[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1023-1061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 219

RIN 0596-AB86


National Forest System Land Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule describes the National Forest System land 
management planning framework; establishes requirements for 
sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems and 
developing, amending, revising, and monitoring land management plans; 
and clarifies that land management plans under this final rule, absent 
extraordinary circumstances, are strategic in nature and are one stage 
in an adaptive cycle of planning for management of National Forest 
System lands. The intended effects of the final rule are to streamline 
and improve the planning process by making plans more adaptable to 
changes in social, economic, and environmental conditions; to 
strengthen the role of science in planning; to strengthen collaborative 
relationships with the public and other governmental entities; and to 
reaffirm the principle of sustainable management consistent with the 
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and other authorities.
    Elsewhere in this part of today's Federal Register, the Department 
of Agriculture is simultaneously publishing another final rule to 
remove the planning regulations adopted on November 9, 2000.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective January 5, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The following information is posted on the World Wide Web/
Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/: (1) This final rule; (2) 
supplemental responses to substantive public comments and a description 
of the changes, if any, made in response to those comments and the 
reasons for those changes to the 2002 proposed rule; (3) the Civil 
Rights Impact Analysis for this final rule; (4) the cost-benefit 
analysis for this final rule; (5) the business model cost study done to 
estimate predicted costs to implement the 2000 planning rule and the 
2002 proposed rule, and (6) the notice of proposed National 
Environmental Policy Act implementing procedures; request for comment. 
This information may also be obtained upon written request from the 
Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Forest Service, 
USDA, Mail Stop 1104, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20250-1104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Barone, Acting Assistant Director 
for Planning; Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (202) 205-1019, 
or Regis Terney, Planning Specialist, Ecosystem Management Coordination 
Staff (202) 205-1552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

1. Forest Service Directives
2. Events Since Publication of the 2002 Proposed Rule
3. Overview of the Final 2004 Rule

    <bullet> Major themes and areas of public comment in the final 
rule.
    <bullet> The strategic nature of land management plans.
    <bullet> Role of science in planning.
    <bullet> Public involvement.
    <bullet> Sustainability.

[[Page 1024]]

    <bullet> Environmental management systems and adaptive 
management.
    <bullet> National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest 
Management Act planning.
    <bullet> Summary.
4. Department Response to Comments on the 2002 Proposed Rule
    <bullet> General Issues.
    <bullet> Issues in Response to a Specific Section.

Section 219.1--Purpose and applicability
Section 219.2--Levels of planning and planning authority
Section 219.3--Nature of land management planning
Section 219.4--National Environmental Policy Act compliance
Section 219.5--Environmental management systems
Section 219.6--Evaluations and monitoring
Section 219.7--Developing, amending, or revising a plan
Section 219.8--Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision
Section 219.9--Public participation, collaboration, and notification
Section 219.10--Sustainability
Section 219.11--Role of science in planning
Section 219.12--Suitable uses and provisions required by NFMA
Section 219.13--Objections to plans, plan amendments, or plan 
revisions
Section 219.14--Effective dates and transition
Section 219.15--Severability
Section 219.16--Definitions

5. Regulatory Certifications

    <bullet> Regulatory Impact.
    <bullet> Environmental Impacts.
    <bullet> Energy Effects.
    <bullet> Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public.
    <bullet> Federalism.
    <bullet> Civil Rights Impact Analysis.
    <bullet> Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments.
    <bullet> No Takings Implications.
    <bullet> Civil Justice Reform.-1
    <bullet> Unfunded Mandates.

1. Forest Service Directives

    The Forest Service is developing planning directives to set forth 
the legal authorities, objectives, policy, responsibilities, direction, 
and overall guidance needed by Forest Service line officers, agency 
employees, and others to use this planning rule. A request for public 
comment on the Forest Service directives will be published in the 
Federal Register as soon as possible after adoption of this final rule.

2. Events Since Publication of the 2002 Proposed Rule

    The 2002 proposed rule was released for public review and comment 
in Volume 67 of the Federal Register, page 72770, December 6, 2002. 
Between February 18-20, 2003, during the comment period, scientists, 
experts in public land management issues, resource professionals, 
Tribal officials, State officials, local government officials, and the 
public participated in a diversity options workshop. In addition, the 
public comment period on the 2002 proposed rule was extended from March 
6, 2003 to April 7, 2003 (68 FR 10420, Mar. 5, 2003). The agency 
received about 195,000 comments, of which approximately 7,000 were 
original letters. All of the substantive comments on the 2002 proposed 
rule were carefully considered and led to a number of changes in this 
final rule.
    Also, interim final rules extending the transition from the 1982 
planning rule to the 2000 planning rule were published in 2001 (66 FR 
27552, May 17, 2001) and 2002 (67 FR 35431, May 20, 2002), the latter 
rule allowing Forest Service managers to elect to continue preparing 
plan amendments and revisions under the 1982 planning rule until a new 
final rule is adopted. Finally, an interim rule was published in 2003 
(68 FR 53294, Sept. 10, 2003) extending the date by which site-specific 
project decisions must conform with provisions of the 2000 planning 
rule until replaced with a new rule. To date, Forest Service officials 
have elected to use the 1982 planning rule for all plan development, 
amendments, and revisions.

3. Overview of the Final 2004 Rule

    This final rule embodies a paradigm shift in land management 
planning based, in part, on the Forest Service's 25 years of experience 
developing plans under the 1982 planning rule. Having assessed the 
current system's flaws and benefits during this extended period, the 
Forest Service believes it is time to think differently about National 
Forest System (NFS) planning and management. Thus, based on the 
agency's expertise and experience, the Forest Service created this 
final rule to enable a better way to protect the environment and to 
facilitate working with the public. The final rule prioritizes agency 
resources to monitoring and, when necessary, provides a process to 
change plans to ensure that clean air, clean water, and abundant 
wildlife are available for future generations. This final rule allows 
the Forest Service to rapidly respond to changing conditions like 
hazardous fuels, new science, and many other dynamics that affect NFS 
management. Protection and management of the NFS should be based on 
sound science, which is fundamental to this final rule.
    This final rule assures the public an effective voice in the entire 
planning process from beginning to end. Finally, because this final 
rule provides for more efficient planning, more resources will be 
shifted to the public's expressed priorities, that is, improved 
conservation of the forests and grasslands and better responses to the 
real threats the forests and grasslands face, such as critical wildfire 
danger and invasive species which degrade ecological systems.
    To achieve these important goals, plans under this final rule will 
be more strategic and less prescriptive in nature than under the 1982 
planning rule. Emphasizing the strategic nature of plans under this 
rule is the most effective means of guiding NFS management in light of 
changing conditions, science and technology. Specifically, plans under 
this final rule will not contain final decisions that approve projects 
or activities except under extraordinary circumstances. Rather, as 
described further below, plans under this final rule will contain five 
components, which set forth broad policies to help guide future 
decisions on the ground: The plan components are desired conditions, 
objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special areas.

Major Themes and Areas of Public Comment in the Final Rule

    The major themes of the final rule discussed in this preamble 
reflect the public comments received on the 2002 proposed rule. This 
final rule sets forth the process for NFS land management planning, 
including the requirements for complying with the National Forest 
Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) during 
development, amendment, and revision of land management plans (plans) 
for NFS units, including the national forests, grasslands, prairie, or 
other comparable administrative units. The Forest Service has prepared 
and revised plans more than 150 times since enactment of NFMA and 
expects to complete more than 100 additional plans and revisions during 
the next decade. The Forest Service has also been amending plans during 
the last 25 years. Based on the experience gained and public comments 
on the 2002 proposed rule, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(Department) has concluded that this final rule should be based on the 
following principles and practical considerations:
    <bullet> Plans should be strategic in nature.
    The purpose of plans should be to establish goals for forests, 
grasslands, and prairies and set forth the guidance to follow in 
pursuit of those goals. Such goals can be expressed by describing: 
desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability or areas, and

[[Page 1025]]

special areas. Typically, a plan does not include final decisions 
approving projects or activities.
    <bullet> Plans must be adaptive and based on current information 
and science.
    During the 15-year life expectancy of a plan, information, science, 
and unforeseen circumstances evolve. It must be possible to adjust 
plans and the plan-monitoring program and to react to new information 
and science swiftly and efficiently. An environmental management system 
(EMS) approach will enhance adaptive planning and should be part of the 
land management framework.
    <bullet> Land management planning must involve the public.
    Plans are prepared for public lands. Public participation and 
collaboration needs to be welcomed and encouraged as a part of 
planning. To the extent possible, Responsible Officials need to work 
collaboratively with the public to help balance conflicting needs, to 
evaluate management under the plans, and to consider the need to adjust 
plans.
    <bullet> Plans must guide sustainable management of NFS lands.
    The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 
528-531) requires that NFS lands be managed to provide a continuous 
flow of goods and services to the nation. To meet this requirement, 
plans must focus on providing a sustainable framework--based on social, 
economic, and ecological systems--that guides on-the-ground management 
of projects and activities, which provide these goods and services.
    <bullet> Planning must comply with all applicable laws, 
regulations, and policies.
    Planning must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and 
policies, although all these requirements do not need to be restated in 
a plan. For example, the Clean Water Act includes requirements for 
nonpoint source management programs, to be administered by the States. 
The States or the Forest Service then develops Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) for use in design of projects or activities on NFS 
lands. BMPs are designed to meet State water quality standards and are 
intended to result in prevention of adverse consequences. Specific BMPs 
do not have to be repeated in the plan to be in effect and applicable 
to National Forest System projects and activities.

The Strategic Nature of Land Management Plans

    Land management plans are strategic in nature. A plan establishes a 
long-term management framework for NFS units. Within that framework, 
specific projects and activities will be proposed, approved, and 
implemented depending on specific conditions and circumstances at the 
time of implementation. The U.S. Supreme Court described the nature of 
NFS plans in Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, (523 U.S. 726, 737 
(1998)) explaining that plans are ``tools for agency planning and 
management.'' The Court recognized that the provisions of such plans 
``do not command anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing 
anything; they do not grant, withhold, or modify any formal legal 
license, power, or authority; they do not subject anyone to any civil 
or criminal liability; they create no legal rights or obligations'' 
(523 U.S. 733 (1998)).
    The Supreme Court also recently recognized the similar nature of 
land management plans for public lands under the jurisdiction of the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance, 124 S.Ct. 2373 (2004). The Supreme Court again observed that 
``land use plans are a preliminary step in the overall process of 
managing public lands--`designed to guide and control future management 
actions and the development of subsequent, more detailed and limited 
scope plans for resources and uses.' '' In addition, ``a land use plan 
is not ordinarily the medium for affirmative decisions that implement 
the agency's `project[ion]s.' '' Like a NFS land management plan, a BLM 
plan typically`` `is not a final implementation decision on actions 
which require further specific plans, process steps, or decisions under 
specific provisions of law and regulations.' '' ``The BLM's * * * land 
use plans are normally not used to make site-specific implementation 
decisions.'' The Supreme Court acknowledged that plans are ``tools by 
which `present and future use is projected' [and] * * * generally a 
statement of priorities,'' 124 S.Ct. 2373 (2004).
    Under the Final Rule, plans will continue to be strategic in 
nature, as described by the Supreme Court in Ohio Forestry and SUWA. As 
described below, the five components of a plan under the Final Rule do 
not authorize project and activity decisions, but rather characterize 
general future conditions and guidance for such decisions. Only in 
extraordinary circumstances will project and activity decisions be 
implemented at the time of a plan development, revision, or amendment.
    <bullet> Planning documentation.
    The final rule requires a Plan Document or Set of Documents to 
contain all information relevant to the planning and EMS processes. A 
Plan Document or Set of Documents includes: (1) Evaluation reports 
that, among other things, document the public involvement process in 
planning; (2) the plan, including applicable maps; (3) the plan 
approval document; (4) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 
documents; (5) the monitoring program for the plan area; (6) documents 
relating to the environmental management system (EMS) established for 
the unit; and (7) documentation of how science was taken into account 
in the planning process.
    <bullet> Plan components.
    The 2002 proposed rule used the term ``management direction'' to 
describe the parts of a plan. This final rule uses the term ``plan 
components'' to describe the elements of the plan pursuant to the final 
rule. How plans are characterized and plan components operate has 
evolved over the years. This evolution has occurred through an ongoing 
evaluation of the role plans play, how plans guide projects, how plans 
by themselves do or do not have impacts on the ground, how current 
plans enable or restrict decisions to respond to changing circumstances 
and science, and how more active and structured monitoring provides 
better information to amend or revise plans as needed. Proposals for 
action to accomplish plan goals and desired conditions, with effects 
that can be meaningfully evaluated and which may be significant, 
generally are made at the project and activity stage.
    Through this evaluation, the agency has concluded that plans are 
more effective if they include more detailed descriptions of desired 
conditions, rather than long lists of prohibitive standards or 
guidelines or absolute suitability determinations developed in an 
attempt to anticipate and address every possible future project or 
activity and the potential effects they could cause. Under this final 
rule, plans have five principal components (Sec.  219.7(a)(2)): desired 
conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special 
areas.
    <bullet> Desired Conditions.
    Desired conditions are the social, economic, and ecological 
attributes toward which management of the land and resources of the 
plan area is to be directed. Desired conditions are long-term in nature 
and aspirational, but are neither commitments nor final decisions 
approving projects and activities. Desired conditions may be achievable 
only over a period longer than the 15 years covered by the plan.
    The increased attention to fire regimes provides an example of the 
role of

[[Page 1026]]

``desired conditions.'' The Forest Service is challenged with unnatural 
fuel levels throughout the NFS. Much of the western United States is 
currently in a severe drought cycle, and fuel reduction is needed. To 
facilitate moving toward a healthier and more natural condition on the 
land, a plan could contain, for example, desired conditions that 
include a description of desired fuel loading, along with a description 
of desired tree species, structure, distribution, and density closer to 
what would have occurred under natural fire regimes.
    The agency, working with the public, also may seek to achieve or 
maintain desired conditions for attributes, such as quietness, or a 
sense of remoteness, or attributes of our cultural heritage. Desired 
conditions also have a key role to play for wildlife habitat 
management. During plan development, it is difficult to envision all 
the site-specific factors that can influence wildlife. For example, in 
the past plans might have included standards precluding vegetation 
treatment during certain months or for a buffer for activities near the 
nest sites of birds sensitive to disturbance during nesting. However, 
topography, vegetation density, or other factors may render such 
prohibitions inadequate or unduly restrictive in specific situations. A 
thorough desired condition description of what a species needs is often 
more useful than a long list of prohibitions. Thorough desired 
condition descriptions are more useful because they provide a better 
starting point for project or activity design, when the site-specific 
conditions are better understood and when species conservation measures 
can be most meaningfully evaluated and effectively applied. Again, a 
description of what the agency, working with the public, wants to 
achieve is key.
    <bullet> Objectives.
    Objectives are concise projections of intended outcomes of projects 
and activities to contribute to maintenance or achievement of desired 
conditions. Objectives are measurable and time-specific and, like 
desired conditions, are aspirational, but are neither commitments nor 
final decisions approving projects and activities. Application of 
objectives is the same as applied under the 1982 planning rule.
    <bullet> Guidelines.
    Guidelines provide information and guidance for the design of 
projects and activities to help achieve objectives and desired 
conditions. Guidelines are not commitments or final decisions approving 
projects and activities. Guidelines should provide the recommended 
technical and scientific specifications to be used in the design of 
projects and activities to contribute to the achievement of desired 
conditions and objectives. They are the guidance that a project or 
activity would normally apply unless there is a reason for deviation. 
If deviation from plan guidelines is appropriate in specific 
circumstances, the rationale for deviation should be based on project 
or activity analysis and explained fully in the project decision 
document. However, deviation does not require an amendment to the plan.
    In the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
1600 et seq.), the terms ``standards'' and ``guidelines'' are both 
used, with no apparent distinction between them with respect to their 
force and effect. In the 1982 planning rule and the first round of 
plans, the two terms were usually written together as ``standards and 
guidelines.'' Some plan revisions have designed mandatory provisions as 
``standards'' and general direction with latitude for implementation as 
``guidelines.'' The 2000 planning rule did not use the term 
``guidelines.'' In the 2000 planning rule, a provision that is labeled 
as a standard could be either mandatory or discretionary depending upon 
its wording and the scope of its requirements.
    The 2002 proposed rule, consistent with the approach in the 2000 
planning rule, continued to use only the term ``standards'' and did not 
use the term ``guidelines.'' However, in line with and to clarify the 
strategic nature of plans, this final rule instead adopts the term 
``guidelines'' and has removed the term ``standards'' as a plan 
component. The Department decided to employ the term ``guideline'' to 
reflect a more flexible menu of choices consistent with the nature of 
plans set forth in this rule.
    In this final rule, guidelines are described as ``information and 
guidance for project and activity decisionmaking.'' Guidelines will not 
contain final decisions approving activities and uses. A Responsible 
Official has the discretion to act within the range of guidelines, as 
well as the latitude to depart from guidelines when circumstances 
warrant it. In the latter case, the Responsible Official should 
document the rationale for taking such exception to guidelines.
    <bullet> Suitability of areas.
    Suitability of areas is the identification of the general 
suitability of an area in an NFS unit for a variety of uses. Areas may 
be identified as generally suitable for uses that are compatible with 
desired conditions and objectives for that area. The identification of 
an area as generally suitable for a use or uses is neither a commitment 
nor a decision approving activities and uses. The suitability of an 
area for a specific use or activity is authorized through project and 
activity decisionmaking.
    Suitable use identification has evolved over time. Suitable use 
identification has often been characterized in plans prepared under the 
1982 planning rule as permanent restrictions on uses or permanent 
determinations that certain uses would be suitable in particular areas 
of the unit over the life of the plan. However, even under the 1982 
planning rule, these identifications were never truly permanent, unless 
they were statutory designations by Congress. It became apparent early 
in implementation of the 1982 planning rule that plan suitability 
identifications, like environmental analysis itself, always 
necessitated site-specific reviews when projects or activities were 
proposed.
    For example, on lands identified as generally suitable for timber 
production, site-specific analysis of a proposal could identify a 
portion of that area as having poor soil or unstable slopes. The 
project design would then exclude such portions of the project area 
from timber harvest. Thus, the final determination of suitability was 
never made until the project or activity analysis and decision process 
was completed. This final rule better characterizes the nature and 
purpose of suitability identification.
    An illustration of the effect of suitability identifications in the 
final rule may be helpful. Under this final rule, a plan may identify 
certain portions of an NFS unit as suitable for some uses. For example, 
some areas of an NFS unit may be suitable for transportation 
development or motorized use. Identification of an area in a plan as 
suitable for transportation development or motorized use does not mean 
that construction of a road is immediately approved or is even 
inevitable. Rather, the identification merely provides guidance for 
where road construction may be considered suitable. Proposed projects 
for construction of a road or roads would be approved after appropriate 
project-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and 
public involvement.
    This final rule, as discussed next in this preamble, also includes 
specific provisions for identification of lands generally suitable for 
timber harvest and identification of lands not suitable for timber 
production as required by NFMA. However, under this final rule, other 
generally suitable uses may be identified in a variety of ways. A land

[[Page 1027]]

management plan may identify all uses that are generally suitable for a 
particular area, may identify the major or most prominent generally 
suitable uses, and/or may identify criteria to be used to determine 
whether a use is compatible with the desired condition of the area.
    <bullet> Special areas.
    Special areas are areas within the NFS designated for their unique 
or special characteristics. These areas include wilderness, wild and 
scenic river corridors, and research natural areas. Some of these areas 
are statutorily designated. Other areas may be designated through plan 
development, amendment, revision, or through a separate administrative 
process with an appropriate NEPA process.
    <bullet> Monitoring.
    The monitoring program is a central element of adaptive management 
planning in this final rule because monitoring is the key to 
discovering how to make project specific decisions consistent with 
objectives and to discovering what ultimately may need to be changed in 
a plan. Experience has shown that while some monitoring programs and 
specific monitoring techniques have been adequate to assess need for 
changes in plans of national forests, grasslands, prairie, or other 
comparable administrative units over time, some have not. New uses, 
such as mountain biking, were not contemplated 25 years ago. Noxious 
weeds can infest a previously pristine landscape. New methods of 
measuring water quality or wildlife habitat can be developed. 
Therefore, a unit's monitoring program must be readily adaptable too. 
Most plans revised under the 1982 planning rule, in fact, have removed 
most monitoring operational details from the plans themselves to allow 
for quicker changes to monitoring when needed.
    The final rule allows the plan's monitoring program to be changed 
with administrative corrections, instead of amendments, to more quickly 
reflect the best available science and account for unanticipated 
changes in conditions. Changes in monitoring programs will be reported 
annually, and the Responsible Official has flexibility to involve the 
public in a variety of ways to develop program changes.
    <bullet> Streamlining the planning rule and use of the Forest 
Service Directive System.
    Part of the strategic and adaptive nature of planning is to make 
the planning rule itself more strategic and adaptive. Therefore, 
procedural and technical details are being moved to the Forest Service 
Directive System (Forest Service directives). Forest Service directives 
are the primary basis for the Forest Service's internal management of 
all its programs and the primary source of administrative direction to 
Forest Service employees. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) contains 
legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, 
instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest 
Service line officers and primary staff to plan and execute programs 
and activities. The Forest Service Handbook (FSH) is the principal 
source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out the 
policies, objectives, and responsibilities contained in the FSM.
    The public will have an opportunity to comment on both the FSM and 
FSH provisions to implement this final rule. The FSH and FSM provisions 
will be issued as soon as possible after release of this final rule. 
Thereafter, the agency will provide the public an opportunity to 
comment on future changes to the adopted provisions where there is 
substantial public interest or controversy concerning the future 
changes.

Role of Science in Planning

    The 2002 proposed rule would have required that Forest Service 
decisions be consistent with the best available science. The final rule 
requires that the Responsible Official take into account the best 
available science (Sec.  219.11). The actual process for taking into 
account science in planning has not changed from the 2002 proposed 
rule. Under the final rule, science, while only one aspect of 
decisionmaking, is a significant source of information for the 
Responsible Official. When making decisions, the Responsible Official 
also considers public input, competing use demands, budget projections, 
and many other factors as well as science.
    The final rule, like the 2002 proposed rule, states that the 
Responsible Official may use independent peer reviews, science advisory 
boards, or other appropriate review methods to evaluate the application 
of science used in the planning process. Specific procedures for 
conducting science reviews will be provided in the Forest Service 
directives.
    The Responsible Official must take into account the best available 
science, and document in the plan that science was considered, 
correctly interpreted, appropriately applied, and evaluate and disclose 
incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and 
risk. This evaluation and disclosure of uncertainty and risk provide a 
crosscheck for appropriate interpretation of science and helps clarify 
the limitations of the information base for the plan.

Public Involvement

    The final rule is similar to the 2002 proposed rule regarding 
public involvement requirements, but the final rule more clearly 
expresses the Department's emphasis on public involvement and 
collaboration. The final rule clarifies requirements regarding public 
involvement in the 2002 proposed rule by consolidating these 
requirements contained in several sections of the 2002 proposed rule 
into Sec.  219.9, which requires consultation with interested 
individuals and organizations, State and local governments, Federal 
agencies, and federally recognized Indian Tribes.
    The Department expects that, compared with prior planning rules, 
this final rule will allow more members of the public to be more 
effectively engaged because development of a plan, plan amendment, or 
plan revision will be simpler, more transparent, and faster. The public 
will have the opportunity to be engaged collaboratively in the 
development, amendment, or revision of a plan, in monitoring and in the 
unit's environmental management system (EMS). In addition, the public 
will have an opportunity to comment on a plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision, and to object prior to approval if concerns remain.
    The final rule requires opportunities for public involvement in the 
unit's land management planning process (Sec.  219.9) and in monitoring 
(Sec.  219.6(b)(3)). In response to public comments on the 2002 
proposed rule, the final rule eliminates the prohibition on the use of 
duplicative materials, such as form letters, when filing an objection 
to a plan, thus removing a perceived barrier to wider public 
participation (Sec.  219.13).
    One of the more important changes in public involvement is how the 
Forest Service will work with the public to collaboratively develop, 
amend, or revise a plan. The Forest Service has found that the 
traditional way of developing plan alternatives under the 1982 planning 
rule was not very useful. The traditional approach of developing and 
choosing among discrete alternatives that were carried throughout the 
entire planning process often proved divisive, because it often 
maintained adversarial positions, rather than helping people seek 
common ground.
    To overcome this tendency, the final rule allows an iterative 
approach to planning. The Department recognizes

[[Page 1028]]

that people have many different ideas about how NFS lands should be 
managed. Furthermore, a plan could potentially include a variety of 
different desired conditions, objectives, identification of potential 
suitable uses, guidelines, and special area designations. The 
Department also recognizes that the public should be involved in 
determining what plan components should be. Therefore, the final rule 
provides for participation and collaboration with the public at all 
stages of plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision.
    The Responsible Official and the public will review the various 
options to respond to the need to change the plan, and together they 
will successively narrow potential options until a proposed plan is 
developed. However, the final rule also recognizes that it is not 
always possible or desirable to present only one proposed plan for 
public comment and, therefore, options to the proposed plan can be 
provided for public comment when appropriate.
    The process for plan development will be transparent to the public. 
Key steps in development of the proposed plan will be documented in the 
Plan Document or Set of Documents, which will be available to the 
public. While the final rule requires the Responsible Official to 
collaborate with the public and that a record of that collaboration be 
kept, it does not require in-depth social, economic, or ecological 
analysis of every potential option for a plan. In-depth analysis, 
documented in an evaluation report, is required only for the proposed 
plan and the options that remain after public collaboration.
    The plan approved by the Responsible Official will be a result of 
public participation and collaboration that will have included 
consideration of a variety of different ways to manage a national 
forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative unit. 
Although the Responsible Official will continue to have the 
responsibility and the authority to make the final decision, the 
proposed plans that the Forest Service will present for public comment 
will be plans jointly and collaboratively developed with the public. 
The Department hopes this approach to plan development will serve to 
encourage people to work together to understand each other and find 
common solutions to the important and critical planning issues the 
agency faces. In summary, the final rule emphasizes collaboration and 
provides for effective public involvement.

