs. 219.19-219.21) based on the information, 
analyses, and requirements described in Sec. 219.20(a) and (b) and 
Sec. 219.21(a) and (b), and provide for an independent scientific peer 
review (Sec. 219.22) of the evaluation;
    (5) Identify new proposals for special areas, special designation, 
or for recommendation as wilderness (Sec. 219.27);
    (6) Identify specific watersheds in need of protective or 
restoration measures;
    (7) Identify lands classified as not suitable for timber production 
(Sec. 219.28);
    (8) Identify and evaluate inventoried roadless areas and unroaded 
areas based on the information, analyses, and requirements in 
Sec. 219.20(a) and Sec. 219.21(a). During the plan revision process or 
at other times as deemed appropriate, the responsible official must 
determine which inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas warrant 
additional protection and the level of protection to be afforded; and
    (9) Develop an estimate of outcomes that would be anticipated, 
including uses, values, products, or services, for a 15-year period 
following initiation of the revision process, if the plan decisions in 
effect at the time the revision process began remain in effect.
    (c) Public notice of revision process and review of information. 
After the responsible official has compiled the information required 
under paragraph (b) of this section, the responsible official must give 
public notice of the plan revision process and make the information 
compiled under paragraph (b) of this section available for public 
comment for at least 45 calendar days.
    (d) Notice of Intent. Based upon the information compiled under 
paragraph (b) of this section and any comments received during the 
comment period required under paragraph (c) of this section, the 
responsible official must publish a Notice of Intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement to add, modify, remove, or continue in 
effect the decisions embodied in a plan. The responsible official must 
give the public notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft 
environmental impact statement for at least 90 calendar days. Following 
public comment, the responsible official must oversee preparation of a 
final environmental impact statement in accordance with Forest Service 
NEPA procedures.
    (e) Final decision on plan revision. The revision process is 
completed when the responsible official signs a record of decision for 
a plan revision.


Sec. 219.10  Site-specific decisions.

    To the extent appropriate and practicable and subject to valid 
existing rights and appropriate statutes, the responsible official must 
provide opportunities for collaboration consistent with Sec. 219.12 
through Sec. 219.18, follow the planning framework described in 
Secs. 219.4-219.6 and comply with Sec. 219.11 to make site-specific 
decisions. All site-specific decisions, including authorized uses of 
land, must be consistent with the applicable plan. If a proposed site-
specific decision is not consistent with the applicable plan, the 
responsible official may modify the proposed decision to make it 
consistent

[[Page 67572]]

with the plan, reject the proposal; or amend the plan to authorize the 
action.


Sec. 219.11  Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management.

    (a) Plan monitoring strategy. Each plan must contain a practicable, 
effective, and efficient monitoring strategy to evaluate sustainability 
in the plan area (Secs. 219.19-219.21). The strategy must require 
monitoring of appropriate plan decisions and characteristics of 
sustainability.
    (1) Monitoring and evaluation of ecological sustainability. The 
plan monitoring strategy for the monitoring and evaluation of 
ecological sustainability must require monitoring of:
    (i) Ecosystem diversity. Monitoring must be used to evaluate the 
status and trend of selected physical and biological characteristics of 
ecosystem diversity (Sec. 219.20(a)(1)). The plan monitoring strategy 
must document the reasons for selection of characteristics to be 
monitored, monitoring objectives, methodology, and designate critical 
values that will prompt reviews of plan decisions.
    (ii) Species diversity. Monitoring must be used to evaluate focal 
species and species-at-risk as follows:
    (A) The status and trends of ecological conditions known or 
suspected to support focal species and selected species-at-risk must be 
monitored. The plan monitoring strategy must document the reasons for 
the selection of species-at-risk for which ecological conditions are to 
be monitored, including the degree of risk to the species, the factors 
that put the species at risk, and the strength of association between 
ecological conditions and population dynamics.
    (B) In addition to monitoring of ecological conditions, the plan 
monitoring strategy may require population monitoring for some focal 
species and some species-at-risk. This monitoring may be accomplished 
by a variety of methods including population occurrence and presence/
absence data, sampling population characteristics, using population 
indices to track relative population trends, or inferring population 
status from ecological conditions.
    (C) A decision by the responsible official to monitor populations 
and the responsible official's choice of methodologies for monitoring 
selected focal species and selected species-at-risk may be based upon 
factors that include, but are not limited to, the degree of risk to the 
species, the degree to which a species' life history characteristics 
lend themselves to monitoring, the reasons that a species is included 
in the list of focal species or species-at-risk, and the strength of 
association between ecological conditions and population dynamics. 
Monitoring of population trend is often appropriate in those cases 
where risk to species viability is high and population characteristics 
cannot be reliably inferred from ecological conditions. The reasons for 
selection of species, monitoring objectives, and methodologies must be 
documented as part of the plan monitoring strategy. Critical values 
that will prompt reviews of plan decisions must be designated in the 
monitoring strategy.
    (iii) Monitoring effectiveness. As a part of the plan monitoring 
strategy, the responsible official must evaluate the effectiveness of 
selected characteristics of ecosystem diversity and species diversity 
in providing reliable information regarding ecological sustainability.
    (2) Monitoring and evaluation of social and economic 
sustainability. The plan monitoring strategy for the monitoring and 
evaluation of social and economic sustainability should provide for 
periodic review of national, regional, and local supply and demand for 
products, services, and values. Special consideration should be given 
to those uses, values, products, and services that the National Forest 
System is uniquely poised to provide. Monitoring should improve the 
understanding of the National Forest System contributions to social and 
economic sustainability. The plan monitoring strategy must require the 
responsible official to evaluate the effectiveness of information and 
analyses described in Sec. 219.21(a) in providing reliable information 
regarding social and economic sustainability.
    (b) Monitoring of site-specific actions. The decision document 
authorizing a site-specific action should describe any required 
monitoring and evaluation for the site-specific action. The responsible 
official must determine that there is a reasonable expectation that 
anticipated funding is adequate to complete any required monitoring and 
evaluation prior to authorizing a site-specific action.
    (c) Monitoring methods. Unless required by the monitoring strategy, 
monitoring methods may be changed to reflect new information without 
plan amendment or revision.
    (d) Use of monitoring information. Where monitoring and evaluation 
is required by the plan monitoring strategy, the responsible official 
must ensure that monitoring information is used to determine one or 
more of the following:
    (1) If site-specific actions are completed as specified in 
applicable decision documents;
    (2) If the aggregated outcomes and effects of completed and ongoing 
actions are achieving or contributing to the desired conditions;
    (3) If key assumptions identified for monitoring in plan decisions 
remain valid; and
    (4) If plan or site-specific decisions need to be modified.
    (e) Coordination of monitoring activities. To the extent 
practicable, monitoring and evaluation should be conducted jointly with 
other federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, 
scientific and academic communities, and others. In addition, the 
responsible official must provide appropriate opportunities for the 
public to be involved and utilize scientists as described in 
Sec. 219.23.
    (f) Annual monitoring and evaluation report. The responsible 
official must prepare a monitoring and evaluation report for the plan 
area within 6 months following the end of each fiscal year. The report 
must be maintained with the plan documents (Sec. 219.30(d)(5)), and 
include the following:
    (1) A list or reference to monitoring required by the plan; and
    (2) A summary of the results of monitoring and evaluation performed 
during the preceding fiscal year and appropriate results from previous 
years. The summary must include:
    (i) A description of the progress toward achievement of desired 
conditions within the plan area; and
    (ii) A description of the plan area's contribution to the 
achievement of applicable outcomes of the Forest Service national 
strategic plan.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability


Sec. 219.12  Collaboration and cooperatively developed landscape goals.

    (a) Collaboration. To promote sustainability, the responsible 
official must actively engage the American public, interested 
organizations, private landowners, state, local, and Tribal 
governments, federal agencies, and others in the stewardship of 
National Forest System lands. To engage people in the stewardship of 
National Forest System lands, the responsible official may assume many 
roles, such as leader, organizer, facilitator, or participant. The 
responsible official must provide early and frequent opportunities for 
people to participate openly and meaningfully in planning taking into 
account the diverse roles, jurisdictions, and responsibilities of 
interested and affected organizations,

[[Page 67573]]

groups, and individuals. The responsible official has the discretion to 
determine how to provide these opportunities in the planning process.
    (b) Cooperatively developed landscape goals. (1) The responsible 
official and other Forest Service employees involved in planning must 
invite and encourage others to engage in the collaborative development 
of landscape goals. Using information from broad-scale assessments or 
other available information, and subject to applicable laws, the 
responsible official may initiate or join ongoing collaborative efforts 
to develop or propose landscape goals for areas that include National 
Forest System lands.
    (2) During collaborative efforts, responsible officials and other 
Forest Service employees, must communicate and foster understanding of 
the nation's declaration of environmental policy as set forth in 
section 101(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 4321-4347), which states that it is the continuing 
responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, 
consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to 
improve and coordinate federal plans, functions, programs, and 
resources to the end that the Nation may--
    (i) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of 
the environment for succeeding generations;
    (ii) Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and 
esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
    (iii) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment 
without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and 
unintended consequences;
    (iv) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of 
our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment 
which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice;
    (v) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which 
will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's 
amenities; and
    (vi) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the 
maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
    (3) Cooperatively developed landscape goals, whether the result of 
efforts initiated by the Forest Service or others, must be deemed an 
issue for the purposes under Sec. 219.4.


Sec. 219.13  Coordination among federal agencies.

    The responsible official must provide early and frequent 
coordination with appropriate federal agencies and may provide 
opportunities:
    (a) For interested or affected federal agencies to participate in 
the identification of issues and formulation of proposed actions;
    (b) For the streamlined coordination of federal agency policies, 
resource management plans, or programs; and
    (c) The development, where appropriate and practicable, of joint 
resource management plans.


Sec. 219.14  Involvement of state and local governments.

    The responsible official must provide early and frequent 
opportunities for state and local governments to:
    (a) Participate in the planning process, including the 
identification of issues; and
    (b) Contribute to the streamlined coordination of resource 
management plans or programs.


Sec. 219.15  Interaction with American Indian tribes and Alaska 
Natives.

    (a) The Forest Service shares in the federal government's overall 
trust responsibility for federally recognized American Indian tribes 
and Alaska Natives.
    (b) During planning, the responsible official must consider the 
government-to-government relationship between American Indian or Alaska 
Native tribal governments and the federal government.
    (c) The responsible official must consult with and invite American 
Indian tribes and Alaska Natives to participate in the planning process 
to assist in:
    (1) The early identification of treaty rights, treaty-protected 
resources, and American Indian tribe trust resources;
    (2) The consideration of tribal data and resource knowledge 
provided by tribal representatives; and
    (3) The consideration of tribal concerns and suggestions during 
decisionmaking.


Sec. 219.16  Relationships with interested individuals and 
organizations.

    The responsible official must:
    (a) Make planning information available to the extent allowed by 
law;
    (b) Conduct planning processes that are fair, meaningful, and open 
to persons with diverse opinions;
    (c) Provide early and frequent opportunities for participation in 
the identification of issues;
    (d) Encourage interested individuals and organizations to work 
collaboratively with one another to improve understanding and develop 
cooperative landscape and other goals;
    (e) Consult with individuals and organizations who can provide 
information about current and historic public uses within an assessment 
or plan area, about the location of unique and sensitive resources and 
values and cultural practices related to issues in the plan area; and
    (f) Consult with scientific experts and other knowledgeable 
persons, as appropriate, during consideration of collaboratively 
developed landscape goals and other activities.


Sec. 219.17  Interaction with private landowners.

    The responsible official must seek to collaborate with those who 
have control or authority over lands adjacent to or within the external 
boundaries of national forests or grasslands to identify:
    (a) Local knowledge;
    (b) Potential actions and partnership activities;
    (c) Potential conditions and activities on the adjacent lands that 
may affect management of National Forest System lands, or vice versa; 
and
    (d) Issues (Sec. 219.4).


Sec. 219.18  Role of advisory committees.

    (a) Advisory committees. Advisory committees can provide an 
immediate, representative, and predictable structure within which 
public dialogue can occur and the Forest Service can develop 
relationships with diverse communities of interests. The responsible 
official may seek the assistance or advice from a committee, consistent 
with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
app.) in determining whether there is a reasonable basis to propose an 
action to address an issue. Each Forest or Grassland Supervisor must 
have access to an advisory committee with knowledge of local conditions 
and issues, although an advisory committee is not required for each 
national forest or grassland. Responsible officials may request 
establishment of advisory committees and recommend members to the 
Secretary of Agriculture. Advisory committees used by other agencies 
may be utilized through proper agreements.
    (b) Participation in other types of community-based groups. When 
appropriate, the responsible official should consider participating in 
community-based groups organized for a variety of public purposes, 
particularly those groups organized to develop landscape goals 
(Sec. 219.12(b)).

Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability


Sec. 219.19  Ecological, social, and economic sustainability.

