National Forest System Land Management Planning, 48514-48541 [E7-16378]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 163 (Thursday, August 23, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48514-48541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16378]



[[Page 48513]]

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

Part VI





Department of Agriculture





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



Forest Service



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



36 CFR Part 219



 National Forest System Land Management Planning; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 163 / Thursday, August 23, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 48514]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 219

RIN 0596-AC70


National Forest System Land Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is 
providing notice and opportunity for comment on a proposed rule for 
National Forest System land management planning. This rulemaking is the 
result of a U.S. district court order dated March 30, 2007, which 
enjoined the United States Department of Agriculture from 
implementation and utilization of the land management planning rule 
published in 2005 (70 FR 1023) until it complies with the court's order 
regarding the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species 
Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (Citizens for Better Forestry 
et al. v. USDA, C.A. C05-1144 (N. D. Cal.)). The purpose of this 
proposed rule is to respond to the court's ruling about notice and 
comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act by 
publishing the 2005 rule as a proposed rule. The Agency plans to comply 
with the court's order regarding the Endangered Species Act. In 
addition, the Agency is preparing a draft environmental impact 
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.
    This proposed rule sets forth a framework for National Forest 
System land management planning to provide for sustainability of 
social, economic, and ecological systems and establishes direction for 
developing, amending, and revising land management plans. The proposed 
rule clarifies that, absent extraordinary circumstances, land 
management plans developed, amended, or revised under the proposed rule 
are strategic and are one stage in an adaptive cycle of planning for 
management of National Forest System lands. The intent of the proposed 
rule is 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.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by October 22, 2007. The 
Agency will consider and place comments received after this date in the 
record only if practicable.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning this proposed rule through 
one of the following methods: E-mail: planningrule@fscomments.org. 
Include ``planning rule'' in the subject line of the message. Fax: 
(916) 456-6724. Please identify your comments by including ``planning 
rule'' on the cover sheet or the first page. Mail: Planning Rule 
Comments, P.O. Box 162969, Sacramento, CA 95816-2969. Please note that 
the Forest Service will not be able to receive hand-delivered comments. 
Submit comments through the World Wide Web/Internet Web site https://
www.regulations.gov. Please note that all comments, including names and 
addresses when provided, will be placed in the record and will be 
available for public inspection and copying. The Agency cannot confirm 
receipt of comments. Individuals wishing to inspect comments should 
call Bob Dow at (801) 517-1022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regis Terney, Planning Specialist; 
Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (202) 205-1552, or Ron Pugh, 
Planning Specialist, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (202) 205-
0992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. Additional Documents Are Available
2. The 2005 Planning Rule
3. Overview of the 2007 Proposed Rule
     Major Themes and Areas of Public Comment in the 
Proposed Rule
     Plans Should Be Strategic
     Plans Should Be Adaptive and Based on Current 
Information and Science
     Land Management Planning Should Involve the Public
     Plans Should Guide Sustainable Management of NFS Lands
     Environmental Management Systems and Adaptive 
Management
     National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest 
Management Act Planning
     Summary
4. Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule
    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
     Regulatory Impact
     Environmental Impacts
     Summary of Environmental Impact Statement
     Energy Effects
     Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
     Federalism
     Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments
     No Takings Implications
     Civil Justice Reform
     Unfunded Mandates

1. Additional Documents Are Available

    The following information is posted on the World Wide Web/Internet 
at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2007_planning_rule.html: (1) This 
proposed rule; (2) a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) 
analyzing the proposed rule; (3) the Civil Rights Impact Analysis for 
this proposed rule; (4) the cost-benefit analysis for this proposed 
rule; (5) the business model cost study done to estimate predicted 
costs to implement the 2000 planning rule, and (6) the Forest Service 
directives and other guidance on land management planning developed for 
the now enjoined 2005 planning rule. 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. The final 
environmental impact statement, when completed, will also be available 
on the above Web site.