Sustainability

    This final rule retains the concept of the interdependent social, 
economic, and ecological elements of sustainability (Sec.  219.10) in 
the 2002 proposed rule. However, the final rule does not include many 
of the specific analytical processes and requirements set out in the 
2002 proposed rule. Appropriate processes will be included in the 
Forest Service directives. The Department believes it is more 
appropriate to put specific procedural analytical requirements in the 
Forest Service directives rather than in the rule itself so that the 
analytical procedures can be changed more rapidly if new and better 
techniques emerge. As for other portions of the Forest Service 
directives, public notice and comment is required where there is 
substantial public interest or controversy.
    As did the 2000 planning rule and the 2002 proposed rule, the final 
rule makes sustainability the overall goal for NFS planning. Managing 
NFS lands for sustainability of their renewable resources meets the 
MUSYA mandate that the Secretary develop and administer the renewable 
surface resources of the National Forests for multiple use and 
sustained yield (16 U.S.C. 529). Managing for sustainability will 
provide for management of the various renewable resources without 
impairment of the productivity of the land, as required by the MUSYA. 
Sustaining the productivity of the land and its renewable resources 
means meeting present needs without compromising the ability of those 
lands and resources to meet the needs of future generations. The final 
rule is similar to the 2002 proposed rule for social and economic 
sustainability requirements. However, as stated, there are changes from 
the 2002 proposed rule for ecological sustainability.
    NFMA requires guidelines for land management plans which provide 
for diversity of plant and animal communities (16 U.S.C. 1604 
(g)(3)(B)) based on the suitability and capability of the land area to 
meet overall multiple-use objectives. Almost 30 years after passage of 
the NFMA, the concepts of biological diversity at different spatial and 
temporal scales, including genetic diversity, species diversity, 
structural diversity, and functional diversity have been substantially 
refined and developed. Today, the agency has a vast array of methods 
available to provide for diversity. The complexity of biological 
diversity often results in a corresponding complicated array of 
concepts, measures, and values from several scientific disciplines.
    The Department developed the final rule based on the following 
concepts related to diversity. First, maintenance of the diversity of 
plant and animal communities starts with an ecosystem approach. In an 
ecosystem approach, the plan will provide a framework for maintaining 
and restoring ecosystem conditions necessary to conserve most species.
    Second, where the Responsible Official determines that the 
ecosystem approach does not provide an adequate framework for 
maintaining and restoring conditions to support specific federally 
listed threatened or endangered species, species-of-concern, and 
species-of-interest, then the plan must include additional provisions 
for these species. This final rule defines species-of-concern as those 
species for which the Responsible Official determine that continued 
existence is a concern and listing under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) may become necessary. This final rule defines species-of-interest 
as those species for which the Responsible Official determines that 
management actions may be necessary or desirable to achieve ecological 
or other multiple-use objectives. Forest Service directives will 
identify lists of species developed by an objective and scientifically 
credible third party, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 
NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/).
    Third, agency managers should concentrate their efforts on 
contributing to the persistence of species where Forest Service 
management activities may affect species rather than on species 
management where the cause of species decline is outside the limits of 
agency authority or the capability of the plan area.
    Fourth, the presence of all native and desired non-native species 
in a plan area is important. However, the Responsible Official should 
have the flexibility to determine the degree of conservation to be 
provided for the species that are not in danger of ESA listing, to 
better balance the various multiple uses, including the often-competing 
needs of different species themselves.
    Fifth, the planning framework should provide measures for 
accounting for progress toward ecosystem and species diversity goals. 
The final rule and the Forest Service directives provide a framework 
within which efforts to maintain and restore species will be monitored. 
Progress toward desired conditions and objectives will be monitored and 
the results made available to the public. The adaptive monitoring and 
feedback process will help maintain and improve diversity.

[[Page 1029]]

    The 2002 proposed rule included two different approaches to the 
NFMA diversity requirement labeled ``Option 1'' and ``Option 2'' and 
asked for comments on both options. The agency also hosted a workshop 
to provide an opportunity for public discussion of these options and 
for identification of other ideas on how to best meet the statutory 
diversity requirement. An extremely wide range of opinions was 
expressed, both in public comments and during the workshop. The 
Department found these comments useful in developing a scientifically 
credible and realistic approach for this final rule and the Forest 
Service directives to meet legal requirements and the agency's 
stewardship responsibilities.
    The final rule incorporates features of both Options 1 and 2. In 
common with both options, the final rule approaches diversity at two 
levels of ecological organization: the ecosystem level and the species 
level. This concept has considerable support among scientists, has 
already been tested by a number of NFS administrative units developing 
or revising plans under the 1982 planning rule, and was included in the 
planning rule adopted in 2000.
    The final rule is less detailed than either Options 1 or 2 with 
respect to specific ecosystem analysis requirements. After reviewing 
public comments, and after consideration of the Forest Service's 
experience with planning over the past 25 years, the Department 
concluded that such detail regarding analysis is more properly included 
in the Forest Service directives. These directives can be more 
extensive and can be more easily changed as the agency learns how to 
improve its analytic processes and as new scientific concepts and new 
technological capabilities become available.
    In common with Options 1 and 2, the final rule focuses on ecosystem 
diversity as the primary means of providing for the diversity of plant 
and animal communities. The final rule differs from Option 2 in not 
explicitly requiring analysis of ecosystem diversity at multiple 
temporal and spatial scales, analysis of disturbance regimes, or 
analysis of the landscape context. Guidance on appropriate analysis 
will be included in the Forest Service directives. The agency will seek 
public comment on this guidance.
    Another point in common between this final rule and Options 1 and 2 
is the concept that the more effective the ecosystem management 
guidance is in sustaining species habitat, the less need there is for 
analysis and planning at the species level of ecological organization. 
Option 1, Option 2, and this final rule all recognize that some 
additional analysis and additional plan provisions may be needed for 
some species. However, the final rule differs from Option 1 in that it 
does not include a requirement to provide for viable populations of 
plant and animal species. Such a requirement had previously been 
included in both the 1982 planning rule and the 2000 planning rule.
    The species viability requirement was not adopted for several 
reasons. First, the experience of the Forest Service under the 1982 
planning rule has been that ensuring species viability is not always 
possible. For example, viability of some species on NFS lands may not 
be achievable because of species-specific distribution patterns (such 
as a species on the extreme and fluctuating edge of its natural range), 
or when the reasons for species decline are due to factors outside the 
control of the agency (such as habitat alteration in South America 
causing decline of some Neotropical birds), or when the land lacks the 
capability to support species (such as a drought affecting fish 
habitat).
    Second, the number of recognized species present on the units of 
the NFS is very large. It is clearly impractical to analyze all 
species, and previous attempts to analyze the full suite of species via 
groups, surrogates, and representatives have had mixed success in 
practice.
    Third, focus on the viability requirement has often diverted 
attention and resources away from an ecosystem approach to land 
management that, in the Department's view, is the most efficient and 
effective way to manage for the broadest range of species with the 
limited resources available for the task.
    Requirements for species population monitoring are not included in 
this final rule. Population data are difficult to obtain and evaluate 
because there are so many factors outside the control of the Forest 
Service that affect populations. The Department believes that it is 
best to focus the agency's monitoring program on habitat on NFS land 
where the agency can adjust management to meet the needs of certain 
species. Desired conditions are often a focus of the monitoring 
program. The agency will identify species-of-concern and species-of-
interest (Sec.  219.16). Where ecological conditions for these species 
are identified as desired conditions, the habitat could be monitored to 
assist in avoiding future listing of these species. However, the final 
rule does not preclude population monitoring. Plans may include 
population monitoring as appropriate.
    In summary, in compliance with NFMA, the ecological sustainability 
provisions in the final rule provide the foundation for the plan to 
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. The final rule 
provides a complementary ecosystem and species diversity approach for 
ecological sustainability. The final rule at Sec.  219.7(a)(2) 
establishes requirements for developing plan components to guide 
projects and activities. All parts of the land management framework, 
including plan components, monitoring, and plan adjustment, are 
designed to work together to contribute to sustainability.

Environmental Management Systems and Adaptive Management

    <bullet> Adaptive management and land management planning.
    Plans must adapt to ever-changing conditions. Agency policy may 
change, new laws may be enacted, or court decisions can change 
interpretation of existing laws. Fires, invasive species, or outbreaks 
of insects or disease can substantially change environmental 
conditions. Changes in market conditions or public values may shift the 
demand for specific goods and services. Scientific findings can change 
our understanding of the environment and of the effects of specific 
management activities. Better monitoring techniques or ways to achieve 
objectives may be found. Land management plans must reflect the fact 
that change and uncertainty are inevitable. Consequently, plans must 
allow for quick response to these ever-changing conditions.
    The National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and 
Colleges and others commented on the 2002 proposed rule regarding the 
importance, from the scientific perspective, of using adaptive 
management when dealing with complex ecosystems. In 1999, the Committee 
of Scientists developed recommendations that strongly encouraged the 
use of adaptive management. The Committee of Scientists recommended 
setting a high priority on developing ongoing analyses that are based 
on monitoring to continually adjust or change land management planning 
decisions. In response to these comments and recommendations for a 
greater emphasis on and commitment to adaptive management, the 
Department has chosen to include environmental management systems (EMS) 
in the land management framework.
    The adaptive management approach includes land management plans 
along

[[Page 1030]]

with comprehensive evaluations, an environmental management system, 
monitoring, evaluation, and research. Adaptive management requires 
careful coordination of the work performed through these programs. It 
does not require equal emphases among these various programs, but 
rather requires organizational learning, an active pursuit of best 
available scientific information, evaluation and disclosure of 
uncertainties and risks about scientific information, and a response to 
change.
    A land management plan starts the adaptive management cycle. 
Managers then pursue ways to achieve desired conditions and objectives 
described in the plan. The comprehensive evaluation may describe the 
risks and uncertainties associated with implementing the plan. Managers 
prioritize risks and develop strategies to control them.
    Monitoring and evaluations check for status and change across the 
administrative unit. Monitoring results may show that the desired 
conditions are not being achieved through projects. This may trigger 
future project changes to reach desired conditions. Alternatively, 
monitoring results may lead to conclusions that the land management 
plan should be changed through a plan amendment.
    Research is an important part of adaptive management. Through 
experimentation, researchers investigate cause and effect relationships 
of management practices on the environment. Experiments test hypotheses 
and researchers develop reliable knowledge about effects of management 
practices. The new information may be used to amend plans, change 
project level work, or update an environmental management system.
    <bullet> Land management plans, adaptive management, and 
environmental management systems.
    This final rule requires each national forest, grassland, prairie, 
or other comparable administrative unit to develop and implement an EMS 
based on the international consensus standard published by the 
International Organization for Standardization as ``ISO 14001: 
Environmental Management Systems--Specification With Guidance For Use'' 
(ISO 14001). Each unit's EMS should be designed and implemented to more 
efficiently meet legal obligations, including supporting the creation 
of effective land management plans, ensuring public participation in 
the process, and providing a framework for adaptive management.
    The administrative units' EMS will be a systematic approach to 
identify and manage environmental conditions and obligations to achieve 
improved performance and environmental protection. Each unit's EMS will 
identify and prioritize environmental conditions; set objectives in 
light of Congressional, agency, and public goals; document procedures 
and practices to achieve those objectives; and monitor and measure 
environmental conditions to track performance and verify that 
objectives are being met. Agency management personnel will regularly 
review performance, and information about environmental conditions will 
be regularly updated to continually improve land management and 
environmental performance.
    By systematically collecting and updating information about 
environmental conditions and practices (for example, through 
monitoring, measurement, research, and public input), the units' EMS 
will provide a foundation for effective adaptive management, plan 
amendments, or even changing specific project or work practices. The 
agency expects that, whenever possible, EMS and land management plan 
documentation will be coordinated and integrated to avoid unnecessary 
duplication.
    The units' EMS will more efficiently meet legal obligations, will 
improve public participation in the land management planning process, 
and enhance the agency's ability to identify and respond to public 
input. Creating a transparent and consistent framework that describes 
how units are managed will improve the public's ability to effectively 
participate in land management. The units' EMS will not replace any 
legal obligations that the agency has under NFMA, MUSYA, NEPA, or any 
other statute, nor will the EMS diminish the public's ability to 
participate in the land management process or its rights under any law. 
To the contrary, EMS will significantly improve the public's ability to 
effectively participate in the process.
    The agency chose ISO 14001 as the EMS model for several reasons. 
First, it is the most commonly used EMS model in the United States and 
around the world. This will make it easier to implement and understand 
(internally and externally) because there is a significant knowledge 
base about ISO 14001. Second, the National Technology and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use 
or adopt applicable national or international consensus standards 
wherever possible, in lieu of creating proprietary or unique standards. 
The NTAA's policy of encouraging Federal agencies to adopt tested and 
well-accepted standards, rather than reinventing-the-wheel, clearly 
applies to this situation where there is a ready-made international and 
national EMS consensus standard (through the American National 
Standards Institute) that has already been successfully implemented in 
the field for almost a decade. Third, it has been a long-standing 
policy that Federal agencies implement EMS to improve environmental 
performance (Executive Order 13148 issued April 21, 2000 (E.O. 13148), 
titled ``Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental 
Management'' and an April 1, 2002, Memorandum from the Chair of the 
Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget to the heads of all Federal agencies). Federal 
agencies that have been implementing EMS in response to the E.O. 13148 
have typically been using ISO 14001 as their model.
    The implementation of ISO 14001 in NFS administrative units will 
have to reflect the legal and public obligations of the agency, as well 
as the environmental conditions and issues relevant to land management, 
such as sustainability and long-term issues, including cumulative 
effects. For example, while ISO 14001 requires implementing 
organizations to identify their ``environmental aspects,'' 
administrative units implementing their EMS under this rule will 
include the concept of environmental conditions in land management 
planning in this step. Another example reflecting the legal and public 
obligations of the agency is that the units' EMS must include the 
public participation requirements of this rule, which are much stronger 
than the public communication provisions of ISO 14001. Therefore, the 
agency will interpret and implement ISO 14001 in a manner consistent 
with the agency's legal obligations, its duty to the public, and the 
unique circumstances of land management.

National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest Management Act 
Planning

    The application of NEPA to the planning process as identified in 
this final rule is the next iterative step in an evolution that began 
with the promulgation of the 1979 planning rule, revised in 1982. In 
developing the NEPA provisions of this final rule, the Department took 
into account the nature of the five plan components under this final 
rule, experience the agency has gained over the past 25 years from

[[Page 1031]]

developing, amending, and revising land management plans; the 
requirements of NEPA and NFMA, the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) regulations, and the comments by the Supreme Court in Ohio 
Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club and Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance regarding the nature of plans themselves.
    The 1979 planning rule required an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) for development of plans, significant amendments, and revisions. 
This requirement continued in the revised rule adopted in 1982. At the 
time, the Forest Service believed that the NEPA document prepared for a 
plan would suffice for making most project-level decisions. However, 
the agency came to understand that this approach to complying with NEPA 
was impractical, inefficient, and sometimes inaccurate. Over the course 
of implementing NFMA during the past 25 years, the agency has learned 
that environmental effects of projects and activities cannot be 
meaningfully evaluated without knowledge of the specific timing and 
location of the projects and activities.
    At the time of plan approval, the Forest Service does not have 
detailed information about what projects and activities will be 
proposed over the 15-year life of a plan, how many projects will be 
approved, where they will be located, or how they will be designed. At 
the point of plan approval, the Forest Service can only speculate about 
the projects that may be proposed and budgeted and the natural events, 
such as fire, flood, insects, and disease that may occur that will make 
uncontemplated projects necessary or force changes in the projects and 
the effects of projects that were contemplated. Indeed, the Forest 
Service has learned that over the 15-year life of a plan it can only 
expect the unexpected.
    In the course of completing NEPA analysis on the first generation 
of NFMA plans, the Forest Service also became more aware of the 
difficulties of scale created by the size of the national forests and 
grasslands. The National Forest System includes 192 million acres, and 
individual planning units, such as the Tongass National Forest, may be 
as large as 17 million acres. These vast landscapes contain an enormous 
variety of different ecosystems, which will respond differently to the 
same management practices. As the Committee of Scientists said on page 
26 of the Committee of Scientists Report:

    Because of the wide variation in site-specific practices and 
local environmental conditions (e.g., vegetation type, topography, 
geology, and soils) across a given national forest or rangeland, the 
direct and indirect effects of management practices may not always 
be well understood or easily predicted. (Committee of Scientists 
Report, March 15, 1999, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 
DC 193 p.)

    The result is that it is usually infeasible to do environmental 
analysis for a national forest as a whole that is sufficiently site-
specific to allow projects to be carried out without further detailed 
NEPA analysis after the plan has been approved.
    The agency has found itself preparing much more extensive NEPA 
documentation for projects than it had anticipated when it adopted the 
1979 and 1982 planning rules. Moreover, the extensive changes to 
conditions in the plan area that occurred during the 15-year life of 
each plan made it increasingly impractical to tier project-level NEPA 
documentation to the plan EIS. The requirements of the 1979 and 1982 
planning rules created an inefficient and ineffective system for 
complying with NEPA.
    The 2000 planning rule furthered the existing presumption of 
requiring an EIS for plan development or revision, notwithstanding 
concerns raised by the Committee of Scientists. Secretary Glickman 
named the Committee of Scientists (COS) on December 11, 1997. The 
charter for the COS stated that the Committee's purpose was to provide 
scientific and technical 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.
    The Committee of Scientists said, on page 117 of the Committee of 
Scientists Report:

    Perhaps the most difficult problem is that the current EA/EIS 
process assumes a one-time decision. The very essence of small-
landscape planning is an adaptive management approach, based upon 
monitoring and learning. Although small-landscape planning can more 
readily do real-time cumulative effects analysis * * *, this kind of 
analysis is difficult to integrate with a one-time decision 
approach. Developing a decision disclosure and review process that 
is ongoing and uses monitoring information to adjust or change 
treatments and activities will need to be a high priority * * *. 
(Committee of Scientists Report, March 15, 1999, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Washington, DC 193 p.)

    In addition to concern about timely and accurate disclosure of 
environmental effects, the agency's experience with planning has 
demonstrated the need to clarify what plans, in fact, actually do. 
Neither the 1982 nor the 2000 planning rule clearly described or 
contrasted the differences between the effects of plans and the effects 
of projects and activities. This has been confusing to the public and 
agency employees. As discussed previously in the guidelines and the 
suitability discussions, plan components have not been applied or 
interpreted consistently throughout the agency and often have been 
characterized as the functional equivalent of final project-level 
decisions or actions, rather than guidance for projects and activities 
over time.
    This final rule clarifies that plans will be strategic rather than 
prescriptive in nature absent extraordinary circumstances. Plans will 
describe the desired social, economic, and ecological conditions for a 
national forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative 
unit. Plan objectives, guidelines, suitable uses, and special area 
identifications will be designed to help achieve the desired 
conditions. While plans will identify the general suitability of lands 
for various uses, they typically will not approve projects or 
activities with accompanying environmental effects. Decisions approving 
projects or activities with environmental effects that can be 
meaningfully evaluated will typically be made subsequent to the plan. 
In essence, a plan simply is a description of a vision for the future 
that coupled, with evaluation, provides a starting point for project 
and activity NEPA analysis. Therefore, under this rule approval of a 
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision typically will not have 
environmental effects.
    The formulation of plans under the final rule as being merely 
strategic rather than prescriptive is further evident in the five 
components of plans under the final rule. As described above, none of 
the five components is intended to directly dictate on the ground 
decisions which have impacts on the environment. Rather, they state 
general guidance and goals to be considered in project and activity 
decisions. These five components thus do not have any significant 
effect on the environment.
    Notwithstanding their strategic nature, approval of a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision is a final action under the CEQ 
regulations. Further, such actions may have environmental effects in 
some extraordinary circumstances, such as when a plan amendment or 
revision includes final decisions approving projects or activities. For 
example, an amendment or revision including a decision approving a 
project to thin

[[Page 1032]]

certain trees to reduce fire hazards may have environmental affects 
that could be significant.
    NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to determine how to 
comply with NEPA during the course of NFMA planning. Section 106(g)(1) 
of NFMA directs the Secretary to specify in land management regulations 
procedures to insure that plans are prepared in accordance with NEPA, 
including direction on when and for what plans an EIS is required (16 
U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). The CEQ regulations direct Federal agencies to 
adopt procedures that designate major decision points for the agency's 
principal programs likely to have a significant effect on the human 
environment and ensuring that the NEPA process corresponds with them 
(40 CFR 1505.1(b)).
    Under NEPA and the CEQ regulations, an EIS is required for every 
report or recommendation on proposals for legislation and other major 
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment (16 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR 1502.3). CEQ regulations 
define ``major Federal action'' as including ``actions with effects 
that may be major.'' The regulations explain that ``Federal actions'' 
generally tend to fall within several categories. Although these 
categories include adoption of formal agency plans within the 
definition of ``federal action,'' not all federal actions are major 
federal actions. As applied to the final rule, land management plans 
under this final rule, as evidenced by their five components, are 
strategic and aspirational in nature and generally will not include 
decisions with on-the-ground effects that can be meaningfully evaluated 
and that may be major. During plan development, amendment, or revision, 
the agency generally is not at the stage in National Forest planning of 
proposing actions to accomplish the goals in land management plans. CEQ 
regulations define ``proposals'' that can trigger the requirement for 
an EIS as ``that stage in development of an action when an agency 
subject to the Act has a goal and is actively preparing to make a 
decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal 
and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR 1508.23). 
Proposals for action to accomplish plan goals and desired conditions, 
with effects that can be meaningfully evaluated and which may be 
significant, generally are made at the project and activity stage. 
While a plan includes desired conditions, goals, and objectives, the 
Forest Service does not actively prepare to make a decision on an 
action aimed at achieving desired conditions, goals, or objectives 
until the agency proposes projects and activities. Thus, the decision 
to adopt, amend, or revise a plan, therefore, is typically not the 
point in the decisionmaking process at which the agency is proposing an 
action likely to have a significant effect on the human environment.
    The approach in this final rule is consistent with the nature of 
Forest Service land management plans acknowledged in Ohio Forestry 
Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998). As described above, in Ohio 
Forestry, the Supreme Court held that the timber management provisions 
of land management plans are tools for further agency planning and 
guide, but do not direct future management. When considering the role 
of land management plans with respect to timber harvesting, the Supreme 
Court explained that:

    Although the Plan sets logging goals, selects the areas of the 
forest that are suited to timber production, and determines which 
``probable methods of timber harvest'' are appropriate, it does not 
itself authorize the cutting of any trees. Before the Forest Service 
can permit the logging, it must: (a) Propose a specific area in 
which logging will take place and the harvesting methods to be used; 
(b) ensure that the project is consistent with the Plan; (c) provide 
those affected by proposed logging notice and an opportunity to be 
heard; (d) conduct an environmental analysis pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to evaluate the effects 
of the specific project and to contemplate alternatives; and (e) 
subsequently make a final decision to permit logging, which affected 
persons may challenge in an administrative appeals process and in 
court.

