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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Parts 217 and 219

RIN 0596–AB20

National Forest System Land 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 sitespecific 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 sitespecific 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 onthe-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

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

67516 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1The 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.

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.

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

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

67518 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 predecisional 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

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

67520 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

67522 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 longterm 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 costbenefit 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

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

67524 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

67526 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 broadscale 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 broadscale 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

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

67528 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 nonnative 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. Offroad 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

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

67530 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 revision, the quality and importance of nine characteristics of

inventoried roadless areas and unroaded

areas must be evaluated.

Section 219.9(b)(8) requires the responsible official to consider inventoried roadless areas and

unroaded areas in all plan revisions and at other times as appropriate through the criteria in

section 219.20(a) and 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 air; and ................

294.13(a)(2) Sources of public drinking water

219.20(a)(1)(i)(B) Water resources: the diversity, abundance, and distribution of aquatic and 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.

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 plant and animal communities.219.20(a)(2)(ii) 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.

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 threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive

species and for those species dependent on

large, undisturbed areas of land.

219.20(a)(2)(ii)(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.

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-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes

of dispersed recreation.

Section 219.27(c) The consideration of recreation-related uses of land is addressed in the

planning framework and within administratively designated areas that may include inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas as well as motorized and non-motorized public

use areas.

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

294.13(a)(7) Landscape character and scenic

integrity.

The consideration of landscapes and scenic integrity is within the development of landscape

goals (section 219.12(b)) and consideration of issues.

294.13(a)(8) Traditional cultural properties and

sacred sites.

219.21(a) 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:

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67531

Proposed roadless rule Final planning rule

294.13(a)(9) Other locally identified unique

characteristics.

219.5 The responsible official, in 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.

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 (§ 219.6(a)) or identification of other issues

(§ 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—Sitespecific 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 sitespecific 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 sitespecific 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

67532 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 sitespecific 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 sitespecific 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

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

67534 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 stopand-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

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

67536 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

American Indian Tribes and Alaska

Natives. It also retains language calling

for collaboration in the early

identification of treaty rights, treatyprotected 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

67538 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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, industryspecific 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

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

67540 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

67542 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 peerreviewed 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.

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

67544 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 shortterm or long-term effects on the

availability of forest products and

services would occur on a forest-byforest 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

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

67546 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 speciesat-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-atrisk. 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 speciesat-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

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

67548 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 sitespecific 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 under list of methods ........ (a) NEPA requirement already exists and 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 and species diversity........................................................................... (a)(1) New language added for clarity.

Ecosystem diversity ............................................ (a)(1), (a)(7), (b)(6), (b)(7) ............................... (a)(1)(i) Soil resource language added to level

of detail consistent with water and air resources.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67549

COMPARISON OF THE COMPONENTS IN SECTION 219.20—Continued

Components Proposed rule Final rule

Species diversity ................................................ (a)(1), (a)(7) ..................................................... (a)(1)(ii).

Evaluation of ecological sustainability ................ (a), (a)(5), (a)(8) ............................................... (a)(2) Language added that describes evaluations of ecological sustainability.

Focus species .................................................... (a)(7)(i) ............................................................. (a)(2)(i)(A).

Biological and physical properties of ecosystems.(a)(1) ................................................................ (a)(2)(i)(B).

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 for soil, water and

air.

(b)(6), (b)(7) ..................................................... (b)(1) Language not retained, requirements included within overall statement.

Identification of reference landscapes ................ (a)(6) ................................................................ (a)(2)(i)(H).

Definitions: Focal species, Species-at-risk ......... (a)(7)(i), (a)(7)(ii) .............................................. Section 219.36, Definitions.

Species viability .................................................. (a)(8)(i) ............................................................. (a)(2)(ii) Situations where risks to viability are

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

Measures of ecological integrity ......................... (a)(8)(ii) ............................................................ Provides for evaluation of a comprehensive

list of physical and biological indicators.