    Sustainability, composed of interdependent ecological, social, and

[[Page 67574]]

economic elements, embodies the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 
1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) without impairment to the productivity of 
the land and is the overall goal of management of the National Forest 
System. The first priority for stewardship of the national forests and 
grasslands is to maintain or restore ecological sustainability to 
provide a sustainable flow of uses, values, products, and services from 
these lands.


Sec. 219.20  Ecological sustainability.

    To achieve ecological sustainability, the responsible official must 
ensure that plans provide for maintenance or restoration of ecosystems 
at appropriate spatial and temporal scales determined by the 
responsible official.
    (a) Ecological information and analyses. Ecosystem diversity and 
species diversity are components of ecological sustainability. The 
planning process must include the development and analysis of 
information regarding these components at a variety of spatial and 
temporal scales. These scales include geographic areas such as 
bioregions and watersheds, scales of biological organization such as 
communities and species, and scales of time ranging from months to 
centuries. Information and analyses regarding the components of 
ecological sustainability may be identified, obtained, or developed 
through a variety of methods, including broad-scale assessments and 
local analyses (Sec. 219.5), and monitoring results (Sec. 219.11). For 
plan revisions, and to the extent the responsible official considers 
appropriate for plan amendments or site-specific decisions, the 
responsible official must develop or supplement the following 
information and analyses related to ecosystem and species diversity:
    (1) Characteristics of ecosystem and species diversity. 
Characteristics of ecosystem and species diversity must be identified 
for assessing and monitoring ecological sustainability. In general, 
these identified characteristics should be consistent at various scales 
of analyses.
    (i) Ecosystem diversity. Characteristics of ecosystem diversity 
include, but are not limited to:
    (A) Major vegetation types. The composition, distribution, and 
abundance of the major vegetation types and successional stages of 
forest and grassland systems; the prevalence of invasive or noxious 
plant or animal species.
    (B) Water resources. The diversity, abundance, and distribution of 
aquatic and riparian systems including streams, stream banks, coastal 
waters, estuaries, groundwater, lakes, wetlands, shorelines, riparian 
areas, and floodplains; stream channel morphology and condition, and 
flow regimes.
    (C) Soil resources. Soil productivity; physical, chemical and 
biological properties; soil loss; and compaction.
    (D) Air resources. Air quality, visibility, and other air resource 
values.
    (E) Focal species. Focal species that provide insights to the 
larger ecological systems with which they are associated.
    (ii) Species diversity. Characteristics of species diversity 
include, but are not limited to, the number, distribution, and 
geographic ranges of plant and animal species, including focal species 
and species-at-risk that serve as surrogate measures of species 
diversity. Species-at-risk and focal species must be identified for the 
plan area.
    (2) Evaluation of ecological sustainability. Evaluations of 
ecological sustainability must be conducted at the scope and scale 
determined by the responsible official to be appropriate to the 
planning decision. These evaluations must describe the current status 
of ecosystem diversity and species diversity, risks to ecological 
sustainability, cumulative effects of human and natural disturbances, 
and the contribution of National Forest System lands to the ecological 
sustainability of all lands within the area of analysis.
    (i) Evaluation of ecosystem diversity. Evaluations of ecosystem 
diversity must include, as appropriate, the following:
    (A) Information about focal species that provide insights to the 
integrity of the larger ecological system to which they belong.
    (B) A description of the biological and physical properties of the 
ecosystem using the characteristics identified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) 
of this section.
    (C) A description of the principal ecological processes occurring 
at the spatial and temporal scales that influence the characteristic 
structure and composition of ecosystems in the assessment or analysis 
area. These descriptions must include the distribution, intensity, 
frequency, and magnitude of natural disturbance regimes of the current 
climatic period, and should include other ecological processes 
important to ecological sustainability, such as nutrient cycling, 
migration, dispersal, food web dynamics, water flows, and the 
identification of the risks to maintaining these processes. These 
descriptions may also include an evaluation of the feasibility of 
maintaining natural ecological processes as a tool to contribute to 
ecological sustainability.
    (D) A description of the effects of human activities on ecosystem 
diversity. These descriptions must distinguish activities that had an 
integral role in the landscape's ecosystem diversity for a long period 
of time from activities that are of a type, size, or rate that were not 
typical of disturbances under which native plant and animal species and 
ecosystems developed.
    (E) An estimation of the range of variability of the 
characteristics of ecosystem diversity, identified in paragraph 
(a)(l)(i) of this section, that would be expected under the natural 
disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. The current values 
of these characteristics should be compared to the expected range of 
variability to develop insights about the current status of ecosystem 
diversity.
    (F) An evaluation of the effects of air quality on ecological 
systems including water.
    (G) An estimation of current and foreseeable future Forest Service 
consumptive and non-consumptive water uses and the quantity and quality 
of water needed to support those uses and contribute to ecological 
sustainability.
    (H) An identification of reference landscapes to provide for 
evaluation of the effects of actions.
    (ii) Evaluations of species diversity. Evaluations of species 
diversity must include, as appropriate, assessments of the risks to 
species viability and the identification of ecological conditions 
needed to maintain species viability over time based on the following:
    (A) The viability of each species listed under the Endangered 
Species Act as threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed species 
must be assessed. Individual species assessments must be used for these 
species.
    (B) For all other species, including other species-at-risk and 
those species for which there is little information, a variety of 
approaches may be used, including individual species assessments and 
assessments of focal species or other indicators used as surrogates in 
the evaluation of ecological conditions needed to maintain species 
viability.
    (C) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, 
for species groups that contain many species, assessments of 
functional, taxonomic, or habitat groups rather than individual species 
may be appropriate.
    (D) In analyzing viability, the extent of information available 
about species, their habitats, the dynamic nature of ecosystems and the 
ecological conditions needed to support them must