2. The 2005 Planning Rule

    The Department published the land management planning rule in 2005 
(2005 planning rule) in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 
1023). The 2005 planning rule at 36 CFR part 219 was based on a review, 
conducted by Forest Service personnel at the direction of the Office of 
the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, of an 
earlier planning rule promulgated in 2000 (65 FR 67514). The review 
affirmed the

[[Page 48515]]

2000 rule's underlying concepts of sustainability, monitoring, 
evaluation, collaboration (working with the public), and the 
consideration of science. However, although the 2000 rule was intended 
to simplify and streamline the development, amendment, and revision of 
land management plans (also referred to as plans), the review concluded 
that the 2000 rule was very costly and neither straightforward nor easy 
to implement. The review also found that the 2000 rule did not clarify 
adequately the strategic nature of land management planning.
    Based on the review and over two decades of experience with plans, 
the Agency published the 2005 planning rule to (1) simplify and 
streamline the development, revision, and amendment of plans; (2) 
clarify that plans are strategic; and (3) ensure that direction for 
developing, revising, and amending plans is consistent with legal 
requirements and the limits of the Agency authorities and the 
capabilities of National Forest System lands.
    On March 30, 2007, the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of California in Citizens for Better Forestry et al. 
v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, C.A. C05-1144 PJH, No. C 04-4512 
PJH (N. D. Cal., March 30, 2007), enjoined the United States Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) from implementation and utilization of the 2005 
planning rule until USDA takes certain additional steps concerning the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 
and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    The Agency is committed to transparent rulemaking and public 
participation, and provided a notice and comment period for the 
proposed 2005 rule (December 6, 2002, 67 FR 72770). In the final 2005 
rule, the Agency changed the provisions for timber management 
requirements, changed the provisions for making changes to the 
monitoring program, and added provisions for environmental management 
system (EMS). The Environmental Management System provisions require 
the Agency to define a structure and system of organizational 
activities, responsibilities, practices, and procedures for carrying 
out the Agency environmental policy. The Court found that the proposed 
rule did not provide sufficient notice to the public of these changes 
to the final rule such that the final rule was not the logical 
outgrowth of the proposed rule. Therefore, the Agency is providing 
notice and seeking comment on the proposed rule, which includes the 
changes made to the final 2005 planning rule.
    Regarding NEPA, the court further found that the 2005 planning rule 
did not fit the Agency's categorical exclusion for Servicewide 
administrative procedures. That categorical exclusion, developed with 
public participation, is a recognized method of NEPA compliance. Under 
the court's order, however, further environmental analysis under NEPA 
is required. Accordingly, the Agency is preparing a draft EIS on the 
proposed rule.
    Finally, the court found that the Agency was required to consult on 
the impact of the 2005 rule under ESA. Based upon an analysis of the 
2005 rule, the Agency had concluded that adoption of the 2005 planning 
rule alone would have no effect on protected species or critical 
habitat. The court, however, found that some form of consultation with 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries is required. Accordingly, 
the Agency plans to comply with the court's order regarding the 
Endangered Species Act.
    Without conceding the correctness of the court's ruling, which is 
being addressed through the judicial process, the Agency has decided to 
undertake these processes to expedite much needed plan revisions and 
plan amendments.

3. Overview of the 2007 Proposed Rule

    Forest planning rules have a long history. The Department adopted 
the first planning rule September 17, 1979 (44 FR 53928). The planning 
rule was substantially amended on September 30, 1982 (47 FR 43026), and 
was amended in part on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29122), and on September 7, 
1983 (48 FR 40383). The 1982 rule, as amended, has guided the 
development, amendment, and revision of the land management plans that 
are now in place for all national forests and grasslands. In addition, 
the Department adopted a revised rule on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 
67514). No plans have been developed, amended, or revised using the 
procedures of the 2000 rule. After review of the 2000 planning rule, 
the Agency proposed to revise the planning rule on December 6, 2002 (67 
FR 72770) with a 90-day public comment period.
    This proposed rule is identical, except as noted below, to the 
currently enjoined rule at 36 CFR part 219 published in the Federal 
Register on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1023) as amended on March 3, 2006 
(71 FR 10837). The preamble to the 2005 rule contains a detailed 
analysis of comments received and issues identified during the comment 
on the 2002 proposed rule. This proposed rule differs from the 2005 
final rule, in that, the effective date and the end of the transition 
period date in Sec.  219.14 are changed. This proposed rule also 
includes the amendment made March 3, 2006 (71 FR 10837) to change the 
transition provision for the Tongass National Forest plan. The Agency 
believes this proposed rule is based on a better understanding of land 
management planning resulting from the Forest Service's 25 years of 
experience developing, revising, and amending plans under the 1982 
planning rule and 2000 rule transition provisions. After assessing the 
flaws and benefits of the planning rules during these 25 years, the 
Forest Service believes that it is time to rely on its experience, 
think differently about NFS planning, and change our planning 
procedures. This proposed rule embodies a strategic approach to 
planning that emphasizes the desired outcomes of land management and 
the sustainability of resources, rather than the output-oriented 
approach embodied in the 1982 rule. The Forest Service's intent with 
this proposed rule is to promote a more efficient way to protect the 
environment and to facilitate working with the public. The proposed 
rule establishes an adaptive management process with a priority on 
monitoring to allow timely changes to plans to respond to changing 
conditions and new information to ensure that clean air, clean water, 
and abundant wildlife remain available. In this way, the proposed rule 
better allows the Agency to carry out its mission to ``to sustain the 
health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and 
grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations'' 
(Forest Service Manual 1020.21). This proposed rule will enable the 
Forest Service to respond in a timely manner to changing conditions 
like hazardous fuels, new science, and many other dynamics that affect 
NFS management. A fundamental concept in this proposed rule is that 
protection and management of the NFS lands should be based on sound and 
current science.
    This proposed rule assures the public the opportunity for an 
effective voice throughout the entire planning process. Finally, 
because this proposed rule will enable more efficient planning, the 
Forest Service will be able to shift its limited resources to the 
public's expressed priorities. These priorities include improved 
conservation of the