Individual and group species assessments ....... (a)(8)(i) ............................................................. (a)(2)(ii) Language 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 systems ........................ (a)(10), (b)(1) ................................................... Section 219.22.

Consistency of planning level decisions and existing rights and legal requirements.(b) ..................................................................... Section 219.7 adequately describes these requirements.

Plan decision for maintenance or restoration of

ecosystems.

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

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

(b)(1)(iv), when staying within the range is

unacceptable.

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

(b)(1)(v), when staying outside the range is

acceptable.

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

Natural disturbance processes ........................... (b)(3)(iii) ............................................................ (a)(2)(i)(E).

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 species diversity .......... (b)(8), (b)(8)(ii), (b)(8)(iii), (b)(8)(i) replaced by

new language referencing methods.

(b)(2).

Exceptions for plan decisions affecting species

diversity.

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

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

(b)(2)(ii).

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

extirpation and support viability. (b)(2)(iv)

Added to support viability where infeasible

to restore ecological conditions.

Redundancy of habitat to buffer disturbances ... (b)(8)(v) ............................................................ Language not 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 recovery plans .............. (b)(9) ................................................................ (b)(3)(ii) Specific 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

67550 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

67552 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 longterm 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 and affected

people .................................................................

(a) ..................................................................... Opening paragraph references sections

219.12 through 219.18.

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

economic information and analyses for

planning.

Economic effect .................................................. (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(7) .......................................... (a).

Social and economic analyses ........................... (b)(3), (b)(4), (c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1), (d)(2) .......... (a) Adds monitoring results to the list of methods.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67553

COMPARISON OF THE COMPONENTS IN SECTION 219.21—Continued

Components Proposed rule Final rule

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 other economic

trends.

(b)(3–6) ............................................................ (a)(1)(ii) Language 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 strategies ....................... (b)(2) ................................................................ (a)(1)(iii).

Other information ................................................ .......................................................................... (a)(1)(iv) Added to provide for issues being

considered by the responsible official, section 219.4.

Risk and vulnerability analyses .......................... (c)(3), (g) .......................................................... (a)(2).

Evaluate social and economic sustainability ...... .......................................................................... (b) Requires 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

67554 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 nongovernmental 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.

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

67556 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 nonhandicapped 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

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

67558 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67559

other classifications that take into

account forest health harvests or longterm 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

67560 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 longterm 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

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

67562 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 sitespecific decisions as well. Others

believed that the Forest Service must

clarify the relationship between the predecision 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 sitespecific decisions.

Response: While there is merit in

having an objection process for sitespecific 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 sitespecific 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

67564 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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,

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

67566 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 sitespecific 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

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

67568 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

§ 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67569

systems. The progress toward

achievement of sustainability is

assessed through monitoring and

evaluation.

§ 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

§ 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

§§ 219.3–219.11, involves engaging the

public (§§ 219.12–219.18) and applying

the best available science (§§ 219.22–

219.25) to contribute to sustainability

(§§ 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 (§ 219.4);

(2) Information development and

interpretation (§ 219.5);

(3) Proposed actions (§ 219.6);

(4) Plan decisions (§ 219.7);

(5) Amendment (§ 219.8);

(6) Revision (§ 219.9);

(7) Site-specific decisions (§ 219.10);

and

(8) Monitoring and evaluation for

adaptive management (§ 219.11).

§ 219.4 Identification and consideration of

issues.

(a) Origination of issues. Issues may

originate from a variety of sources

including, but are not limited to:

67570 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 (§ 219.12(b)); evaluation

of sustainability (§ 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

(§ 219.20(b)(1)); and

(vii) Opportunities to contribute to

knowledge about and preservation of

historic and cultural resources.

§ 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 broadscale 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

(§ 219.6(a)) subject to Forest Service

NEPA procedures.

