National Forest System Land Management Planning, 21468-21512 [E8-8085]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 77 (Monday, April 21, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21468-21512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8085]



[[Page 21467]]

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

Part III





Department of Agriculture





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



Forest Service



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



36 CFR Part 219



National Forest System Land Management Planning; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 77 / Monday, April 21, 2008 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 21468]]


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

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 and record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule describes the National Forest System (NFS) 
land management planning framework; sets up requirements for 
sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems; and gives 
directions for developing, amending, revising, and monitoring land 
management plans. It also clarifies that, absent rare circumstances, 
land management plans under this final rule are strategic in nature and 
are one stage in an adaptive cycle of planning for management of NFS 
lands. The intended effects of the rule are to strengthen the role of 
science in planning; to strengthen collaborative relationships with the 
public and other governmental entities; to reaffirm the principle of 
sustainable management consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield 
Act of 1960 (MUSYA) and other authorities; and to streamline and 
improve the planning process by increasing adaptability to changes in 
social, economic, and environmental conditions. This rulemaking is the 
result of a United States District Court of Northern California order 
dated March 30, 2007, which enjoined the United States Department of 
Agriculture (the Department, the Agency, or the USDA) from putting into 
effect and using the land management planning rule published on January 
5, 2005 (70 FR 1023) until it complies with the court's order regarding 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Citizens for 
Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp 2d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2007)). The 
purpose of this final rule is to respond to the district court's 
ruling.
    This final rule replaces the 2005 final rule (2005 rule) (70 FR 
1022, Jan. 5, 2005), as amended March 3, 2006 (71 FR 10837) (which was 
enjoined by the district court's ruling) and the 2000 final rule (2000 
rule) adopted on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67514) as amended on September 
29, 2004 (69 FR 58055).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective April 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For more information, including a copy of the final 
environmental impact statement (EIS), refer to the World Wide Web/
Internet at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2008_planning_rule.html. 
More information may be obtained on 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: Ecosystem Management Coordination 
staff's Assistant Director for Planning Ric Rine at (202) 205-1022 or 
Planning Specialist Regis Terney at (202) 205-1552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline shows the contents of 
the preamble, which is also the record of decision (ROD), for this 
regulation.

Decision

    Alternative M is selected as the final rule. This decision is based 
upon the ``Environmental Impact Statement--National Forest System Land 
Management Planning,'' USDA Forest Service, 2008, and the supporting 
record. This decision is not subject to Forest Service appeal 
regulations.
    Public comment on the proposed action in the draft environmental 
impact statement (EIS) (alternative A) supported some modifications of 
the proposed rule. The Department reviewed and considered these 
comments, in consultation with agency managers, and concluded the rule 
could be improved if some suggested changes were incorporated. Many 
suggested modifications contributed to the development of alternative M 
in the final EIS.

Outline

Introduction and Background
Purpose and Need for the National Forest System Land Management 
Planning Rule
Public Involvement on the Proposed Rule
     How Was Public Involvement Used in the Rulemaking 
Process?
     What General Issues Were Identified Regarding the 
Proposed Rule and Draft Environmental Impact Statement?
Alternatives Considered
     What Alternatives Were Considered by the Agency?
     What is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative?
     Decision and Rationale
     What Specific Comments Were Raised on the Proposed Rule 
and What Changes Were Made in Response to Those Comments?
Compliance With the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended
Regulatory Certifications
    Regulatory Impacts
    Environmental Impact
    Energy Effects
    Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
    Federalism
    Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments
    Takings Implications
    Civil Justice Reform
    Unfunded Mandates

Introduction and Background

    The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 
(88 Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the National Forest Management 
Act of 1976 (NFMA) (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614), 
requires the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to promulgate 
regulations under the principles of the MUSYA that set up the process 
for the development and revision of land management plans (16 U.S.C. 
1604(g)).
    The first planning rule, adopted in 1979, 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). It is 
the 1982 planning rule (1982 rule), as amended, which has guided the 
development, amendment, and revision of the land management plans on 
all national forests and grasslands.
    The Forest Service has undertaken several reviews of the planning 
process carried out under the 1982 rule. The first review took place in 
1989 when the Forest Service, with the help of the Conservation 
Foundation, conducted a comprehensive review of the planning process 
and published the results in a summary report ``Synthesis of the 
Critique of Land Management Planning'' (1990). The critique concluded 
that the Agency spent too much time on planning, spent too much money 
on planning, and, therefore, the Forest Service needed a more efficient 
planning process.
    The Forest Service published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking on February 15, 1991 (56 FR 6508) for possible revisions to 
the 1982 rule. A proposed rule was published on April 13, 1995 (60 FR 
18886), however, the Secretary chose not to continue with that 
proposal.
    In response to comments on the 1995 proposed rule, the Secretary 
convened a 13-member Committee of Scientists in late 1997 to evaluate 
the Forest Service's planning process and recommend changes. In 1998, 
the Committee of Scientists held meetings across the country and 
invited public participation in the discussions. The Committee's 
findings were issued in a final report, ``Sustaining the People's 
Lands'' (March 1999). In response to many findings in the 1990 
``Synthesis of the Critique of

[[Page 21469]]