    The Supreme Court repeated its description of plans as merely 
strategic without any immediate on the ground impact in the recent SUWA 
decision described above. Both cases reinforce the observations of the 
FS in reflecting on 25 years of completing EISs for plans, and buttress 
the approach to planning and NEPA compliance described in the final 
rule.
    In accordance with NFMA, NEPA, and the CEQ regulations, this final 
rule will ensure that Forest Service NEPA analysis will be timed to 
coincide with those stages in agency planning and decisionmaking likely 
to have a significant effect on the human environment. The final rule 
emphasizes the clear distinction between the mere adoption, revision or 
amendment of a plan and projects and activities having on-the-ground 
environmental effects. In this final rule, the Department is clarifying 
the nature of National Forest land management plans, and based on the 
nature of plans, specifying that plans, plan amendments, and plan 
revisions may be categorically excluded from NEPA documentation as 
provided in agency NEPA procedures.
    The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500) require that each agency 
establish specific criteria for and identification of three types of 
actions: (1) Those that normally require preparation of an 
environmental impact statement (EIS); (2) those that normally require 
the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA); and (3) those that 
normally do not require either an EA or EIS. Actions qualifying for 
this third type of action are defined as categorical exclusions because 
they do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on 
the human environment; therefore, neither an environmental assessment 
nor an environmental impact statement is required (40 CFR 1508.4).
    A categorical exclusion is not an exemption from the requirements 
of NEPA. Categorical exclusions are an essential part of NEPA that 
provide a categorical determination that certain actions do not result 
in significant impacts, eliminating the need for individual analyses 
and lengthier documentation for those actions. CEQ regulations at 40 
CFR 1500.4(p), 1507.3 and 1508.4 direct agencies to use categorical 
exclusions to define categories of actions which do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and do 
not require the preparation of an environmental assessment or an 
environmental impact statement, thereby reducing excessive paperwork. 
Current Forest Service procedures for complying with and implementing 
NEPA are set out in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15.
    Simultaneously with this rulemaking, the Forest Service is 
proposing to revise its NEPA procedures to provide a new categorical 
exclusion for plan development, amendment, and revision. The proposed 
categorical exclusion describes the extraordinary circumstances that 
may require preparation of an EIS or an EA. The Forest Service is 
seeking comment on the proposed categorical exclusion.
    The Forest Service presented and sought public comment on this 
approach to NEPA and NFMA planning in the 2002 proposed rule. The 2002 
proposed rule at Sec.  219.6(b) provided that if the Responsible 
Official determines that a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, 
or a component thereof, would be an action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment, or authorizes an action that commits 
funding or

[[Page 1033]]

resources that could have a significant effect on the quality of the 
human environment, then an EIS would be required. Otherwise, a new 
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision may be categorically excluded 
from documentation in an EA or EIS as provided in agency NEPA 
procedures. The categorical exclusion proposed in connection with this 
final rule clarifies that plan development, plan amendment or plan 
revisions in accordance with this final rule do not significantly 
affect the environment, and thus are categorically excluded from 
further NEPA analysis, unless extraordinary circumstances are present. 
Of course, the FS will comply with all applicable NEPA requirements, 
including preparation of an EA or an EIS where appropriate, when 
considering specific projects or making other project-specific 
decisions affecting the environment.
    The public identified three key concerns related to the proposal to 
categorically exclude plans from documentation. First, many people 
commented that they were unsure about how they would be involved in 
planning if an EIS process were not used. Second, they questioned how 
planning analysis would be documented in the absence of an EIS. Third, 
some asked how cumulative effects would be accounted for if a 
Categorical Exclusion (CE) were relied upon. The Department has fully 
considered the concerns raised by the public and believes the final 
rule addresses the concerns as follows:
    <bullet> Public participation.
    This final rule provides extensive opportunity for public 
participation that exceeds requirements for public participation under 
NEPA and improves the clarity of the process for public notification 
(Sec.  219.9).
    <bullet> Evaluations and documentation.
    This final rule requires comprehensive and other evaluations in 
Sec.  219.6. Evaluation reports will document existing social, 
economic, and ecological conditions and trends; and will be available 
to the public and included in the Plan Document or Set of Documents. 
Evaluations are prepared for plan development, plan amendment, and plan 
revision (Sec.  219.6); use a systematic and interdisciplinary approach 
(Sec.  219.7(a)); and consider environmental amenities and values along 
with economic and technical considerations (Sec.  219.10).
    The Plan Document or Set of Documents will be supplemented with 
annual evaluation reports and with other information as appropriate to 
form a continually refreshed and current analytical base of 
information. Because of this more current information base, evaluations 
will provide a much stronger and more robust source of information for 
projects and activities than an EIS prepared under the 1982 planning 
rule.
    <bullet> Cumulative effects.
    To account for cumulative effects of management and natural events, 
this final rule requires (Sec.  219.6(a)): (1) A comprehensive 
evaluation for the development of a new plan or plan revision; (2) 
annual plan monitoring and evaluation; and (3) review of the 
comprehensive evaluations at least every 5 years. These evaluations, as 
opposed to predictive EIS's that grow increasingly stale over time, 
will provide more timely and informed consideration of cumulative 
effects. The Plan Document or Set of Documents provides for a robust 
information base for the consideration of cumulative effects of 
management in NEPA documents prepared for projects or activities.
    <bullet> The relationship between EMS and NEPA.
    Implementing EMS will improve the quality of agency NEPA analysis 
for projects and activities. In a September 2003 report, titled 
``Modernizing NEPA Implementation,'' the CEQ NEPA Task Force stated at 
page 54, ``Federal agencies, having made the connection between EMS and 
adaptive management, would be integrating NEPA-related adaptive 
management actions into their developing EMSs.'' The task force also 
said that NEPA and EMS provide ``a synergy that can encourage a robust 
analysis when the EMS information is extensive, current, and available 
for use in the NEPA analy[sis].'' The Department agrees with the task 
force's conclusions and believes that requiring each unit to implement 
an EMS will improve environmental performance and effective land 
management in addition to enhancing NEPA analysis and documentation.
    Under the existing process, information about environmental 
conditions is collected for the purposes of preparing detailed NEPA 
analysis and documentation for plan development, plan amendment, or 
plan revision. There is no effective system for keeping this 
information current, because the collection and analysis of information 
often typically ceases when the NEPA analysis and documentation is 
completed. Therefore, the information collected for the environmental 
documents for 126 NFS units can grow stale as environmental, social, 
and economic conditions change. Further, the focus of the information 
collection and analysis process is on NEPA analysis and documentation, 
rather than for use in the ongoing management of the administrative 
unit. Therefore, the large volume of information and analysis that is 
so expensively created over a long period is often used as a snapshot 
for purposes of making a single decision, instead of being integrated 
into a dynamic, ongoing system to effectively manage units.
    This rule will improve this situation by requiring each 
administrative unit to implement an EMS that includes defined 
procedures for identifying environmental conditions, keeps that 
information current, and includes monitoring and measurement procedures 
for continually evaluating conditions in the unit. The EMS requirement 
is separate from any obligations to develop EISs, EAs, or CEs. 
Therefore, the obligation to keep this information current and make it 
available for public review is separate from the obligation to create 
any particular NEPA document. This information will be used in 
formulating the land management plans that are subject of this rule, 
managing administrative units on an ongoing basis, as well as for 
specific project and activity proposals that trigger the need for EISs, 
EAs, or CEs. Therefore, through the implementation of EMS, 
administrative units will be continually collecting and evaluating the 
data necessary to create any documents that may be required by NEPA. 
This will make the creation of accurate and relevant NEPA documents 
more efficient. More importantly, it will make available to 
administrative unit managers and the public a ``library'' of current 
information, analyses, and research that, through EMS, will be used to 
manage the administrative unit on an ongoing basis, and better adapt 
management practices to avoid unwanted environmental effects.

Summary

    This final rule represents a paradigm shift in planning. It 
emphasizes the strategic nature of NFMA land management plans and will 
permit more flexibility in implementing projects in response to 
evolving scientific doctrines and changing conditions on the ground, 
such as unforeseen natural disasters. It requires that each NFS unit 
develop an EMS that will be used to continually improve environmental 
performance and conditions. It requires that Responsible Officials take 
into account the best available scientific information. It requires 
public involvement and collaboration throughout the entire cycle of 
planning, plan development, plan amendment, plan revision, project

[[Page 1034]]

and activity decisionmaking, and monitoring of environmental 
performance. The final rule requires plans to focus on the social, 
economic, and ecological sustainability of the management of the NFS, 
and it has specific provisions for biological diversity at both the 
ecosystem and species level. It clarifies the nature of plans and 
explains how the planning process complies fully with the requirements 
of NEPA. Plans developed and maintained using the EMS and other 
processes required by this final rule will improve the performance, 
accountability, and transparency of NFS land management planning.

4. Department Response to Comments on the 2002 Proposed Rule

    The Forest Service received approximately 7,000 original letters 
and 195,000 total comments from a wide variety of respondents on the 
2002 proposed rule. Each comment received consideration in the 
development of the final rule. The following is a summary of comments 
and response to issues raised by these comments. A response to less 
substantive issues may be found in the supplemental response to 
comments located on the World Wide Web/internet (see ADDRESSES).

General Issues

    The Department received the following comments not specifically 
tied to a particular section of the 2002 proposed rule.
    Comment: Compliance with NFMA. Some respondents thought the 2002 
proposed rule would allow more timber harvest and road construction 
than currently exists and therefore would violate the National Forest 
Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). Other 
respondents believed the timber industry, other commercial interests, 
or Forest Service employees unduly influenced the 2002 proposed rule; 
moreover, they perceived that the 2002 proposed rule would degrade the 
environment. Some contended the 2002 proposed rule was influenced by 
campaign contributions.
    Response: The final rule is not intended to, and will not, 
determine the choices among the multiple uses. The NFMA requires the 
Secretary of Agriculture to develop regulations under the principles of 
the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-
531). Congress gave the Secretary broad discretion in interpreting how 
these principles are applied. This final rule affirms the overall goal 
of MUSYA and provides a framework for plans to reflect contemporary 
priorities and values. Pursuant to MUSYA, this final rule adopts 
social, economic, and ecological sustainability as the goal of National 
Forest System (NFS) management. Furthermore, timber production from NFS 
lands has been reduced dramatically since NFMA was written. The sale of 
timber has fallen from an annual level of 10 to 12 billion board feet 
in the 1970s and 1980s to three billion board feet in the early 1990s 
and below three billion board feet since then. Finally, the final rule 
does not promote or discourage other uses of NFS lands, such as outdoor 
recreation, range, wildlife and fisheries, and so forth. The planning 
process itself will determine the desired conditions and objectives for 
each NFS unit.
    Comment: Plan oversight and resource conservation. Some respondents 
commented that the 2002 proposed rule would prevent court oversight of 
plans, eliminate restrictive plan requirements, inappropriately 
increase Forest Service discretion, and result in decreased 
conservation of resources such as wildlife. Several respondents wanted 
the 2002 planning rule to be stricter, attributing the collapse of 
Enron to inadequate regulatory oversight. Other respondents were 
concerned about the possibility of increased litigation and thought 
streamlined planning would shift more of the analysis burden to 
projects, thus slowing project completion.
    Response: The final rule establishes a planning process that 
complies with NFMA and provides a broad planning framework within which 
issues specific to a plan area can be resolved in an efficient and 
reasonable manner informed by the latest data and scientific 
assessments and public participation and collaboration.
    With respect to concerns that Forest Service discretion may be 
unchecked, there has always been a tension between providing needed 
detailed direction in the planning rule and discretion of the 
Responsible Official. However, the decisions of the Responsible 
Official are constrained and guided by a large body of law, regulation, 
and policy, as well as public participation and oversight. Because 
every issue cannot be identified and dealt with in advance for every 
situation, the Forest Service must rely on the judgment of the 
Responsible Official to make decisions based on laws, regulation, 
policy, sound science, public participation, and oversight.
    The Department of Agriculture (Department) believes that the final 
rule is fully compatible with the nature of forest planning as 
described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra 
Club 523 U.S. 726 (1998) (A discussion of this case is found in the 
``Overview of the Final 2004 Rule'' section of the preamble.) The 
Department expects public oversight and legal review of planning, as 
well as an assessment of the environmental impacts of specific projects 
under NEPA, to occur under the final rule in accordance with Ohio 
Forestry. As a general matter, and consistent with the Ohio Forestry 
Ass'n decision, a plan by itself is not expected to be reviewable by 
the courts at the time the plan is developed, revised or amended; but 
when the agency decides on a specific action, an aggrieved party will 
be able to challenge that action and, if appropriate, seek review of 
that part of the plan that is relevant to that action.
    After years of experience with previous planning rules, the 
Department is ready to embrace the latest thinking in management 
techniques and believes this final rule provides the proper balance of 
regulatory requirements and flexibility needed to resolve issues on the 
ground. By streamlining the planning process, requiring environmental 
management systems (EMS), and emphasizing collaboration and public 
involvement, the final rule will result in plans that are more up to 
date, and should have broader public support. Similarly, the continual 
updating of the evaluations and analyses associated with plans is 
expected to reduce the amount of analysis needed at the project level. 
These concepts of collaboration, EMS, evaluations, and public 
involvement are described in detail in the ``Overview of the Final 2004 
Final Rule'' section of the preamble.
    Comment: Consultation with a committee of scientists. Several 
respondents were concerned that there was no consultation with a 
committee of scientists in developing the 2002 proposed rule. Several 
felt that an independent review was necessary. Some respondents also 
felt that the 2002 proposed rule should reflect current scientific 
knowledge.
    Response: The NFMA does not require a committee of scientists for 
revision of the planning rule. Nonetheless, the Department based the 
2002 proposed rule on the major recommendations from the 1999 Committee 
of Scientists report. Sustainability, public participation, adaptive 
management, monitoring and evaluation, the role of science, and the 
objection process, all concepts in the proposed and final rule, were 
recommendations of that report. The Department realizes that scientific 
knowledge will continue to expand. Therefore, the Responsible Official 
must

[[Page 1035]]

take into account the best available science when plans are developed, 
revised, or amended (Sec.  219.11).
    Comment: Environmental conservation. Several respondents commented 
that the 2002 planning rule should conserve wildlife, wilderness, 
historic and cultural sites, special habitat, watersheds, genetic 
material, and reduce fragmentation. One person commented that planning 
should be done on whole ecosystems.
    Response: The final rule provides the processes through which 
Responsible Officials conserve and manage resources with regard to the 
issues relevant in the plan area. Those communities, groups, or persons 
interested in these important resource issues can influence plan 
components and monitoring programs by becoming involved in planning 
efforts throughout the process, including the development and 
monitoring of the plan, as well as the development and implementation 
of proposed projects and activities.
    The Department agrees that better quality planning is often 
accomplished when the appropriate scale is used. For species or 
watersheds, evaluation often needs to be completed at a broader scale 
than for an individual unit. The Department anticipates that the Forest 
Service, in its plan evaluations, will continue to look at issues at 
the appropriate scale.
    Comment: The 2000 planning rule was never adequately tested. Some 
respondents disagreed with the 2002 proposed rule discussion of the 
difficulty of implementing the 2000 planning rule, since the 2000 
planning rule was never used.
    Response: The costing study, ``A Business Evaluation of the 2000 
planning rule and the Proposed NFMA Planning Rules,'' analyzed each of 
the work activities of the 2000 planning rule and used experienced 
planners and resource professionals to estimate how those work 
activities would be carried out. The Department believes that this 
analysis on the 2000 planning rule was adequate to determine how well 
that rule could be implemented.
    Comment: Costing study of the 2000 Planning Rule. Several 
respondents said the report on cost and ability to implement the 2000 
planning rule was not available.
    Response: The Federal Register notice for the 2002 proposed rule 
explained how all associated studies were available for review. These 
studies have been, and still are, available on the Forest Service's 
World Wide Web/Internet site (see ADDRESSES) and available from the 
Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Forest Service, 
USDA, Mail Stop 1104, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20250-1104, as described in the ADDRESSES section.
    Comment: Inability to complete revisions. Several respondents said 
that the inability of the Forest Service to comply with a statutorily 
mandated revision timeline was due to reasons other than the 
requirements of the 1982 or 2000 planning rules.
    Response: The Forest Service experience showed that the cost and 
unnecessary complexity of the planning process for the 1982 planning 
rule were the major causes of plan delays; this experience and the 
costing study indicated that the 2000 planning rule would exacerbate 
these concerns.
    Comment: Cost study and the cost-benefit analysis for 1982 planning 
rule. Some respondents said the cost study of the 2000 planning rule 
and the 2002 proposed rule should also have considered the 1982 
planning rule and that the cost-benefit analysis should have considered 
the costs of the 1982 planning rule, which is the rule that was 
actually being implemented at the time of the study.
    Response: When the 2000 planning rule was developed, the costs to 
the Forest Service to implement it were unknown, while the costs 
associated with the 1982 planning rule were known. The cost-benefit 
analysis considered the costs of implementing the 1982 planning rule, 
the anticipated cost of implementing the 2000 planning rule, and the 
anticipated cost of implementing the 2002 proposed rule. The cost-
benefit analysis used information from a business evaluation and 
costing study for the 2000 planning rule and the 2002 proposed rule. 
Although the 1982 planning rule was not included in the business 
evaluation, 1982 planning rule costs were included in the cost-benefit 
analysis using applicable costs from the business evaluation and 
historical cost information.
    Comment: Biological assessment. Some respondents commented that the 
rule should consider the ``degree to which the action [the rule] may 
adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or their habitat 
that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA) of 1973.'' They assert that a biological assessment of the 
2002 proposed rule is needed to analyze its impacts on threatened and 
endangered species and that the agency must also consult on the 2002 
proposed rule with the agencies responsible for implementing the ESA.
    Response: The ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires 
consultation for actions authorized, funded, or carried out by a 
Federal agency. This final rule simply establishes a process for 
planning. The final rule is not an action having a direct effect on 
threatened or endangered species. The agency's obligations for 
conservation of threatened, endangered, and proposed species remains 
unchanged by this final rule; no consultation is required as part of 
the final rule's development.
    Comment: Planning certification. One organization commented that a 
nationally recognized third party should certify sustainability of 
National Forests.
    Response: The Department believes that the body of laws that govern 
management of NFS lands, the Forest Service Strategic Plan (Strategic 
Plan) required under the Government Performance and Results Act, the 
planning process itself, the expertise of career professionals, and the 
opportunity for public participation are adequate to ensure 
sustainability. Recognizing the point made by the respondent of the 
value of using recognized standards for forest management, this final 
rule requires units to develop and implement an EMS that conforms to 
ISO 14001 to manage natural resources and further the adaptive 
management approach advocated by other respondents. ISO 14001 is the 
internationally and nationally recognized standard for EMSs. The Forest 
Service understands that ISO 14001 is not itself a program for forest 
sustainability certification and does not contain specific natural 
resource provisions or requirements. Natural resource management 
requirements and priorities are properly set by Congress and open 
public participation, rather than by non-governmental standards setting 
bodies that are not directly answerable to the citizens of the United 
States.
    ISO 14001 provides a well-accepted management process that will 
improve the Forest Service's ability to identify and meet the natural 
resource goals that are set by Congress in the NFMA and MUSYA and the 
Forest Service's commitments to sustainability, good science, and 
public involvement in a disciplined, systematic, and transparent 
manner.
    Comment: Benchmarks in the 1982 planning rule were useful. Several 
respondents said that benchmarks, such as those required in the 1982 
planning rule, are useful and should still be required.
    Response: The agency's experience with the 1982 planning rule is 
that benchmarks have not been useful. In theory, benchmarks define the 
range of

[[Page 1036]]

production possibilities and ecosystem limits. In practice, however, 
they are difficult to develop due to limited data and uncertainty at 
the time plans are developed. However, the final rule does not prohibit 
benchmark analysis when it would provide meaningful information.
    Comment: Fix the 1982 planning rule. Several respondents thought 
the agency should consider analyzing and correcting the 1982 planning 
rule instead of developing an entirely new rule.
    Response: In many ways, the final rule reflects the 1982 planning 
rule. However, it makes improvements based on over 25 years of 
experience. The final rule includes the basic plan components set out 
in the 1982 planning rule, includes the provisions required by NFMA, 
and expands the public involvement requirements in the 1982 planning 
rule by requiring additional public involvement opportunities and 
emphasizing collaboration.
    Comment: The final rule should be subject to NEPA. Some respondents 
commented that adoption of the final rule is itself subject to the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
4321-4346), and this rulemaking is a major Federal action having a 
significant effect on the human environment. Others questioned why 
previous rulemaking efforts were accompanied by environmental 
assessments and why this rulemaking was not.
    Response: The Department disagrees that this rulemaking is a major 
Federal action that has significant effects on the environment because 
the final rule, which sets out a process for developing plans, plan 
amendments, and plan revisions, does not have environmental effects. 
The Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, section 31.12, paragraph 2, 
specifically provides that procedures for amending or revising land 
management plans may be categorically excluded from NEPA documentation.
    The Forest Service produced an environmental assessment for the 
2000 planning rulemaking efforts, but asserted at the time that it was 
going beyond the requirements of the law or policy. In the spirit of 
efficiency and streamlining inherent in this rulemaking effort, it 
seemed inconsistent to produce a NEPA document that was not required or 
useful. In summary, this final rule does not significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment and does not trigger NEPA obligations.
    Comment: Integration of planning process requirements. One 
respondent commented that the 2002 proposed rule listed many 
requirements and was unclear how these requirements were to be 
integrated into a plan.
    Response: The Department agrees that it was difficult to track the 
planning process steps in the 2002 proposed rule. This difficulty is 
one of the primary reasons the Department substantially reorganized the 
final rule.
    Comment: Research. One professional organization felt that the 
final rule should support ``bold and imaginative'' research on NFS 
lands.
    Response: The Department believes that the final rule does support 
research. The strong emphasis on monitoring, evaluation, and the 
Department's recognition of the value of environmental management 
systems produce an adaptable process where scientific experimentation 
is encouraged. Topics to be researched, however, are properly not set 
out in the final rule.
    Comment: Forest Service directives. Several respondents expressed 
concern about placing management direction in the Forest Service 
Directive System (Forest Service directives) and said that the Forest 
Service directives have not been subject to rulemaking procedures and 
do not have the full force and effect of law. They said that NFMA 
requires direction to be in the planning rule and they are concerned 
that use of directives will foster distrust and a confusing system of 
malleable and unenforceable guidelines.
    Some respondents were concerned that placing direction in the 
Forest Service directives instead of in the final rule would reduce 
meaningful public participation. Others endorsed the idea of using the 
Forest Service directives for technical details rather than burden the 
final rule with these ``how to'' requirements. Some said that the 
Forest Service should retain greater flexibility and should be able to 
make decisions more cost effectively. Finally, some respondents said 
that they would like the Forest Service directives to be updated and 
published for public review concurrent with the planning rule 
development.
    Response: The Forest Service directives are the primary basis for 
the internal management and control of all programs and the primary 
source of administrative direction to Forest Service employees. The 
Forest Service Manual (FSM) contains legal authorities, objectives, 
policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a 
continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff to 
plan and execute assigned programs and activities. The Forest Service 
Handbook (FSH) is the principal source of specialized guidance and 
instruction for carrying out the direction issued in the FSM. Because 
the Forest Service directives are easier to change and more easily 
adopt the latest technology and science, they are the appropriate place 
for specific technical guidance.
    As stated in the ``Forest Service Directives'' section in the 
preamble, the Forest Service is developing planning directives to 
provide overall guidance needed to use this final rule for Forest 
Service line officers, agency employees, and others. The Forest Service 
will provide the public with the opportunity to comment on planning 
directives as soon as they are prepared through notice in the Federal 
Register.
    Comment: Other issues. Some respondents commented on a variety of 
important issues such as roads, recreation, timber harvest, taxes, 
recycling, access, travel management, public safety, effects on 
spiritual values, land exchanges and purchases, fire protection, paying 
for restoration, job creation, certain kinds of motorized use, and 
roadless areas and they wanted those issues addressed in the final 
rule.
    Response: The Department agrees that the issues raised are 
important. However, the final rule is intended to guide how plans are 
developed, revised, and amended. The final rule provides the overall 
direction for planning. The final rule does not provide direction that 
is properly found in the plans themselves, or in the subsequent 
decisions regarding projects and activities on a particular national 
forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative unit.

Issues in Response to Specific Sections

    Following are discussions and responses to public comments received 
on specific sections in 36 CFR part 219 during the Department's comment 
period on the 2002 proposed rule, including discussion on the 
differences between the 2002 proposed rule and the final rule and why 
these changes were made. The Department reorganized the final rule. As 
a result, some sections have new titles and/or a new designation as 
shown in the following table 1. In addition, the heading for subpart A 
in the 2002 proposed rule, ``National Forest System Planning for Land 
and Resource Management Plans,'' has been shortened and simplified in 
the final rule to ``National Forest System Land Management Planning,'' 
which is a term also used in the National Forest Management Act of 
1976.

[[Page 1037]]



 Table 1.--Section-by-Section Comparison of the 2002 Proposed Rule With
                             the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2002 Proposed Rule]...............  [Final Rule]
Proposed section number and title..  Final section number and title
Sec.   219.1 Purpose and             Sec.   219.1 Purpose and
 applicability.                       Applicability.
                                     [some direction moved to Sec.  Sec.
                                        219.2 and 219.3]
Sec.   219.2 Nature and scope of a   [redesignated at Sec.   219.3;
 land and resource management plan.   planning process requirements
                                      incorporated in Sec.   219.7]
                                     Sec.   219.2 Levels of planning and
                                      planning authority.
Sec.   219.3 Levels of planning and  [redesignated at Sec.   219.2]
 planning authority.
                                     Sec.   219.3 Nature of land
                                      management planning.
Sec.   219.4 Decisions embodied in   [incorporated in Sec.  Sec.   219.7
 plans.                               and 219.12]
                                     Sec.   219.4 National Environmental
                                      Policy Act compliance.
Sec.   219.5 Indicators of need to   [incorporated in Sec.   219.6 or
 amend or revise a plan.              the Directive Systems.]
                                     Sec.   219.5 Environmental
                                      management systems.
Sec.   219.6 Compliance with         [redesignated at Sec.   219.4]
 National Environmental Policy Act.
                                     Sec.   219.6 Evaluations and
                                      monitoring.
Sec.   219.7 Amending a plan.......  [incorporated in Sec.  Sec.
                                      219.2, 219.7 and 219.9]
                                     Sec.   219.7 Developing, amending,
                                      or revising a plan.
Sec.   219.8 Revising a plan.......  [incorporated in Sec.  Sec.
                                      219.2, 219.7, 219.8 and 219.9]
                                     Sec.   219.8 Application of a new
                                      plan, plan amendment, or plan
                                      revision.
Sec.   219.9 Developing a new plan.  [incorporated in Sec.  Sec.   219.2
                                      and 219.7]
                                     Sec.   219.9 Public participation,
                                      collaboration, and notification.
Sec.   219.10 Application of plan    [incorporated in Sec.   219.8]
 direction.
                                     Sec.   219.10 Sustainability.
Sec.   219.11 Monitoring and         [incorporated in Sec.   219.6]
 evaluation..
                                     Sec.   219.11 Role of science in
                                      planning.
[2002 Proposed Rule]...............  [Final Rule]
Proposed section number and title..  Final section number and title
Sec.   219.12 Collaboration,         [incorporated in Sec.   219.9]
 cooperation, and consultation.
                                     Sec.   219.12 Suitable uses and
                                      provisions required by NFMA.
Sec.   219.13 Sustainability.......  [redesignated at Sec.   219.10]
Sec.   219.14 The consideration of   [redesignated at Sec.   219.11]
 science in planning.
Sec.   219.15 Special designations.  [incorporated in Sec.  Sec.
                                      219.7]
Sec.   219.16 Determination of       [redesignated at Sec.   219.12]
 lands available for timber harvest
 and suitable for timber production.
                                     Sec.   219.13 Objections to plans,
                                      plan amendments, or plan
                                      revisions.
Sec.   219.17 Limitation on timber   [redesignated at Sec.   219.12]
 harvest.
                                     Sec.   219.14 Effective dates and
                                      transition.
Sec.   219.18 Plan documentation,    [incorporated in Sec.  Sec.
 maintenance, and availability.       219.6, 219.7, and 219.9]
                                     Sec.   219.15 Severability.
                                     Sec.   219.16 Definitions.
Sec.   219.19 Objections to          [redesignated at Sec.   219.13]
 amendments or revisions of plans.
Sec.   219.20 Appeals of plan        [incorporated in Sec.   219.13]
 amendments in site-specific
 project decisions.
Sec.   219.21 Notice of plan         [incorporated in Sec.  Sec.   219.9
 decisions and effective dates.       and 219.14]
Sec.   219.22 Transition...........  [incorporated in Sec.   219.14]
Sec.   219.23 Definitions..........  [redesignated at Sec.   219.16]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, the Department reorganized sections of the 2002 
proposed rule to improve clarity and reduce redundant material. The 
discussion of each section follows the numbering and titles adopted in 
the final rule, with references to where the text was located in the 
2002 proposed rule. These new sections are ordered from general to 
specific. The first section introduces the reader to what is covered in 
the final rule and acknowledges the multiple-use and sustained yield 
productivity mandate of the Forest Service (remainder of Sec.  219.1). 
Section 219.2 describes planning in general and the levels of planning 
in the agency. Then, the final rule contains a general description of 
plans (Sec. Sec.  219.3 and 219.4), followed by the specific plan 
requirements (Sec. Sec.  219.5-219.16).