(a) Broad-scale assessments. Broadscale 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 § 219.20(a). Social and

economic information and analyses that

may be provided in an assessment are

addressed in § 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 (§ 219.4), develop proposals

for action (§ 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 broadscale 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

(§ 219.6(a)) or identification of other

issues (§ 219.4).

§ 219.6 Proposed actions.

(a) Proposal. The responsible official

may propose to amend or revise a plan,

propose a site-specific action, or both.

(b) NEPA requirements. 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

§§ 219.4–219.5 for scoping required in

Forest Service NEPA procedures.

§ 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)

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

(§ 219.26), including, but not limited to:

the transportation system; livestock

grazing; special designations as

described in § 219.27; and lands where

timber production is an objective

(§ 219.28).

(e) Monitoring strategy. A monitoring

strategy is required by each plan as

described in § 219.11(a).

§ 219.8 Amendment.

(a) Amending plans. A plan

amendment may add, modify, or rescind

one or more of the decisions of a plan

(§ 219.7). An amendment decision must

be based on the identification and

consideration of issues (§ 219.4),

applicable information (§ 219.5), and an

analysis of the effects of the proposed

amendment (§ 219.6). In developing an

amendment, the responsible official

must provide opportunities for

collaboration consistent with § 219.12

through § 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.

§ 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 § 219.12

through § 219.18;

(2) Summarize those issues the

responsible official determines to be

appropriate for consideration (§ 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

§ 219.20(a) and § 219.21(a);

(4) Evaluate the effectiveness of the

current plan in contributing to

sustainability (§§ 219.19–219.21) based

on the information, analyses, and

requirements described in § 219.20(a)

and (b) and § 219.21(a) and (b), and

provide for an independent scientific

peer review (§ 219.22) of the evaluation;

(5) Identify new proposals for special

areas, special designation, or for

recommendation as wilderness

(§ 219.27);

(6) Identify specific watersheds in

need of protective or restoration

measures;

(7) Identify lands classified as not

suitable for timber production

(§ 219.28);

(8) Identify and evaluate inventoried

roadless areas and unroaded areas based

on the information, analyses, and

requirements in § 219.20(a) and

§ 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.

§ 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 § 219.12 through

§ 219.18, follow the planning framework

described in §§ 219.4–219.6 and comply

with § 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

67572 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

with the plan, reject the proposal; or

amend the plan to authorize the action.

§ 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 (§§ 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

(§ 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 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

§ 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 219.4.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 governmentto-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.

§ 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.

§ 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 (§ 219.4).

§ 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 (§ 219.12(b)).

Ecological, Social, and Economic

Sustainability

§ 219.19 Ecological, social, and economic

sustainability.

Sustainability, composed of

interdependent ecological, social, and

67574 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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.

§ 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 (§ 219.5), and monitoring

results (§ 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. Speciesat-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

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

(§§ 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

(§§ 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 (§§ 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 nonnative 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.

§ 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 (§§ 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.

67576 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(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 lifestyles, 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 broadscale assessments and local analyses

(§ 219.5), monitoring results (§ 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 (§ 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

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 (§ 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:

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

§ 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 § 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

§ 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, offroad 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

67578 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 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 § 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

§ 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 § 219.28(b) and estimations for

lands identified in § 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

§ 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 (§ 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

(§ 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

(§ 219.28). The plan documents also

must describe the limitations on the

removal of timber (§ 219.29) and the

standards for timber harvest and

regeneration methods (§ 219.7(c)).

(c) Plan decisions. The plan

documents must display or describe the

plan decisions (§ 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.

§ 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 219.11(c)).

Objections and Appeals

§ 219.32 Objections to amendments or

revisions.

(a) Any person may object to a

proposed amendment or revision

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

§ 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 (§ 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

§ 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.

§ 219.35 Transition.

(a) The transition period begins on

November 9, 2000 and ends upon the

completion of the revision process

(§ 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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

67580 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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. Selfsustaining populations are those that are

sufficiently abundant and have

sufficient diversity to display the array

of life history strategies and forms to

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