[[Page 67575]]

be identified. Species assessments may rely on general conservation 
principles and expert opinion. When detailed information on species 
habitat relationships, demographics, genetics, and risk factors is 
available, that information should be considered.
    (b) Plan decisions. When making plan decisions that will affect 
ecological sustainability, the responsible official must use the 
information developed under paragraph (a) of this section. The 
following requirements must apply at the spatial and temporal scales 
that the responsible official determines to be appropriate to the plan 
decision:
    (1) Ecosystem diversity. Plan decisions affecting ecosystem 
diversity must provide for maintenance or restoration of the 
characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure within the range 
of variability that would be expected to occur under natural 
disturbance regimes of the current climatic period in accordance with 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, in 
situations where ecosystem composition and structure are currently 
within the expected range of variability, plan decisions must maintain 
the composition and structure within the range.
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section, 
where current ecosystem composition and structure are outside the 
expected range of variability, plan decisions must provide for 
measurable progress toward ecological conditions within the expected 
range of variability.
    (iii) Where the range of variability cannot be practicably defined, 
plan decisions must provide for measurable progress toward maintaining 
or restoring ecosystem diversity. The responsible official must use 
independently peer-reviewed scientific methods other than the expected 
range of variability to maintain or restore ecosystem diversity. The 
scientific basis for such alternative methods must be documented in 
accordance with (Secs. 219.22-219.25).
    (iv) Where the responsible official determines that ecological 
conditions are within the expected range of variability and that 
maintaining ecosystem composition and structure within that range is 
ecologically, socially or economically unacceptable, plan decisions may 
provide for ecosystem composition and structure outside the expected 
range of variability. In such circumstances, the responsible official 
must use independently peer-reviewed scientific methods other than the 
expected range of variability to provide for the maintenance or 
restoration of ecosystem diversity. The scientific basis for such 
alternative methods must be documented in accordance with 
(Secs. 219.22-219.25).
    (v) Where the responsible official determines that ecological 
conditions are outside the expected range of variability and that it is 
not practicable to make measurable progress toward conditions within 
the expected range of variability, or that restoration would result in 
conditions that are ecologically, socially or economically 
unacceptable, plan decisions may provide for ecosystem composition and 
structure outside the expected range of variability. In such 
circumstances, the responsible official must use independently peer-
reviewed scientific methods other than the expected range of 
variability to provide for the maintenance or restoration of ecosystem 
diversity. The scientific basis for such alternative methods must be 
documented (Secs. 219.22-219.25).
    (2) Species diversity. (i) Plan decisions affecting species 
diversity must provide for ecological conditions that the responsible 
official determines provide a high likelihood that those conditions are 
capable of supporting over time the viability of native and desired 
non-native species well distributed throughout their ranges within the 
plan area, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)-(iv) of this 
section. Methods described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section may 
be used to make the determinations of ecological conditions needed to 
maintain viability. A species is well distributed when individuals can 
interact with each other in the portion of the species range that 
occurs within the plan area. When a plan area occupies the entire range 
of a species, these decisions must provide for ecological conditions 
capable of supporting viability of the species and its component 
populations throughout that range. When a plan area encompasses one or 
more naturally disjunct and self-sustaining populations of a species, 
these decisions must provide ecological conditions capable of 
supporting over time viability of each population. When a plan area 
encompasses only a part of a population, these decisions must provide 
ecological conditions capable of supporting viability of that 
population well distributed throughout its range within the plan area.
    (ii) When conditions outside the authority of the agency prevent 
the agency from providing ecological conditions that provide a high 
likelihood of supporting over time the viability of native and desired 
non-native species well distributed throughout their ranges within the 
plan area, plan decisions must provide for ecological conditions well 
distributed throughout the species range within the plan area to 
contribute to viability of that species.
    (iii) Where species are inherently rare or not naturally well 
distributed in the plan area, plan decisions should not contribute to 
the extirpation of the species from the plan area and must provide for 
ecological conditions to maintain these species considering their 
natural distribution and abundance.
    (iv) Where environmental conditions needed to support a species 
have been so degraded that it is technically infeasible to restore 
ecological conditions that would provide a high likelihood of 
supporting viability, plan decisions must provide for ecological 
conditions to contribute to supporting over time viability to the 
degree practicable.
    (3) Federally listed threatened and endangered species. (i) Plan 
decisions must provide for implementing actions in conservation 
agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National 
Marine Fisheries Service that provide a basis for not needing to list a 
species. In some situations, conditions or events beyond the control or 
authority of the agency may limit the Forest Service's ability to 
prevent the need for federal listing. Plan decisions should reflect the 
unique opportunities that National Forest System lands provide to 
contribute to recovery of listed species.
    (ii) Plan decisions involving species listed under the Endangered 
Species Act must include, at the scale determined by the responsible 
official to be appropriate to the plan decision, reasonable and prudent 
measures and associated terms and conditions contained in final 
biological opinions issued under 50 CFR part 402. The plan decision 
documents must provide a rationale for adoption or rejection of 
discretionary conservation recommendations contained in final 
biological opinions.


Sec. 219.21  Social and economic sustainability.

    To contribute to economic and social sustainability, the 
responsible official involves interested and affected people in 
planning for National Forest System lands (Secs. 219.12-219.18), 
provides for the development and consideration of relevant social and 
economic information and analyses, and a range of uses, values, 
products, and services.

[[Page 67576]]

    (a) Social and economic information and analyses. To understand the 
contribution national forests and grasslands make to the economic and 
social sustainability of local communities, regions, and the nation, 
the planning process must include the analysis of economic and social 
information at variable scales, including national, regional, and local 
scales. Social analyses address human life-styles, cultures, attitudes, 
beliefs, values, demographics, and land-use patterns, and the capacity 
of human communities to adapt to changing conditions. Economic analyses 
address economic trends, the effect of national forest and grassland 
management on the well-being of communities and regions, and the net 
benefit of uses, values, products, or services provided by national 
forests and grasslands. Social and economic analyses should recognize 
that the uses, values, products, and services from national forests and 
grasslands change with time and the capacity of communities to 
accommodate shifts in land uses change. Social and economic analyses 
may rely on quantitative, qualitative, and participatory methods for 
gathering and analyzing data. Social and economic information may be 
developed and analyzed through broad-scale assessments and local 
analyses (Sec. 219.5), monitoring results (Sec. 219.11), or other 
means. For plan revisions, and to the extent the responsible official 
considers to be appropriate for plan amendments or site-specific 
decisions, the responsible official must develop or supplement the 
information and analyses related to the following:
    (1) Describe and analyze, as appropriate, the following:
    (i) Demographic trends; life-style preferences; public values; 
land-use patterns; related conservation and land use policies at the 
state and local level; cultural and American Indian tribe and Alaska 
Native land settlement patterns; social and cultural history; social 
and cultural opportunities provided by national forest system lands; 
the organization and leadership of local communities; community 
assistance needs; community health; and other appropriate social and 
cultural information;
    (ii) Employment, income, and other economic trends; the range and 
estimated long-term value of market and non-market goods, uses, 
services, and amenities that can be provided by national forest system 
lands consistent with the requirements of ecological sustainability, 
the estimated cost of providing them, and the estimated effect of 
providing them on regional and community well-being, employment, and 
wages; and other appropriate economic information. Special attention 
should be paid to the uses, values, products, or services that the 
Forest Service is uniquely poised to provide;
    (iii) Opportunities to provide social and economic benefits to 
communities through natural resource restoration strategies;
    (iv) Other social or economic information, if appropriate, to 
address issues being considered by the responsible official 
(Sec. 219.4).
    (2) Analyze community or region risk and vulnerability. Risk and 
vulnerability analyses assess the vulnerability of communities from 
changes in ecological systems as a result of natural succession or 
potential management actions. Risk may be considered for geographic, 
relevant occupational, or other related communities of interest. 
Resiliency and community capacity should be considered in a risk and 
vulnerability analysis. Risk and vulnerability analysis may also 
address potential consequences to communities and regions from land 
management changes in terms of capital availability, employment 
opportunities, wage levels, local tax bases, federal revenue sharing, 
the ability to support public infrastructure and social services, human 
health and safety, and other factors as necessary and appropriate.
    (b) Plan decisions. When making plan decisions that will affect 
social or economic sustainability, the responsible official must use 
the information analyses developed in paragraph (a) of this section. 
Plan decisions contribute to social and economic sustainability by 
providing for a range of uses, values, products, and services, 
consistent with ecological sustainability.