Section 219.1--Purpose and Applicability

    This section is coded the same in the final rule as it was in the 
2002 proposed rule and introduces the reader to what is covered in the 
final rule, acknowledges the multiple-use and sustained-yield 
productivity mandate of the Forest Service, and directs the Chief of 
the Forest Service to establish planning procedures in the Forest 
Service directives. The 2002 proposed rule language is retained in the 
final rule, with some clarification regarding the overall goal to 
sustain the multiple uses of its renewable resources in perpetuity 
while maintaining the long-term productivity of the land.
    Comment: Overall goals of planning. There were varied comments on 
the overall goal of National Forest System (NFS) planning. Some said 
that the purpose of planning should reflect sustainability priorities 
and values. Some respondents stated that the best approach to the 
purpose and applicability section is to state that ecological 
sustainability is the desired condition to be achieved through land 
management. Some requested that the Forest Service's vision statement 
be changed to reflect a philosophy of preservation and sustainability 
and that the Forest Service not make management decisions based on a 
productivity paradigm. They stated that good decisions that restore the 
forest will be approved quickly without controversy and lawsuits, while 
bad decisions should be stopped and the decisionmaker held accountable. 
Others requested that the Forest Service give attention to how plans 
affect tourism and recreation.

[[Page 1038]]

    Response: The Department agrees that the mandate under the National 
Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 and Multiple-Use Sustained Yield 
Act (MUSYA) of 1960 is not exclusively for production or for 
preservation because ``multiple use and sustained yield'' applies to 
all renewable resources, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, 
watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. These laws direct the 
management of all the various renewable resources of the lands so that 
they are used in the combination that will best meet the needs of 
present and future generations of Americans. Planning for NFS lands is 
not simple, and often there is little agreement on how these lands 
should be managed. While relying on the expertise of the Forest Service 
and taking into account the best available science, this final rule 
also provides an open process for public collaboration and 
participation.
    Finally, other overarching planning guidance, such as the intent of 
planning to produce responsible land management and how a plan aids the 
agency to fulfill its stewardship responsibilities, is discussed in 
Sec.  219.3.
    Comment: Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA). Some respondents 
pointed out that ``multiple use'' is part of the law and ``ecosystem 
management'' is not. Active forest management, they asserted, is 
necessary for forest health, maintaining biological diversity, and 
sustaining wildlife populations. These respondents requested that the 
final rule uphold what they believe are the active forest management 
principles mandated by the MUSYA. Further, they stated that timber 
harvesting is a goal of the MUSYA. They asked that the Forest Service 
provide a high-level sustained yield of renewable timber resources.
    Some respondents requested that the Forest Service comply with 
MUSYA by managing lands according to what they call its ``wood, water, 
wildlife, range, and recreation'' formula. Others stated that the 2002 
proposed rule violates the MUSYA requirement that NFS lands be used to 
best meet the needs of the American people. These respondents requested 
that emphasis be placed on recreation, aesthetics, air and water 
quality, species habitat, and ecosystem integrity, rather than natural 
resource development.
    Response: The final rule is faithful to NFMA, which requires the 
use of the MUSYA to provide the substantive basis for forest planning. 
As used in the final rule, sustainability embodies these Congressional 
mandates. The interrelated and interdependent elements of 
sustainability are social, economic, and ecological as described in 
Sec.  219.10. The final rule sets the stage for a planning process that 
can be responsive to the desires and needs of both present and future 
generations of the Americans for the multiple uses of NFS lands. The 
final rule does not make choices among the multiple uses; it describes 
the processes by which those choices will be made as a preliminary step 
during development of plans. Later, the plan provides guidance for 
projects and activities.
    Comment: Forest planning versus project planning. Some respondents 
said that, unlike the 2000 planning rule, the 2002 proposed rule 
correctly focused only on the forest planning level and not on project 
planning.
    Response: The final rule retains the focus of the 2002 proposed 
rule on land management plans, while at the same time explaining on how 
plans and projects or activities are linked. Inclusion of an EMS in the 
land management framework provides a current scientific and 
informational foundation for the effective development and 
implementation of projects and activities. This framework ensures the 
continued relevance of the entire cycle of planning while maintaining 
the distinction between strategic planning and projects and activities. 
As previously noted, there will be a comprehensive table in the Forest 
Service directives that includes guidance on what direction is 
appropriate for the plan level, what decisions are properly made at the 
project or activity level, and what scheduling, prioritization, or 
analysis may take place in between.

Section 219.2--Levels of Planning and Planning Authority

    This section was located in the proposed rule at Sec.  219.3, but 
has been re-designated at Sec.  219.2 as part of the overall 
reorganization of the final rule. This section describes planning in 
general, the levels of planning in the agency, and provides the basic 
authorities and direction for developing, amending, or revising a plan.
    Comment: Consistency of decisions across units and the Responsible 
Official. Some respondents were concerned that plans developed for 
individual units, each with a different Responsible Official, would not 
be consistent within larger areas. They said that the planning 
framework should be similar within each State or ecological region. 
Some said that without a regional context, the planning efforts of each 
forest or grassland would seem to take place in a vacuum. Some 
commented that plans needed to address species management plans and 
conservation agreements for wide ranging species in a consistent 
manner. Some commented that planning needed to use consistent 
consultation procedures with Tribes.
    Several respondents commented on the provision that the Supervisor 
is usually the Responsible Official. Those in favor of this provision 
said that local Supervisors and staff are involved with actual hands-on 
project implementation and can better gauge success or failure of the 
planning process. Some said that Supervisors are close to the problem 
areas and are better able than Regional Foresters to seek solutions 
proactively and act upon them more quickly. These respondents felt that 
Supervisors are in a better position to facilitate citizen 
participation and negotiation between competing groups and to 
coordinate with local or State plans.
    Those opposed to this provision were concerned that the local 
pressure for employment in forest products industry may outweigh the 
preservation of our national heritage if decisionmaking was left in 
local hands. They said that Supervisors are susceptible to political 
pressure or abuse of their authority. Still others said Supervisors 
sometimes do not have sufficient experience or expertise to make 
adequate plan decisions. Some said that local staff may not understand 
how to use inventory data, monitoring, or ecosystem or species 
evaluations and will simply copy what was done in other locations, 
causing endless escalation of planning efforts. Several respondents 
said that the current system has worked well with the Regional Forester 
as the Responsible Official.
    Still others said that both national and local level staffs are 
necessary, because local staff cannot reasonably understand complex and 
overlapping policies, regulations, and laws, and national staff cannot 
efficiently study local conditions or gain local consensus. Finally, 
one respondent observed that if the planning process becomes so 
burdensome that local officials do nothing but plan, the system would 
once again break down. Some respondents wanted the final rule to 
clarify the conditions under which officials ranking higher than the 
Supervisor can act as the Responsible Official and to explain the types 
of decisions that these officials can make.
    Response: Supervisors currently coordinate across unit and Regional 
boundaries and will continue to do so because the evaluations described 
in Sec. Sec.  219.6, 219.7, and 219.10 will often cross boundaries of 
adjacent NFS units. In addition, the final rule provides the option for 
higher-level officials to act as

[[Page 1039]]

the Responsible Official for a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision 
across a number of plan areas when consistency is needed. Additional 
procedural guidance will be placed in the Forest Service directives to 
ensure consistency as needed for Tribal or public consultation or for 
social, economic, or ecological resource related issues.
    The Department intends the final rule be flexible in addressing 
different issues that may arise at different levels. Therefore, the 
Department does not believe that the final rule should provide the 
specific criteria for when a higher-ranking official becomes the 
Responsible Official.
    The final rule retains the provision in the 2002 proposed rule for 
the Supervisor to be the Responsible Official because the Department 
believes that the Supervisor is the person most familiar with the 
resources and the people on their unit and is usually the most 
appropriate person to make decisions affecting those lands. This 
provision has not changed from the 2000 planning rule. Together, 
environmental management systems, science, monitoring, evaluation, 
interdisciplinary teams, public participation, objection process, and 
other laws and direction all aid in providing relevant information for 
the decisionmaker.
    However, the final rule retains the provision in the 2002 proposed 
rule to allow higher-level officials to serve as Responsible Officials. 
Also, the final rule retains the provision of the 2002 proposed rule 
for an objection process in which the Reviewing Officer, who is the 
supervisor of the Responsible Official, must respond to objections 
before approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision (Sec. Sec.  
219.13 and 219.16).
    Comment: Forest Service Strategic Plan. Some respondents observed 
that the 2002 proposed rule only acknowledges the existence of the 
Strategic Plan and does not provide guidance about using the Strategic 
Plan in new plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions.
    Response: The Strategic Plan provides an overall vision for 
management of the NFS. Land management plans, projects, and activities 
contribute to the vision and Responsible Officials approve them within 
the context of the Strategic Plan. The Department believes that 
decisions regarding how plans should use the Strategic Plan are best 
made at the national forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable 
administrative unit level.

Section 219.3--Nature of Planning and Land Management Plans

    The direction found in Sec.  219.2 of the 2002 proposed rule has 
been redesignated at Sec.  219.3 as part of the reorganization of the 
final rule. The direction found in Sec.  219.3 of the 2002 proposed 
rule has been moved to Sec.  219.2 of the final rule. Section 219.3 
describes the nature of planning, and the force and effect of plans.
    Comment: Desired conditions as the purpose of planning. Some 
respondents believed that the final rule should establish desired 
conditions as the fundamental purpose of a plan and that this section 
of the final rule provides a clear statement of what a plan will do. 
Others said that the focus on desired conditions may be too narrow in 
light of the overall goals of multiple use and sustained yield. Others 
commented that the primary purpose should be to integrate human 
activities and ecological processes. Still others said that the term 
``desired conditions'' was too susceptible to multiple interpretations 
and the purpose of a plan should be changed to ``fulfill multiple-use 
objectives to ensure ecological sustainability.''
    Response: The Department concluded that, while ``desired 
conditions'' may drive how the other plan components are developed, 
``desired conditions'' are not the ``primary purpose'' of a plan. The 
final rule has been changed at Sec.  219.7(a) to clarify that plans 
also provide objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special 
areas. There is further discussion of desired conditions in the 
preamble to the final rule in the section entitled ``The strategic and 
adaptive nature of land management plans.'' Plans are developed in 
light of the overall goal of managing the NFS lands as described in 
Sec.  219.1, which is to sustain the multiple uses of its renewable 
resources in perpetuity while maintaining the long-term productivity of 
the land.
    Comment: Oil and gas leasing decisions. Some respondents felt that 
the 2002 proposed rule's emphasis on the programmatic nature of plans 
is contrary to the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act (Oil 
and Gas Leasing Reform Act) of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-
256, 30 U.S.C. 181, 226, 226-3), Forest Service regulations, and the 
Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), which these 
respondents say, require project or activity decisions to be made in a 
plan.
    Response: The Forest Service directives will include guidance on 
making an initial availability decision for oil and gas leasing where 
there is the geologic potential for the occurrence of such resources or 
where there has been an expression of interest in leasing. There is no 
irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources unless and until 
the Department of the Interior decides to issue a lease, giving certain 
exclusive rights to the lessee. Ground-disturbing activity and the 
final irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources occur only 
when a decision approves a surface use plan of operations. Exploration 
or development of a lease requires additional environmental analysis, 
public disclosure, and specific project decisions by the appropriate 
regulatory agencies.
    Because plans include plan components that describe which lands are 
generally suitable for consideration for energy and mineral leasing, 
they meet the intent of the Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, the Forest 
Service regulations for oil and gas resources, and the Mining and 
Minerals Policy Act. Specific project decisions to explore or develop a 
lease or mining claim are properly deferred to the project or activity 
level.
    Comment: Management zone authorities. Some respondents said that 
only counties have authority to create zoning ordinances. Others said 
that the zoning system creates a dominant or single use that is 
contrary to multiple-use.
    Response: The Forest Service is responsible for managing the lands 
of the NFS under NFMA and other laws. The terms ``zoning'' or ``zone'' 
were not in the text of the 2002 proposed rule, nor are they in the 
text of the final rule. The Forest Service is not issuing zoning 
ordinances. The preamble to the 2002 proposed rule described plans as 
creating ``zones'' in the forest. The Department used the term as a 
metaphor to help describe how plans may identify suitability of areas.

Section 219.4--National Environmental Policy Act Compliance

    Compliance with NEPA was addressed in Sec.  219.6 in the 2002 
proposed rule. This section has been redesignated at Sec.  219.4 as 
part of the overall reorganization of the final rule. This section of 
the final rule describes how planning will comply with NEPA.
    Comment: Applicability of NEPA, NEPA documentation, NEPA 
``significance,'' and the nature of forest plans. Some respondents said 
that NEPA is not applicable to planning, noting that a plan should 
provide a framework for future project and activity decisionmaking and 
that the

[[Page 1040]]

disclosure of effects in plan-level NEPA documents is necessarily 
speculative; some said that plans do not significantly affect the 
environment. Others said that it might be more advantageous to make as 
many project-level decisions during the forest planning process as 
possible, because one NEPA analysis document could be used to make 
numerous decisions. Another said that failure to make decisions at the 
plan level would delay implementation of projects.
    Some respondents supported categorically excluding plans from NEPA 
documentation, while others suggested that the criteria for 
categorically excluding plans were unclear, or that extraordinary 
circumstances in the plan area would always preclude the use of a 
categorical exclusion (CE). Some respondents thought the criteria for 
determining whether a CE is appropriate gives the Responsible Official 
too much discretion; others thought the degree of discretion 
appropriate. Some respondents indicated that they did not see the 
relationship between categorically excluding plans from NEPA 
documentation and achieving a more streamlined, adaptive planning 
system and holding the Forest Service accountable for its plans. Some 
interpreted categorically excluding plans from NEPA documentation as 
not complying with NEPA, rather than application of a provision of the 
NEPA regulations.
    Many questioned how certain procedures, such as plan analysis and 
public involvement, would occur if a CE is used. Many people questioned 
how cumulative effects would be considered if a CE was used, and how 
monitoring would occur. Some wanted clearer and stronger direction for 
when a plan might be categorically excluded and when an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) would be required. Some respondents asked the 
Forest Service to distinguish between effects to the environment and 
effects to the human environment.
    Respondents stated a number of reasons in support of an EIS for 
plans. Some respondents commented that plans, by their very nature, are 
controversial and therefore should require an EIS. Some commented that 
the requirement of the 1982 and 2000 planning rules to prepare an EIS 
for plans and revisions was an acknowledgment that plans are major 
Federal actions having significant effects on the environment. Others 
suggested that a substantial change in the existing situation on the 
ground or a substantial change to an existing plan would trigger an 
EIS. Some respondents said that the 2002 proposed rule misconstrued the 
role of a plan and thus the applicability of NEPA, saying that a plan 
is not just a simple framework, but rather creates changes on-the-
ground that have environmental consequences. Some said that if a plan 
acts as a zoning document and authorizes increased motorized 
recreational uses, detailed analysis would have to occur in the plan 
analysis for all affected sites. Some respondents thought that the 2002 
proposed rule differentiated between whether an EIS would be required 
for plan revisions, as opposed to new plan development, arguing that 
existing plans must need ``significant'' changes because conditions had 
changed since the plans were originally adopted.
    However, some said that a better approach, instead of focusing on 
``zones,'' would be to describe where in the plan area certain uses 
would have dominance over other uses. Others said that plans should set 
timber sale schedules; indicate what areas are available for logging, 
grazing, off-road vehicles use, and mineral extraction; and establish 
unique areas for protection, and that NEPA documentation would be 
necessary to make such decisions. They said that plans should establish 
measurable and enforceable standards and objectives. Others said that 
management activities must be analyzed on a site-by-site basis in a 
NEPA document for the plan.
    Some respondents thought that in the absence of an EIS, the Forest 
Service would ignore information that would curb timber harvesting. 
Some thought that an EIS was needed to ensure ecological sustainability 
because adequate analysis needs a long-term view that considers 
science.
    Some respondents commented that there is a history of case law that 
requires the Forest Service to follow not only NEPA, but also the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR parts 
1500-1508. Some respondents raised a number of NEPA regulation 
requirements for ``significance,'' including the uncertainty of 
effects; the potential for establishing a precedent for future actions 
with significant effects; connectivity of actions; potential violations 
of Federal, State, or local environmental laws; consideration of the 10 
``significance'' factors in the CEQ regulations; and various other 
factors.
    Response: As described in the ``Overview of the Final 2004 Rule,'' 
land management plans under this final rule will be strategic and 
aspirational in nature. They will include decisions with on-the-ground 
effects only in extraordinary circumstances. If a plan includes on-the-
ground decisions, it will not fall within the categorical exclusion 
being proposed in connection with this final rule. Otherwise, it will 
be categorically excluded from NEPA documentation due to the fact that 
the adoption or amendment of plans containing the five plan components 
described above is not a major federal action significantly affecting 
the environment. Simultaneously with this rulemaking, the Forest 
Service is proposing to revise its NEPA procedures to provide a new 
categorical exclusion for plan development, amendment, and revision. 
The Forest Service is seeking comment on the proposed categorical 
exclusion. Information developed in plan monitoring and evaluation, 
including those required by Sec.  219.6, may be incorporated by 
reference in applicable NEPA documents and used as basis for the 
analysis needed for specific project and activity decisions. The final 
rule establishes a planning process that complies with NEPA in a manner 
appropriate for NFMA planning. The final rule does not preclude Forest 
Service participation in development of an EA or EIS in a joint 
planning effort with another Federal agency.
    The Department emphasizes that project or activity decisions are 
generally not appropriate for inclusion in a plan level document; 
experience has shown that including project and activity decisionmaking 
in planning has actually delayed the planning and project and activity 
processes without improving natural resource management or public 
participation. Thus, by sharpening the distinction between planning and 
project and activity decisions, the Department expects both better 
planning decisions and more useful and timely environmental analysis 
for project and activity decisionmaking. Experience has shown the 
futility of attempting detailed project and activity proposals at the 
time of plan approval: the NEPA documentation for the proposed projects 
and activities would be largely speculative and unwieldy and would not 
account for unforeseen circumstances. Most of the document would be out 
of date by the time most of the projects or activities would be ready 
for decisionmaking.
    Paragraph (d) of Sec.  219.4 specifies that nothing in this rule 
alters the application of NEPA to proposed projects and activities. For 
example, a decision to allow motorized recreational use within the plan 
area may be made contemporaneously with, but not as a part of, a plan, 
but such decision can only be made upon the completion of the 
appropriate level of NEPA analysis.

[[Page 1041]]

The Department believes that, in general, an EIS does not need to 
accompany planning decisions made pursuant to NFMA, particularly given 
that plans under the final rule will contain five components merely 
setting forth desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability 
of areas, and special areas. Until now, the agency's practice under 
NEPA has been to require programmatic EISs for plan development and 
revision, and EISs or EAs for proposed plan amendments. Because a plan, 
in most cases, is a framework for future action, EISs prepared at the 
plan level had no proposed ``action'' on which to focus. Similarly, 
disclosure of effects of a plan included discussions of possible 
environmental impacts from an array of potential projects and 
activities whose dimensions and details were far from certain and 
ranged over a 15-year period for implementation without an ability to 
predict unforeseen natural events. To conduct a meaningful evaluation 
of environmental impacts, and to provide helpful information to 
decisionmakers, the agency must examine the details of proposed 
activities, the extent of those activities, the specific location of 
those activities, the environmental conditions at the site when the 
activities are proposed, past and reasonably foreseeable future actions 
that might relate to the cumulative impacts of the proposed activities, 
and reasonable mitigation measures, if appropriate. After 25 years of 
experience, the Department now knows this information is not generally 
available at the time of plan approval, and that to provide such 
specific information at the time of adopting or amending a plan is an 
inefficient use of resources.
    Furthermore, between the time of plan evaluation and the design of 
projects, the possibilities change. A plan EIS disclosure of potential 
cumulative impacts and other unit-wide information are speculative to 
begin with, and therefore, quickly become outdated. The agency has 
found that a plan EIS typically does not provide useful, current 
information about potential cumulative impacts at the time of project 
or activity proposals; therefore, relying upon, or ``tiering'' to, a 
plan EIS has not proved to be effective over the long term.
    Under the final rule, approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision creates the framework that will lead to projects and 
activities for which EISs, EAs, or reliance on CEs will be necessary. 
Accordingly, the Department believes it is appropriate at the time of 
plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision to begin assembling 
appropriate data and other information to be used in those EISs, EAs, 
and CEs. Much of this information should come from the environmental 
management system processes described in the other parts of this rule. 
However, the assembling of data and other information that will be 
useful in making future project or activity decisions does not itself 
constitute a proposal for major Federal action. Thus, the process of 
implementing NEPA is a continuum that begins when the planning 
framework is established, and moves through scoping for specific 
project and activity decisions, culminating in a NEPA document for the 
project and activity proposals.
    Moreover, the final rule does provide for extensive analysis, as 
set out in Sec. Sec.  219.6 and 219.7. A comprehensive evaluation must 
be done for plan development and revisions and updated at least every 
five years (Sec.  219.6(a)). This evaluation will provide a broad 
overview of current conditions and trends relevant to the plan area. 
This overview, along with information from annual evaluations and other 
sources, will be part of the continually updated Plan Documents or Set 
of Documents that must be considered in project analysis. These Plan 
Documents or Set of Documents will provide a better context than had 
been provided in plan EISs for project cumulative effects disclosures; 
therefore, the Forest Service will make better informed management 
decisions at the time it decides to act. The Plan Documents or Set of 
Documents required by the final rule will make it easier to propose, 
approve, and carry out projects.
    Conditions can and do change between the broad ``cumulative 
effects'' analysis the agency has done for plan EIS's and a later, 
actual project or activity decision. Fires can occur, adjacent 
landowners can do something that was not predicted, and the agency can 
be doing actions it had not anticipated at the time it developed the 
plan and not undertake projects or activities it thought it would. 
Under this final rule, the Forest Service uses monitoring and the 
results of the comprehensive evaluation with the most up-to-date site-
specific information to provide a basis for the consideration of 
cumulative effects for projects and activities. Again, cumulative 
effects like project or activity specific impacts are best studied in 
the context of a concrete proposal.
    The process outlined in the final rule retains and improves upon 
the important planning elements the public has come to expect, such as 
public involvement; taking into account the best available science; 
integrated analysis of social, economic, and ecological systems; 
monitoring and evaluation. An EIS is not necessary to ensure that the 
public is given an opportunity to participate in the planning process, 
or that the agency obtains high quality information, considers the best 
available science, and considers the long-term view. Under the final 
rule, the opportunities for the public will be greater than those 
opportunities required by regulation for an EIS, because the final rule 
mandates public involvement opportunities in developing and updating 
the comprehensive evaluation report, establishing the components of the 
plan, and designing the monitoring program. Additionally, by requiring 
an EMS, combined with the procedures in the Forest Service directives, 
the final rule provides for agency accountability through impartial and 
objective audits, management reviews, and public disclosure of the 
results of those reviews.
    Plans under this final rule will not contain final decisions that 
approve projects and activities except under extraordinary 
circumstances. Guidelines, which are intended to provide some direction 
in how to implement decisions, have no influence until they are applied 
in a project or activity. The identification of an area as generally 
suitable for a use is not a commitment or decision approving projects 
and activities. Any proposed use in an area identified as suitable for 
that use must be separately considered under agency NEPA procedures at 
the time of a project decision. Desired conditions and objectives are 
not commitments or final decisions approving projects and activities in 
the plan area. Special areas may be designated by statute or through 
plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision or a separate 
administrative process under NEPA and other applicable laws. In 
summary, none of these component parts of a plan is permanent, or 
final, in that all are subject to reconsideration and change through 
plan amendment or plan revision at any time. Should a Responsible 
Official nevertheless choose to include projects or activities within 
the context of a plan, plan revision, or plan amendment, extraordinary 
circumstances may be present such that an EIS or an EA may be required.
    From more than 25 years of NFMA planning experience, the Department 
concluded that it can most efficiently and appropriately evaluate and 
analyze the environmental consequences of an

[[Page 1042]]

array of potential projects and activities when those matters reach the 
status of a proposal. Making planning a more continuous process, not 
dependent on environmental impact statements that only give a 
prediction at one point in time, will actually make plans more relevant 
to projects by collecting, evaluating, and monitoring data on an 
ongoing basis, thereby maintaining a current base of information that 
Forest Service can use at the project or activity level.
    Comment: Alternative or option development. Some respondents 
questioned how alternatives--when developing plans, amendments, or 
revisions--would be considered if plans were categorically excluded 
from NEPA documentation. Others emphasized the importance of forming 
effective partnerships with government, private landowners, industries, 
and others to promote consensus and reduce the need for numerous 
alternatives. Some expressed concern that the agency would consider 
only its proposed plan and not the comments on, or alternatives to, the 
plan. Others asserted that NEPA requires a full range of alternatives, 
while others said only two alternatives are needed.
    Response: Requirements for how options may be considered while 
developing plans, amendments, or revisions are found in Sec.  
219.7(a)(6) of this final rule. The Department recognizes that people 
have many different ideas about how NFS lands should be managed and 
that the public should be involved in determining what the plan 
components should provide. Therefore, the final rule provides for 
participation and collaboration with the public at all stages of plan 
development, plan amendment, or plan revision. The Responsible Official 
shall work closely with the public to develop the proposed plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision. Key steps in development of the proposed 
plan shall be documented in the plan set of documents, which will be 
available to the public. The proposed plans that the Forest Service 
presents for public comment shall be jointly and collaboratively 
developed with the public.

Section 219.5--Environmental Management Systems

    This section has been added to the final rule to address public 
comments regarding how planning relates to adaptive management. 
Adaptive management was addressed in Sec.  219.11, Monitoring and 
Evaluation, in the 2002 proposed rule. Both the proposed and final rule 
define adaptive management as an approach to natural resource 
management where actions are designed and executed, and effects are 
monitored for the purpose of learning and adjusting future management 
actions, which improves the efficiency and responsiveness of 
management. The ``Overview of the Final 2004 Rule'' section of the 
preamble provides a detailed description of the provisions of this 
section as developed through the response to public comments.
    The Department has chosen to require each administrative unit to 
carry out an EMS based on standards developed by the International 
Organization for Standards (ISO). Each administrative unit's EMS will 
serve as a framework for land management planning, adaptive management 
and, at the project level, provide information for EISs, EAs, or CEs 
where required by NEPA. The EMS will provide a structured and 
documented process for evaluating each unit's environmental conditions, 
setting objectives to meet the unit's legal and public obligations, 
developing programs and procedures for managing the unit under the land 
management plan, monitoring and measurement procedures to collect and 
track information about environmental conditions, and corrective action 
and review processes to provide a ``feedback loop'' to push for 
continual improvement.

