National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning, 67059-67075 [E9-30171]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 242 (Friday, December 18, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67059-67075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30171]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 219

RIN 0596-AB86


National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (the Department) is issuing this 
final rule to comply with a June 30, 2009, Federal District Court order 
that has the effect of reinstating the National Forest System Land and 
Resource Management Planning Rule of November 9, 2000, as amended (2000 
rule). This action announces the court's decision and takes the 
ministerial (formal) action of reinstating the rule in the Code of 
Federal Regulations. This action also makes technical amendments to 
that rule, including the interpretative rules issued in 2001 and 2004, 
to update transition provisions that will be in effect until a new 
planning rule is issued, as announced elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective December 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You can send a written request for more information to the 
Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Forest Service, 
USDA, Mail Stop 1104, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20250-1104. For more information, including an electronic copy of the 
2000 rule and amendments see https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2000_planning_rule.html.

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:

Background

    The 2000 National Forest System Land and Resource Management 
Planning Rule as amended (2000 rule) is available online at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2000_planning_rule.html. See also final rule 
at 65 FR 67568 (Nov. 9, 2000); amendments at 67 FR 35434 (May 20, 
2002); 68 FR 53297 (Sept. 10, 2003); and interpretative rules at 66 FR 
1865 (Jan. 10, 2001) and 69 FR 58057 (Sept. 29, 2004). Although this 
rule is now in effect as a consequence of a court injunction, it is not 
found in the most recent version of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR). This final rule reinstates the rule in the Code of Federal 
Regulations. In addition, the Department is making several technical 
amendments to the final rule.

Reinstating the 2000 Rule

    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 issue 
regulations under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield 
Act of 1960 (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 amended on September 
30, 1982 (47 FR 43037) (1982 rule). The 1982 rule was itself 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 all the land management plans currently in 
effect throughout the National Forest System (NFS).
    The Department has undertaken rulemaking several times to revise 
the planning rule provisions. The Forest Service published an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking on February 15, 1991 (56 FR 6508) for 
possible revisions to the 1982 rule. The Forest Service published a 
proposed rule on April 13, 1995 (60 FR 18886); however, the Secretary 
chose not to continue with that proposal. Another proposed rule was 
published on October 5, 1999 (64 FR 54074), and the 2000 rule was 
issued on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67514). Shortly after the issuance of 
the 2000 rule, a review of the rule found that it would be unworkable. 
The Department proposed a new planning rule on December 6, 2002 (67 FR 
72770).
    In the meantime, on February 16, 2001, a coalition of twelve 
environmental groups sued the Department in Federal District Court to 
challenge the validity of the 2000 rule. The district court did not 
rule on the merits of plaintiffs' claims. Instead, the plaintiffs 
stipulated to a dismissal shortly after the Department issued a new 
planning rule to take the place of the 2000 rule (Citizens for Better 
Forestry v. USDA, No. 01-0728 (N.D. Cal. March 7, 2005) (Stipulation 
and Order dismissing case with prejudice)).
    The 2005 rule, intended to replace the 2000 rule, was issued on 
January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1055). Shortly thereafter, Citizens for Better 
Forestry and others challenged it in Federal District Court. On March 
30, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
California enjoined the Department from further carrying out the 2005 
rule pending additional steps to comply with the court's opinion with 
respect to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
(Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 
2007)). The effect of the injunction against the 2005 rule was to 
reinstate the 2000 rule (the rule previously in effect).
    To respond to the district court's injunction of the 2005 rule, the 
Forest Service proposed a new planning rule. A notice of intent to 
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) was published in the 
Federal Register on May 11, 2007 (72 FR 26775) with a public comment 
period ending June 11, 2007. 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). The notice of availability of the final EIS was 
published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2008 (73 FR 8869) and 
the final rule was issued and published in the Federal Register on 
April 21, 2008 (73 FR 21468). Citizens for Better Forestry and others 
promptly challenged the 2008 rule in court.
    On June 30, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern 
District of California invalidated the Forest Service's 2008 rule, 
holding that it was developed in violation of NEPA and ESA. The 
district court vacated the 2008 rule, enjoined the USDA from further 
implementing it and remanded it to the USDA for further proceedings 
(Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 632 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 
2009)). The court stated that, although the effect of invalidating an 
agency rule is to reinstate the rule previously in force, the Agency 
may choose whether to reinstate the 2000 rule or the 1982 rule.