The Contribution of Science


Sec. 219.22  The overall role of science in planning.

    (a) The responsible official must ensure that the best available 
science is considered in planning. The responsible official, when 
appropriate, should acknowledge incomplete or unavailable information, 
scientific uncertainty, and the variability inherent in complex 
systems.
    (b) When appropriate and practicable and consistent with applicable 
law, the responsible official should provide for independent, 
scientific peer reviews of the use of science in planning. Independent, 
scientific peer reviews are conducted using generally accepted 
scientific practices that do not allow individuals to participate in 
the peer reviews of documents they authored or co-authored.


Sec. 219.23  The role of science in assessments, analyses, and 
monitoring.

    (a) Broad-scale assessments. If the Forest Service is leading a 
broad-scale assessment, the assessment must be led by a Chief Scientist 
selected by the Deputy Chief of Research and Development. When 
appropriate and practicable, a responsible official may provide for 
independent, scientific peer review of the findings and conclusions 
originating from a broad-scale assessment. Independent, scientific peer 
review may be provided by scientists from the Forest Service, other 
federal, state, or tribal agencies, or other institutions.
    (b) Local analyses. Though not required, a responsible official may 
include scientists in the development or technical reviews of local 
analyses and field reviews of the design and selection of subsequent 
site-specific actions.
    (c) Monitoring. (1) The responsible official must include 
scientists in the design and evaluation of monitoring strategies. 
Additionally, the responsible official must provide for an independent, 
scientific peer review of plan monitoring on at least a biennial basis 
to validate adherence to appropriate protocols and methods in 
collecting and processing of monitoring samples and to validate that 
data are summarized and interpreted properly.
    (2) When appropriate and practicable, the responsible official 
should include scientists in the review of monitoring data and 
analytical results to determine trends relative to ecological, 
economic, or social sustainability.


Sec. 219.24  Science consistency evaluations.

    (a) The responsible official must ensure that plan amendments and 
revisions are consistent with the best available science. The 
responsible official may use a science advisory board (Sec. 219.25) to 
assist in determining whether information gathered, evaluations 
conducted, or analyses and conclusions reached in the planning process 
are consistent with the best available science. If the responsible 
official decides to use a science advisory board, the board and the 
responsible official are to jointly establish criteria for the science 
advisory board and the responsible official to use in reviewing the 
consistency of proposed plan amendments and revisions with the best 
available science.
    (b) The science advisory board is responsible for organizing and 
conducting a scientific consistency evaluation to determine the 
following:

[[Page 67577]]

    (1) If relevant scientific (ecological, social, or economic) 
information has been considered by the responsible official in a manner 
consistent with current scientific understanding at the appropriate 
scales;
    (2) If uncertainty of knowledge has been recognized, acknowledged, 
and adequately documented; and
    (3) If the level of risk in achievement of sustainability is 
acknowledged and adequately documented by the responsible official.
    (c) If substantial disagreement among members of the science 
advisory board or between the science advisory board and the 
responsible official is identified during a science consistency 
evaluation, a summary of such disagreement should be noted in the 
appropriate environmental documentation within Forest Service NEPA 
procedures.


Sec. 219.25  Science advisory boards.

    (a) National science advisory board. The Forest Service Deputy 
Chief for Research and Development must establish, convene, and chair a 
science advisory board to provide scientific advice on issues 
identified by the Chief of the Forest Service. Board membership must 
represent a broad range of scientific disciplines including, but not 
limited to, the physical, biological, economic, and social sciences.
    (b) Regional science advisory boards. Based upon needs identified 
by Regional Forester(s) or Research Station Director(s), the Forest 
Service Research Station Director(s), should establish and convene 
science advisory boards consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. app.) to provide advice to one or more Regional Foresters 
regarding the application of science in planning and decisionmaking for 
National Forest System lands. At least one regional science advisory 
board must be available for each national forest and grassland. The 
Station Director(s) must chair the board or appoint a chair of such 
boards. The geographical boundaries of the boards need not align with 
National Forest System Regional boundaries. Board membership must 
represent a broad range of science disciplines including, but not 
limited to, the physical, biological, economic, and social sciences. 
Regional science advisory board tasks may include, but are not limited, 
to:
    (1) Evaluating significance and relevance of new information 
related to current plan decisions, including the results of monitoring 
and evaluation; and
    (2) Evaluating science consistency as described in Sec. 219.24.
    (c) Work groups. With the concurrence of the appropriate chair and 
subject to available funding, the national or regional science advisory 
boards may convene work groups to study issues and provide 
recommendations.

Special Considerations


Sec. 219.26  Identifying and designating suitable uses.

    National forests and grasslands are suitable for a wide variety of 
public uses, such as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, timber 
harvest, off-road vehicle travel, or other uses except where lands are 
determined to be unsuited for a particular use. Lands are not suited 
for a particular use if that use: is prohibited by law, regulation, or 
Executive Order; is incompatible with the mission or policies of the 
National Forest System; or would result in substantial and permanent 
impairment of the productivity of the land. Through a plan amendment or 
revision, the responsible official may determine whether specific uses 
may begin, continue, or terminate within the plan area. Planning 
documents should describe or display lands suitable for various uses in 
areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic 
adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions.


Sec. 219.27  Special designations.