Section 219.6--Evaluations and Monitoring

    This section has been organized to specify requirements for plan 
evaluation and plan monitoring. Monitoring and evaluation requirements 
were found in Sec. Sec.  219.4(a)(6) and 219.11 of the 2002 proposed 
rule. The final rule allows the monitoring program to be changed with 
administrative corrections and public notification, instead of 
amendments, to more quickly reflect the best available science and 
account for unanticipated changes in conditions. Changes in a 
monitoring program will be reported annually, and the Responsible 
Official has flexibility to involve the public in a variety of ways in 
developing any changes to the program. Discussions of both evaluation 
and monitoring are found in the ``Overview of the Final 2004 Rule'' 
section of the preamble.
    One clarification regarding the requirement at Sec.  219.6(b)(2)(i) 
may be helpful. This paragraph requires that the plan monitoring 
program shall monitor to determine the effects of management on the 
productivity of the land. The term ``productivity'' refers to all of 
the multiple uses, such as outdoor recreation, range, timber, 
watershed, and wildlife and fish. Use of this term is broader than just 
commercial uses.
    Comment: General. Several respondents supported the monitoring and 
evaluation provisions of the 2002 proposed rule, because they observed 
that the 2002 proposed rule provided the appropriate level of 
monitoring and evaluation. Others thought the 2002 proposed rule gave 
too much flexibility to the Responsible Official, weakening monitoring 
and evaluation requirements. Some respondents wanted the requirements 
from the 2000 planning rule retained because they felt the 2002 
proposed rule did not have sufficient requirements to mandate adequate 
monitoring and evaluation.
    Others thought the Responsible Official was given the appropriate 
level of flexibility to allow for alteration of monitoring and 
evaluation strategies and methods. Still others thought the 2002 
proposed rule had burdensome requirements that needed to be relaxed. 
One person suggested the Forest Service establish an independent 
division to ensure monitoring compliance. Some suggested specific 
monitoring they believed was needed.
    Several respondents submitted suggestions about how the Forest 
Service evaluates the information obtained from monitoring. One 
respondent stated that the use of evaluation is fuzzy and needs 
clarification. Others suggested that evaluation could be used to 
indicate the need for a new use of the NFS. Another cautioned that any 
evaluation of the information obtained from monitoring should include 
an estimate of error reliability of any apparent trend to preclude 
premature or ill-advised corrections.
    Response: The Department believes that monitoring and evaluation 
are a critical and necessary part of the planning process. As the 2002 
proposed rule provided, the final rule requires the Responsible 
Official to provide for monitoring of degree to which on-the-ground 
management is maintaining or making progress toward the desired 
conditions and objectives for the plan (Sec.  219.6(b)(2)). The 
Department has strengthened this section in the final rule by adding a 
requirement for comprehensive evaluation of the area of analysis (Sec.  
219.6(a)(1)) at no longer than 5-year intervals and conducting an 
evaluation when amending a plan (Sec.  219.6(a)(2)). In addition, the 
use of an EMS with impartial and objective audits will address both the 
concerns expressed in the comments for local flexibility and those for 
agency accountability and compliance. The Department has also added a 
provision that the monitoring program take into account the best 
available science to

[[Page 1043]]

improve the evaluation process. These evaluations are an integral part 
of answering key planning questions such as the state of social, 
economic, and ecological conditions and trends, and the need for an 
amendment or revision.
    Comment: Involvement of science. Several respondents wanted 
assurance that science would be involved in monitoring.
    Response: The Department believes that the taking into account the 
best available science is important in monitoring and in evaluating 
results. The Department added the provision that the monitoring program 
shall take into account the best available science at Sec.  219.6(b). 
In addition, the final rule at Sec.  219.11 retains the intent of the 
2002 proposed rule (Sec.  219.14) that requires the consideration of 
best available science during planning, including the development and 
implementation of monitoring program.

Section 219.7--Developing, Amending, or Revising a Plan

    The provisions in Sec. Sec.  219.4, 219.7, 219.8, 219.9, 219.15, 
and 219.18 of the 2002 proposed rule have been combined at Sec.  219.7 
of the final rule so that procedural requirements are located in one 
section. This section includes requirements for plan components; 
planning authorities; plan process, including review of areas with 
potential for wilderness recommendation; administrative corrections; 
Plan Document or Set of Documents; and the plan approval document. The 
detailed public participation, collaboration, and notification 
requirements found in Sec. Sec.  219.7, 219.8, and 219.12 of the 2002 
proposed rule have been moved, with additional detail, and consolidated 
at Sec.  219.9 in the final rule to improve clarity and readability.
    Section 219.7(b) provides for administrative corrections. The final 
rule, at Sec.  219.7(b)(5), adds a new category for administrative 
corrections to include changes in the Plan Document or Set of 
Documents, except for changes in the plan components. The Department 
made this addition because, although an emphasis of the final rule is 
to allow for continual inclusion of new science and other information 
into the Plan Document or Set of Documents, the 2002 proposed rule 
included no specific vehicle for allowing this supplementation and 
change to occur. Changes to the Plan Document or Set of Documents may 
also occur when outdated documents are removed, for example, when a new 
inventory replaces an older one. The addition of this new 
administrative correction category fills this procedural gap.
    Comment: Desired conditions. Some respondents said that it is 
unclear what the desired conditions for the plan area will be and who 
makes the decision on which desired conditions will be included in the 
plan. Some said specific substantive requirements should be 
established, such as requiring desired conditions to mimic natural 
conditions, or employment of a policy such as ``limits of acceptable 
change.''
    Response: Desired conditions are one of the plan components (Sec.  
219.7(a)) developed through public collaboration and participation. The 
Responsible Official is the decisionmaker for the plan. The Responsible 
Official will consider public participation, the comprehensive 
evaluation, monitoring information, legal requirements, and assessments 
in deciding on desired conditions for the plan area. The final rule at 
Sec.  219.7(a) clarifies that desired conditions are the ``social, 
economic, and ecological attributes'' toward which the plan is to be 
directed.
    Because desired conditions are a component of a plan, but not 
necessarily the primary focus of a plan, the final rule removes the 
words ``primary focus of a plan.'' As it will for all plan components, 
the public will have an opportunity to comment on all aspects of the 
proposed plan, including desired conditions (Sec.  219.9), and may 
object to the plan in whole or in part (Sec.  219.13) if they have 
concerns. A discussion of plan components is found in the ``Overview of 
the Final 2004 Rule'' section of the preamble.
    Comment: Objectives. Some respondents said that plan objectives 
must be clear and measurable. They said that plans should provide for a 
good faith commitment to accomplish a plan's multiple-use and 
sustained-yield objectives. Others said that it may be 
counterproductive to write simple objectives when many factors lead to 
complexity in their implementation. Some said that the 2002 proposed 
rule lacks policy direction concerning the extent to which investment 
in resource management activities may support different outputs. Others 
said the push for clear objectives, where there is no clear science, 
will lead to direction that is meaningless and simply become a tool of 
a political agenda. Others said the final rule should explicitly 
provide for forest plan objectives to be established in accordance with 
guidelines in the Forest Service directives.
    Response: The final rule retains the provision of the 2002 proposed 
rule stating that objectives are measurable outcomes intended to guide 
management toward reaching desired conditions. Objectives can be 
thought of as a prospectus of outcomes, based on past performance and 
estimates of future trends. Objectives should be measurable so progress 
toward attainment of desired conditions can be determined. Variation 
should be expected due to changes in environmental conditions, 
available budgets, and other factors. In addition, the Department added 
the concept of maintenance of desired conditions to the description of 
objectives, because the desired conditions may already have been met 
and only need to be maintained.
    Comment: Standards. One respondent commented that clear, measurable 
standards are important. One respondent identified the intent of the 
proposed regulations to simplify, clarify, and minimize the standards. 
Some said that only measurable standards allow the public to know what 
the Forest Service is doing. Some said that NFMA requires enforceable 
standards and that judicial review would be more difficult without 
measurable standards. Some said that standards should be defined as 
``requirements'' instead of ``limitations.'' Others wanted to make 
clear that standards can be forest-wide or area-specific.
    Response: As explained in the ``Overview of the Final 2004 Rule'' 
section of the preamble, the Department has replaced the component of 
``standards'' with ``guidelines.'' The Department believes requiring 
mandatory standards are too restrictive; however, guidelines will be 
used and, in many cases, will be measurable. Policy contained in the 
Forest Service directives will provide the detailed direction for 
writing plan guidelines. The Forest Service directives will provide 
criteria for guidelines, requiring they be written clearly, so decision 
makers and the public know when a project is consistent with the 
guidelines.
    While the final rule will not require standards, the public shall 
be kept informed about what the Forest Service is doing by procedures 
such as: (1) Providing opportunities for the public to collaborate and 
participate (Sec.  219.9(a)); (2) opportunities to object before 
approving plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions (Sec.  219.13(a)); 
and (3) public notice requirements for land management planning (Sec.  
219.9(b)), NEPA procedures for projects and activities, and annual 
evaluation of monitoring results. The final rule also allows for 
forest-wide and area-specific guidelines.

[[Page 1044]]

    Comment: Special designations. Some respondents suggested that the 
final rule should contain language that addresses presidential and 
congressionally designated areas. Respondents stated that the 2000 
planning rule gives the Responsible Official too much discretion when 
evaluating roadless areas for special designation. Some said the final 
rule should provide standards for the Responsible Official to follow 
when evaluating and considering special designations of the roadless 
areas. Some said these standards should ensure that evaluations of 
roadless areas are completed, taking into account the best available 
science, and focus on ecological sustainability. One group wanted to 
ensure that special designations are not determined in a vacuum 
favoring only ecological values, and the group said that social and 
economic values must also be addressed. Others felt the effects of 
special designations should be considered for recreational access and 
mirror the increasing demand for recreation. Some said the final rule 
should require that plans set specific goals, such as an amount or a 
percentage of the forest for special area recommendations.
    Response: Special area identification is an integral part of the 
planning process. The proposed and final rules provide for the 
identification of special areas in the plan. After reviewing comments, 
and consideration of the Forest Service's experience with planning over 
the past 25 years, the Department concluded that guidance about special 
area concerns, such as roadless area evaluations or social and economic 
values, are more properly included in the Forest Service directives. 
Provisions in directives can be more extensive and can be more easily 
changed as the agency learns how to improve its processes and as new 
scientific concepts become available.
    Comment: Specific uses. Many respondents suggested that the final 
rule identify specific uses that should be included in plans. One 
person suggested that the final rule provide for large recreational 
gatherings. Another said that livestock grazing should be specifically 
discussed.
    Response: Plans establish desired conditions, which include 
recognition of the type of societal benefits that the NFS provides. The 
final rule begins with a presumption that lands are available for 
multiple uses and that plans will identify suitable uses that best fit 
the local situation.
    Comment: Need for amendment or revision. Several respondents were 
concerned about the discretion the 2002 proposed rule gives the 
Responsible Official in determining when a plan amendment or plan 
revision is needed. Some felt the final rule needs clear direction on 
when to propose a plan amendment or plan revision. Of equal concern was 
the discretion given to the Responsible Official to decide which issues 
would be considered in an amendment or revision. They felt that without 
specific requirements resources, such as flora and fauna, would not be 
analyzed for every plan amendment or plan revision. One respondent did 
not want plans to be revised or amended after disturbance events, such 
as wildfire, insect epidemics, and windstorms. Others supported 
limiting the analysis required in amending or revising a plan.
    Response: The final rule provides the Responsible Official 
discretion about whether or not to initiate a plan amendment or plan 
revision (subject to the NFMA requirement that the plan be revised at 
least every 15 years) and what issues to consider (Sec.  219.7(a)(4)). 
The evaluations required by the final rule will document current 
conditions and trends for social, economic, and ecological systems 
within the area of analysis (Sec.  219.6(a)) and aid the Responsible 
Official in determining if a plan amendment or plan revision is needed 
and which issues need to be considered. The Responsible Official may 
amend or revise the plan based on monitoring and evaluation, as well as 
other factors. The Department believes that the efficiencies of the 
final rule would be reduced if the final rule identified specific 
issues that must be considered for every plan revision or plan 
amendment.
    Comment: Interim amendments. Many respondents did not support 
interim amendments and suggested this provision be removed or at least 
have additional parameters added. Others supported this concept.
    Response: The final rule allows for an efficient plan amendment 
process. Therefore, there is no need for interim amendments. 
Accordingly, the interim amendment provision has been removed from the 
final rule.
    Comment: Significant plan amendments. Many respondents were 
concerned with how ``significance'' is determined for an amendment. 
Some wanted significance described, while others suggested certain 
factors to determine significance. Others wanted to understand the 
connection between an EIS and NFMA significance with respect to the 
2002 proposed rule's provision that every amendment prepared with an 
EIS would be deemed a significant amendment.
    Response: The Department decided not to distinguish between 
``significant'' and ``non-significant'' amendments. The Department is 
not requiring an EIS with any plan amendment. The final rule treats all 
amendments as ``significant,'' except when an amendment would relate 
only to a proposed project or activity. Plan amendments prepared under 
the procedures described in this final rule must have a 90-day comment 
period (required for significant amendments by NFMA) and must have an 
objection opportunity. Plan amendments associated with a proposed 
project or activity will follow the NEPA documentation required for the 
project or activity, as well as notice and comment requirements for the 
project or activity.
    Comment: Roadless area evaluation. Some respondents felt that under 
the 2002 proposed rule, the requirements for evaluation and protection 
of the roadless areas' ecological values had been eliminated, allowing 
the Responsible Official to redefine roadless area boundaries upon a 
determination of circumstances deemed necessary and appropriate. Some 
felt this language was too broad, deferred too much authority to the 
Responsible Official, and would eliminate many lands from consideration 
for new wilderness, though they still met the physical requirements of 
a roadless area. Others supported the requirement that the Responsible 
Official review and validate the maps of inventoried roadless areas and 
then adjust them as necessary and appropriate.
    Response: The Department has moved this provision from Sec.  
219.15(b)(3) in the 2002 proposed rule to Sec.  219.7(a)(5)(ii) in the 
final rule. Because the 2002 proposed rule caused confusion concerning 
roadless area evaluation, the Department has changed the wording to 
describe these areas from ``inventoried roadless areas'' to ``lands 
possessing wilderness characteristics.'' The final rule at 
219.7(a)(5)(ii) directs Responsible Officials to ensure that, unless 
otherwise provided by law, all NFS lands possessing wilderness 
characteristics be considered for recommendation as potential 
wilderness areas during plan development or revision. Policy and 
guidance contained in the Forest Service directives will provide the 
detailed direction for the identification of these areas and the 
evaluation process to follow in carrying out this requirement.

[[Page 1045]]

Section 219.8--Application of a New Plan, Plan Amendment, or Plan 
Revision

    This provision, found in Sec.  219.10 in the 2002 proposed rule, 
has been redesignated at Sec.  219.8 as part of the overall 
reorganization of the final rule. This section of the final rule 
describes how and when new plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions 
are applied to new or ongoing projects or activities. The general 
outline and intent of this section in the final rule is similar to the 
corresponding section of the 2002 proposed rule. However, Sec.  
219.10(e) of the proposed rule addressing testing and research projects 
was removed from the final rule because the acknowledgement that these 
projects are subject to all applicable laws is not necessary. While the 
2002 proposed rule required project or activity consistency with 
standards, the final rule requires consistency with the applicable 
plan.
    Comment: Valid existing rights. Respondents were both for and 
against the 2002 proposed rule provision that new plan direction is 
subject to valid existing rights. Those in favor supported respecting 
these rights. Those against said that protection of ecological 
conditions should take precedence.
    Response: The final rule at Sec.  219.8(a)(2) is consistent with 
NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)) which specifies that any revision in present 
or future permits, contracts, and other instruments made pursuant to 
the act shall be subject to valid existing rights.
    Comment: Consistency with the desired conditions. Several 
respondents commented that under the 2002 proposed rule, projects do 
not need to be consistent with standards; they only have to disclose 
the project's relationship with desired conditions. Some said that NFMA 
requires all projects to be consistent with the plan and said that if 
desired conditions are in the plan, projects need to be consistent with 
them. They also said the public will be disappointed to find out that 
plans have no ``teeth.'' Others were concerned that the 2002 proposed 
rule emphasizes desired conditions and objectives, which by definition 
may never be attained.
    Response: NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)) requires that resource plans, 
permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of 
NFS lands be consistent with land management plans. In response to 
public comment, Sec.  219.8(b) was added to the final rule to describe 
how projects or activities developed after approval of the plan must be 
consistent with applicable plan components. The Department removed two 
provisions: (1) the provision limiting consistency to standards and (2) 
the provision requiring disclosure of the project's relationship to 
desired conditions.
    In the final rule, if an existing or proposed project or activity 
is not consistent with the applicable plan, the Responsible Official 
must take one of the following actions: (1) Modify the existing or 
proposed project; (2) reject the proposal or terminate the existing 
project; or (3) amend the plan. The Department changed the final rule 
so the wording conforms to 16 U.S.C. 1604(i).
    Comment: Consistency with standards. Several respondents commented 
on the requirements that projects or activities not consistent with 
standards be either modified or rejected, or the plan be amended. Some 
said projects should not be exempted from standards, while others said 
that the final rule should specify that changes must be considered 
within the context of NEPA.
    Response: The Department changed the final rule so that projects or 
activities must be consistent with the applicable plan. A project or 
activity-specific amendment does not ``exempt'' a project from the 
plan, but rather, the amendment changes the plan, for that project. If 
a plan amendment is necessary as part of a project or activity 
decision, that decision will be considered in accordance with project 
NEPA procedures.

Section 219.9--Public Participation, Collaboration, and Notification

    This section of the final rule consolidates 2002 proposed rule 
provisions for public notifications and comment periods found in 
Sec. Sec.  219.7, Amending a plan; 219.8, Revising a plan; 219.12, 
Collaboration, cooperation, and consultation; and 219.21, Notice of 
plan decisions and effective dates. A discussion of public involvement 
is found in the ``Overview of the Final 2004 Rule'' section of the 
preamble.
    General comments: Some respondents expressed the belief that the 
2002 proposed rule excludes the public from participation in the 
planning process, and they wanted clarification of what the public's 
role would be under the final rule. Some were concerned that the 2002 
proposed rule no longer requires landscape goals be developed 
collaboratively. Additionally, some wanted a uniform process for public 
involvement. One person suggested the agency allow e-mail and other 
nontraditional forms of public participation and notification. One 
respondent said the Forest Service should not allow any public 
participation in planning. Many supported the 2002 proposed rule 
requirements for public involvement. Some respondents stressed the need 
for open and vigorous public participation. One Tribal group supported 
the requirement for consultation with federally recognized Indian 
Tribes. Others supported a broader range of media than is currently 
being used for public notification. Another felt the final rule should 
be specific about where plans are made available and about local public 
meetings. Some felt that a Notice of Intent should be placed in the 
Federal Register for all revisions.
    Response: The Department strongly supports public involvement in 
planning. Public participation, collaboration, and notification 
requirements found in Sec. Sec.  219.7, 219.8, and 219.12 of the 2002 
proposed rule have been moved to Sec.  219.9 in the final rule to 
improve clarity and readability. The final rule states that the 
Responsible Official shall use a collaborative and participatory 
approach to land management planning. The final rule does not exclude 
the public from participation in the planning process. There is a wide 
variety of methods for public involvement. For example, where 
practical, Responsible Officials may give extended notice of public 
meetings, including the use of unit Internet web sites. It is virtually 
impossible at the national level to specify details for each type of 
public involvement used during a planning process; however, the Forest 
Service is developing techniques that will improve public notification 
and participation in the planning process. Because planners are 
constantly improving these techniques, other forms of direction, such 
as the Forest Service directives, are more appropriate ways to 
prescribe the ``how to'' details of public notification.
    Neither the 2002 proposed rule nor the final rule used the 
cooperative development of landscape goals, because this specific 
activity should not be a requirement of all planning efforts. It may 
not always be useful and may often be unachievable with participating 
groups. The Department also believes that one standard process for 
public involvement would not be effective for every unit in the NFS. 
The size and scope of issues, the interest level of the public, and the 
resources vary across the country. Therefore, the final rule requires 
the Responsible Official to involve the public, but allows discretion 
for the particular type of public involvement process used.

[[Page 1046]]

    The final rule retains the requirement of the 2002 proposed rule 
that the Responsible Official provide opportunities for individuals and 
entities to participate, consult with federally recognized Indian 
Tribes, and provide for a 90-day public comment period. The final rule 
has added requirements that public involvement must occur in developing 
and updating the comprehensive evaluation report, establishing the 
components of the plan, and designing the monitoring program (Sec.  
219.9(a)).
    Other specific methods and timing for public participation and 
involvement outside of the formal public notice and comment process 
will be developed and implemented on a unit-specific basis so that they 
are tailored to the context and the stakeholders. The Department did 
not believe it appropriate to establish national ``one-size-fits-all'' 
requirements. In addition, the Department agrees with comments on the 
need for publication of a Notice of Intent to revise in the Federal 
Register for all plan revisions. The final rule adds the requirement 
that notification of new plans and plan revisions be published in both 
the Federal Register and the newspaper(s) of record.
    Comment: Advisory Committees. One respondent suggested the use of 
an advisory committee as a means to improve public involvement. Another 
wanted a multi-agency review board. Another person wanted to know why 
the Department had not required advisory committees in the 2002 
proposed rule. Several respondents supported the elimination of an 
advisory committee (required by the 2000 planning rule) as they felt 
the general public would be left out of the planning process. Two 
recreation organizations felt that this elimination was a vast 
improvement and would invigorate the public participation process.
    Response: The Department believes that an advisory committee, or 
something similar, may be the most effective method to engage the 
public in some situations, but it may not be effective in other cases. 
As in the 2002 proposed rule, the final rule allows the Responsible 
Official the discretion to determine the methods of public involvement 
opportunities, which can include, but does not require, advisory 
committees.
    Comment: Local involvement. Several respondents wanted local input 
to have priority over other input. Others were concerned that only 
special interests were being heard.
    Response: The NFS lands belong to all citizens of the United 
States. The Department values involvement by all interested parties, 
and understands the particular importance of local citizens and 
governments in the planning process. Responsible Officials will address 
local social, economic, and environmental issues in the evaluations for 
plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions.
    Comment: Public comment period. Some respondents suggested the 
establishment of a required comment period for plans, plan amendments, 
and plan revisions. Some said that all plans should have a 90-day 
comment period. Others wanted the public comment period to be longer 
than the NFMA requirement of 90 days (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)).
    Response: The final rule includes a provision that requires a 
public comment period of 90 days for plans, plan amendments (except for 
a plan amendment that applies to project or activity decision), and 
plan revisions. The final rule consolidates the requirements for public 
notification and comment periods into this section so that it is easier 
for the public to understand and the agency to follow. Section 6(d) of 
NFMA requires a comment period ``of at least three months.'' The final 
rule does not preclude the extension of the comment period beyond 90 
days.