[[Page 48516]]

forests and grasslands and better responses to the threats the forests 
and grasslands face, such as critical wildfire danger and invasive 
species that degrade ecological systems.
    To achieve these important goals, plans under this proposed rule 
will be more strategic and less prescriptive than those developed, 
amended, or revised under the 1982 planning rule. The Agency believes 
that strategic, adaptable plans are the most effective means of guiding 
NFS management in light of changing conditions, science, and 
technology. To this end, plans under this proposed rule typically will 
not approve or prohibit projects or activities except under 
extraordinary circumstances. Rather, as described further below, plans 
under this proposed rule typically will contain five components, which 
set forth guidance for subsequent decisions approving or prohibiting 
on-the-ground activities. The plan components are: Desired conditions, 
objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special areas.

 Major Themes and Areas of Public Comment in the Proposed Rule

    The major themes of the proposed rule discussed in this preamble 
reflect the public comments received on the 2005 rule (70 FR 1023). 
This proposed rule sets forth the process for development, amendment, 
and revision of plans for NFS units, including the national forests, 
grasslands, prairie, or other comparable administrative units in 
compliance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The Forest Service has developed 125 plans and 
revised 53 plans since enactment of NFMA and has amended numerous 
plans. The Agency expects to complete more than 100 additional 
revisions during the next decade. Based on the decades of experience 
under the 1982 planning rule, transition provisions of the 2000 rule, 
and under the 2005 rule, the Agency has focused this proposed rule 
around the following major themes:
Plans Should Be Strategic
    The purpose of plans should be to establish goals for forests, 
grasslands, and prairies and to set forth guidance to achieve those 
goals. Plans can meet these purposes through components that describe 
desired conditions, provide objectives for achieving desired 
conditions, and that identify guidelines, suitability of areas for 
various uses, and special areas. These five plan components will supply 
clear, concise statements of management intent for all areas of the 
national forests. Typically, a plan should not include decisions that 
approve or prohibit projects and activities and such decisions would 
follow subsequent proposed actions considered by the Agency.
Plans Should Be Adaptive and Based on Current Information and Science
    Information, science, and unforeseen circumstances evolve during 
the 15-year life expectancy of a plan. 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 will be part of the 
land management framework.
Land Management Planning Should Involve the Public
    Plans are prepared for public lands. The Agency firmly believes 
that public participation and collaboration should be welcomed and 
encouraged during planning. Throughout the planning process, 
responsible officials offer people the opportunity to work 
collaboratively to find solutions that balance conflicting needs and 
values, to evaluate management under the plans, and to consider the 
need to adjust plans as conditions and issues change.
Plans Should 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 are to be managed to provide a 
continuous flow of goods and services to the nation in perpetuity. To 
meet this requirement, plans must supply a sustainable framework--based 
on social, economic, and ecological systems--to guide the on-the-ground 
management of projects and activities, which results in these goods and 
services.
Planning Must Comply With All Applicable Laws, Regulations, and 
Policies
    Planning must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and 
policies, although none of these requirements needs to be restated in 
plans. 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 the development of projects or activities 
on NFS lands. BMPs are designed to meet State water quality standards 
and prevent adverse environmental consequences. Specific BMPs and other 
legal requirements do not have to be repeated in the plan to be in 
effect and applicable to NFS projects and activities.