    The Forest Service may recommend special designations to higher 
authorities or, to the extent permitted by law, adopt special 
designations through plan amendment or revision. Special designations 
are areas within the National Forest System that are identified for 
their unique or special characteristics and include the following:
    (a) Congressionally designated areas. Congressionally designated 
areas may include, but are not limited to, wilderness, wild and scenic 
rivers, national trails, scenic areas, recreation areas, and monuments. 
These nationally significant areas must be managed as required by 
Congress and may have specific requirements for their management.
    (b) Wilderness area reviews. Unless federal statute directs 
otherwise, all undeveloped areas that are of sufficient size as to make 
practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired condition must 
be evaluated for recommended wilderness designation during the plan 
revision process. These areas may be evaluated at other times as 
determined by the responsible official.
    (c) Administratively designated areas. Administratively designated 
areas may include, but are not limited to, critical watersheds, 
research natural areas, national monuments, geological areas, 
inventoried roadless areas, unroaded areas, motorized and non-motorized 
recreation areas, botanical areas, and scenic byways.


Sec. 219.28  Determination of land suitable for timber harvest.

    (a) Lands where timber may not be harvested. The plan must identify 
lands within the plan area where timber may not be harvested. These 
lands include:
    (1) Lands where timber harvest would violate statute, Executive 
Order, or regulation and those lands that have been withdrawn from 
timber harvest by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the 
Forest Service;
    (2) Lands where technology is not available for conducting timber 
harvesting without causing irreversible damage to soil, slope, or other 
watershed conditions or produce substantial and permanent impairment of 
the productivity of the land; and
    (3) Lands where there are no assurances that such lands can be 
adequately restocked within 5 years after harvest;
    (b) Lands where timber may be harvested for timber production. The 
responsible official may establish timber production as a multiple-use 
plan objective for lands not identified in paragraph (a) of this 
section if the costs of timber production are justified by the 
ecological, social, or economic benefits considering physical, 
economic, and other pertinent factors to the extent feasible. Lands 
where timber production is not established as a plan objective are 
deemed not suited for timber production. These lands must be reviewed 
by the responsible official at least once every 10 years, or as 
prescribed by law, to determine their suitability for timber production 
considering physical, economic, and other pertinent factors to the 
extent feasible. Based on this review, timber production may be 
established as a plan objective for these lands through amendment or 
revision of the plan.
    (c) Lands where timber may be harvested for other multiple-use 
values. Except for lands identified in paragraph (a) of this section, 
timber may be harvested from land where timber production is not 
established as a plan objective if, based on a site-specific analysis, 
the responsible official determines and documents that such timber 
harvest would contribute to achievement of desired conditions and 
ecological sustainability, and is necessary to protect multiple-use 
values other than timber production.

[[Page 67578]]

Sec. 219.29  Limitation on timber harvest.

    (a) Estimate of the limitation of timber harvest. The responsible 
official must estimate the amount of timber that can be sold annually 
in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis from National Forest System 
lands other than those identified in Sec. 219.28(a). This estimate must 
be based on the yield of timber that can be removed consistent with 
achievement of objectives or desired conditions in the applicable plan. 
In those cases where a national forest has less than 200,000 acres of 
forested land identified in lands other than those in Sec. 219.28(a), 
two or more national forests may be combined for the purpose of 
estimating amount of timber that can be sold annually on a sustained-
yield basis. Estimations for lands where timber production is 
established as a plan objective Sec. 219.28(b) and estimations for 
lands identified in Sec. 219.28(c) cannot be combined.
    (b) Limitation of timber harvest. The responsible official must 
limit the sale of timber from the lands where timber production is an 
objective and from other lands to a quantity equal to or less than that 
estimated in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Exceptions to limitations of timber harvest. For purposes of 
limiting the sale of timber, the responsible official may sell timber 
from areas that are substantially affected by fire, wind, or other 
events, or for which there is an imminent threat from insects or 
disease, and may either substitute such timber for timber that would 
otherwise be sold or, if not feasible, sell such timber over and above 
the plan limit established in paragraph (b) of this section. If 
departure from the quantity of timber removal established in paragraph 
(b) of this section is necessary to meet overall multiple-use 
objectives, the requirements in 16 U.S.C. 1611 must be followed.

Planning Documentation


Sec. 219.30  Plan documentation.

    A plan is a repository of documents that integrates and displays 
the desired conditions, objectives, standards, and other plan decisions 
that apply to a unit of the National Forest System. The plan also 
contains maps, monitoring and evaluation results, the annual monitoring 
and evaluation report, and other information relevant to how the plan 
area is to be managed. Planning documents should be clear, 
understandable, and readily available for public review. Plan documents 
should be updated through amendments, revision, and routine maintenance 
(Sec. 219.31). Plan documents include, at a minimum, the following:
    (a) A summary of the plan. The summary is a concise description of 
the plan that includes a summary of the plan decisions and a 
description of the plan area and appropriate planning units. The 
summary should include a brief description of the ecological, social, 
and economic environments within the plan area and the overall strategy 
for maintenance or restoration of sustainability, including desired 
conditions and objectives for their achievement. The summary also 
includes appropriate maps, a description of the transportation system, 
utility corridors, land ownership patterns and proposed land ownership 
adjustments, charts, figures, photographs, and other information to 
enhance understanding.
    (b) Display of public uses. The plan documents must identify the 
suitability of the plan area for various uses (Sec. 219.26) such as 
recreation uses, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and mineral 
developments. The plan documents must identify land where timber may 
not be harvested and where timber production is an objective 
(Sec. 219.28). The plan documents also must describe the limitations on 
the removal of timber (Sec. 219.29) and the standards for timber 
harvest and regeneration methods (Sec. 219.7(c)).
    (c) Plan decisions. The plan documents must display or describe the 
plan decisions (Sec. 219.7).
    (d) Display of actions and outcomes. The plan documents must also 
contain:
    (1) An annually updated list or other display of proposed, 
authorized, and completed actions to achieve desired conditions and 
objectives within the plan area;
    (2) A 2-year schedule, updated annually, of anticipated outcomes 
which may include anticipated uses, values, products, or services based 
on an estimate of Forest Service budget and capacity to perform the 
identified program of work. The estimate of Forest Service budget and 
capacity should be based on recent funding levels;
    (3) A 2-year summary, updated annually, of the actual outcomes 
which may include specific uses, values, products, or services provided 
as a result of completed site-specific actions;
    (4) A projected range of outcomes which may include anticipated 
uses, values, products, and services for the next 15 years, assuming 
current or likely budgets while considering other spending levels as 
appropriate. These projections are estimates and as such often contain 
a high degree of uncertainty; they are intended to describe expected 
progress in achieving desired conditions and objectives within the plan 
area. The projections are to be updated during revision of each plan;
    (5) A description of the monitoring strategy to occur in the plan 
area and the annual monitoring and evaluation report; and
    (6) A summary of the projected program of work, updated annually, 
including costs for inventories, assessments, proposed and authorized 
actions, and monitoring. The projected program of work must be based on 
reasonably anticipated funding levels. Reasonably anticipated funding 
levels should be based on recent funding levels. The plan documents 
must also include a description of the total current-year budget, 
funded actions, projections for future budgets over the next 2 years; 
and a display of the budget trends over at least the past 5 years.
    (e) Other components. A plan must contain or reference a list of 
materials, Forest Service policies, and decisions used in forming plan 
decisions. The information should include, but is not limited to, lists 
of previous decision and environmental documents, assessments, 
conservation agreements and strategies, biological opinions, 
inventories, administrative studies, monitoring results, and research 
relevant to adoption of plan decisions.