Section 219.10--Sustainability

    The sustainability provisions found in Sec.  219.13 in the 2002 
proposed rule have been redesignated at Sec.  219.10 as part of the 
overall reorganization of the final rule. This section of the final 
rule provides provisions for social, economic, and ecological 
sustainability. The final rule retains sustainability as the overall 
goal for NFS planning and retains the concept of the interdependent 
social, economic, and ecological elements of sustainability (Sec.  
219.10) in the 2002 proposed rule. The final rule does not include many 
of the specific analytical processes and requirements set out in the 
2002 proposed rule. These provisions will be placed in the Forest 
Service directives. A discussion of sustainability is found in the 
``Overview of the Final 2004 Rule'' section of the preamble.
    The agency also hosted a workshop to provide an opportunity for 
public discussion of these options and for identification of other 
ideas on how to best address the statutory diversity provision. 
Interested parties expressed an extremely wide range of opinions, both 
in public comments and in response to the workshop. The Department 
found these comments useful in developing a scientifically credible and 
realistic approach for this final rule to meet legal requirements and 
to meet the agency's stewardship responsibilities.
    Comment: Sustainability definition. While some respondents focused 
their suggestions on clarification of the actual language of the 
sustainability section, other respondents suggested that a definition 
of the term ``sustainability'' would help clarify this topic. Some 
suggested using the 2000 planning rule's definition for sustainability, 
others suggested the Department should seek legislative clarification 
of definition, and others requested a definition that balances 
biological productivity, human use, and economically affordable 
management.
    Response: The concept of sustainability is first addressed in this 
final rule at Sec.  219.1, which provides that, consistent with MUSYA, 
the overall goal of managing the NFS is to sustain in perpetuity the 
productivity of the land and the multiple uses of its renewable 
resources in a manner that best meets the needs of the American people. 
Section 219.10 further clarifies that the relationship among, social, 
economic, and ecological sustainability is interrelated and 
interdependent.
    Comment: Biological diversity and species considered. Some 
respondents requested that the Forest Service maintain biodiversity on 
NFS land. Similarly, there were a number of comments regarding what 
categories of species to consider in the final rule. Some respondents 
wanted to consider the full array of biodiversity as in Option 2 of the 
2002 proposed rule and in the 2000 planning rule, and others agreed 
with the focus in Option 1 of the 2002 proposed rule, that identified 
only native and desired nonnative vertebrates and vascular plants. 
Others did not want to go beyond the specific focus in NFMA on plant 
and animal communities and tree species.
    Response: The final rule affirms the commitment of the Forest 
Service to meet the NFMA requirement that plans provide for diversity 
of native plant and animal communities by providing for a plan 
framework for sustaining native ecological systems. The final rule at 
Sec.  219.10(b)(1) requires that provisions in plan components 
establish a framework to provide characteristics of ecosystem diversity 
in the plan area. These characteristics are parameters that describe an 
ecosystem in terms of the composition (such as major vegetation types, 
rare communities, aquatic systems, and riparian systems); structure 
(such as successional stages, water quality, wetlands, and 
floodplains); principal ecological

[[Page 1047]]

processes (such as stream flows and historic and current disturbance 
regimes); and soil, water, and air resources. Providing characteristics 
of ecosystem diversity is the primary means by which a plan contributes 
to sustaining native ecological systems. Thus, plans provide for 
sustaining systems, the systems provide for diversity, and Forest 
Service meets NFMA requirements.
    The final rule adopts the concept of plant and animal species 
consistent with terminology in NFMA, as well as ESA. While adoption of 
the concept of comprehensive biodiversity is a worthy goal, the 
Department did not deem this necessary to meet the requirements of 
NFMA. The concept of biodiversity includes the full variety of life and 
associated processes. The Department did not think it was reasonable or 
possible to include the full scope and complexity of biological 
diversity from microbes to processes such as photosynthesis.
    Comment: Ecosystem and species sustainability. Respondents offered 
a variety of suggestions regarding the level at which to evaluate 
ecosystem sustainability. Some respondents requested that the Forest 
Service use a hierarchical approach to evaluate ecosystems, while 
others suggested a more iterative process is needed. Some respondents 
asked that analytical and evaluation requirements be spelled out in the 
final rule. Other respondents wanted ecosystem sustainability in the 
final rule to generate requirements for how ecosystems will be 
maintained and who will be responsible for their maintenance.
    Some respondents commented on the level at which species management 
decisions should be made. Some respondents requested that species 
management decisions be mandated by the final rule, while others asked 
that decisionmaking be left at the level of individual plans. Other 
respondents said that special provisions to maintain species are 
unnecessary; they asserted that such provisions are not particularly 
effective.
    Some respondents commented that species maintenance is important 
and is mandated by NFMA; they requested that the Forest Service retain 
the requirements from the 2000 planning rule. A number of respondents 
also requested that the Forest Service work to restore species that 
have been extirpated from the plan area.
    Response: The final rule adopts an overall goal for the ecological 
element of sustainability to contribute to sustaining native ecological 
systems by sustaining healthy, diverse, and productive ecological 
systems as well as by providing ecological conditions to support 
diversity of native plant and animal species in the plan area. To carry 
out this goal, the final rule adopts a two-level approach to sustaining 
ecological systems: ecosystem diversity and species diversity. The 
overall goal demonstrates the Department's commitment to ecosystem 
diversity and species conservation. This two-level approach was part of 
both Options 1 and 2 of the 2002 proposed rule. The final rule 
clarifies the two-level approach and leaves the specific detail 
procedures for the Forest Service directives.
    As part of the two-level approach, the plan area will be assessed 
for remaining species diversity needs after plan components are 
developed for ecosystem diversity. The Responsible Official would 
evaluate the framework established by the plan components for specific 
federally listed threatened and endangered species, species-of-concern, 
and selected species-of-interest. If needed, the Responsible Official 
would develop additional provisions for these species to maintain a 
framework for providing ecological conditions within the plan area that 
contributes to the conservation of these species. The Department 
selected federally listed threatened and endangered species, species-
of-concern, and species-of-interest for evaluation and conservation 
because: (1) These species are not secure within their range 
(threatened, endangered, or species-of-concern), or (2) management 
actions may be necessary or desirable to achieve ecological or other 
multiple use objectives (species-of-interest). Species-of-interest may 
have two elements: (1) Species that may not be secure within the plan 
area and, therefore, in need of consideration for additional 
protection, or (2) additional species of public interest including 
hunted, fished, and other species identified cooperatively with State 
fish and wildlife agencies.
    Comment: Accountability for ecological conditions. Citing a need 
for accountability for sustainability, a number of respondents 
requested the final rule require land management plans to ``provide 
measurable progress toward maintenance or restoration of ecological 
conditions.'' A recommendation was made to retain the provision of the 
2000 planning rule that requires the Responsible Official to be 
accountable for the long-term maintenance and restoration of 
ecosystems. A respondent suggested the Forest Service conduct research 
on validating a broad suite of indicators that can be used to evaluate 
the efficacy of planning in achieving the goal of ecological 
sustainability.
    Response: The Department believes that the plan components adopted 
in the final rule provide accountability for ecological conditions in 
that: (1) The land management plan's desired condition component 
provides the overall vision; (2) the objectives component provides 
measurable intentions for attaining the desired conditions; (3) 
guidelines provide the recommended technical and scientific 
specifications so that projects and activities conserve species; and 
(4) that other provisions and monitoring ensure that the combined parts 
of the plan are effective. In addition, EMS will ensure that 
Responsible Officials conduct environmental improvement in a systematic 
and accountable manner.
    Comment: Choosing Option 1 or 2. There were wide varieties of views 
on the ecological sustainability options in the 2002 proposed rule. In 
general, the response from the public can be grouped into two 
categories: those who did not support either option in the 2002 
proposed rule and those who supported at least one of the options in 
the 2002 proposed rule. Many respondents suggested that neither option 
is adequate in the 2002 proposed rule, citing the lack of clarity, the 
lack of a Committee of Scientists to assist in the development of the 
options, and the lack of enforceability.
    Other respondents considered either option to be sufficient and 
remarked that both options uphold the agency's NFMA diversity 
requirement. Alternative suggestions from respondents included creating 
a hybrid of Option 1 and 2; retaining the 1982 viability regulation; 
protecting species through monitoring; or adopting one of the new 
options presented by participants at the February 2003 diversity 
workshop.
    Response: The final rule conceptually uses the principles of 
ecological sustainability from both Options 1 and 2 of the 2002 
proposed rule. The final rule includes an ecosystem diversity provision 
that requires the development of plan components to establish a 
framework to provide the characteristics of ecosystem diversity. These 
characteristics are descriptions of ecosystem composition, structure, 
and processes. Responsible Officials may identify these characteristics 
for multiple spatial scales within the analysis area and 
characteristics may extend to the larger landscape adjacent to and 
beyond the plan area. This ecosystem diversity framework provides an 
essential ecological context and identifies the unique contributions 
that

[[Page 1048]]

NFS lands can make to the three elements of sustainability.
    Option 2 required rigorous analysis of ecological conditions in 
relation to the range of characteristics of native ecosystems within 
the plan area, the range of natural variability. Forest Service 
directives will set out the analytical requirements for ecosystem 
diversity including abundance, distribution, and condition of selected 
characteristics of ecosystem diversity compared to their range of 
variation under historical disturbance regimes (or other ecological 
reference).
    An important principle in the framework of this final rule is the 
concept that the more effective the ecosystem diversity provision is in 
sustaining species within the ecosystem, the less need there is for 
species-specific analysis.
    Comment: Species-at-risk, management indicator species, or focal 
species. Some respondents asked that the final rule require species-at-
risk and focal species to be identified and maintained. A number of 
respondents wanted a survey and monitoring requirement for management 
indicator species (MIS) or focal species in the final rule. There was a 
suggestion to use reliable historic information to analyze the 
population viability of focal species. There were comments in favor of 
requiring species surveys and reviews, as well as comments not to have 
mandatory survey and monitoring requirements for maintaining 
populations of wildlife. Other respondents requested that the Forest 
Service continue to use focal species as a means to analyze and provide 
for species viability and species diversity.
    Response: The concept of MIS was not included in the 2002 proposed 
rule and is not in the final rule, except for transition provisions at 
Sec.  219.14, because recent scientific evidence identified flaws in 
the MIS concept. The concept of MIS was that population trends for 
certain species that were monitored could represent trends for other 
species. Through time, this was found not to be the case.
    The concept of focal species that was proposed by the Committee of 
Scientists and adopted in the 2000 planning rule is also not used in 
the final rule. The focal species concept is untested and it would not 
be prudent to potentially make the same mistake with focal species as 
was made with MIS in the 1982 planning rule. However, the concept of 
focal species as indicators of the ecological conditions may have merit 
and may be included in the Forest Service directives as a tool to 
identify monitoring approaches to assess progress towards achieving the 
desired condition articulated in a plan.
    To focus management attention on the at-risk species, the concepts 
of ``species-at-risk'' and ``species-of-concern'' presented in the 2002 
proposed rule were further developed in the final rule to make the 
provision for species-level analysis clearer and efficient in the 
planning process. However, the Department changed the terms used. 
``Species-of-concern'' are those species for which their continued 
existence is a concern and listing under the ESA may occur (Sec.  
219.16). ``Species-of-interest'' are species for which the Responsible 
Official determines that management actions may be necessary or 
desirable to achieve ecological or other multiple use objectives (Sec.  
219.16). The Forest Service directives will describe a systematic, 
scientifically credible, and efficient approach, using existing 
information, to identify species-of-concern and species-of-interest.
    Comment: Protection of water supply, water quality, wetlands, and 
riparian areas. Various respondents stated the need to protect the 
nation's water supply and require land management plans to address 
water quality restoration for those areas identified as water quality 
limited under the Clean Water Act. Other respondents believed the final 
rule should mandate the protection of wetland and riparian areas, which 
are essential for environmental quality and human health.
    Response: The Department agrees that water quality is important, as 
is restoration of impaired watersheds. The final rule provides specific 
provisions at Sec.  219.10(b)(1) for development of plan components 
that establish a framework to provide the characteristics of ecosystem 
diversity, which include water quality, wetlands, riparian areas, and 
floodplains. It is not necessary for the final rule to repeat direction 
in the Clean Water Act; in addition, water related issues are not the 
same on every unit of the NFS. Forest Service directives will provide 
additional provisions as needed.

Section 219.11--Role of Science in Planning

    This provision was contained in Sec.  219.14 in the 2002 proposed 
rule, and was redesignated as Sec.  219.11 as part of the 
reorganization of the final rule. The final rule requires the 
Responsible Official to take into account the best available science. 
The final rule puts the burden on the Responsible Official rather than 
on the plan. The words ``consistent with'' has been replaced by ``take 
into account'' because this term better expresses that formal science 
is just one source of information for the Responsible Official and only 
one aspect of decisionmaking.
    The final rule, like the 2002 proposed rule, states that the 
Responsible Official may use independent peer reviews, science advisory 
boards, or other review methods to evaluate science used in the 
planning process. Forest Service directives will provide specific 
procedures for conducting science reviews. The ``Overview of the Final 
2004 Rule'' section of the preamble discusses the role of science in 
planning.
    Comment: Role of science. Some respondents felt that the 2002 
proposed rule should add emphasis to the role of science, while others 
felt that the 2002 proposed rule provided a welcome relief from the 
2000 planning rule by eliminating excessive process requirements. Some 
felt that the 2002 proposed rule made the use of science and the review 
of science consistency optional. Others thought that the use of science 
in the 2002 proposed rule appeared to be budget driven. Several 
respondents suggested that public involvement should include science 
and scientists. They thought that the Responsible Official should not 
make a decision without the input of science and scientists. However, 
one respondent felt that there should be no consultation with a panel 
of scientists when drafting a plan.
    Response: The Department is committed to taking into account the 
best available science in developing plans, plan amendments, and plan 
revisions as well as documenting the consideration of science 
information. The final rule retains the emphasis in the 2002 proposed 
rule on the consideration of science in planning, on documenting how 
science was interpreted and applied, and on evaluating the associated 
risks and uncertainties of using that science. In response to public 
comment regarding the Responsible Official's obligation to 
``demonstrate'' consideration of science, the final rule requires the 
Responsible Official to ``document'' such consideration. The Department 
believes that this change gives clearer and stronger direction as to 
what is expected of the Responsible Official in developing the Plan 
Document or Set of Documents and in considering the best available 
science.
    Under the final rule, the Responsible Official must: (1) Document 
how the best available science was considered in the planning process 
within the context of the issues being considered; (2) evaluate and 
disclose any substantial

[[Page 1049]]

uncertainties in that science; (3) evaluate and disclose substantial 
risks associated with plan components based on that science; and (4) 
document that the science was appropriately interpreted and applied. 
Additionally, the Responsible Official may use independent peer review, 
a science advisory board, or other review methods to evaluate the 
consideration of science in the planning process. Any interested 
scientists can be involved at any of the public involvement stages.

Section 219.12--Suitable Uses and Provisions Required by NFMA

    This section (Sec.  219.12), which was not in the 2002 proposed 
rule, addresses the provisions found in Sec. Sec.  219.4(a)(3), 
219.4(a)(4), 219.16, and 219.17 of the 2002 proposed rule. The final 
rule requires the Chief of the Forest Service to include in the Forest 
Service directives procedures to address the provisions of NFMA that 
were addressed by Sec. Sec.  219.4(a)(3), 219.16, and 219.17 of the 
2002 proposed rule.
    Guidance for suitable uses, located in paragraph (a) in the final 
rule, has been moved from Sec.  219.4(a)(4) of the 2002 proposed rule. 
In addition, the Department reorganized this guidance to better 
describe the overall nature of identifying suitable land uses. Overall, 
NFS lands are generally suitable for a variety of multiple uses, 
including timber harvest and timber production, unless administratively 
withdrawn or prohibited by statute, Executive order, or regulation. On 
lands generally suitable for timber, the Forest Service may harvest 
timber for a variety of purposes, such as to create openings for 
wildlife or for fuels reduction and restoration. If timber production 
is not an objective for lands generally suitable for timber, the 
Responsible Official must identify these lands as not suitable for 
timber production. Provisions concerning not suitable for timber 
production have been moved with modifications from Sec.  219.16 of the 
2002 proposed rule to Sec.  219.12(a)(2). Additional guidance for 
identification of lands not suitable for timber harvest and guidance 
for timber harvest that the proposed rule addressed at Sec.  
219.4(a)(3) will be placed in the Forest Service directives. A request 
for public comment on the Forest Service directives will be published 
in the Federal Register as soon as possible after adoption of the final 
rule.
    In addition, Forest Service directives will address additional NFMA 
requirements. These requirements include limitations on timber harvest 
(Sec.  219.17 of proposed rule) and provisions for plans to determine 
forest management systems, restocking requirements, harvesting levels 
in light of the multiple uses, and the potential suitability of lands 
for resource management, as well as projections of proposed and 
possible actions, including the planned timber sale program. The 
Department made this change to provide a better balance between the 
specific procedures for timber and the provisions for other sections of 
the final rule.
    Comment: Culmination of mean annual increment. Some respondents 
said that the culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) requirement 
should not be limited to even-aged harvests and that the protection 
provided by a CMAI requirement on uneven-aged harvests would protect 
against over-zealous logging.
    Response: CMAI is the age in the growth cycle of an even-aged stand 
where average annual growth is at its maximum. By definition, CMAI 
applies only to even-aged timber stands and not to uneven-aged stands. 
However, detailed guidance for CMAI is moved to the Forest Service 
directives because NFMA does not require this guidance to be in the 
rule itself. NFMA requires establishment of guidance so that stands of 
timber, not individual trees, generally have reached CMAI. The Forest 
Service directives will clarify the technical limits of the CMAI 
concept.
    Comment: Restocking. A respondent said the rule is inconsistent 
with NFMA because it does not require restocking of lands within five 
years after final regeneration harvest.
    Response: Section 219.16(a)(3) of the 2002 proposed rule has been 
removed in the final rule. Forest Service directives will address 
restocking requirements. Forest Service directives will meet the 
requirement of NFMA to ensure that timber will be harvested from NFS 
lands only where there is assurance that such lands can be adequately 
restocked within five years after harvest. Adequate restocking may vary 
depending on the purpose of a harvest and the objectives and desired 
conditions for the area. Restocking is not required for lands harvested 
to create openings for fuel breaks and vistas, to prevent encroaching 
conifers, and other similar purposes. This will apply to all timber 
harvest, including final regeneration harvest. Therefore, Responsible 
Officials will include in land management plans guidance for adequate 
restocking depending on the purpose of a harvest, the desired 
conditions, and objectives for the area.
    Comment: Suitability. Respondents both agreed and disagreed with 
the presumption that lands are suitable for all uses unless identified 
and determined to be not suitable. Those who agreed liked this 
presumption. Those who disagreed stated that more lands are not 
suitable for all uses than are suitable, so the process would be easier 
to start with the presumption that lands are not suitable. Some said 
that this presumption places commercial uses ahead of other 
considerations like fish and wildlife.
    One respondent stated that local planners should have the 
discretion to manage the range of opportunities offered by the forest 
and the flexibility to manage new uses unforeseen in the planning 
process.
    Response: The Department agrees with the Committee of Scientists 
report, which holds the basic philosophy that these are the people's 
lands; and therefore, it is appropriate to have a presumption in the 
final rule that lands are suitable for a variety of uses. The 
Department removed the declaration that lands are suitable, unless 
identified and determined to be not suitable. Forest Service directives 
may use that analytical and philosophical assumption. The final rule 
removes the word ``determine'' and replaces it with ``identify'' to 
conform to the NFMA. In the overall adaptive management process, the 
starting point for identifying general suitability of land uses will 
likely be the existing suitable or not-suitable use identifications in 
current plans, and incremental changes will be based on public input, 
review of inventory, monitoring, evaluation, and assessment 
information. The final rule uses the expression ``generally suitable'' 
because identification of suitability is guidance and must be approved 
through project and activity decisionmaking. In response to public 
comment and to clarify the criteria for identifying suitability, the 
final rule has changed the resources to outdoor recreation, range, 
timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes so that the resources 
listed agree with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960 
(16 U.S.C. 528-531). Energy resource development and mining activities 
were removed from Sec.  219.12(a)(1) of the final rule because, even 
though allowable uses on many of the NFS lands, they are not renewable 
surface resources listed in MUSYA.
    Comment: Suitable lands. Some respondents felt that social, 
economic, ecological, physical, and other factors should not be 
considered when determining suitability of land for timber production. 
Others felt that the Forest Service should analyze the effects on these 
factors when no logging is proposed, because they felt that the

[[Page 1050]]

fiscal support of their communities is not being adequately addressed 
due to the fact that there is no requirement to supply timber. One 
respondent felt that the 2002 proposed rule would allow ``timber sales 
that are not justified by their social, economic, or ecological 
benefits.''
    Response: The 2002 proposed rule language is based on the NFMA that 
requires the Responsible Official to consider ``physical, economic, and 
other pertinent factors to the extent feasible'' when identifying lands 
which are not suited for timber production. However, the wording has 
been changed to ``would not be compatible with the achievement of 
desired conditions and objectives,'' because desired conditions and 
objectives reflect the social, economic, and ecological attributes 
toward which management is to be directed. In addition, the NFMA does 
allow salvage sales and sales necessitated to protect other multiple-
use values on lands identified as not suited for timber production.
    Comment: Salvage logging. There were concerns expressed by some 
about salvage harvest and about timber harvest in general. While some 
respondents felt there should not be any salvage logging on any lands, 
others felt that salvage logging is important to improve the health of 
National Forest System lands.
    Response: Salvage harvest of timber is a legitimate management 
practice, acknowledged by Congress in NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(k), 
1611(b)). The Department believes that the language in this section of 
the final rule on suitability and salvage is an appropriate reflection 
of the intent of NFMA. The Department believes that specific decisions 
on the size of salvage units, and on where salvage logging would or 
would not occur, should be made at a project level and not at the 
national level.
    Comment: Prohibitions for logging. Some suggested that the final 
rule should include more prohibitions for logging, including a 
prohibition on all commercial logging on NFS lands involving riparian 
areas, virgin forests, and old growth forests. Others suggested 
harvesting should be limited to selective logging, salvage harvest, or 
helicopter logging. One person suggested that the agency be required to 
justify logging for ecological reasons.
    Response: The Department believes that broad-based prohibitions on 
timber harvest or timber harvest practices are not appropriate at the 
national level, given the range of ecological conditions that exist 
across the units of the NFS and the multiple-use mandates of MUSYA and 
NFMA. Such restrictions may be put in place at the plan or project 
level, but should not be part of the planning regulations.
    Comment: Timber harvest. Many comments were made regarding logging. 
Many respondents felt that there should be more restrictions placed on 
logging and that social and economic analysis should eliminate areas 
from timber harvest if such harvests would produce below-cost sales. 
Conversely, some felt that profit was emphasized too much and there 
needed to be more emphasis placed on the effects to the environment. 
One person felt there should be a minimum mean annual increment 
threshold of timber growth, such as 50 cubic feet per acre per year, to 
determine if lands were suitable for timber. Some felt that there 
should be more requirements for evaluation of effects that timber 
harvests have on fish, woody debris, watershed, and wildlife habitat. 
Another felt that timber sales should be made affordable to local 
purchasers. Still others wanted analysis to consider the social and 
economic effects on timber-dependent communities.
    Response: Consistent with NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(k)), the final rule 
(Sec.  219.12(a)(2)) requires the Responsible Official to identify 
lands as not suitable for timber production, if timber production would 
not be compatible with the achievement of desired conditions and 
objectives. These provisions give the Responsible Official the 
flexibility to develop criteria that are appropriate for the specific 
plan area. The Department feels that detailed national direction would 
not meet the social, economic, and ecological concerns of the 
individual NFS unit. The final rule establishes parameters that provide 
for conscientious decisions to be made at the local level.
    Comment: Suitability for off-highway vehicle use. Many respondents 
were particularly concerned about management for off-highway vehicle 
(OHV) use, because of the presumption that lands are open for use 
unless determined to be closed. Others said that the travel management 
component of plans has been particularly challenging. They said that 
plans have often failed to regulate OHV as new technology has enabled 
expanded use. Other commentators wrote that land management plans need 
to clearly establish limits to OHV use while others said the Forest 
Service should inventory and evaluate lands declared unsuitable for OHV 
and other recreational uses to determine if restoration or mitigation 
measures could make them suitable.
    Response: As a general matter, responsible and carefully managed 
OHV travel is an appropriate use of NFS lands. Under this final rule, 
travel management guidance will be expressed in desired conditions, 
objectives, guidelines, and identification of general suitability of 
areas for various uses. That guidance, in and of itself, would not 
close those lands to these uses; such a restriction would require a 
subsequent travel management decision and closure order pursuant to 36 
CFR part 261, subpart B. Additionally, if a plan identifies an area as 
generally suitable for OHV travel where currently restricted, the plan 
would not open those lands to these uses; a subsequent project and 
activity NEPA analysis and decision would be necessary to effect the 
preliminary identification of the plan. Guidance for resource 
conservation is established in the plan and will be considered in the 
subsequent travel management decision. The final rule allows for levels 
and trends of OHV use to be monitored and changed as appropriate.
    Comment: Fuels treatment. Several respondents, citing recent fire 
seasons, suggested that the final rule should allow for more timber 
harvest than is currently being harvested to reduce fuels, and they 
felt that the final rule would accomplish that goal. There was a 
concern that much of the dead and down material was being wasted and 
that this biomass could be used to meet energy and wood supply needs. 
Others, however, felt that logging of commercial-size trees was not 
necessary for fuels reduction and the final rule would do a disservice 
by allowing it. One respondent suggested that the fuels problem could 
be solved by using prescribed fire only. Others felt that fuels 
treatment should be allowed only in areas near urban centers to protect 
structures.
    Response: The Department believes that the final rule, which is 
national in application, should not set out direction so specific that 
it cannot take into account the widely varying conditions found across 
the NFS. Such direction is better developed at the local level.
    Comment: Allowable sale quantity. Some respondents request that the 
Forest Service retain the use of Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) to 
inform timber purchasers, communities who support timber industry, and 
the public what the future timber production forecast will be.
    Response: This concept has long caused confusion for those 
concerned with the management of the NFS lands. While under the 1982 
rule, ASQ was the upper limit of timber that the Responsible Official 
may sell from the lands suitable for timber production,

[[Page 1051]]

ASQ has commonly been misinterpreted as an absolute commitment to a 
timber production target. Neither the 2002 proposed rule nor this final 
rule provide for ASQ. Forest Service directives will address the upper 
limit of timber and will likely use the concept of long-term sustained 
yield as proposed in the 2002 proposed rule as the upper limit of 
timber that the Forest Service may harvest during the planning period. 
The 2002 proposed rule used long-term sustained yield because this 
requirement is adequate, and removing the provision that planning 
establish an ASQ reduces the risk of misperception that ASQ is a target 
to be achieved, rather than a limit to harvest.
    Comment: Sustained yield. Most respondents agreed that the concept 
of sustained yield is, in principle, a positive goal. However, some 
took exception to how this requirement will actually be implemented. 
They felt that salvage logging and other types of timber sales not 
undertaken for timber production purposes should be included in the 
sustained-yield calculations. Others felt that the use of ``multiple-
use objectives'' gives too much flexibility in determining sustained 
yield, and there is actually no real limit. One person felt the harvest 
limits should mirror forest mortality rates.
    Response: This provision for estimating the quantity of timber that 
can be removed annually in perpetuity is tied directly to NFMA (16 
U.S.C. 1611(a)). The final rule moves detailed instructions on how 
sustained yield is calculated (found in the 2002 proposed rule at Sec.  
219.17) to the Forest Service directives.