Land Management Planning'' and the 1999 Committee of Scientists report, 
the Forest Service tried to prepare a rule that would provide a more 
efficient planning process. A proposed rule was published on October 5, 
1999 (64 FR 54074), and a final rule was adopted on November 9, 2000 
(65 FR 67514).
    After adoption of the 2000 rule, the Secretary received many 
comments from individuals, groups, and organizations expressing 
concerns about putting into effect the 2000 rule. In addition, lawsuits 
challenging promulgation of the rule were brought by a coalition of 12 
environmental groups from 7 States and by a coalition of industry 
groups (Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, No. C-01-0728-BZ-(N.D. 
Cal., filed February 16, 2001)) and (American Forest and Paper Ass'n v. 
Veneman, No. 01-CV-00871 (TPJ) (D.D.C., filed April 23, 2001)). Because 
of these lawsuits and concerns raised in comments to the Secretary, the 
Department of Agriculture started a review of the 2000 rule focusing on 
implementation. ``The NFMA Planning Rule Review,'' (USDA Forest Service 
April 2001) concluded many concerns about carrying out the rule were 
serious and needed immediate attention.
    Having considered the reports of the review teams, the Acting 
Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment asked the 
Chief of the Forest Service to develop a proposed rule to replace the 
2000 rule. A new planning rule was proposed on December 6, 2002 (67 FR 
72770).
    In addition, interim final rules extending the transition from the 
1982 rule to the 2000 rule were published May 17, 2001 (66 FR 27552) 
and May 20, 2002 (67 FR 35431). The second rule allowed Forest Service 
managers to elect to continue preparing plan amendments and revisions 
under the 1982 rule until a new final rule was adopted. An interim 
final rule was published September 10, 2003 (68 FR 53294) extending the 
date project decisions must conform to provisions of the 2000 rule 
until a new rule is promulgated. Finally, an interpretive rule was 
published September 29, 2004 (69 FR 58055) to clarify the intent of the 
transition section of the 2000 rule regarding the consideration of the 
best available science to inform project decisionmaking. The 2004 
interpretive rule also explicitly states that the 1982 rule is not in 
effect. Accordingly, no 1982 regulations apply to project decisions.
    The final 2005 rule was published January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1022). 
Shortly thereafter, Citizens for Better Forestry and others challenged 
it in Federal district court. In an order dated March 30, 2007, the 
United States District Court for Northern California enjoined the 
Department from putting into effect and using the 2005 rule pending 
additional steps to comply with the court's opinion for APA, ESA, and 
NEPA (Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (N.D. 
Cal. 2007)). The court concluded,

    [T]he agency must provide notice and comment on the 2005 Rule as 
required by the APA since the court concludes the rule was not a 
`logical outgrowth' of the 2002 proposed rule. Additionally, because 
the 2005 Rule may significantly affect the quality of the human 
environment under NEPA, and because it may affect listed species and 
their habitat under ESA, the agency must conduct further analysis 
and evaluation of the impact of the 2005 Rule in accordance with 
those statutes.

(Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 1059, 1100 (N.D. 
Cal. 2007))

Purpose and Need for the National Forest System Land Management 
Planning Rule

    The final rule's purpose is two-fold. The primary purpose is to 
improve on the 2000 rule by providing a planning process that is 
readily understood, is within the Agency's capability to carry out, is 
consistent with the capabilities of NFS lands, recognizes the strategic 
programmatic nature of planning, and meets the intent of the NFMA, 
while making cost effective and efficient use of resources allocated to 
the Agency for land management planning. This rule is needed to address 
the limitations of the 2000 rule that were identified in the April 2001 
``NFMA Planning Rule Review.''
    This action's second purpose is in response to the court order in 
Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA that enjoined the 2005 rule. The 
EIS supporting this ROD documents the analysis and evaluation of the 
impact of the rule in accord with the NEPA.
    Based on the results of the aforementioned reviews, principles, and 
practical considerations, there is a need for a planning rule that:
     Contains clear and readily understood requirements;
     Makes efficient use of agency staff and collaborative 
efforts;
     Establishes a planning process that can be conducted 
within agency planning budgets;
     Provides for diversity of plant and animal species, 
consistent with capabilities of NFS lands;
     Requires analyses that are within the Agency's capability 
to conduct;
     Recognizes the strategic nature of land management plans;
     Considers best available science;
     Requires public involvement in development of a monitoring 
strategy, taking into account key social, economic and ecological 
performance measures and provides the responsible official sufficient 
discretion to decide how much information is needed;
     Promotes the use of adaptive management;
     Involves the public;
     Guides sustainable management; and
     Complies with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

Public Involvement on the Proposed Rule

 How Was Public Involvement Used in the Rulemaking Process?

    A notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal 
Register on May 11, 2007 (72 FR 26775) with a public comment period 
ending June 11, 2007. The notice stated the Agency was considering 
reinstituting planning direction like that from the 2005 rule and 
specifically requested public comments on the nature and scope of 
environmental, social, and economic issues that should be analyzed in 
the EIS. Because of the extensive public comment already received on 
the 2005 rule, the planning directives, and the Agency categorical 
exclusion for land management planning, no public meetings were held 
for the scoping.
    The Agency received a little over 800 responses. Responses included 
advocacy for a particular planning rule, as well as suggestions for 
analyses to conduct, issues to consider, alternatives to the proposed 
action, and calls for compliance with laws and regulations.
    Some responses raised specific issues with the proposed action 
while others raised broader points of debate with management of the 
national forest system (NFS). Some respondents suggested alternative 
processes for promulgating a planning rule or alternative purposes for 
the NFS. Besides considering comments received during the scoping 
period, the Forest Service reviewed the court's opinion on the 2005 
rule in Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA and comments previously 
collected during promulgation of the 2005 rule (70 FR 1022, Jan. 5, 
2005), agency planning directives (72 FR 4478, Jan. 31, 2007; 71 FR 
5124, Jan. 31, 2006), and the Forest Service's categorical exclusion 
for land management planning (71 FR 75481, Dec. 15, 2006).

[[Page 21470]]

 What General Issues Were Identified Regarding the Proposed 
Rule and Draft Environmental Impact Statement?

    Based on comments and the aforementioned review, an 
interdisciplinary team identified a list of issues to address.
     Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities.
     Timber Management Requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1604(g).
     Identification of Lands Not Suited for Timber Production 
(16 U.S.C. 1604(k)).
     Standards and Prohibitions.
     Environmental Impact Statement.
     Best Available Science and Land Management Plans.
     Management Requirements.
    These issues are described in more detail later in this ROD.
    The proposed rule was published on August 23, 2007 (72 FR 48514), 
and the notice of availability for the supporting draft EIS was 
published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50368). A 
copy of the proposed rule and the draft EIS have been available on the 
World Wide Web/Internet at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2007_
planning_rule.html since August 16, 2007. The proposed action and 
preferred alternative identified in both documents was the 2005 rule, 
as amended. Public comments were requested on both the proposed rule 
and the draft EIS. The comment period for both documents ended on 
October 22, 2007. The notice of availability of the final EIS was 
published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2008 (73 FR 8869).
    The Forest Service received 79,562 responses. Of these, about 
78,500 are form letters. The remaining letters consist of original 
responses or form letters with added original text. Some respondents 
focused their remarks on provisions of the proposed rule, others 
concentrated on the alternatives and analyses in the draft EIS and many 
comments applied to both documents.
    Comments received on the proposed rule and draft EIS were 
consistent with, and often reiterated, the comments received during 
scoping. These comments played a key role in the decisions made in this 
ROD.