[[Page 67060]]

(See court decision available online at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index.htm.)
    The district court's order allowing the Forest Service to choose 
either the 2000 rule or the 1982 rule did not eliminate the 
responsibility to follow appropriate procedures involved in making that 
choice. Under established legal principles, in circumstances like those 
here, the 2000 rule was immediately back in effect, without any 
process: ``The effect of invalidating an agency rule is to reinstate 
the rule previously in effect,'' Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F. 3d 999, 
1008 (9th Cir. 2005). A return to the 1982 rule, however, would require 
the entire lengthy process of notice and comment rulemaking, which 
includes issuing a proposed rule for public review and comment before 
issuing a final rule. Re-issuing the 1982 rule is unnecessary because 
the transition provision of the 2000 rule will allow the Forest Service 
to use the provisions of the 1982 rule in revising and amending plans 
until a new rule is issued. Furthermore, because the Department has 
announced that a new rulemaking is in order, as announced elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register, to re-issue the 1982 rule for an interim time 
period would be a costly and time-consuming distraction.
    Therefore, the Department has determined that the 2000 rule, as 
amended in 2002 and 2003 and as clarified by interpretative rules 
issued in 2001 and 2004, is now in effect, and should be reinstated in 
the Code of Federal Regulations.

Technical Amendments

    The 2000 rule included provisions for an orderly transition from 
planning under the prior, 1982 rule (36 CFR 219.35). The Forest Service 
expects that until the Department issues a new rule, responsible 
officials will continue to take advantage of the 2000 rule's transition 
provisions to amend or revise plans. See Forest Service memorandum of 
July 15, 2009, signed by Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief for National Forest 
System. The memorandum is available online at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2000_planning_rule.html.
    However, the time frames described in the transition provisions are 
out of date. Therefore, the Department has decided to update the 
wording of the 2000 rule's transition provisions to provide that the 
transition will extend until a new planning rule is issued. In 
addition, unnecessary wording is deleted in the transition section and 
interpretative rules issued in 2001 and 2004 and the reference in the 
2001 interpretative rule to the optional appeal procedures is being 
corrected.

Need To Update Transition Provisions With Respect to Plan Revisions and 
Amendments