 Plans Should Be Strategic

    Land management plans are strategic. A plan establishes a long-term 
management framework for NFS units. Within that framework, specific 
projects and activities are proposed, approved, and carried out 
depending on specific conditions and circumstances in the area at the 
time the Forest Service initiates a project. 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)) (Ohio Forestry), 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 recognized the similar nature of 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) (SUWA). 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 proposed rule, plans will continue to be the strategic 
plans recognized by the Supreme Court in Ohio Forestry and SUWA. As 
described below, the five components of a plan under the proposed rule 
do not approve or prohibit projects and activities, but rather 
characterize general desired conditions and guidance for achieving

[[Page 48517]]

and maintaining those conditions. Typically, a plan will not approve or 
prohibit activities.
    On December 11, 1997, Secretary of Agriculture chartered the 
Committee of Scientists (COS) to provide scientific and technical 
advice on improvements that could be made in the planning process. The 
Forest Service examined the report by the COS, which said on page xxx 
of the synopsis of their COS Report: ``Collaborative planning begins by 
finding agreement in a common vision for the future conditions of the 
national forests and grasslands'' and said on page xxv of the synopsis 
of their COS report ``it also requires crafting strategies to achieve 
those conditions'' (Committee of Scientists Report, March 15, 1999, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 193 p.). The Forest 
Service also examined the strategic planning processes used by 
businesses and other government agencies. The Forest Service developed 
a three-part outline to organize plan components, and communicate their 
strategic nature. This outline is based on the plan components in the 
final 2005 planning rule and this proposed rule. The Forest Service 
describes the three parts, vision, strategy, and design criteria, in 
Foundations of Forest Planning, Volume 1--Preparing a Forest Plan. This 
document is available from the Technical Information for Planning 
Systems Web site at https://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS. Within this outline, the 
vision is expressed with descriptions of desired conditions. The 
strategy is crafted from three plan components: Suitability of areas, 
special areas, and objectives. Finally, the design criteria are 
developed using the guidelines plan component. The Forest Service 
directives for the 2005 planning rule (FSM 1921.1, FSH 1909.12, chapter 
10) recommend responsible officials use this three-part outline for 
plans. For example, the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands Plan, 
Pre-Decisional Review Version was made available using that outline. 
See https://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/projects/forest_revision/gr_plan_
prv.shtml.
Planning documentation
    The proposed rule requires a plan document or set of documents 
(Sec.  219.7(a)(1)) to contain all information relevant to planning. A 
plan document or set of documents includes: (1) Evaluation reports; (2) 
all plan components, including applicable maps; (3) the plan approval 
document; (4) any relevant National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA) documents; (5) the monitoring program for the plan area; (6) any 
documents relating to the public involvement process in planning; (7) 
any documents relating to the adaptive management process (including 
EMS) applicable to the plan; and (8) documentation of how science was 
taken into account in the planning process (Sec.  219.11).
Plan Components
    This proposed rule uses the term ``plan components'' to describe 
the parts of a plan. How plans are characterized and how plan parts 
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 have or do not have on-the-ground impacts, how current plans 
enable or restrict responding to changing circumstances and science, 
and how more active and structured monitoring provides better 
information for monitoring, amending, or revising plans as needed. To a 
greater extent than before, plans under the proposed planning rule will 
be strategic and aspirational in nature, setting desired conditions, 
objectives, and guidance for subsequent on-the-ground projects or 
activities. Typically, the Forest Service can meaningfully evaluate 
environmental effects only when projects or activities developed to 
carry out desired conditions and objectives of the plan are proposed.
    The Agency has concluded that plans are more effective if they 
include more detailed descriptions of desired conditions and general 
guidance instead of long lists of prohibitive standards, guidelines, or 
suitability determinations developed in an attempt to anticipate and 
address every possible future project or activity and the potential on-
the-ground effects they could cause. Under this proposed rule, plans 
have five principal components (Sec.  219.7(a)(2)): Desired conditions, 
objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special areas.
Desired Conditions
    Desired conditions are the social, economic, and ecological 
attributes toward which management of the land and resources of the 
plan area is directed. Desired conditions are long-term and 
aspirational, but are neither commitments nor final decisions on 
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 ``desired conditions.'' The Forest Service has been challenged 
with unnatural fuel levels throughout NFS lands. Much of the western 
United States is currently in a severe drought cycle, and the reduction 
of fuel is necessary. To facilitate moving toward a healthier and more 
natural condition on the land, a plan could describe ecological 
conditions closer to those that would have occurred under natural fire 
regimes: For example, desired conditions for desired fuel loads, along 
with desired tree species, structure, distribution, and density.
    The Agency, working with the public, also may seek to achieve or 
maintain desired conditions for attributes, such as quietness, 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 prohibiting vegetation 
treatment during certain months or standards requiring 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 
context, starting point, and vision for project or activity design, 
when the site-specific conditions are known and when species 
conservation measures can be most meaningfully evaluated and 
effectively applied. Again, a thorough description of what the Agency, 
working with the public, wants to achieve ultimately on the ground is 
key to a strategic planning process.
Objectives
    Objectives are concise projections of intended outcomes of projects 
and activities to contribute to the 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 or prohibiting projects and activities. 
The application of objectives is the same under the proposed rule as 
objectives were applied under the 1982 planning rule.
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