Alternatives Considered

    The Agency fully developed six alternatives, and considered seven 
alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study (40 CFR 
1502.14(A)). Alternatives considered in detail are summarized below. 
Seven additional alternatives (F-L) were considered but eliminated from 
detailed study because they did not meet some aspects of the purpose 
and need. More discussion about the eliminated alternatives can be 
found in chapter 2 of the EIS.

 What Alternatives Were Considered by the Agency?

    Alternative A (2005 rule). This alternative is the proposed action 
as originally published as a proposed rule on January 5, 2005, and 
amended on March 3, 2006, with an updated effective date and transition 
period date set out at section 219.14. Alternative A was the preferred 
alternative in the draft EIS. This alternative was slightly modified in 
response to public comments on the draft EIS. Details of this proposed 
rule are in appendix A of the EIS.
    The proposed rule describes the NFS land management planning 
framework; sets up requirements for sustaining social, economic, and 
ecological systems; and gives directions for developing, amending, 
revising, and monitoring land management plans. It also clarifies that 
land management plans under the proposed rule, absent rare 
circumstances, are strategic, and are one stage in an adaptive 
management cycle of planning for management of NFS lands. The intended 
effects of the proposed rule are to strengthen the role of science in 
planning; to strengthen collaborative relationships with the public and 
other governmental entities; to reaffirm the principle of sustainable 
management consistent with the MUSYA and other authorities; to 
establish an environmental management system (EMS) for each NFS unit; 
and to streamline and improve the planning process by increasing 
adaptability to changes in social, economic, and environmental 
conditions. Under this alternative, approval of a plan, plan amendment, 
or plan revision would be done in accord with the Forest Service NEPA 
procedures. It would be possible for one unit to approve a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision with a categorical exclusion (CE), a second 
unit to use an environmental assessment (EA), and a third unit might 
use an EIS depending on the nature of the decisions made in each 
respective plan approval.
    Alternative B (2000 rule). The 2000 rule at 36 CFR part 219 as 
amended is the no action alternative. Although an interim final rule 
allowed responsible officials to use the 1982 rule procedures for 
planning until a new final rule is adopted (67 FR 35434), this 
alternative assumes that responsible officials have been using the 2000 
rule procedures.
    This rule would guide development, revision, and amendment of land 
management plans for the NFS and to a certain extent, guide decisions 
for projects and activities as well. It describes the framework for NFS 
land and natural resource planning; reaffirms sustainability as the 
goal for NFS planning and management; sets up requirements for the 
carrying out, monitoring, evaluating, amending, and revising of land 
management plans. The intended effects of the rule are to strengthen 
and clarify the role of science in planning; to strengthen 
collaborative relationships with the public and other government 
entities, to simplify, clarify, and otherwise improve the planning 
process; and to reduce burdensome and costly procedural requirements. 
Plan revisions would require an EIS while plan amendments would follow 
agency NEPA procedures, which prescribe the appropriate level of NEPA 
documentation based on the significance of effects. The 2000 rule, as 
amended, is found in appendix B of the EIS.
    Alternative C (1982 rule). Under this alternative, the 1982 rule at 
36 CFR part 219, as it existed before promulgation of the 2000 rule, 
would guide development, revision, and amendment of land management 
plans for the NFS. This rule requires integration of planning for 
national forests and grasslands, including the planning for timber, 
range, fish, wildlife, water, wilderness, and recreation resources. It 
includes resource protection activities such as fire management and the 
use of minerals and other resources. This rule also established 
requirements for plan and animal diversity such as providing habitat to 
ensure viable populations of native and desired non-native vertebrate 
species and identifying and monitoring populations of management 
indicator species. Case law has applied the monitoring of management 
indicator species population trends to projects and activities. Plan 
revisions and significant amendments would require an EIS while non-
significant plan amendments would follow agency NEPA procedures, which 
prescribe the appropriate level of NEPA documentation based on the 
significance of effects. The 1982 rule, as amended, is in appendix C of 
the EIS.
    Alternative D. This alternative is the same as the proposed action 
(alternative A) but without either the environmental management system 
(EMS) requirements or references to EMS at section 219.5 in the 
proposed action. The EMS would not be part of the plan set of 
documents. Setting up an EMS would not be required before plan 
approval, and an EMS would not mark the end of the transition period.

[[Page 21471]]