    36 CFR 219.35(a). The Department is not changing paragraph (a) of 
section 219.35, but acknowledges that a definitive interpretation is in 
order. Paragraph (a) provides that the transition period ends upon 
completion of the revision process for each unit of the NFS, and that 
during that period the responsible official must consider the best 
available science in implementing and, if appropriate, amending the 
current plan. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted this 
paragraph to mean that the transition period for each unit of the NFS 
ends upon a plan revision developed and completed under provisions of 
the 1982 rule, as well as revisions completed in accordance with the 
2000 rule process (Utah Environmental Congress v. Troyer, 479 F. 3d 
1269 (10th Cir. 2007)). The court held that as a consequence, paragraph 
(a)'s requirement that the best available science be considered in 
amending and implementing current plans ``encompass[ed] only plans that 
pre-dated the 2000 planning rules,'' 479 F. 3d at 1281. Under this 
reasoning, the requirement to consider the best available science would 
not apply on a forest that completed revision after the issuance of the 
2000 rule even if the 1982 rule provisions were used for the revision.
    The Department's position is that the purpose of section 219.35(a) 
has always been, and continues to be, that the transition period for 
each forest ends upon the completion of the revision using the process 
of the 2000 rule. That intent is made evident by the cross-reference in 
paragraph (a) to section 219.9, the revision section of the 2000 rule. 
If a forest plan has not been revised using the 2000 rule process, the 
transition periods of sections 219.35(b) and (d) apply. Furthermore, on 
a unit where the plan has not been revised under the 2000 rule process, 
there must be consideration of the best available science when making 
project decisions or amending the plan. The reference in the paragraph 
to ``the current plan'' simply means the plan in effect during 
transition, prior to plan revision using the 2000 rule process.
    36 CFR 219.35(b). The transition provision at 219.35(b) originally 
provided that planning initiated under the 1982 rule prior to November 
9, 2000, the date the 2000 rule was issued, may continue under the 
provisions of that rule, instead of adjusting to the requirements of 
the 2000 rule (65 FR 67579 (Nov. 9, 2000)). However, shortly after the 
2000 rule was issued, the Department determined that it was unworkable 
and announced the intent to issue a new rule in the December 3, 2001, 
Semiannual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory 
Actions. So that planning need not comply with the requirements of the 
2000 rule, the Department extended the rule's transition period until 
the issuance of the new rule, and allowed the responsible official to 
elect, not only to continue, but also to initiate, plan amendments or 
revisions under the provisions of the 1982 rule.
    The Department extended the transition provisions in paragraph (b) 
twice; the most recent extension, issued as an interim final rule on 
May 20, 2002, provides that the plan amendment or revision process may 
be continued or initiated under the provisions of the 1982 planning 
regulations under certain circumstances. The interim final rule said 
use of the transition provisions can continue ``[u]ntil the Department 
promulgates the revised final planning regulations announced in the 
December 3, 2001, Semiannual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions'' at 219.35(b) 67 FR 35434 (May 20, 2002). This 
transition provision also explained what was meant by initiation of a 
plan amendment or revision.
    Because paragraph (b) refers to the rulemaking process that 
resulted in the 2005 rule, which the district court held invalid, the 
Department is updating this paragraph to clarify that the transition 
will extend until the issuance of a rule replacing the current 2000 
rule. The notice of intent to prepare an EIS for a new rule appears 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The Department is also deleting 
the unnecessary explanation regarding initiation of plan amendment or 
revision.
    Simply put, the changes to paragraph (b) ensure that, until a new 
planning rule is issued, responsible officials may continue to revise 
or amend land management plans under either the 1982 rule provisions or 
the 2000 rule provisions.

Need To Update the Time Frame for Projects' Conformance to the 2000 
Rule

    36 CFR 219.35(d). The 2000 rule includes project-specific 
provisions, and, at 219.35(d), set November 9, 2003, as the deadline 
for compliance with those provisions at 65 FR 67579 (November 9, 2000). 
On September 10, 2003, the Department extended this transition period 
``until the Department promulgates the final planning regulations 
published as proposed on

[[Page 67061]]

December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72770,'' by amending the wording of 36 CFR 
219.35(d) at 68 FR 53297 (Sept. 10, 2003). Because this provision 
refers to the rulemaking process that resulted in the 2005 rule, which 
was held invalid, the Department is updating 36 CFR 219.35(d) to 
clarify that the transition will extend until the issuance of a rule 
superseding the current 2000 rule.
    Therefore, until the Department issues a new planning rule, the 
transition wording of the 2000 rule exempts project and activity 
decisions from the rule's project-specific requirements. As provided in 
paragraph (a), during the transition the responsible official must 
consider the best available science when developing and carrying out 
projects.
    Note that 36 CFR 219.35(g) says that within 1 year of November 9, 
2000, the Chief of the Forest Service must establish a schedule for 
completion of the revision process for each unit of the National Forest 
System. The Chief established the schedule, and the Chiefs schedule is 
now available online at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/LRMPschedule.pdf.