[[Page 48518]]

approving or prohibiting 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 responsible official would normally apply to a project or 
activity unless there is a reason to vary. The project or activity 
design may vary from the guideline only if the design is an effective 
means of meeting the purpose of the guideline, to maintain or 
contribute to the attainment of relevant desired conditions and 
objectives. If the responsible official decides a variance from the 
guideline is necessary, the responsible official must document how the 
variance is an effective means of maintaining or contributing to the 
attainment of relevant desired conditions and objectives. However, a 
variance does not require an amendment to the plan.
    Section 6 of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) sets forth the requirements for development and 
maintenance of land management plans. Section 6(c) of 16 U.S.C. 1604 
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to incorporate the ``standards and 
guidelines'' required by that section into plans as soon as 
practicable. Section 6(g) directs the Secretary to promulgate 
regulations setting out the process for development and revision of 
plans and specifying the guidelines prescribed by that subsection. 
Subsection (g) requires the regulations to include guidelines for 
various things, such as land suitability identifications, diversity of 
plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of 
the land to meet overall multiple use objectives, and permitting 
harvest level increases, among other things. Subsection (g) does not 
specify that any particular standards must be included nor the form in 
which the regulations must provide guidelines. In the 1982 planning 
rule and the original plans, the terms ``standards and guidelines'' 
were usually used interchangeably. Some plan revisions have called 
mandatory provisions ``standards'' and discretionary direction with 
latitude for variance as ``guidelines.'' The 2000 planning rule did not 
use the term ``guidelines.'' In the 2000 planning rule, a provision 
labeled a standard could be either mandatory or discretionary depending 
upon its wording and the scope of its requirements.
    However, in line with and to emphasize the strategic nature of 
plans, this proposed rule proposes the term ``guidelines'' and does not 
include the term ``standards'' as a required plan component.
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. Plans may 
identify areas as generally suitable for uses that are compatible with 
desired conditions and objectives for that area. Under this proposed 
rule, a plan may identify all uses that are generally suitable for a 
particular area or may identify the major or most prominent generally 
suitable uses. The identification of an area as generally suitable for 
a use or uses is neither a commitment nor a decision approving or 
prohibiting activities or uses. Responsible officials authorize the 
actual suitability of an area for a specific use or activity through 
project and activity decisionmaking.
    The identification of areas as generally suitable does not 
``allocate'' the area but identifies that desired conditions are 
compatible with that use. A future proposed project for a use not 
identified as a generally suitable use may be approved if appropriate 
based on site-specific analysis and if the proposed project is 
consistent with other plan components. The identification of an area as 
generally suitable for various uses is not a final decision compelling, 
approving, or prohibiting projects and activities. The identification 
of generally suitable land areas is guidance for future project or 
activity decision-making. A final determination of suitability of lands 
for resource uses is made through project and activity decisionmaking.
    Suitable use identification has evolved over time. Plans prepared 
under the 1982 planning rule often characterized suitable use 
identification 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. Early in the Agency's 
experience with carrying out the 1982 planning rule the Forest Service 
realized that suitability identifications in a plan, like environmental 
analysis itself, would always require site-specific reviews when 
projects or activities were proposed. This site-specific review would 
verify that the proposed project or activity is compatible with desired 
conditions and objectives for that area or compatible with the other 
suitable uses for that area.
    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 based on this site-specific analysis. Thus, the 
Forest Service never made a final determination of suitability until 
the project or activity analysis and decision process was completed. 
This proposed rule better characterizes the nature and purpose of 
suitability identification.
    An illustration of the effect of suitability identifications in the 
proposed rule may be helpful. Under this proposed rule, a plan may 
identify certain portions of an NFS unit as generally suitable for some 
uses. Example uses may include: Mechanized travel, motorized travel, 
non-commercial uses, non-mechanized travel, non-motorized travel, and 
wheeled motorized travel. Suppose for example that an area of an NFS 
unit is identified as generally suitable for wheeled motorized travel 
(or transportation development). Identification of an area in a plan as 
generally suitable for motorized travel does not mean that construction 
of any road is approved or is even inevitable. Rather, the 
identification merely provides guidance for where road construction may 
be compatible with desired conditions. The responsible official may 
approve proposed projects for construction of a road or roads only 
after appropriate project-specific National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) analysis and public involvement.
Special Areas
    Special areas are areas within the NFS designated for their unique 
or special characteristics. Under the proposed rule, these areas 
include wilderness, wild and scenic river corridors, and research 
natural areas. Special areas also may include smaller areas with unique 
botanical, geologic, or other natural feature that makes them special. 
Some of these areas are statutorily designated. Other areas may be 
designated through plan development, amendment, revision, or through a 
separate administrative process with appropriate NEPA analysis.
Monitoring
    The monitoring program is also a central element of adaptive 
management in this proposed rule because monitoring is the key to 
discovering how to make project-specific decisions consistent with 
desired conditions and