Section 219.13--Objections to Plans, Plan Amendments, or Plan Revisions

    This provision found in Sec.  219.19 of the 2002 proposed rule has 
been redesignated at Sec.  219.13 as part of the overall reorganization 
of the final rule. This section establishes the objection process by 
which the public can challenge plans, plan revisions, or plan 
amendments.
    The Committee of Scientists, in their 1999 report, recommended that 
the Forest Service seek to harmonize its administrative appeal process 
with those of other Federal agencies. The Committee of Scientists said 
a pre-decisional process would encourage internal Forest Service 
discussion, encourage multi-agency collaboration, and encourage public 
interest groups to collaborate and work out differences. Therefore, to 
be more consistent with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and to 
improve public participation efforts, the Department is adopting the 
pre-decisional objection process (Sec.  219.13) to replace the appeals 
process. The objection process complements the public participation 
process because the objectors and the Reviewing Officer can 
collaboratively work through concerns before a Responsible Official 
approves a plan.
    The 30-day objection period specified in this final rule is the 
same amount of time provided in the BLM protest process. The final rule 
does not specify a time limit for agency responses; the final rule has 
adopted the BLM requirement that the Reviewing Officer promptly render 
a decision on the objection. It is in the interest of the agency to 
render a decision promptly to move forward. Because Responsible 
Officials would not typically develop plans, plan amendments, or plan 
revisions using EISs, EAs, the Department removed unnecessary language 
in the final rule concerning NEPA documents. The final rule also 
eliminates details on responding to objections because this information 
is more appropriate in the Forest Service directives. The final rule 
also removes the requirement that objectors may only submit original 
substantive comments as objections. These changes make the final rule 
easier to read and follow.
    References to appeals of plan amendments in site-specific 
decisions, previously at Sec.  219.20 of the 2002 proposed rule, have 
been moved to Sec.  219.13(a)(1) in the final rule to have requirements 
for objections and the reference to appeals in the same section. 
Specific requirements for administrative review of plan amendments 
approved contemporaneously with a project or activity decision are 
addressed in 36 CFR 215 and 218, subpart A.
    Comment: Objection and appeals process. Some respondents felt that 
the final rule should include provisions to allow post-decisional 
appeals of plans. Some wanted both a pre-decisional objection process 
and a post-decisional appeals process. One person felt that the rule 
should require an objection process for plan amendments made in 
conjunction with site-specific project decisions and that the rule 
should require an appeals process for other plan amendments.
    Some respondents were concerned that the objection process would 
reduce the influence that the current appeals process provides, and 
they claimed the 30-day objection period is insufficient time to 
identify issues and to prepare an objection. Although some respondents 
felt that the objection process is an inadequate protection of public 
interests, others supported the objection process and felt that 
requirements for standing to object should be much more stringent to 
prevent what they characterized as needless obstruction. Some 
respondents were concerned that there was no time limit for the agency 
to respond to objections.
    Response: The objection process in the final rule retains the 2002 
proposed rule's application of the objection process to plans, plan 
amendments, or plan revisions not associated with a project or activity 
decision (Sec.  219.13(a)). Unlike the provisions at 36 CFR, part 217, 
applicable to plan development, plan amendment, and plan revision under 
the 1982 planning rule, this final rule, like the 2002 proposed rule, 
integrates the objection process with public participation prior to 
plan approval. The objection process is expected to resolve many 
potential conflicts by encouraging resolution before a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision is approved.
    Under the 36 CFR part 217 appeal process, the agency and the public 
expend significant human and financial resources in fulfillment of 
procedural requirements. Often an appeal leads to a polarized 
relationship where there is no real incentive to address natural 
resource issues and there is a squandering of human and financial 
capital, often without long-lasting solutions to problems.
    Under this final rule, as in the 2002 proposed rule, the 
Responsible Official, the Reviewing Officer, and the objector have the 
opportunity to seek reasonable solutions to conflicting views of plan 
components before a Responsible Official approves a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision. The objection process allows discretion 
for joint problem solving to resolve issues.
    Comment: Public participation. Several respondents expressed the 
opinion that the final rule should require participation in the 
planning process as a qualification for objection.
    Response: The 2002 proposed rule did not require participation in 
the planning process to file an objection; however, the Department 
agrees that participation should be a prerequisite to submitting an 
objection. Therefore, the final rule at Sec.  219.13(a) requires 
participation in the planning process through the submission of a 
written comment to have standing to submit an objection.
    Comment: Consistency with law. Some respondents supported the 
requirement in the 2002 proposed rule that objectors must explain their 
position that the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision is 
inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy as well as provide any 
recommendation for

[[Page 1052]]

change. Others felt this requirement curtailed public input and 
required legal advice to object.
    Response: The Department agrees that a person should be able to 
object to a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision even if the plan is 
consistent with law, regulation, or policy. Therefore, the final rule 
allows persons to object if they otherwise disagree with the decision. 
Accordingly, Sec.  219.13(b)(3) of the final rule retains the main 
elements of this requirement from the 2002 proposed rule, so that the 
Reviewing Officer will know why an objector objects as well as what the 
objector recommends for change. The term ``Executive order'' has been 
removed from the final rule because Executive orders are already 
covered under the term ``policy.'' The Forest Service directives will 
set forth the specific requirements of the Reviewing Officer working 
with the objector(s) to resolve their issue(s).

Section 219.14--Effective Dates and Transition

    This direction found in Sec. Sec.  219.21 and 219.22 of the 2002 
proposed rule has been combined at Sec.  219.14 to organize similar 
concepts in one location. This section specifies when a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision will take effect as well as how Responsible 
Officials may modify ongoing planning efforts to conform to the 
requirements of the final rule. The Department modified this section 
from the transition language in the 2002 proposed rule, primarily to 
account for integration of EMS into land management planning.
    With this rule, the Department is simultaneously repealing the 2000 
rule and including the transition provisions of the former rule. 
Recently, the Department clarified that projects were subject to the 
requirements of the former transition rule during the transition period 
until the completion of the plan revision process under the 2000 rule 
(69 FR 58055, September 29, 2004). The transition period of the former 
rule thus terminates with its repeal. This section defines, for 
purposes of pending or future plan documents, the applicable rules 
during the transition period. During the transition period, pending or 
proposed projects remain subject to the applicable forest plan.
    This section also contains new direction on application of 
management indicator species (MIS) for units that will continue to use 
the 1982 planning rule for plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions 
during transition. There has been uncertainty regarding the application 
of provisions of the 1982 planning rule, particularly with respect to 
obligations regarding MIS (69 FR 58055, September 29, 2004). For those 
units with plans developed, amended, or revised under the 1982 planning 
rule, including those amended or revised during the transition period 
for the 2000 planning rule, Sec.  219.14(f) provides that MIS 
obligations may be met by considering data and analysis relating to 
habitat unless the plan specifically requires population monitoring or 
population surveys. Other tools can often be useful and more 
appropriate in predicting the effects of projects that implement a land 
management plan (such as examining the effect of proposed activities on 
the habitat of specific species); using information identified, 
obtained, or developed through a variety of methods (such as 
assessments, analysis, and monitoring results); or using information 
obtained from other sources (such as State fish and wildlife agencies 
and organizations like The Nature Conservancy). The final rule also 
clarifies the appropriate scale for MIS monitoring which is the plan 
area.
    Providing explicitly for MIS monitoring flexibility will allow for 
monitoring of habitat conditions as a surrogate for population trend 
data. It is appropriate for a range of methods to be available to 
estimate, or approximate, population trends for MIS. The Responsible 
Official will determine the which monitoring method or combination of 
monitoring methods to use for a given MIS.
    Where Responsible Officials conduct actual population monitoring 
for MIS, population trend data are most efficiently collected using a 
sampling program rather than a total enumeration. In a sampling 
program, population data are collected at a selection of sites 
throughout the geographic range of the population. These sites might be 
systematically designated (for example, using a grid of specific 
dimension), established randomly, or selected in some other way. For 
species that use distinct seasonal ranges (for example, elk that use 
winter ranges distinct from their summer ranges), data may be collected 
primarily on the winter range.
    The area over which sampling is conducted should relate to the 
geographic range occupied by the population, and will generally far 
exceed the area of a single management project. Because of using 
sampling procedures within the overall geographic area used by a 
population, individual project areas might or might not be part of a 
sampling program designed to estimate the overall population trend of a 
population. Based on the foregoing, for most species it would be 
technically and practically inappropriate to conduct population trend 
sampling at the scale of individual project areas. Consequently, where 
Responsible Officials conduct actual population monitoring for MIS, 
that monitoring should be carried out at the scale most appropriate to 
the species within the overall national forest, grassland, prairie, or 
other administrative comparable unit. Monitoring populations at the 
sites of individual projects is not part of this requirement. 
Therefore, the transition language at Sec.  219.14 clarifies that MIS 
monitoring is appropriate at the times and places appropriate to the 
specific species, and is not required within individual project or 
activity areas.
    Comment: Effective date. One respondent was concerned that there 
was a difference in the effective date of plan amendments depending on 
whether or not they were significant amendments and suggested the final 
rule should not differentiate between the types of amendments when 
determining an effective date.
    Response: In the final rule, the only difference related to the 
effective date of plan amendments is dependent on if a plan amendment 
is approved contemporaneously with a project or activity decision and 
the plan amendment applies only to the project or activity; in which 
case, 36 CFR, part 215 or part 218, subpart A applies, not the planning 
regulations at part 219. All other amendments have a 30-day effective 
date.

Section 219.15--Severability

    The Department has chosen to add a new section to address the issue 
of severability, in the event that portions of this rule are separately 
challenged in litigation. It is the Department's intent that the 
individual provisions of this rule be severable from each other.

Section 219.16--Definitions

    This direction was found in Sec.  219.23 in the 2002 proposed rule, 
but has been redesignated at Sec.  219.16 as part of overall 
reorganization of the final rule. This section sets out and defines the 
special terms used in the final rule. A detailed discussion on 
definitions removed, added, or unchanged is found in the supplemental 
response to public comments located on the World Wide Web/Internet (see 
ADDRESSES).
    Comment: Collaboration. A few respondents asked that collaboration 
be defined. They said that a ``collaborative'' process is generally a 
specific type of planning process involving shared power and total 
stakeholder involvement. One person

[[Page 1053]]

wanted the process of collaboration to be distinguished from processes 
authorized under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    Response: The Forest Service cannot ``share'' its administrative 
authority over the NFS and must make the decisions for NFS management, 
including approval of plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions. The 
agency and the Department are committed to stakeholder involvement in 
planning; however, the Department does not believe it is necessary to 
set the boundaries of how this process may operate in planning through 
a definition of the process.
    Comment: Silvicultural terminology. Some respondents said that the 
2002 proposed rule (Sec.  219.4) confuses silvicultural objectives (for 
example, achieving an even-aged stand condition) with harvesting 
methods. They said that silvicultural definitions should be taken from 
the Society of American Foresters handbook.
    Response: The Dictionary of Forestry reflects current professional 
acceptance and use of terms and definitions. Because the Dictionary of 
Forestry has wide acceptance, it was reviewed and the silvicultural 
definitions of the final rule at Sec.  219.16, and other silvicultural 
terminology in the final rule are largely consistent with definitions 
found in the Dictionary of Forestry (Bethesda, MD, Society of American 
Foresters, 1998).

5. Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Impact

    This final rule has been reviewed under U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (Department) procedures and Executive Order 12866 issued 
September 30, 1993 (E.O. 12866) on Regulatory Planning and Review. It 
has been determined that this is not an economically significant rule. 
This final 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 final rule will neither interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy 
issues. Finally, this final rule 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 (NFS) planning and 
decisionmaking, this final rule has been designated as significant and, 
therefore, is subject to Office of Management and Budget review under 
E.O. 12866.
    A cost-benefit analysis was conducted to compare the costs and 
benefits of implementing this final rule to the baseline, 1982 planning 
rule. This analysis is posted on the World Wide Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/, along with other documents associated with 
this final rule. The 1982 planning rule was used as the baseline 
because all the land management plan revisions completed to date have 
used the requirements of the 1982 planning rule. Quantitative 
differences among the final rule, the 2000 rule, and the 2002 proposed 
rule were also estimated. Primary sources of data used to estimate the 
costs and benefits of the 2000 planning rule and the 2002 proposed rule 
are from the results of a 2002 report entitled ``A Business Evaluation 
of the 2000 and Proposed NFMA Rules'' produced by the Inventory and 
Monitoring Institutes of the Forest Service. The report is also 
identified as the ``2002 NFMA Costing Study,'' or simply as the 
``Costing Study.'' The Costing Study used a business modeling process 
to identify and compare major costs for both the 2000 planning rule and 
the 2002 proposed rule. The main source of data used to approximate 
costs under the 1982 planning rule is from a recent report to Congress 
on planning costs, along with empirical data and inferences from the 
Costing Study.
    The cost-benefit analysis focuses on key activities in land 
management planning for which costs can be estimated under the 1982 
planning rule, the 2000 planning rule, the 2002 proposed rule, and this 
final rule. The key activities include regional guides, collaboration, 
consideration of science, evaluation of the sustainability of decisions 
and diversity requirements under the National Forest Management Act 
(NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), monitoring, evaluation, and 
the resolution of disputes regarding the proposed plan decisions 
through the administrative processes of appeals and objections.
    The final rule would reduce the cost of producing a plan or 
revision by shortening the length of the planning process and providing 
the Responsible Official with more flexibility to decide the scope and 
scale of the planning process. The final rule, by requiring inclusion 
of environmental management systems into the land management framework, 
requires a comprehensive evaluation during plan development and plan 
revision that will be updated at least every five years. Some upfront 
planning costs, such as analyzing and developing plan components, and 
documenting the land management planning process, are anticipated to 
shift to monitoring and evaluation to better document cumulative 
effects of management activities and natural events when preparing a 
comprehensive evaluation of the plan under the final rule.
    Based on costs that can be quantified, implementation of this final 
rule is expected to have an estimated annual average cost savings of 
$4.6 million when compared to the 1982 planning rule, and an estimated 
annual average savings of $36.9 million when compared to estimates of 
implementation of the 2000 planning rule. When compared to the 2002 
proposed rule, implementation of the final rule is estimated to cost 
$19 million less than the 2002 proposed rule with Option 1 and $24.9 
million more than the 2002 proposed rule with Option 2. The higher cost 
over the 2002 proposed rule is due to increased monitoring and 
evaluation requirements in the final rule.
    From this cost-benefit analysis, the estimated total costs for 
implementing the final rule are expected to be lower than the 2000 
planning rule; however, the estimated cost savings are less than that 
predicted on the 2002 proposed rule because costs for monitoring and 
evaluation are expected to be higher. In other words, although the 
final rule is expected to be less costly than the 2000 planning rule, 
some of those saved costs are expected to be shifted to monitoring and 
evaluation.
    This final rule has also 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 action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small business entities as defined by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required for this final rule. The final rule imposes no 
requirements on either small or large entities. Rather, the final rule 
sets out the process the Forest Service will follow in land management 
planning for the NFS. The final rule should provide opportunities for 
small businesses to become involved in the national forest, grassland, 
prairie, or other comparable administrative unit plan approval. 
Moreover, by streamlining the land management planning process, the 
final rule should benefit small businesses through more timely 
decisions that affect outputs of products and services.

Environmental Impacts

    This final rule establishes the administrative procedures to guide 
developing, amending, and revising NFS land management plans. This 
final rule, like earlier planning rules, does

[[Page 1054]]

not dictate how administrative units of the NFS are to be managed. The 
Department does not expect that this final rule will directly affect 
the mix of uses on any or all units of the NFS. Section 31.12 of FSH 
1909.15 excludes from documentation in an EA or EIS ``rules, 
regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative 
procedures, program processes, or instruction.'' This final rule 
clearly falls within this category of actions and the Department has 
determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that would require 
preparation of an EA or an EIS.

Energy Effects

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 
issued May 18, 2001 (E.O. 13211), ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' It has been 
determined that this final rule does not constitute a significant 
energy action as defined in E.O. 13211. Procedural in nature, this 
final rule would guide the development, amendment, and revision of NFS 
land management plans. These plans are strategic documents that provide 
the guidance for making future project or activity-level resource 
management decisions. As such, these plans will address access 
requirements associated with energy exploration and development within 
the framework of multiple-use, sustained-yield management of the 
surface resources of the NFS lands. These land management plans may 
identify major rights-of-way corridors for utility transmission lines, 
pipelines, and water canals. While these plans consider the need for 
such facilities, they do not authorize construction of them; therefore, 
the final rule and the plans developed under it do not have energy 
effects within the meaning of E.O. 13211. The effects of the 
construction of such lines, pipelines, and canals are, of necessity, 
considered on a case-by-case basis as specific construction proposals 
are made. Consistent with E.O. 13211, direction to incorporate 
consideration of energy supply, distribution, and use in the planning 
process is being included in the agency's administrative directives for 
implementing the final rule.

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 for 
the objection process were previously approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned control number 0596-0158, 
expiring on October 31, 2003 for the 2000 planning rule.
    The OMB has extended this approval through December 31, 2006 for 
this final planning rule, using the same control number. This extension 
was made after the Forest Service provided the public an opportunity to 
comment on the extension as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (68 
FR 50512, August 21, 2003). The Forest Service received no comments 
regarding extension.
    The information required by 36 CFR 219.13 is needed for an objector 
to explain the nature of the objection being made to a proposed land 
management plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. This final rule 
retains but simplifies the objection process established in the 2000 
planning rule. The final rule removes the requirements previously 
provided in the 2000 planning rule for interested parties, publication 
of objections, and formal requests for meetings (36 CFR 219.32). These 
changes will result in a minor reduction in the number of burden hours 
approved by OMB.

Federalism

    The agency has considered this final rule under the requirements of 
Executive Order 13132 issued August 4, 1999 (E.O. 13132), 
``Federalism.'' The agency has made an assessment that the final rule 
conforms with the Federalism principles set out in this Executive 
order; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, nor on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
Therefore, the agency concludes that the final rule does not have 
Federalism implications. Moreover, Sec.  219.9 of this final rule shows 
sensitivity to Federalism concerns by requiring the Responsible 
Official to meet with and provide opportunities for involvement of 
State and local governments in the planning process.
    In the spirit of E.O. 13132, the agency consulted with State and 
local officials, including their national representatives, early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation. The agency has consulted 
with the Western Governors' Association and the National Association of 
Counties to obtain their views on a preliminary draft of the 2002 
proposed rule. The Western Governors' Association supported the general 
intent to create a regulation that works, and placed importance on the 
quality of collaboration to be provided when the agency implements the 
regulation. Agency representatives also contacted the International 
City and County Managers Association, National Conference of State 
Legislators, The Council of State Governments, Natural Resources 
Committee of the National Governors Association, U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, and the National League of Cities to share information about 
the 2002 proposed rule prior to its publication. Based on comments 
received on the 2002 proposed rule, the agency has determined that 
additional consultation was not needed with State and local 
governments.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

    A civil rights impact analysis was conducted for this final rule. 
This analysis is posted on the World Wide Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/, along with other documents associated with 
this final rule. The analysis found that there no adverse civil rights 
or environmental justice impacts anticipated to the delivery of 
benefits or other program outcomes on a national level for any under-
represented population or to other United States populations or 
communities.

Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' the 
agency has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian Tribal 
governments and has determined that the final rule does not 
significantly or uniquely affect communities of Indian Tribal 
governments. The final rule deals with the administrative procedures to 
guide the development, amendment, and revision of NFS land management 
plans and, as such, has no direct effect regarding the occupancy and 
use of NFS land. At Sec.  219.9(a)(3), the final rule requires 
consultation with federally recognized Tribes when conducting land 
management planning.
    The agency has also determined that this final rule does not impose 
substantial direct compliance cost on Indian Tribal governments. This 
final rule does not mandate Tribal participation in NFS planning. 
Rather, the final rule imposes an obligation on Forest Service 
officials to consult early with Tribal governments and to work 
cooperatively with them where planning issues affect Tribal interests.

No Takings Implications

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630 issued March 15, 1988, 
and it has

[[Page 1055]]

been determined that the final rule does not pose the risk of a taking 
of Constitutionally protected private property.

Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 of 
February 7, 1996, ``Civil Justice Reform.'' The Department has not 
identified any State or local laws or regulations that are in conflict 
with this regulation or that would impede full implementation of this 
final rule. Nevertheless, in the event that such a conflict was to be 
identified, the final rule would preempt State or local laws or 
regulations found to be in conflict. However, in that case, (1) no 
retroactive effect would be given to this final rule; and (2) the final 
rule does not require the use of administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), the agency has assessed the effects of this final 
rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. 
This final 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.

List of Subjects in 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.


0
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, add subpart A to 
part 219 of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as 
follows:

PART 219--PLANNING

Subpart A--National Forest System Land Management Planning
Sec.
219.1 Purpose and applicability.
219.2 Levels of planning and planning authority.
219.3 Nature of land management planning.
219.4 National Environmental Policy Act compliance.
219.5 Environmental management systems.
219.6 Evaluations and monitoring.
219.7 Developing, amending, or revising a plan.
219.8 Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.
219.9 Public participation, collaboration, and notification.
219.10 Sustainability.
219.11 Role of science in planning.
219.12 Suitable uses and provisions required by NFMA.
219.13 Objections to plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions.
219.14 Effective dates and transition.
219.15 Severability.
219.16 Definitions.
Subpart B [Reserved]

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613.


Sec.  219.1  Purpose and applicability.

    (a) The rules of this subpart set forth a process for land 
management planning, including the process for developing, amending, 
and revising land management plans (also referred to as plans) for the 
National Forest System, as required by the Forest and Rangeland 
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National 
Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), hereinafter 
referred to as NFMA. This subpart also describes the nature and scope 
of plans and sets forth the required components of a plan. This subpart 
is applicable to all units of the National Forest System as defined by 
16 U.S.C. 1609 or subsequent statute.
    (b) Consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 
(16 U.S.C. 528-531), the overall goal of managing the National Forest 
System is to sustain the multiple uses of its renewable resources in 
perpetuity while maintaining the long-term productivity of the land. 
Resources are to be managed so they are utilized in the combination 
that will best meet the needs of the American people. Maintaining or 
restoring the health of the land enables the National Forest System to 
provide a sustainable flow of uses, benefits, products, services, and 
visitor opportunities.
    (c) The Chief of the Forest Service shall establish planning 
procedures for this subpart for plan development, plan amendment, or 
plan revision in the Forest Service Directive System.


Sec.  219.2  Levels of planning and planning authority.

    Planning occurs at multiple organizational levels and geographic 
areas.
    (a) National. The Chief of the Forest Service is responsible for 
national planning, such as preparation of the Forest Service Strategic 
Plan required under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
(5 U.S.C. 306; 31 U.S.C. 1115--1119; 31 U.S.C. 9703-9704), which is 
integrated with the requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the NFMA. The Strategic 
Plan establishes goals, objectives, performance measures, and 
strategies for management of the National Forest System, as well as the 
other Forest Service mission areas.
    (b) Forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative 
unit. (1) Land management plans provide broad guidance and information 
for project and activity decisionmaking in a national forest, 
grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative unit. The 
Supervisor of the National Forest, Grassland, Prairie, or other 
comparable administrative unit is the Responsible Official for 
development and approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision 
for lands under the responsibility of the Supervisor, unless a Regional 
Forester, the Chief, or the Secretary chooses to act as the Responsible 
Official.
    (2) When plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions are prepared for 
more than one administrative unit, a unit Supervisor identified by the 
Regional Forester, or the Regional Forester, the Chief, or the 
Secretary may be the Responsible Official. Two or more Responsible 
Officials may undertake joint planning over lands under their 
respective jurisdictions.
    (3) The appropriate Station Director must concur with that part of 
a plan applicable to any experimental forest within the plan area.
    (c) Projects and activities. The Supervisor or District Ranger is 
the Responsible Official for project and activity decisions, unless a 
higher-level official chooses to act as the Responsible Official. 
Requirements for project or activity planning are established in the 
Forest Service Directive System. Except as specifically provided, none 
of the requirements of this subpart applies to projects or activities.
    (d) Developing, amending, and revising plans. (1) Plan development. 
If a new national forest, grassland, prairie, or other administrative 
unit of the National Forest System is established, the Regional 
Forester, or a forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable unit 
Supervisor identified by the Regional Forester must either develop a 
plan for the unit or amend or revise an existing plan to apply to the 
lands within the new unit.
    (2) Plan amendment. The Responsible Official may amend a plan at 
any time.
    (3) Plan revision. The Responsible Official must revise the plan if 
the Responsible Official concludes that conditions within the plan area 
have significantly changed. Unless otherwise provided by law, a plan 
must be revised at least every 15 years.

[[Page 1056]]

Sec.  219.3  Nature of land management planning.

    (a) Principles of land management planning. Land management 
planning is an adaptive management process that includes social, 
economic, and ecological evaluation; plan development, plan amendment, 
and plan revision; and monitoring. The overall aim of planning is to 
produce responsible land management for the National Forest System 
based on useful and current information and guidance. Land management 
planning guides the Forest Service in fulfilling its responsibilities 
for stewardship of the National Forest System to best meet the needs of 
the American people.
    (b) Force and effect of plans. Plans developed in accordance with 
this subpart generally contain desired conditions, objectives, and 
guidance for project and activity decisionmaking in the plan area. 
Plans do not grant, withhold, or modify any contract, permit, or other 
legal instrument, subject anyone to civil or criminal liability, or 
create any legal rights. Plans typically do not approve or execute 
projects and activities. Decisions with effects that can be 
meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR 1508.23) typically are made when 
projects and activities are approved.


Sec.  219.4  National Environmental Policy Act compliance.

    (a) In accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1) this subpart clarifies 
how the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346) 
(hereinafter referred to as NEPA) applies to National Forest System 
land management planning.
    (b) Approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, under the 
authority of this subpart, will be done in accordance with the Forest 
Service NEPA procedures and may be categorically excluded from NEPA 
documentation under an appropriate category provided in such 
procedures.
    (c) Nothing in this subpart alters the application of NEPA to 
proposed projects and activities.
    (d) Monitoring and evaluations, including those required by Sec.  
219.6, may be used or incorporated by reference, as appropriate, in 
applicable NEPA documents.


Sec.  219.5  Environmental management systems.

    The Responsible Official must establish an environmental management 
system (EMS) for each unit of the National Forest System. The scope of 
an EMS will include, at the minimum, the land management planning 
process defined by this subpart. An EMS for any unit may include 
environmental aspects unrelated to the land management planning process 
under this subpart.
    (a) Plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision must be 
completed in accordance with the EMS and Sec.  219.14. An EMS may be 
established independently of the planning process.
    (b) The EMS must conform to the consensus standard developed by the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and adopted by the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as ``ISO 14001: 
Environmental Management Systems--Specification With Guidance For Use'' 
(ISO 14001). The ISO 14001 describes EMSs and outlines the elements of 
an EMS. The ISO 14001 is available from the ANSI website at http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/default.asp.
    (c) Pursuant to Sec.  219.1(c), the Chief of the Forest Service 
shall establish procedures in the Forest Service Directive System to 
ensure that appropriate EMSs are in place. The Responsible Official may 
determine whether and how to change and improve an EMS for the plan 
area, consistent with applicable Forest Service Directive System 
procedures.


Sec.  219.6  Evaluations and monitoring.