    Alternative E. Alternative E is the same as the proposed action 
(alternative A) but modified by (1) removing EMS requirements and all 
references to EMS, (2) adding standards as a plan component, (3) adding 
more direction for identifying lands suitable for timber production and 
timber harvest, and (4) adding various timber management requirements 
(16 U.S.C. 1604(g)) and limitations on timber removal (16 U.S.C. 1611) 
from the NFMA.
    Alternative M. This alternative is the preferred alternative in the 
final EIS. Alternative M is the same as alternative E except that it 
requires an EMS and it places requirements for long-term sustained-
yield capacity and culmination of mean annual increment in agency 
directives.
    Alternative M directs the Chief to establish direction for EMS in 
the Forest Service directives. The directives will formally establish 
national guidance, instructions, objectives, policies, and 
responsibilities leading to conformance with International Organization 
for Standardization (ISO) and adopted by the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) as ``ISO 14001:2004(E) Environmental 
Management Systems--Requirements With Guidance for Use.'' The ISO 14001 
is presently available for a fee from the ANSI Web site at https://
webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/default.asp.
    Under Alternative M, the EMS scope is changed so that the 
responsible official is the person authorized to identify and establish 
the scope and environmental aspects of the EMS, based on the national 
EMS and ISO 14001, with consideration of the unit's capability, needs, 
and suitability. The detailed procedures to establish scope and 
environmental aspects are being developed in a national technical guide 
and the Forest Service Directives System.
    Alternative M allows a responsible official to conform to a multi-
unit, regional, or national level EMS as an alternative to establishing 
an EMS for a specific unit of the NFS. The responsible official will 
have the responsibility to deal with local concerns in the EMS. The 
unit EMS will provide the opportunity either to conclude that the 
higher level EMS adequately considers and addresses locally identified 
scope and significant environmental aspects, or to address project-
specific impacts associated with the significant environmental aspects. 
The complete details for how the Agency will do this are being 
developed in a national technical guide and the Forest Service 
Directives System. This guidance is planned for release during fiscal 
year 2008.
    Alternative M does not require an EMS prior to approving a plan, 
plan revision, or plan amendment. However, it does provide that no 
project or activity approved under a plan developed, amended, or 
revised under the requirements of this subpart may be implemented until 
the responsible official establishes an EMS or the responsible official 
conforms to a multi-unit, regional, or national level EMS. Furthermore, 
alternative M has several additional minor changes described in the 
final EIS.

 What Is the Environmentally Preferable Alternative?

    The Department has identified two environmentally preferable 
alternatives, alternative B and alternative M. They are identified as 
environmentally preferred for different reasons. It should be noted 
that the presence or absence of EMS in the rule wording of these two 
alternatives is not a factor in their identification as environmentally 
preferable because the Agency will establish an EMS regardless of the 
alternative selected. The Agency fully intends to comply with Executive 
Order 13423--Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 
Transportation Management by implementing an EMS. In alternative B, all 
Agency direction concerning EMS would come from Agency directives. In 
alternative M, Agency direction concerning EMS would come from the 
planning rule and from Agency directives.
    Alternative B: Alternative B is one of two environmentally 
preferable alternatives. Although neither of the environmentally 
preferable alternatives has direct environmental effects, the 
procedural requirements of alternative B provide more surety that 
explicit environmental protections will be set up during land 
management planning. For example, alternative B requires the setting up 
of a national science advisory board and the possible setting up of 
regional advisory boards. It calls for use of broad-scale analyses to 
set the context for decisionmaking and specific actions for 
coordination and interaction with other Federal agencies, State and 
local governments, American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 
Corporations, interested individuals and organizations. Alternative B 
calls for providing for species viability and requiring that the 
planning process includes development and analysis of information about 
a specified list of ecosystem and diversity components. The same 
factors making alternative B one of the environmentally preferable 
alternatives makes it unworkable. As previously described, alternative 
B's requirements are so prescriptive they cannot be done within agency 
resources. The cost and complexity of carrying out alternative B were 
major factors in the Department's decision to develop a new planning 
rule and in the decision not to select alternative B in this ROD.
    Alternative M: Alternative M is the other environmentally 
preferable alternative. The rule contains substantive requirements for 
protecting important resources such as soil, water, wildlife habitat, 
and aesthetics. It requires NFS lands contribute to the sustainability 
of ecosystems within the capability of the land, and requires species-
specific plan components be developed in situations where broader 
ecosystem diversity components might not meet the habitat needs of 
threatened and endangered species, species-of-concern, and species-of-
interest. The Forest Service directives provide substantial additional 
guidance aimed at ensuring resource protection and restoration. Another 
reason for identifying alternative M as an environmentally preferable 
alternative is the streamlined planning process it engenders will allow 
units of the NFS to respond more quickly to new information or changed 
conditions. The flexibility to respond quickly might, in some 
situations, allow the Agency to better mitigate or avoid threats to 
national forest resources by allowing variances or amendments to plans 
to occur without the delay caused by time-consuming NEPA procedures. 
This flexibility contributed to the decision to select alternative M.

 Decision and Rationale

Decision

    Alternative M is selected as the final rule. This decision is based 
on the Environmental Impact Statement--National Forest System Land 
Management Planning, USDA Forest Service, 2008, and its supporting 
record. This decision is not subject to Forest Service appeal 
regulations.
    Public comment on the proposed action in the draft EIS (alternative 
A) supported some modifications of the proposed rule. The Department 
reviewed and considered these comments, in consultation with Agency 
managers, and concluded the rule could be improved if some suggested 
changes were incorporated. Many suggested modifications contributed to 
the development of alternative M in the final EIS.

[[Page 21472]]