Need To Correct the 2001 Interpretative Rule With Respect to the 
Administrative Review Procedures and Delete Unnecessary Wording

    36 CFR 219.35 Appendix A. On January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1864), the 
Department published a interpretative rule related to 36 CFR 219.35(b) 
to make explicit its intent that a responsible official's option of 
using the provisions of the 1982 rule included the further option of 
providing an administrative appeal opportunity, in accordance with 36 
CFR part 217, in effect before the 2000 rule was issued, or the 
objection opportunity set out in the 2000 rule. This interpretative 
rule was published as Appendix A to Section 219.35, ``Interpretive Rule 
Related to Paragraph 219.35(b)'' to explain how section 219.32 
(regarding objections) and section 219.35(b) (a transition provision) 
operate together.
    This interpretative rule cites ``36 CFR part 217'' twice. However, 
citing 36 CFR part 217 is not appropriate because that part no longer 
exists and has not been codified in the CFR since 2000, and refers to 
the July 1, 2000, revision of the CFR that is out of date. This 
reference is likely to confuse the public. Therefore, the Department is 
correcting Appendix A to Section 219.35 of the 2000 rule.
    In the place of 36 CFR part 217 the corrected interpretative rule 
identifies these procedures as the ``optional appeal procedures 
available during the planning rule transition period'' and references 
the Federal Register notices that had established the procedures 
formerly codified at 36 CFR part 217. The ``optional appeal procedures 
available during the planning rule transition period,'' are 54 FR 3357 
(January 23, 1989), as amended at 54 FR 13807 (April 5, 1989); 54 FR 
34509 (August 21, 1989); 55 FR 7895 (March 6, 1990); 56 FR 4918 
(February 6, 1991); 56 FR 46550 (September 13, 1991); and 58 FR 58915 
(November 4, 1993). The ``optional appeal procedures available during 
the planning rule transition period,'' are available at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/includes/PlanAppealProceduresDuringTransition.pdf.
    The interpretative rule also explained what was meant by initiation 
of a plan amendment or revision; the Department is deleting this 
unnecessary provision.
    The effect of these changes is simply that responsible officials 
can continue to choose either the appeals process for plan revisions or 
the objections process for plan revisions established in the 2000 rule.

Need To Delete Unnecessary Wording in 2004 Interpretative Rule

    36 CFR 219.35 Appendix B. On September 29, 2004, the Department 
published an interpretative rule related to 36 CFR 219.35(a) and (b), 
to clarify the intent of the transition provisions in those paragraphs. 
The Department published the interpretative rule as ``Appendix B to 
Section 219.35, Interpretative Rule Related to Paragraphs 219.35(a) and 
(b)'' (69 FR 58057). In explaining the duration of the transition, the 
interpretative rule included two sentences that referred to the 
proposed rule published on December 6, 2002, and stated that a final 
rule had yet to be issued. The Department is deleting these unnecessary 
sentences.

Good Cause Statement

    The Department has determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), that 
prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this rulemaking are 
``impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.'' This 
rulemaking is undertaken to reinstate in the Code of Federal 
Regulations the planning rule now in effect and to update and clarify 
the transition time periods set out in that rule. This rulemaking also 
identifies the optional appeal process available during the transition.
    As explained earlier in this notice, the 2000 rule is currently in 
effect. The reinstatement of the entire 2000 rule in the Code of 
Federal Regulations, therefore, is simply a housekeeping matter, to 
make the rule readily available to the public.
    Notice and comment opportunities for the transition updates in 
paragraphs (b) and (d) are unnecessary, as they simply reflect the 
Department's long held intent, evidenced by the 2001, 2002, and 2003 
extensions and the 2004 interpretative rule, to allow the continued use 
of the 1982 planning rule provisions until a successful rulemaking to 
replace the 2000 rule is accomplished. Additionally, the deletion in 
paragraph (b) of the explanation of ``initiation'' of plan amendments 
or revisions does not in any way change the effect of the rule. 
Furthermore, notice and comment rulemaking for this planning rule is 
impractical and against the public interest, as it would distract the 
Department's and the public's attention from the more pressing task at 
hand: to develop, through notice and comment rulemaking, a new, 
replacement planning rule. Notice and comment rulemaking to reinstate 
the 2000 rule would delay the issuance of a new rule. It is also likely 
that the confusion caused by two simultaneous notice and comment 
rulemakings for planning would not be in the public interest. With 
respect to the interpretative rules, good cause is not needed to exempt 
them from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative 
Procedure Act. In any event, the minor changes to the interpretative 
rules do not affect the Department's interpretation of the 2000 rule.
    This rulemaking merely continues the status quo for forest planning 
by updating 36 CFR Part 219 to reflect the fact that the 2008 rule has 
been held invalid and the 2000 rule is therefore in place until new 
planning regulations are issued.