Sec. 219.31  Maintenance of the plan and planning records.

    (a) Each National Forest or Grassland Supervisor must maintain a 
complete set of the planning documents required under Sec. 219.30 that 
constitute the plan for the unit. The set of documents must be readily 
available to the public using appropriate and relevant technology.
    (b) The following administrative corrections and additions may be 
made at any time, are not plan amendments or revisions, and do not 
require public notice or the preparation of an environmental document 
under Forest Service NEPA procedures:
    (1) Corrections and updates of data and maps;
    (2) Updates to activity lists and schedules as required by 
Sec. 219.30(d)(1)-(6);
    (3) Corrections of typographical errors or other non-substantive 
changes; and
    (4) Changes in monitoring methods other than those required in a 
monitoring strategy (Sec. 219.11(c)).

Objections and Appeals


Sec. 219.32  Objections to amendments or revisions.

    (a) Any person may object to a proposed amendment or revision

[[Page 67579]]

prepared under the provisions of this subpart, except for an amendment 
or revision proposed by the Chief. The objection must be filed within 
30 calendar days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency 
publishes the notice of availability of a final environmental impact 
statement regarding a proposed amendment or revision in the Federal 
Register, or within 30 calendar days of the publication of a public 
notice of a proposed amendment not requiring preparation of an 
environmental impact statement. Within ten days after the close of the 
objection period, the Responsible Official shall publish notice of all 
objections in the local newspaper of record. An objection must be filed 
with the reviewing officer identified in the notice and contain:
    (1) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person 
filing the objection;
    (2) A specific statement of the basis for each objection; and
    (3) A description of the objector's participation in the planning 
process for the proposed amendment or revision, including a copy of any 
relevant documents submitted during the planning process.
    (b) Objectors may request meetings with the reviewing officer and 
the responsible official to discuss the objection, to narrow the 
issues, agree on facts, and explore opportunities for resolution. The 
reviewing officer must allow other interested persons to participate in 
such meetings. An interested person must file a request to participate 
in an objection within ten days after publication of the notice of 
objection as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) The reviewing officer must respond, in writing, to an objection 
within a reasonable period of time and may respond to all objections in 
one response. The reviewing officer's response regarding an objection 
is the final decision of the Department of Agriculture.
    (d) The responsible official may not approve a proposed amendment 
or revision until the reviewing officer has responded to all 
objections. A decision by the responsible official approving an 
amendment or revision must be consistent with the reviewing officer's 
response to objections to the proposed amendment or revision.
    (e) Where the Forest Service is a participant in a multi-agency 
decision subject to objection under this subpart, the responsible 
official and reviewing officer may waive the objection procedures of 
this subpart to adopt the administrative review procedure of another 
participating federal agency, if the responsible official and the 
responsible official of the other agencies agree to provide a joint 
response to those who have filed for administrative review of the 
multi-agency decision.
    (f) The information collection requirements of this section have 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned 
control number 0596-0158.


Sec. 219.33  Appeals of site-specific decisions.

    If a site-specific decision is proposed in conjunction with a plan 
amendment or revision, a person may object to the proposed plan 
amendment or revision as described in (Sec. 219.32). If a decision is 
made to authorize a site-specific action, a person may request 
administrative review of that decision as described in 36 CFR part 215.

Applicability and Transition


Sec. 219.34  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all units of the 
National Forest System as defined by 16 U.S.C. 1609.


Sec. 219.35  Transition.

    (a) The transition period begins on November 9, 2000 and ends upon 
the completion of the revision process (Sec. 219.9) for each unit of 
the National Forest System. During the transition period, the 
responsible official must consider the best available science in 
implementing and, if appropriate, amending the current plan.
    (b) If, as of November 9, 2000, a plan revision or amendment has 
been initiated under the 1982 planning regulations in effect prior to 
November 9, 2000 (See 36 CFR part 219, revised as of July 1, 2000.) and 
if a notice of availability of a draft environmental impact statement 
or an environmental assessment is published by May 9, 2001 in the 
Federal Register, the responsible official may complete the amendment 
or revision process under the 1982 regulations or adjust the process to 
conform to the provisions of this subpart.
    (c) If a review of lands not suited for timber production is 
required before the completion of the revision process, the review must 
take place as described by the provisions of Sec. 219.28, except as 
provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) Site-specific decisions made by the responsible official 3 
years from November 9, 2000 and afterward must be in conformance with 
the provisions of this subpart.
    (e) Within 1 year of November 9, 2000, the Regional Forester must 
withdraw the regional guide. When a regional guide is withdrawn, the 
Regional Forester must identify the decisions in the regional guide 
that are to be transferred to a regional supplement of the Forest 
Service directive system (36 CFR 200.4) or to one or more plans and 
give notice in the Federal Register of these actions. The transfer of 
direction from a regional guide to a regional supplement of the Forest 
Service directive system or to one or more plans does not constitute an 
amendment, revision, or site-specific action subject to Forest Service 
NEPA procedures.
    (f) Within 3 years after completion of the revision process for a 
unit, the responsible official must complete the first monitoring and 
evaluation report as required in Sec. 219.11(f).
    (g) Within 1 year of November 9, 2000, the Chief of the Forest 
Service must establish a schedule for completion of the revision 
process for each unit of the National Forest System.

Definitions


Sec. 219.36  Definitions.