    (a) Evaluations. The Responsible Official shall keep the Plan Set 
of Documents up to date with evaluation reports, which will reflect 
changing conditions, science, and other relevant information. The 
following three types of evaluations are required for land management 
planning: comprehensive evaluations for plan development and revision, 
evaluations for plan amendment, and annual evaluations of monitoring 
information. The Responsible Official shall document evaluations in 
evaluation reports, make these reports available to the public as 
required in Sec.  219.9, and include these reports in the Plan Set of 
Documents (Sec.  219.7(a)(1)). Evaluations under this section should be 
commensurate to the level of risk or benefit associated with the nature 
and level of expected management activities in the plan area.
    (1) Comprehensive evaluations. These evaluate current social, 
economic, and ecological conditions and trends that contribute to 
sustainability, as described in Sec.  219.10. Comprehensive evaluations 
and comprehensive evaluation reports must be updated at least every 
five years to reflect any substantial changes in conditions and trends 
since the last comprehensive evaluation. The Responsible Official must 
ensure that comprehensive evaluations, including any updates necessary, 
include the following elements:
    (i) Area of analysis. The area(s) of analysis must be clearly 
identified.
    (ii) Conditions and trends. The current social, economic, and 
ecological conditions and trends and substantial changes from 
previously identified conditions and trends must be described based on 
available information, including monitoring information, surveys, 
assessments, analyses, and other studies as appropriate. Evaluations 
may build upon existing studies and evaluations.
    (2) Evaluation for a plan amendment. An evaluation for a plan 
amendment must analyze the issues relevant to the purposes of the 
amendment and may use the information in comprehensive evaluations 
relevant to the plan amendment. When a plan amendment is made 
contemporaneously with, and only applies to, a project or activity 
decision, the analysis prepared for the project or activity satisfies 
the requirements for an evaluation for an amendment.
    (3) Annual evaluation of the monitoring information. Monitoring 
results must be evaluated annually and in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section.
    (b) Monitoring. The plan must describe the monitoring program for 
the plan area. Monitoring information in the Plan Document or Set of 
Documents may be changed and updated as appropriate, at any time. Such 
changes and updates are administrative corrections (Sec.  219.7(b)) and 
do not require a plan amendment or revision.
    (1) The plan-monitoring program shall be developed with public 
participation and take into account:
    (i) Financial and technical capabilities;
    (ii) Key social, economic, and ecological performance measures 
relevant to the plan area: and
    (iii) The best available science.
    (2) The plan-monitoring program shall provide for:
    (i) Monitoring to determine whether plan implementation is 
achieving multiple use objectives;
    (ii) Monitoring to determine the effects of the various resource 
management activities within the plan area on the productivity of the 
land;
    (iii) Monitoring of the degree to which on-the-ground management is 
maintaining or making progress toward the desired conditions and 
objectives for the plan; and
    (iv) Adjustment of the monitoring program as appropriate to account 
for unanticipated changes in conditions.

[[Page 1057]]

    (3) The Responsible Official may conduct monitoring jointly with 
others, including but not limited to, Forest Service units, Federal, 
State or local government agencies, federally recognized Indian Tribes, 
and members of the public.


Sec.  219.7  Developing, amending, or revising a plan.

    (a) General planning requirements.
    (1) Plan Documents or Set of Documents. The Responsible Official 
must maintain a Plan Document or Set of Documents for the plan. A Plan 
Document or Set of Documents includes, but is not limited to, 
evaluation reports; documentation of public involvement; the plan, 
including applicable maps; applicable plan approval documents; 
applicable NEPA documents, if any; the monitoring program for the plan 
area; and documents relating to the EMS established for the unit.
    (2) Plan components. Plan components may apply to all or part of 
the plan area. A plan should include the following components:
    (i) Desired conditions. Desired conditions are the social, 
economic, and ecological attributes toward which management of the land 
and resources of the plan area is to be directed. Desired conditions 
are aspirations and are not commitments or final decisions approving 
projects and activities, and may be achievable only over a long time 
period.
    (ii) Objectives. Objectives are concise projections of measurable, 
time-specific intended outcomes. The objectives for a plan are the 
means of measuring progress toward achieving or maintaining desired 
conditions. Like desired conditions, objectives are aspirations and are 
not commitments or final decisions approving projects and activities.
    (iii) Guidelines. Guidelines provide information and guidance for 
project and activity decisionmaking to help achieve desired conditions 
and objectives. Guidelines are not commitments or final decisions 
approving projects and activities.
    (iv) Suitability of areas. Areas of each National Forest System 
unit are identified as generally suitable for various uses (Sec.  
219.12). An area may be identified as generally suitable for uses that 
are compatible with desired conditions and objectives for that area. 
The identification of an area as generally suitable for a use is 
guidance for project and activity decisionmaking and is not a 
commitment or a final decision approving projects and activities. Uses 
of specific areas are approved through project and activity 
decisionmaking.
    (v) Special areas. Special areas are areas within the National 
Forest System designated because of their unique or special 
characteristics. Special areas such as botanical areas or significant 
caves may be designated, by the Responsible Official in approving a 
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. Such designations are not final 
decisions approving projects and activities. The plan may also 
recognize special areas designated by statute or through a separate 
administrative process in accordance with NEPA requirements (Sec.  
219.4) and other applicable laws.
    (3) Changing plan components. Plan components may be changed 
through plan amendment or revision, or through an administrative 
correction in accordance with Sec.  219.7(b).
    (4) Planning authorities. The Responsible Official has the 
discretion to determine whether and how to change the plan, subject to 
the requirement that the plan be revised at least every 15 years. A 
decision by a Responsible Official about whether or not to initiate the 
plan amendment or plan revision process and what issues to consider for 
plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision is not subject to 
objection under this subpart (Sec.  219.13).
    (5) Plan process. (i) Required evaluation reports, plan, plan 
amendments, and plan revisions must be prepared by an interdisciplinary 
team; and
    (ii) Unless otherwise provided by law, all National Forest System 
lands possessing wilderness characteristics must be considered for 
recommendation as potential wilderness areas during plan development or 
revision.
    (6) Developing plan options. In the collaborative and participatory 
process of land management planning, the Responsible Official may use 
an iterative approach in development of a plan, plan amendment, and 
plan revision in which plan options are developed and narrowed 
successively. The key steps in this process shall be documented in the 
Plan Set of Documents.
    (b) Administrative corrections. Administrative corrections may be 
made at any time and are not plan amendments or revisions. 
Administrative corrections include the following:
    (1) Corrections and updates of data and maps;
    (2) Corrections of typographical errors or other non-substantive 
changes;
    (3) Changes in the monitoring program and monitoring information 
(Sec.  219.6(b));
    (4) Changes in timber management projections; and
    (5) Other changes in the Plan Document or Set of Documents, except 
for substantive changes in the plan components.
    (c) Approval document. The Responsible Official must record 
approval of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision in a plan 
approval document, which must include:
    (1) The rationale for the approval of the plan, plan amendment, or 
plan revision;
    (2) Concurrence by the appropriate Station Director with any part 
of the plan applicable to any experimental forest within the plan area, 
in accordance with Sec.  219.2(b)(3);
    (3) A statement of how the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision 
applies to approved projects and activities, in accordance with Sec.  
219.8;
    (4) Science documentation, in accordance with Sec.  219.11; and
    (5) The effective date of the approval (Sec.  219.14(a)).


Sec.  219.8  Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision.

    (a) Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision to 
existing authorizations and approved projects or activities. (1) The 
Responsible Official must include in any document approving a plan 
amendment or revision a description of the effects of the plan, plan 
amendments, or plan revision on existing occupancy and use, authorized 
by permits, contracts, or other instruments implementing approved 
projects and activities. If not expressly excepted, approved projects 
and activities must be consistent with applicable plan components, as 
provided in paragraph (e) of this section. Approved projects and 
activities are those for which a Responsible Official has signed a 
decision document.
    (2) Any modifications of such permits, contracts, or other 
instruments necessary to make them consistent with applicable plan 
components as developed, amended, or revised are subject to valid 
existing rights. Such modifications should be made as soon as 
practicable following approval of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision.
    (b) Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision to 
authorizations and projects or activities subsequent to plan approval. 
Decisions approving projects and activities

[[Page 1058]]

subsequent to approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision must 
be consistent with the plan as provided in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (c) Application of a plan. Plan provisions remain in effect until 
the effective date of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.
    (d) Effect of new information on projects or activities. Although 
new information will be considered in accordance with agency NEPA 
procedures, nothing in this subpart requires automatic deferral, 
suspension, or modification of approved decisions in light of new 
information.
    (e) Ensuring project or activity consistency with plans. Projects 
and activities must be consistent with the applicable plan. If an 
existing (paragraph (a) of this section) or proposed (paragraph (b) of 
this section) use, project, or activity is not consistent with the 
applicable plan, the Responsible Official may take one of the following 
steps, subject to valid existing rights:
    (1) Modify the project or activity to make it consistent with the 
applicable plan components;
    (2) Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity, 
subject to valid existing rights; or
    (3) Amend the plan contemporaneously with the approval of the 
project or activity so that it will be consistent with the plan as 
amended. The amendment may be limited to apply only to the project or 
activity.


Sec.  219.9  Public participation, collaboration, and notification.

    The Responsible Official must use a collaborative and participatory 
approach to land management planning, in accordance with this subpart 
and consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, by 
engaging the skills and interests of appropriate combinations of Forest 
Service staff, consultants, contractors, other Federal agencies, 
federally recognized Indian Tribes, State or local governments, or 
other interested or affected communities, groups, or persons.
    (a) Providing opportunities for participation. The Responsible 
Official must provide opportunities for the public to collaborate and 
participate openly and meaningfully in the planning process, taking 
into account the discrete and diverse roles, jurisdictions, and 
responsibilities of interested and affected parties. Specifically, as 
part of plan development, plan amendment, and plan revision, the 
Responsible Official shall involve the public in developing and 
updating the comprehensive evaluation report, establishing the 
components of the plan, and designing the monitoring program. The 
Responsible Official has the discretion to determine the methods and 
timing of public involvement opportunities.
    (1) Engaging interested individuals and organizations. The 
Responsible Official must provide for and encourage collaboration and 
participation by interested individuals and organizations, including 
private landowners whose lands are within, adjacent to, or otherwise 
affected by future management actions within the plan area.
    (2) Engaging State and local governments and Federal agencies. The 
Responsible Official must provide opportunities for the coordination of 
Forest Service planning efforts undertaken in accordance with this 
subpart with those of other resource management agencies. The 
Responsible Official also must meet with and provide early 
opportunities for other government agencies to be involved, 
collaborate, and participate in planning for National Forest System 
lands. The Responsible Official should seek assistance, where 
appropriate, from other State and local governments, Federal agencies, 
and scientific and academic institutions to help address management 
issues or opportunities.
    (3) Engaging Tribal governments. The Forest Service recognizes the 
Federal Government's trust responsibility for federally recognized 
Indian Tribes. The Responsible Official must consult with, invite, and 
provide opportunities for federally recognized Indian Tribes to 
collaborate and participate in planning. In working with federally 
recognized Indian Tribes, the Responsible Official must honor the 
government-to-government relationship between Tribes and the Federal 
Government.
    (b) Public notification. The following public notification 
requirements apply to plan development, amendment, or revision, except 
when a plan amendment is approved contemporaneously with approval of a 
project or activity and the amendment applies only to the project or 
activity, in which case 36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart A, 
applies:
    (1) When formal public notification is provided. Public 
notification must be provided at the following times:
    (i) Initiation of development of a plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision;
    (ii) Commencement of the 90-day comment period on a proposed plan, 
plan amendment, or plan revision;
    (iii) Commencement of the 30-day objection period prior to approval 
of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision;
    (iv) Approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision; and
    (v) Adjustment to conform to this subpart of a planning process for 
a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision initiated under the provisions 
of a previous planning regulation.
    (2) How public notice is provided. Public notice must be provided 
in the following manner:
    (i) All required public notices applicable to a new plan, plan 
revision, or adjustment of any ongoing plan revision as provided at 
Sec.  219.14(e) must be published in the Federal Register and 
newspaper(s) of record.
    (ii) Required notifications that are associated with a plan 
amendment or adjustment of any ongoing plan amendment as provided at 
Sec.  219.14(e) and that apply to one plan must be published in the 
newspaper(s) of record. Required notifications that are associated with 
plan amendments and adjustment of any ongoing plan amendments (as 
provided at Sec.  219.14(e)) and that apply to more than one plan must 
be published in the Federal Register.
    (iii) Public notification of evaluation reports and monitoring 
program changes may be made in a manner deemed appropriate by the 
Responsible Official.
    (3) Content of the public notice. Public notices must contain the 
following information:
    (i) Content of the public notice for initiating a plan development, 
plan amendment, or plan revision. The notice must inform the public of 
the documents available for review and how to obtain them; provide a 
summary of the need to develop a plan or change a plan; invite the 
public to comment on the need for change in a plan and to identify any 
other need for change in a plan that they feel should be addressed 
during the planning process; and provide an estimated schedule for the 
planning process, including the time available for comments, and inform 
the public how to submit comments.
    (ii) Content of the public notice for a proposed plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision. The notice must inform the public of the 
availability of the proposed plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, 
including any relevant evaluation report; the commencement of the 90-
day comment period; and the process for submitting comments.
    (iii) Content of the public notice for a plan, plan amendment, or 
plan revision prior to approval. The notice must inform the public of 
the availability of the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision; any 
relevant evaluation report; and the commencement of the 30-day

[[Page 1059]]

objection period; and the process for objecting.
    (iv) Content of the public notice for approval of a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision. The notice must inform the public of the 
availability of the approved plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, 
the approval document, and the effective date of the approval (Sec.  
219.14(a)).
    (v) Content of the public notice for an adjustment to an ongoing 
planning process. The notice must state how a planning process 
initiated before the transition period (Sec.  219.14(b) and (e)) will 
be adjusted to conform to this subpart.


Sec.  219.10  Sustainability.

    Sustainability, for any unit of the National Forest System, has 
three interrelated and interdependent elements: social, economic, and 
ecological. A plan can contribute to sustainability by creating a 
framework to guide on-the-ground management of projects and activities; 
however, a plan by itself cannot ensure sustainability. Agency 
authorities, the nature of a plan, and the capabilities of the plan 
area are some of the factors that limit the extent to which a plan can 
contribute to achieving sustainability.
    (a) Sustaining social and economic systems. The overall goal of the 
social and economic elements of sustainability is to contribute to 
sustaining social and economic systems within the plan area. To 
understand the social and economic contributions that National Forest 
System lands presently make, and may make in the future, the 
Responsible Official, in accordance with Sec.  219.6, must evaluate 
relevant economic and social conditions and trends as appropriate 
during plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision.
    (b) Sustaining ecological systems. The overall goal of the 
ecological element of sustainability is to provide a framework to 
contribute to sustaining native ecological systems by providing 
ecological conditions to support diversity of native plant and animal 
species in the plan area. This will satisfy the statutory requirement 
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)). Procedures 
developed pursuant to Sec.  219.1(c) for sustaining ecological systems 
must be consistent with the following:
    (1) Ecosystem diversity. Ecosystem diversity is the primary means 
by which a plan contributes to sustaining ecological systems. Plan 
components must establish a framework to provide the characteristics of 
ecosystem diversity in the plan area.
    (2) Species diversity. If the Responsible Official determines that 
provisions in plan components, in addition to those required by 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, are needed to provide appropriate 
ecological conditions for specific threatened and endangered species, 
species-of-concern, and species-of-interest, then the plan must include 
additional provisions for these species, consistent with the limits of 
agency authorities, the capability of the plan area, and overall 
multiple use objectives.


Sec.  219.11  Role of science in planning.

    (a) The Responsible Official must take into account the best 
available science. For purposes of this subpart, taking into account 
the best available science means the Responsible Official must:
    (1) Document how the best available science was taken into account 
in the planning process within the context of the issues being 
considered;
    (2) Evaluate and disclose substantial uncertainties in that 
science;
    (3) Evaluate and disclose substantial risks associated with plan 
components based on that science; and
    (4) Document that the science was appropriately interpreted and 
applied.
    (b) To meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the 
Responsible Official may use independent peer review, a science 
advisory board, or other review methods to evaluate the consideration 
of science in the planning process.


Sec.  219.12  Suitable uses and provisions required by NFMA.

    (a) Suitable uses. (1) Identification of suitable land uses. 
National Forest System lands are generally suitable for a variety of 
multiple uses, such as outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, 
and wildlife and fish purposes. The Responsible Official, as 
appropriate, shall identify areas within a National Forest System unit 
as generally suitable for uses that are compatible with desired 
conditions and objectives for that area. Such identification is 
guidance for project and activity decisionmaking, is not a permanent 
land designation, and is subject to change through plan amendment or 
plan revision. Uses of specific areas are approved through project and 
activity decisionmaking.
    (2) Identification of lands not suitable for timber production. (i) 
The Responsible Official must identify lands within the plan area as 
not suitable for timber production (Sec.  219.16) if:
    (A) Statute, Executive order, or regulation prohibits timber 
production on the land; or
    (B) The Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service 
has withdrawn the land from timber production; or
    (C) The land is not forest land (as defined at Sec.  219.16); or
    (D) Timber production would not be compatible with the achievement 
of desired conditions and objectives established by the plan for those 
lands.
    (ii) This identification is not a final decision compelling, 
approving, or prohibiting projects and activities. A final 
determination of suitability for timber production is made through 
project and activity decisionmaking. Salvage sales or other harvest 
necessary for multiple-use objectives other than timber production may 
take place on areas that are not suitable for timber production.
    (b) NFMA requirements. (1) The Chief of the Forest Service must 
include in the Forest Service Directive System procedures for 
estimating the quantity of timber that can be removed annually in 
perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 
1611.
    (2) The Chief of the Forest Service must include in the Forest 
Service Directive System procedures to ensure that plans include the 
resource management guidelines required by 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3).
    (3) Forest Service Directive System procedures adopted to fulfill 
the requirements of this paragraph shall provide public involvement as 
described in 36 CFR part 216.


Sec.  219.13  Objections to plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions.

    (a) Opportunities to object. Before approving a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision, the Responsible Official must provide the 
public 30 calendar days for pre-decisional review and the opportunity 
to object. Federal agencies may not object under this subpart. During 
the 30-day review period, any person or organization, other than a 
Federal agency, who participated in the planning process through the 
submission of written comments, may object to a plan, plan amendment, 
or plan revision according to the procedures in this section, except in 
the following circumstances:
    (1) When a plan amendment is approved contemporaneously with a 
project or activity decision and the plan amendment applies only to the 
project or activity, in which case the administrative review process of 
36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart A, applies

[[Page 1060]]

instead of the objection process established in this section; or
    (2) When the Responsible Official is an official in the Department 
of Agriculture at a level higher than the Chief of the Forest Service, 
in which case there is no opportunity for administrative review.
    (b) Submitting objections. The objection must be in writing and 
must be filed with the Reviewing Officer within 30 days following the 
publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record of the 
availability of the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. Specific 
details will be included in the Forest Service Directive System. An 
objection must contain:
    (1) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person 
or entity filing the objection. Where a single objection is filed by 
more than one person, the objection must indicate the lead objector to 
contact. The Reviewing Officer may appoint the first name listed as the 
lead objector to act on behalf of all parties to the single objection 
when the single objection does not specify a lead objector. The 
Reviewing Officer may communicate directly with the lead objector and 
is not required to notify the other listed objectors of the objection 
response or any other written correspondence related to the single 
objection;
    (2) A statement of the issues, the parts of the plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision to which the objection applies, and how the 
objecting party would be adversely affected; and
    (3) A concise statement explaining how the objector believes that 
the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision is inconsistent with law, 
regulation, or policy or how the objector disagrees with the decision 
and providing any recommendations for change.
    (c) Responding to objections. (1) The Reviewing Officer (Sec.  
219.16) has the authority to make all procedural determinations related 
to the objection not specifically explained in this subpart, including 
those procedures necessary to ensure compatibility, to the extent 
practicable, with the administrative review processes of other Federal 
agencies. The Reviewing Officer must promptly render a written response 
to the objection. The response must be sent to the objecting party by 
certified mail, return receipt requested.
    (2) The response of the Reviewing Officer shall be the final 
decision of the Department of Agriculture on the objection.
    (d) Use of other administrative review processes. Where the Forest 
Service is a participant in a multi-Federal agency effort that would 
otherwise be subject to objection under this subpart, the Reviewing 
Officer may waive the objection procedures of this subpart and instead 
adopt the administrative review procedure of another participating 
Federal agency. As a condition of such a waiver, the Responsible 
Official for the Forest Service must have agreement with the 
Responsible Official of the other agency or agencies that a joint 
agency response will be provided to those who file for administrative 
review of the multi-agency effort.
    (e) Compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The information 
collection requirements associated with submitting an objection have 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned 
control number 0596-0158.


Sec.  219.14  Effective dates and transition.

    (a) Effective dates. A plan, plan amendment, or plan revision is 
effective 30 days after publication of notice of its approval (Sec.  
219.9(b)), except when a plan amendment is approved contemporaneously 
with a project or activity and applies only to the project or activity, 
in which case 36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart A, apply.
    (b) Transition period. For each unit of the National Forest System, 
the transition period begins on January 5, 2005 and ends on the unit's 
establishment of an EMS in accordance with Sec.  219.5 or on January 7, 
2008 whichever comes first.
    (c) Initiation of plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions. For 
the purposes of this section, initiation means that the agency has 
provided notice under Sec.  219.9(b) or issued a Notice of Intent or 
other public notice announcing the commencement of the process to 
develop a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.
    (d) Plan development, plan amendments, or plan revisions initiated 
during the transition period. (1) Plan development and plan revisions 
initiated after January 5, 2005 must conform to the requirements of 
this subpart.
    (2) Plan amendments initiated during the transition period may 
continue using the provisions of the planning regulations in effect 
before November 9, 2000 (See 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised as of 
July 1, 2000) or may conform to the requirements of this subpart if the 
Responsible Official establishes an EMS in accordance with Sec.  219.5.
    (3) Plan amendments initiated after the transition period must 
conform to the requirements of this subpart.
    (e) Plan development, plan amendments, or plan revisions previously 
initiated. Plan development, plan amendments, or plan revisions 
initiated before the transition period may continue to use the 
provisions of the planning regulations in effect before November 9, 
2000 (See 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised as of July 1, 2000), or may 
conform to the requirements of this subpart, in accordance with the 
following:
    (1) The Responsible Official is not required to halt the process 
and start over. Rather, upon the unit's establishment of an EMS in 
accordance with Sec.  219.5, the Responsible Official may apply this 
subpart as appropriate to complete the plan development, plan 
amendment, or plan revision process.
    (2) The Responsible Official may elect to use either the 
administrative appeal and review procedures at 36 CFR part 217 in 
effect prior to November 9, 2000, (See 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised 
as of July 1, 2000), or the objection procedures of this subpart, 
except when a plan amendment is approved contemporaneously with a 
project or activity and applies only to the project or activity, in 
which case 36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart A, apply.
    (f) Management indicator species. For units with plans developed, 
amended, or revised using the provisions of the planning rule in effect 
prior to November 9, 2000, the Responsible Official may comply with any 
obligations relating to management indicator species by considering 
data and analysis relating to habitat unless the plan specifically 
requires population monitoring or population surveys for the species. 
Site-specific monitoring or surveying of a proposed project or activity 
area is not required, but may be conducted at the discretion of the 
Responsible Official.


Sec.  219.15  Severability.

    In the event that any specific provision of this rule is deemed by 
a court to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect.


Sec.  219.16  Definitions.

    Definitions of the special terms used in this subpart are set out 
in alphabetical order.
    Adaptive management: An approach to natural resource management 
where actions are designed and executed and effects are monitored for 
the purpose of learning and adjusting future management actions, which 
improves the efficiency and responsiveness of management.
    Area of analysis: The geographic area within which ecosystems, 
their

[[Page 1061]]

components, or their processes are evaluated during analysis and 
development of one or more plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments. 
This area may vary in size depending on the relevant planning issue. 
For a plan, an area of analysis may be larger than a plan area. For 
development of a plan amendment, an area of analysis may be smaller 
than the plan area. An area of analysis may include multiple 
ownerships.
    Diversity of plant and animal communities: The distribution and 
relative abundance or extent of plant and animal communities and their 
component species, including tree species, occurring within an area.
    Ecological conditions: Components of the biological and physical 
environment that can affect diversity of plant and animal communities 
and the productive capacity of ecological systems. These components 
could include the abundance and distribution of aquatic and terrestrial 
habitats, roads and other structural developments, human uses, and 
invasive, exotic species.
    Ecosystem diversity: The variety and relative extent of ecosystem 
types, including their composition, structure, and processes within all 
or a part of an area of analysis.
    Environmental management system: The part of the overall management 
system that includes organizational structure, planning activities, 
responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes, and resources for 
developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing, and maintaining the 
environmental policy of the planning unit.
    Federally recognized Indian Tribe: An Indian or Alaska Native 
Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary 
of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe pursuant to 
the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.
    Forest land: Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of 
any size or formerly having had such tree cover and not currently 
developed for nonforest uses. Lands developed for non-forest use 
include areas for crops; improved pasture; residential or 
administrative areas; improved roads of any width and adjoining road 
clearing; and power line clearings of any width.
    ISO 14001: A consensus standard developed by the International 
Organization for Standardization and adopted by the American National 
Standards Institute that describes environmental management systems and 
outlines the elements of an environmental management system.
    Newspaper(s) of record: The principal newspapers of general 
circulation annually identified and published in the Federal Register 
by each Regional Forester to be used for publishing notices as required 
by 36 CFR 215.5. The newspaper(s) of record for projects in a plan area 
is (are) the newspaper(s) of record for notices related to planning.
    Plan: A document or set of documents that integrates and displays 
information relevant to management of a unit of the National Forest 
System.
    Plan area: The National Forest System lands covered by a plan.
    Productivity: The capacity of National Forest System lands and 
their ecological systems to provide the various renewable resources in 
certain amounts in perpetuity. For the purposes of this subpart it is 
an ecological, not an economic, term.
    Public participation: Activities that include a wide range of 
public involvement tools and processes, such as collaboration, public 
meetings, open houses, workshops, and comment periods.
    Responsible Official: The official with the authority and 
responsibility to oversee the planning process and to approve plans, 
plan amendments, and plan revisions.
    Reviewing Officer: The supervisor of the Responsible Official. The 
Reviewing Officer responds to objections made to a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision prior to approval.
    Species: Any member of the currently accepted and scientifically 
defined plant or animal kingdoms of organisms.
    Species-of-concern: Species for which the Responsible Official 
determines that management actions may be necessary to prevent listing 
under the Endangered Species Act.
    Species-of-interest: Species for which the Responsible Official 
determines that management actions may be necessary or desirable to 
achieve ecological or other multiple use objectives.
    Timber production: The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and 
regeneration of regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or 
other round sections for industrial or consumer use.
    Visitor opportunities: The spectrum of settings, landscapes, 
scenery, facilities, services, access points, information, learning-
based recreation, wildlife, natural features, cultural and heritage 
sites, and so forth available for National Forest System visitors to 
use and enjoy.
    Wilderness: Any area of land designated by Congress as part of the 
National Wilderness Preservation System that was established in the 
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136).

    Dated: December 22, 2004.
Mark Rey,
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.
[FR Doc. 05-21 Filed 1-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P