[[Page 48519]]

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 evaluate the 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. 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 activities when needed.
    The proposed rule allows the 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. The responsible official will notify the public 
of changes in monitoring programs, and the responsible official can 
involve the public in a variety of ways to develop program changes.
Streamlining the Planning Rule and Use of the Forest Service Directive 
System
    This proposed rule places the procedural and technical details to 
carry out the NFMA in 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 Forest Service is required 
by section 14 of NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1612(a) to provide adequate notice and 
opportunity to comment on the formulation of standards, criteria, and 
guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs. Forest Service 
regulations at 36 CFR part 216 define standards, criteria, and 
guidelines as those ``written policies, instructions and orders, 
originated by the Forest Service and issued in the Forest Service 
Manual * * *.''
    The Forest Service developed directives for the enjoined 2005 rule 
that set forth the legal authorities, objectives, policy, 
responsibilities, direction, and overall guidance that Forest Service 
line officers, Agency employees, and others would need to use that 
rule. Directives in Forest Service Manuals (FSMs) 1900 and 1920 and 
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, chapters zero code, 10, 20, 30, 
40, 50, 60 and 80 were issued on January 31, 2006 (71 FR 5124). A 
directive to FSM 1330 was issued on March 3, 2006 (71 FR 10956). A 
directive to FSH 1909.12, chapter 70 was issued on January 31, 2007 (72 
FR 4478). If the United States Department of Agriculture (Department) 
promulgates the proposed rule as final, the Agency would carry out this 
rule using the current directives, modified as necessary to account for 
changes because of this rulemaking. Directives are available at https://
www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index5.html.

 Plans Should Be Adaptive and Based on Current Information and 
Science

    This proposed rule requires that the responsible official take into 
account the best available science (Sec.  219.11) and specifies the 
process for taking science into account. Under this proposed 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.
    Under the 1982 planning rule, planning teams were required to 
``integrate knowledge of the physical, biological, economic and social 
sciences, and the environmental design arts in the planning process'' 
(Sec.  219.5(a) of 1982 planning rule). Therefore, the Agency has been 
under an obligation to take the best available science into account for 
decades. The addition of Sec.  219.11 specifies provisions to make 
plain what has been part of good practice.
    The 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. Forest Service directives (FSH 1909.12, chapter 40) 
set forth specific procedures for conducting science reviews.
    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 help clarify 
the limitations of the information base for the plan.

 Land Management Planning Should Involve the Public

    The proposed rule clearly expresses the Agency's emphasis on public 
involvement and collaboration. The proposed rule clarifies requirements 
about public involvement by consolidating provisions on consultation 
with interested individuals and organizations, State and local 
governments, Federal agencies, and federally recognized Indian Tribes.
    The Agency expects that, compared with the 1982 planning rule, this 
proposed 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 engage collaboratively in the development, 
amendment, or revision of a plan and in the development of the 
monitoring program. 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 proposed 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)). 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 Agency has lots of experience with the type of collaboration 
envisioned under the proposed rule. Collaboration will vary by 
administrative unit by necessity to deal with local, regional, and 
national needs, interests, and values. In addition, the process must 
take into account the capability for collaboration of these 
stakeholders and Forest Service personnel. There are many ways to 
design a collaborative process including open public meetings, 
landscape-based, issue-based, technical reviews, issue presentations, 
joint fact finding, web-based interactions, and various other types of 
communication.
    For instance, from the Forest Service perspective, the 
collaboration effort on