    Definitions of the special terms used in this subpart are set out 
in alphabetical order in this section as follows:
    Adaptive management: An approach to natural resource management 
wherein the effects of policies, plans, and actions are monitored for 
the purpose of learning and adjusting future management actions. 
Successive iteration of the adaptive process is essential in 
contributing to sustainability.
    Assessment or analysis area: The geographic area included within 
the scope of a broad-scale assessment or local analysis.
    Candidate species: Species identified by the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS), which are considered to be candidates for listing under the 
Endangered Species Act as published in the Federal Register.
    Conservation agreement: A formal agreement between the Forest 
Service and the USFWS and/or NMFS identifying management actions 
necessary to prevent the need to list species under the Endangered 
Species Act.
    Current climatic period: The period of time since establishment of 
the modern major vegetation types, which typically encompass the late 
Holocene Epoch including the present, including likely climatic 
conditions within the planning

[[Page 67580]]

period. The climatic period is typically centuries to millennia in 
length, a period of time that is long enough to encompass the 
variability that species and ecosystems have experienced.
    Desired condition: A statement describing a common vision for a 
specific area of land or type of land within the plan area. Statements 
of desired conditions should include the estimated time required for 
their achievement.
    Desired non-native species: Those species of plants or animals 
which are not indigenous to an area but valued for their contribution 
to species diversity or their high social, cultural or economic value.
    Disturbance regime: Actions, functions, or events that influence or 
maintain the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or 
aquatic ecosystems. Natural disturbances include, among others, 
drought, floods, wind, fires, insects, and pathogens. Human-caused 
disturbances include actions such as recreational use, livestock 
grazing, mining, road construction, timber harvest, and the 
introduction of exotic species.
    Diversity of plant and animal communities: The distribution and 
relative abundance of plant and animal communities and their component 
species occurring within an area.
    Ecological conditions: Components of the biological and physical 
environment that can affect the diversity of plant and animal 
communities, including species viability, and the productive capacity 
of ecological systems. These could include the abundance and 
distribution of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, roads and other 
structural developments, human uses, and invasive and exotic species.
    Ecological sustainability: The maintenance or restoration of the 
composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems including the 
diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capacity 
of ecological systems.
    Ecosystem composition: The plant and animal species and communities 
in the plan area.
    Ecosystem processes: Ecological functions such as photosynthesis, 
energy flow, nutrient cycling, water movement, disturbance, and 
succession.
    Ecosystem structure: The biological and physical attributes that 
characterize ecological systems.
    Focal species: Focal species are surrogate measures used in the 
evaluation of ecological sustainability, including species and 
ecosystem diversity. The key characteristic of a focal species is that 
its status and trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger 
ecological system to which it belongs. Individual species, or groups of 
species that use habitat in similar ways or which perform similar 
ecological functions, may be identified as focal species. Focal species 
serve an umbrella function in terms of encompassing habitats needed for 
many other species, play a key role in maintaining community structure 
or processes, are sensitive to the changes likely to occur in the area, 
or otherwise serve as an indicator of ecological sustainability. 
Certain focal species may be used as surrogates to represent ecological 
conditions that provide for viability of some other species, rather 
than directly representing the population dynamics of those other 
species.
    Forest Service NEPA procedures: The Forest Service policy and 
procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 
chapter V) as described in Chapter 1950 of the Forest Service Manual 
and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Environmental Policy and 
Procedures Handbook (See 36 CFR 200.4 for availability).
    Inherently rare species: A species is inherently rare if it occurs 
in only a limited number of locations, has low population numbers, or 
has both limited occurrences and low population numbers, and those 
conditions are natural characteristics of the life history and ecology 
of the species and not primarily the result of human disturbance.
    Inventoried roadless areas: Areas are identified in a set of 
inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless 
Area Conservation, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, 
dated May 2000, which are held at the National headquarters office of 
the Forest Service, or any subsequent update or revision of those maps.
    Major vegetation types: Plant communities, which are typically 
named after dominant plant species that are characteristic of the 
macroclimate and geology of the region or sub-region.
    Native species: Species of the plant and animal kingdom indigenous 
to the plan area or assessment area.
    Plan area: The geographic area of National Forest System lands 
covered by an individual land and resource management plan. The area 
may include one or more administrative units.
    Productive capacity of ecological systems: The ability of an 
ecosystem to maintain primary productivity including its ability to 
sustain desirable conditions such as clean water, fertile soil, 
riparian habitat, and the diversity of plant and animal species; to 
sustain desirable human uses; and to renew itself following 
disturbance.
    Range of variability: The expected range of variation in ecosystem 
composition, and structure that would be expected under natural 
disturbance regimes in the current climatic period. These regimes 
include the type, frequency, severity, and magnitude of disturbance in 
the absence of fire suppression and extensive commodity extraction.
    Reference landscapes: Places identified in the plan area where the 
conditions and trends of ecosystem composition, structure, and 
processes are deemed useful for setting objectives for desired 
conditions and for judging the effectiveness of plan decisions.
    Responsible official: The officer with the authority and 
responsibility to oversee the planning process and make decisions on 
proposed actions.
    Reviewing officer: The supervisor of the responsible official.
    Social and economic sustainability: Meeting the economic, social, 
aesthetic, and cultural needs and desires of current generations 
without reducing the capacity of the environment to provide for the 
needs and desires of future generations, considering both local 
communities and the nation as a whole. It also involves the capacity of 
citizens to communicate effectively with each other and to make sound 
choices about their environment.
    Species: Any member of the animal or plant kingdom that is 
described as a species in a peer-reviewed scientific publication and is 
identified as a species by the responsible official pursuant to a plan 
decision, and must include all species listed under the Endangered 
Species Act as threatened, endangered, candidate, or proposed for 
listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    Species-at-risk: Federally listed endangered, threatened, 
candidate, and proposed species and other species for which loss of 
viability, including reduction in distribution or abundance, is a 
concern within the plan area. Other species-at-risk may include 
sensitive species and state listed species. A species-at-risk also may 
be selected as a focal species.
    Species viability: A species consisting of self-sustaining and 
interacting populations that are well distributed through the species' 
range. Self-sustaining populations are those that are sufficiently 
abundant and have sufficient diversity to display the array of life 
history strategies and forms to

[[Page 67581]]

provide for their long-term persistence and adaptability over time.
    Successional stages: The different structural and compositional 
phases of vegetation development of forests and grasslands that occur 
over time following disturbances that kill, remove, or reduce 
vegetation and include the major developmental or seral stages that 
occur within a particular environment.
    Timber production: The sustained long-term and periodic harvest of 
wood fiber from National Forest System lands undertaken in support of 
social and economic objectives identified in one or more land and 
resource management plans. For purposes of this regulation, the term 
timber production includes fuel wood.
    Undeveloped areas: Areas, including but not limited to inventoried 
roadless areas and unroaded areas, within national forests or 
grasslands that are of sufficient size and generally untrammeled by 
human activities such that they are appropriate for consideration for 
wilderness designation in the planning process.
    Unroaded areas: Any area, without the presence of a classified 
road, of a size and configuration sufficient to protect the inherent 
characteristics associated with its roadless condition. Unroaded areas 
do not overlap with inventoried roadless areas.

Subpart B--[Reserved]

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Dan Glickman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28580 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-U