Rationale for the Decision

    The following paragraphs describe a process of elimination for 
selecting alternative M, by first discussing the alternative's 
responsiveness to the purpose and need and then each alternative's 
responsiveness to significant issues identified through public 
comments.
 Response to Purpose and Need
    Alternatives A, D, and E, and M meet the purpose and need for 
action previously described in this document. In contrast, alternatives 
B and C do not meet the purpose and need for action.
    Alternative B, the 2000 rule, was not selected because it does not 
meet the purpose and need for action. The 2001 NFMA Planning Rule 
Review and the subsequent 2002 business model workshop identified a 
number of shortcomings with the 2000 rule and these shortcomings 
constitute a large part of the purpose and need for action. This 
alternative is identified as the no action alternative in the EIS.
    First, alternative B does not meet the purpose and need for a rule 
to have clear and readily understood requirements. This rule has both 
definitions and analytical requirements that are unclear and complex, 
and, therefore, subject to inconsistent implementation across the 
Agency. Second, alternative B does not meet the need for a rule that 
makes efficient use of agency staff and collaborative efforts. This 
alternative includes unnecessarily detailed procedural requirements for 
scientific peer reviews, broad-scale assessments, monitoring, and 
science advisory boards. These detailed analysis requirements would 
cause land management plan revisions to take an expected 6 years to 
complete. Although this rule requires public involvement, it would be 
difficult for members of the public to remain engaged in such a 
protracted process and even agency staff turnover would likely 
interrupt such a long process. With a 6-year revision process, 
approximately 48 plans would be in some stage of revision during a 15-
year cycle. Funding this many simultaneous revisions would likely 
exceed the Agency's budget--failing to meet another part of the purpose 
and need to establish a planning process that can be conducted within 
agency planning budgets. The monitoring requirements in alternative B 
are overly prescriptive and do not provide the responsible official 
sufficient discretion to decide how much information is needed--
contrary to the purpose and need to establish monitoring requirements 
that provide the responsible official sufficient discretion to decide 
how much information is needed.
    Alternative C, the 1982 rule, was also not selected because it does 
not meet the purpose and need for action. It should be noted that 
normally an action alternative would not be studied in detail if it 
does not fully meet the purpose and need. However, the Agency is in 
litigation. The plaintiffs argue that the 1982 rule, not the 2000 rule, 
is in effect as a result of the court's injunction of the 2005 rule. 
Because the proposal is to revise an existing rule, taking no action 
would entail continuing under the existing rule. Whether one believes 
the 2000 rule or the 1982 rule is the existing rule or ``no action 
alternative,'' both have been considered. Furthermore, all but one of 
the issues concerning the proposed action is based on the public's many 
years of experience with the 1982 rule. Accordingly, the 1982 rule 
provides a useful basis for comparison of the alternatives.
    Alternative C, like alternative B, does not meet the need to make 
efficient use of agency staff and collaborative efforts because of the 
detailed analysis requirements, including benchmarks that would cause 
land management plan revisions to take an average of 5 years to 
complete. Because of the this long planning period, Alternative C has 
the same problems with the public remaining involved, agency staff 
changes, and exceeding the Agency's budget as Alternative B has. 
Approximately 40 plans would be in some stage of revision during a 15-
year cycle. Funding this many simultaneous revisions would likely 
exceed the Agency's budget--failing to meet another part of the purpose 
and need to establish a planning process that can be conducted within 
Agency planning budgets. Alternative C does not meet the purpose and 
need to provide for diversity of plant and animal species consistent 
with capabilities of NFS lands. The requirements in alternative C to 
maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native vertebrate 
species do not recognize the limitations of suitability and capability 
of the specific land area and are a technical impossibility given that 
the cause of the decline of some species is outside the Agency's 
control. Further, the requirement to monitor management indicator 
species (MIS) populations at the plan and project level has proved 
difficult.
    With alternatives B and C eliminated, the remaining four 
alternatives, A, D, E, and M, were compared with respect to the issues 
identified from public comments.
 Response to the Issue of Diversity of Plant and Animal 
Communities
    Concerns were expressed that the proposed rule procedures for 
diversity weaken protection for fish and wildlife species because the 
rule does not include the requirement for managing habitat to maintain 
viable populations.
    The NFMA requires the planning rule to specify guidelines that 
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the 
suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet 
multiple-use objectives and provide, where appropriate, to the degree 
practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree 
species (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). Although providing a mandate of 
viability is within this authority, NFMA does not mandate viability of 
species. Rather, species diversity appropriate to the area covered by a 
plan is NFMA's goal. Further, viability would place an impractical 
burden on the Agency.
    The view held by some, that there must be 100 percent certainty 
that species viability will be maintained, is a technical impossibility 
given that the cause of the decline of some species is outside the 
Agency's control. For example, viability of some species on NFS lands 
might 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 Agency's control (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). Moreover, the number of recognized species 
present on the units of the NFS is very large. It is clearly 
impractical to analyze all native and desirable non-native vertebrate 
species, and previous attempts to analyze the full suite of species by 
groups, surrogates, and representatives has had mixed success in 
practice. Furthermore, 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.
    Alternatives A, D, E, and M meet the NFMA diversity requirements by 
establishing a goal of providing appropriate ecological conditions for 
plant and animal communities,

[[Page 21473]]