[[Page 48520]]

the White Mountain National Forest, located in New Hampshire and Maine, 
was successful. The collaboration effort began in 1997 and their 
planning effort was guided by the 1982 planning regulations in effect 
at that time. The national forest used a wide variety of public 
involvement, collaboration, and communication methods during the eight 
years they worked on revising their plan, including outreach meetings; 
numerous public planning meetings; monthly meetings of geographically 
based local planning groups; and meetings and conversations with tribal 
officials, local governments, and private individuals and 
organizations. Through these meetings, members of the public were given 
many opportunities to interact with the Agency's planning team and 
provide input on future management of the national forest. 
Collaboration occurred throughout the development of the revised plan 
and environmental impact statement, and was in addition to public 
comment periods required by the 1982 planning rule. These efforts 
culminated with the approval of a revised forest plan in September 
2005. The administrative appeal period closed 90 days later without a 
single appeal being filed, surely an indicator of successful 
collaboration.
    Before the injunction against the 2005 planning rule, the Agency 
had some opportunities to use the public participation provisions of 
that rule. A survey of several of the Forest Service units that have 
conducted collaboration activities under the 2005 planning rule 
indicates potential for successful collaboration under the proposed 
rule. For instance, the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands 
(Grasslands) applied collaborative processes in four local communities. 
Invited researchers and professors at regional universities 
participated in two scientific reviews of the plan and related 
assessments and monitoring questions. The Grasslands reached out to and 
shared information with many local stakeholders including grazing 
associations, environmental groups, federal, state, and local 
government agencies, and others. Some of the media included postcards, 
newsletters, and posters, newspapers, and local radio stations. They 
collaborated diligently with outside groups on the Plan's monitoring 
questions and performance measures. To share the latest information 
about the plan revision, processes used during plan development, and 
the associated documents supporting the plan, the Grasslands planning 
team also kept the plan revision Web site current.
    The Grasslands' first round of public meetings used the 
collaborative tools of structured group exercises, questionnaires, open 
houses, individual questions-and-answers, and group discussions. From 
this the planning team learned what interested parties believed were 
the main topics to deal with and what they would like the Grasslands to 
look like in the future.
    The Grasslands' second round of public meetings centered on the 
proposed plan, which was released in December 2005. In this second 
round, each of several small groups focused on a designated section of 
the proposed plan and engaged in discussion with Forest Service and 
third party facilitators to develop and suggest changes they would like 
to make to the proposed plan. This round focused on whether the 
proposed plan's components embodied the public's expressed desires. 
This round also engaged the public in evaluating the proposed plans' 
monitoring questions and performance measures, which had been developed 
in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy. Two main views were 
represented in the public meetings and comments. Some respondents felt 
their traditional lifestyle was threatened by economic conditions, 
drought, government interference, and the growing population of 
Colorado's Front Range. Other people advocated quiet-use recreation and 
habitat and wildlife protection. From the Forest Service perspective, 
collaboration provided a safe environment where these diverse groups 
could express differing opinions, share ideas, and begin building 
relationships. One result was improved relations, understanding, 
communication, and a confidence about working together. Based on Forest 
Service interpretation of feedback forms, participants were pleased 
with the approach used and with the mixed working group exercises. 
Another important benefit for Agency employees was the opportunity to 
improve their own collaboration skills.
    The Forest Service has found that the traditional way of developing 
plan alternatives under the 1982 planning rule has often had an adverse 
effect on the planning process. The traditional approach of developing 
and choosing among discrete alternatives that are carried throughout 
the entire planning process often proves divisive, because it often 
maintains adversarial positions, rather than helping people seek common 
ground. To overcome this tendency, the proposed rule features an 
iterative approach to planning. The Agency recognizes 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, suitable uses, guidelines, and special 
area designations. The Agency also recognizes that the public should be 
involved in determining what plan components should be. Therefore, the 
proposed rule emphasizes 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 change the plan, and together they will successively narrow 
potential plan component options until a proposed plan is developed. 
However, the proposed rule also recognizes that it is not always 
possible or desirable to present only one proposed plan for public 
comment and, therefore, the responsible official can develop options to 
the proposed plan for public comment when appropriate.
    The Forest Service will ensure 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 proposed 
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 Agency 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, this proposed rule emphasizes collaboration 
and offers abundant opportunities for more effective public 
involvement.