requiring a framework for sustaining these conditions in plans, and 
giving the responsible official discretion to decide what plan 
components should be included in the plan for species. Alternatives A, 
D, E, and M require the planning directives for sustaining ecological 
systems to be consistent with the concepts of ecosystem diversity and 
species diversity. In addition, guidance is currently included in the 
Forest Service Directives System for providing self-sustaining 
populations of species-of-concern. A self-sustaining population is one 
that is sufficiently abundant and has appropriate population 
characteristics to provide for its persistence over many generations. 
Species-of-concern are species for which the responsible official 
determines that management actions might be needed to prevent listing 
under the ESA. This issue did not result in the further elimination of 
the remaining four alternatives, A, D, E, and M.
 Response to the Issue of Requiring an Environmental Impact 
Statement
    There is concern that by not requiring an EIS for plan development 
and plan revision, the proposed rule would not require consideration of 
a full range of planning alternatives, would reduce public involvement 
in land management planning, and would eliminate consideration of 
cumulative effects or leave such consideration to project-level 
analyses.
    Alternatives A, D, E, and M allow an iterative approach to 
development of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. Under these 
alternatives, a plan is developed as various options for plan 
components are merged, narrowed, adjusted, added, and eliminated during 
successive rounds of the collaborative process. The term ``option'' is 
used to differentiate it from ``alternative'' as used in the NEPA 
process. The difference between alternatives and options is that 
options are developed to address specific issues or groups of issues. 
For example, a collaborative process to develop a proposal for a plan 
revision or plan amendment might identify differences of opinion 
concerning desired conditions for an area with respect to mechanized 
use. Options for mechanized use would then be developed. Where there 
are points of agreement on other desired conditions, there would be no 
need to develop options. An option could also be developed as a 
complete alternative to a proposal. If the responsible official 
determines the plan revision or amendment can be categorically excluded 
from documentation in an EA or EIS, no alternatives would be developed. 
If further NEPA analysis and documentation are required, appropriate 
alternatives would be developed from the options.
    The difference in public participation between previous planning 
rules and alternatives A, D, E, and M is whether public participation 
occurs inside or outside the NEPA procedures. As discussed in the EIS, 
public involvement requirements in these alternative rules exceed those 
required for an EIS under NEPA. Under these alternatives, the 
responsible official must provide opportunities for the public, 
Federal, State, and local agencies, and Tribal governments to 
collaborate and participate openly and meaningfully in the planning 
process. Specifically, as part of plan development, plan amendment, and 
plan revision, the responsible official must involve the public in 
developing and updating a comprehensive evaluation report, establishing 
the components of a plan, and designing the monitoring program. Public 
notice must also be provided at initiation of plan development, 
revision, or amendment. Plan development, plan revision, and plan 
amendment are subject to a 90-day comment period and a 30-day objection 
period. Public notice must also be provided at the point of approval. 
These public involvement requirements would apply even if a land 
management plan decision is categorically excluded from further 
analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS.
    In contrast, plan development and revision under the 1982 rule 
involving an EIS required public notice at initiation of plan 
development or revision, a minimum three-month public comment period 
for draft plans and draft EISs, public notice in a record of decision 
at the point of approval, and an administrative appeal process.
    Experience in planning processes under the 2005 rule has shown that 
the collaborative process is very effective and successful in engaging 
the public. Alternatives A, D, E, and M all share the same requirements 
for public involvement as the 2005 rule.
    Throughout 28 years of land management planning, the Agency has 
learned that tiering to the cumulative effects analysis in a plan EIS 
did not provide nearly as much useful information at the project or 
activity level as the Agency had expected. The effects analyses in plan 
EISs were often too general to meet analytical needs for projects and 
activities. Meaningful cumulative effects analyses cannot be conducted 
until project design and location are known or at least reasonably 
foreseeable. Plan-level analysis would, however, evaluate existing 
conditions and broad trends at the geographic scale of the planning 
area. The Department believes these rules provide for the development 
and consideration of planning alternatives with much more robust public 
participation than previously afforded. The Department also believes 
that analysis of current conditions and trends required by these rules 
constitutes an appropriate evaluation of broader scale settings and 
influences that merit recognition in the planning process. Cumulative 
effects analysis at the project scale will continue when designs and 
locations are at least reasonably foreseeable. These issues did not 
result in the further elimination of the remaining four alternatives, 
A, D, E, and M.
 Response to the Issue of Best Available Science
    There was a concern the proposed rule requiring the responsible 
official only to take into account the best available science (sec. 
219.11) weakens the consideration of science, while the 2000 rule 
required the responsible official to ensure the plan was consistent 
with the best available science. Respondents said the planning rule 
should ensure plans are consistent with best available science.
    The Department believes it is essential that land management plans 
be based on current, relevant science. Public comment on the EIS 
clearly showed strong support for incorporating science into the 
planning process. The Department believes alternatives A, D, E, and M 
are equally responsive to the desire to increase effective use of 
relevant science in the planning process. These alternatives have 
requirements to document how science was considered and that science 
was appropriately interpreted and applied. Further, these alternatives 
allow the responsible official to use independent peer review, science 
advisory boards, and other review methods. Alternative M differs 
slightly from alternatives A, D, and E because the detailed procedural 
requirements to address risks and uncertainties are currently in Agency 
directives instead of the rule.
    The words ``take into account'' were used in the proposed action 
(alternative A) and alternatives D, E, and M instead of the words of 
the 2000 rule, which used ``consistent with'' because ``take into 
account'' better expresses that formal science is just one source of 
information for the responsible official and only one aspect of 
decisionmaking. When making decisions, the responsible

[[Page 21474]]

official also considers public input, competing use demands, budget 
projections, and many other factors as well as science. The Department 
believes that this wording 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.
    This issue did not result in the further elimination of the 
remaining four alternatives, A, D, E, and M.
 Response to the Issue of Management Requirements
    There is a concern the proposed planning rule does not include 
minimum specific management requirements as the 1982 rule did at 
section 219.27, and that the lack of management requirements in the 
planning rule would reduce environmental protections resulting in 
significant environmental impacts including reduced environmental 
protection in project design and implementation.
    The Department believes that less specific planning guidance is 
needed after decades of experience implementing NFMA. The proposed 
planning rule (alternative A) and alternatives D, E, and M provide a 
flexible process that can be applied to issues associated with local 
conditions and experience with implementing individual plans. The 
minimum specific management requirements in the 1982 rule are not 
required by NFMA--perhaps with good reason. The Department believes it 
is important not to include overly prescriptive requirements in a 
planning rule that unnecessarily limit a responsible official's 
discretion to develop, revise, or amend a land management plan tailored 
to local conditions.
    There has always been a tension between providing needed detailed 
direction in a planning rule and discretion of the responsible 
official. Project and activity decisions by a responsible official are 
not only constrained and guided by a large body of law, regulation, and 
policy; they are also guided by public participation and administrative 
oversight. Public participation plays an important role in identifying 
unintended consequences of a proposed action. Additionally, 
administrative oversight conducted through management reviews, and the 
Agency's appeals and objections processes provide an additional check 
on a responsible official's exercise of discretion. Because every issue 
cannot be identified and dealt with in advance for every situation, the 
Department must rely on the judgment of the responsible official to 
make decisions based on laws, regulation, policy, sound science, public 
participation, and oversight.
    This issue did not result in the further elimination of the 
remaining four alternatives, A, D, E, and M.
 Response to the Issue of Timber Management Requirements of 16 
U.S.C. 1604(g)
    Concerns were expressed that the proposed rule guidance for timber 
resource management (sec. 219.12(b)(2)) was inadequate because it did 
not include the specificity of the 1982 rule. Further, some respondents 
believe the timber management requirements from NFMA are legally 
required to be in the regulations.
    The Department believes alternatives A, D, E, and M all meet the 
requirements of NFMA at section 1604(g). The difference among 
alternatives with respect to this issue is whether the requirements 
will be in the rule or in the Forest Service directives. The Department 
believes timber management using good land stewardship practices will 
occur regardless of which approach is taken. Moreover, the Department 
believes the wording in the proposed rule (alternative A) meets the 
NFMA requirement in 16 U.S.C. 1604(g) by directing the Chief of the 
Forest Service to include the timber management requirements of section 
1604(g) in the Forest Service Directives System. However, the 
Department also understands and respects the view that if the 
requirements are in the rule, they are afforded greater visibility. 
Accordingly, to eliminate this potential controversy, alternatives E 
and M were selected over alternatives A and D, because they include the 
NFMA timber management requirements (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)) where 
alternatives A and D do not.
 Response to the Issue of Identification of Lands Not Suited 
for Timber Production (16 U.S.C. 1604(k))
    Concerns were expressed that the proposed rule guidance for 
identifying lands not suited for timber production (sec. 219.12(a)(2)) 
was insufficient because it did not include the detail that was in 
earlier rules and that not including this detail represented an 
elimination of resource protection standards.
    The Department believes alternatives A, D, E, and M all meet the 
requirements of NFMA at section 1604(k). The difference among 
alternatives with respect to this issue is whether the requirements 
would be in the rule or in the Forest Service directives. The 
Department believes the identification of lands not suited for timber 
production will properly occur pursuant to section 1604(k) regardless 
of which approach is taken. Both the proposed rule (alternative A) and 
alternative D provide a framework for consideration of lands not suited 
for timber production, but rely on the Forest Service directives as a 
means to provide further detail to accomplish this requirement. 
Alternatives E and M include additional procedural requirements to 
identify land as not suitable for timber production where technology is 
not available for conducting timber harvest without causing 
irreversible damage to soil, slope, or other watershed conditions or 
substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land, 
and where there is no reasonable assurance that such lands can be 
adequately restocked within 5 years after final regeneration harvest. 
As in the discussion of timber management requirements, the Department 
understands and respects the view that if detailed guidance for 
identifying lands not suited for timber production is in the rule, it 
is afforded greater visibility. Accordingly, to eliminate this 
potential controversy, alternatives E and M were selected over 
alternatives A and D, because they include such detailed guidance in 
the rule.
 Response to the Issue of Standards and Prohibitions
    Concerns were expressed that the proposed rule limited land 
management plans to strategic plan components and did not specifically 
allow more conventional components, such as standards, that could 
regulate or limit uses and activities.
    The Department believes plans are more effective if they include 
more detailed descriptions of desired conditions, rather than long 
lists of prohibitive standards or guidelines developed in an attempt to 
anticipate and address every possible future project or activity and 
the potential effects such projects could cause. For example, standards 
could have been included that precluded 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.