[[Page 48521]]

 Plans Should Guide Sustainable Management of NFS Lands

    As did the 2000 planning rule, this proposed rule makes 
sustainability the overall goal for NFS planning. Managing NFS lands 
for sustainability of their renewable resources meets the Multiple Use 
and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (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 proposed rule is identical to the 2005 planning rule 
for social, economic, and ecological sustainability requirements.
    NFMA requires guidelines for plans that 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 
correspondingly complicated array of concepts, measures, and values 
from several scientific disciplines.
    The 2002 proposed rule asked for comments on an ecosystem approach 
(67 FR 72770, December 6, 2002). The Agency also hosted a workshop to 
arrange an opportunity for public discussion of the ecosystem approach 
and for identification of other ideas on how best to meet the statutory 
diversity requirement. Both in public comments and during the workshop, 
people expressed an extremely wide range of opinions. The Agency found 
these comments useful in developing a scientifically credible and 
realistic approach for this proposed rule and in the development of 
Forest Service directives that meet legal requirements and the Agency's 
stewardship responsibilities.
    In common with 2002 proposed rule and the 2000 planning rule, the 
proposed 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 the now enjoined 2005 planning rule.
    The Agency developed the proposed 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 alone 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, the plan must include additional provisions for 
these species. This proposed rule defines species-of-concern as those 
species for which the responsible official determines that continued 
existence is a concern and listing under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) may become necessary. This proposed 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. The Forest Service 
directive (FSH 1909.12, section 43.22) identifies lists of species 
developed by objective and scientifically credible third parties, 
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NatureServe (https://
www.natureserve.org/).
    Third, Agency managers should concentrate their efforts on 
contributing to sustaining species where Forest Service has the 
authority and capability to carry out management activities that may 
affect species rather than 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 proposed 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 management 
process, which includes monitoring and feedback, will help maintain and 
improve diversity.
    The proposed rule is less detailed than 2002 proposed rule or the 
2000 planning rule 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 Agency concluded that such detail about analysis is more 
properly included in the Forest Service directives. These directives 
can be more extensive and can be more easily updated as the Agency 
learns how to improve its analytic processes and as new scientific 
concepts and new technological capabilities become available.
    The Forest Service developed directives for the enjoined 2005 rule 
that set forth the overall guidance that Forest Service employees would 
need to use that rule. The Forest Service directives (FSM 1921.7, FSH 
1909.12, chapter 40) include appropriate analysis processes. The Agency 
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 easily if 
new and better techniques emerge.
    The proposed rule focuses on ecosystem diversity as the primary 
means of providing for the diversity of plant and animal communities. 
The proposed rule does not explicitly require analysis of ecosystem 
characteristics, natural variation under historic disturbance regimes, 
or spatial scales. However, guidance on appropriate analysis is 
included in the Forest Service directives (FSM 1921.7, FSH 1909.12, 
chapter 40).
    Another point in common between this proposed rule and 2002 
proposed rule 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. This proposed rule recognizes that some additional 
analysis and additional plan provisions may be needed for some species. 
It is the Agency's expectation that in developing the plan components, 
especially the desired conditions, that

[[Page 48522]]

plans will supply sufficient detail for characteristics of both 
ecosystem diversity and species diversity to provide the ecological 
conditions necessary to conserve and recover species and prevent the 
listing of at-risk species. We will collaborate with the ESA regulatory 
agencies in the development of these plan components for listed 
species. However, the proposed rule 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 proposed 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 a 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 Agency'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.
    The ecosystem approach is consistent with the statute. NFMA 
requires the Agency 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.
    Requirements for species population monitoring are not included in 
this proposed 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 Agency 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 
proposed 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 proposed rule require the foundation of the plan to 
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. The proposed 
rule requires a complementary ecosystem and species diversity approach 
for ecological sustainability. The proposed 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. This 
framework requires the responsible officials to act and empowers them 
to tailor the plan to sustainability needs and conditions.

 Environmental Management Systems and Adaptive Management

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. Changes in future climate 
elements such as absolute or relative humidity, clouds and sky 
conditions, precipitation, snow depth, snowfall, soil temperature and 
moisture, solar radiation, temperature, wind speed and direction may 
influence the structure, function, and productivity of forest and 
related ecosystems. 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. Plans must reflect the fact that ecological conditions are 
dynamic and that change and uncertainty are inevitable. Con