[[Page 21475]]

    In reviewing public comments, the Department concluded that the 
argument for excluding standards from a planning rule so as not to 
limit a responsible official's discretion cuts both ways. Just as 
standards and prohibitions in a planning rule limit a responsible 
official's discretion, not allowing them also limits a responsible 
official's discretion in developing, revising, and amending a land 
management plan. Recognizing the ecological, economic, and social 
diversity across the NFS, there might be circumstances where certain 
standards or prohibitions would be appropriately included in a land 
management plan. Accordingly, the Department believes it is important 
to explicitly allow a responsible official the flexibility to include 
standards and prohibitions in a land management plan.
    Alternatives E and M were selected over alternatives, A and D, 
because alternatives E and M explicitly allow standards and 
prohibitions to be included in land management plans.
 Consideration of Environmental Management System (EMS)
    After considering the preceding issues, alternatives E and M 
remained for selection. EMS was included in the proposed action because 
the Department is committed to complying with Executive Order 13423, 
requiring the head of each Federal agency to put into effect an EMS as 
the primary management approach for addressing environmental aspects of 
internal agency operations and activities, and because the Department 
believes it will enhance adaptive planning and should be part of the 
land management framework. The Department is committed to conform to 
ISO 14001. The Department is required by E.O. 13423 and instructions 
for implementing the E.O. to implement an EMS by December 2008.
    The Forest Service has a long history of adaptive management and 
the concepts associated with EMSs. The ``Plan-Do-Check-Act'' cycle of 
an EMS can be found in plan implementation strategies designed for 
forest plans developed under the 1982 rule. The concept of adaptive 
management has been a component of Forest Service planning rules dating 
back to 1995 where it was identified as a cornerstone of ecosystem 
management. Although systems were developed to provide an adaptive 
approach to management, in the press of business the ``Check--Act'' 
portions of the system were only sporadically accomplished. The 
Department considered relying solely on Agency directives to implement 
the Executive order for land management planning--as reflected in 
alternatives B, C, D, and E, but believes incorporating EMS in the 
planning rule better integrates adaptive management and EMS in Forest 
Service culture and land management planning practices.
    The proposed rule (alternative A) requires the responsible official 
to establish an EMS for each unit of the NFS, the scope of which was to 
include at least the land management planning process. Each unit 
revising a plan using the proposed rule procedures would be required to 
have an EMS in place before approval of the revised plan. Plan 
amendments could not be made after the end of the 3-year transition 
period if an EMS was not in place. These requirements generated 
management concerns during initial efforts to create unit EMSs because: 
(1) EMS was perceived to be redundant to existing management systems; 
(2) wording about the scope of the EMS covering the land management 
planning process was too broad, resulting in inconsistent application; 
(3) requiring an EMS prior to approving a revision was perceived as an 
obstacle to completing the planning process, that is, it is more 
logical to revise plans first, then use an EMS to manage environmental 
aspects under the new plan rather than to prepare an EMS before or 
concurrent with planning; (4) the proposed rule requirement at section 
219.5 to create an EMS on every administrative unit of the NFS did not 
permit the Agency to realize efficiencies by establishing a multi-unit, 
regional, or national level EMS; and (5) independently developing of 
the ISO 14001 protocol from the start for every administrative unit 
proved to be too costly and unwieldy.
    Although the Agency recognizes concerns about potential redundancy 
in management systems due to EMS requirements, the Agency is committed 
to integrating EMS with existing management systems or modifying 
existing systems to be consistent with EMS. Alternative M was crafted 
to address these remaining management concerns. First, regarding 
redundancy with existing agency processes, this alternative would allow 
the Chief of the Forest Service to establish detailed procedures in the 
directives to create an EMS that reduces or eliminates redundancy. 
Second, the wording stating that the scope of an EMS will include the 
entire planning process described in the rule is removed in alternative 
M and replaced with wording to the effect that the scope will include 
environmental aspects as determined by the responsible official in a 
unit EMS or established in a multi-unit, regional, or national level 
EMS. The EMS scope is changed so that the responsible official is the 
person authorized to identify and establish the scope and environmental 
aspects of the EMS, based on the national EMS and ISO 14001, with 
consideration of the unit's capability, needs, and suitability. The 
detailed procedures to establish scope and environmental aspects are 
being developed in a national technical guide and the Forest Service 
directives. Third, alternative M does not require an EMS to be in place 
before developing or revising a plan. It does, however, state that no 
project or activity approved under a plan developed, amended, or 
revised under the rule may be implemented until the responsible 
official either establishes a unit EMS or conforms to a multi-unit, 
regional, or national level EMS. The Department believes this change 
from the proposed rule will improve integration of EMS into the plan 
development and revision process by allowing plan components to inform 
the identification of environmental aspects in an EMS. Fourth, 
alternative M allows a responsible official to conform to a multi-unit, 
regional, or national level EMS as an alternative to establishing an 
EMS for a specific unit of the NFS. The responsible official will have 
the responsibility to deal with local concerns in the EMS. The unit EMS 
will provide the opportunity either to conclude that the higher level 
EMS adequately considers and addresses locally identified scope and 
significant environmental aspects, or to address project-specific 
impacts associated with the significant environmental aspects. 
Administrative units that do not have an EMS will satisfy the 
requirement in section 219.5 after they develop an EMS that conforms 
with the national EMS and either adds environmental aspects and 
components under the local focus area or determines that the national 
EMS focus areas sufficiently identify and deal with the local unit's 
environmental aspects and components. The Department believes this 
modification will provide the Forest Service flexibility to determine 
the appropriate scope of an EMS. Finally, alternative M directs the 
Chief to establish direction for EMS in the Forest Service directives. 
The directives will formally establish national guidance, instructions, 
objectives, policies, and responsibilities leading to conformance with 
ISO 14001. By letter of direction from the Chief and through its 
directives, the Forest Service will implement a national EMS applicable 
to

[[Page 21476]]

all administrative units of the Forest Service.
    Implementation of the EMS will be governed by the Forest Service 
directives. A technical guide is being prepared for use by EMS managers 
and an EMS handbook is being developed for use in the field. The scope 
of the EMS will address the goals of EO 13423, nationally identified 
land management environment aspects, and as appropriate, local 
significant environmental aspects.
    The EMS will be designed to conform to the ISO 14001 standard, as 
required by section 219.5(c). Audit procedures will be established in 
the technical guide or directives. Conformance will be determined by 
the procedures detailed in the directives for the EMS. A ``non-
conformity'' identified by a management review or audit under these EMS 
procedures is not a failure to conform to the ISO 14001 standard, per 
section 219.5(c), but part of the Plan-Do-Check-Act (P-D-C-A) cycle of 
continuous improvement that makes up the ISO conformant EMS. A non-
conformity would be followed up with preventive or corrective action 
which leads to continuous improvement in environmental performance. 
Such a ``non-conformity'' is a normal part of the EMS P-D-C-A process 
and does not constitute a failure to conform to the ISO 14001 standard 
as required by section 219.5(c).
    Alternative M resulted as the final land management planning rule 
not only through a reasoned choice among the alternatives, but also 
through an iterative approach to alternative development by which the 
Agency modified the proposed action and alternatives and developed an 
additional alternative in response to public comments. Details 
concerning each change between the proposed rule (alternative A) and 
the final rule (alternative M) are discussed in the section-by-section 
portion of this preamble.

 What Specific Comments Were Raised on the Proposed Rule and 
What Changes Were Made in Response to Those Comments?

    Each comment received consideration in the development of the final 
rule. A response to comments on the draft EIS and the proposed rule may 
be found in the response to comments appendix of the EIS located on the 
World Wide Web/Internet (see ADDRESSES).

General Comments

    The Department received the following comments not specifically 
tied to a particular section of the 2007 proposed rule.
    Comment: Guidance for management of individual resources and uses. 
Some respondents commented on a variety of issues such as access, air, 
conversion of hardwood stands to pine monoculture, soil and water, 
carbon storage, climate change, developed recreation, dispersed 
recreation, eco-tourism, ecosystem services, grazing, habitat for 
threatened and endangered species, habitat for fish and wildlife, 
heritage resources, historic range of variability, hunting, late 
successional reserves, mining, non-Federal lands, off-road vehicle use, 
oil and gas development, old growth forest conservation, parks and 
preserves, preservation, recreation, resilience to disturbance, 
restoration, rural communities, soil conservation, timber harvest, 
water quality, watersheds, weed-free ecosystems, wilderness, and 
wildlife. The respondents wanted issues about the management of these 
resources discussed in the final rule or for the rule to require 
management toward a particular emphasis, such as protection or 
conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, ecosystem 
sustainability, grizzly bears, heritage resources, national forests, 
old growth, opportunities for education and scientific research, 
primitive recreational opportunities, roadless area protection, 
roadless characteristics, scenery, soils, undisturbed forests, viable 
populations of wildlife, watershed protection, wilderness, wildlife, or 
the production of timber, minerals, oil and gas, or other commodities. 
One respondent suggested the final rule should incorporate specific, 
enforceable timetables for the processing of right-of-way applications 
for wireless communications infrastructure and encourage the 
infrastructure on NFS lands. The Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality supplied suggestions to protect water quality and other 
resources for national forests in the State of Virginia.
    Response: The Agency agrees the issues raised are important. 
However, the final rule is intended to provide overall direction for 
how plans are developed, revised, and amended. The final rule does not 
provide direction for the management of any specific resource. This 
type of guidance 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. Those communities, groups, or persons interested in these 
important 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 of proposed projects and activities under the plan. The 
Agency is committed to reducing threats to the Nation's forests and 
grasslands, as discussed in the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: FY 
2007-2012. These threats include: (1) Th