Regulatory Certifications

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is, therefore, 
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because 
the Agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not 
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the regulatory 
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, 
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not 
economically significant.

[[Page 67062]]

    In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as 
described in sections 203 and 204 of Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995. This rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This rule will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
    The rule also does not involve special consideration of 
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, and it has been determined 
that the rule does not pose the risk of a taking of constitutionally 
protected private property.
    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the information collection or reporting requirements 
included in the rule have been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) and assigned control number 0596-0158.
    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil 
Justice Reform. As adopted, (1) All state and local laws and 
regulations that are in conflict with this rule or which would impede 
its full implementation are to be preempted; (2) No retroactive effect 
is given to this rule; and (3) It does not require administrative 
proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its 
provisions. Several respondents commented about the Federal 
Government's authority to preempt state and local laws. The Department 
has carefully reviewed this language and finds that this is entirely 
consistent with the legal responsibilities of the Federal Government.
    The Department's compliance with these statutes and Executive 
orders for the rule is discussed in the November 9, 2000, Federal 
Register notice.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 219

    Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact 
statements, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, National forests, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Science and technology.

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

PART 219--PLANNING

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

Purpose and Principles

Sec.
219.1 Purpose.
219.2 Principles.

The Framework for Planning

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

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability

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

Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability

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

The Contribution of Science

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

Special Considerations

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

Planning Documentation

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

Objections and Appeals

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

Applicability and Transition

219.34 Applicability.
219.35 Transition.

Definitions

219.36 Definitions.
Subpart B [Reserved]

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

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

Purpose and Principles


Sec.  219.1  Purpose.

    (a) Land and resource management planning guides how the Forest 
Service will fulfill its stewardship of the natural resources of the 
National Forest System to fulfill the designated purposes of the 
national forests and grasslands and honor their unique place in 
American life. The regulations in this subpart set forth a process for 
amending and revising land and resource management plans, hereafter 
referred to as plans, for the National Forest System and for monitoring 
the results of plan implementation under the Forest and Rangeland 
Renewable Resources Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq. The regulations in this 
subpart also guide the selection and implementation of site-specific 
actions. The principal authorities governing the development and the 
management of the National Forest System include: The Organic 
Administration Act of 1897, as amended (16 U.S.C. 473 et seq.); the 
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.); the 
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.); the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the Forest and Rangeland 
Renewable Resource Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.); and the Clean Water 
Act of 1948, as amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987 and other laws (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1323 et seq.).
    (b) The National Forest System constitutes an extraordinary 
national legacy created by people of vision and preserved for future 
generations by diligent and far-sighted public servants and citizens. 
These are the peoples' lands, emblems of the nation's democratic 
traditions.
    (1) The national forests and grasslands provide a wide variety of 
uses, values,

[[Page 67063]]

products, and services that are important to many people, including 
outdoor recreation, forage, timber, wildlife and fish, biological 
diversity, productive soils, clean air and water, and minerals. They 
also afford intangible benefits such as beauty, inspiration, and 
wonder.
    (2) To assure the continuation of this array of benefits, this 
regulation affirms sustainability as the overall goal for stewardship 
of the natural resources of each national forest and grassland 
consistent with the laws that guide management of these lands.
    (3) Sustainability, composed of interdependent ecological, social, 
and economic elements, embodies the principles of multiple-use and 
sustained-yield without impairment to the productivity of the land. 
Sustainability means meeting needs of the present generation without 
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. 
Planning contributes to social and economic sustainability without 
compromising the basic composition, structure, and functioning of 
ecological systems. The progress toward achievement of sustainability 
is assessed through monitoring and evaluation.


Sec.  219.2  Principles.

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

The Framework for Planning


Sec.  219.3  Overview.

    (a) The planning framework. Land and resource management planning 
is a flexible process for fitting solutions to the scope and scale of 
needed action. Planning, conducted according to the planning framework 
outlined in Sec. Sec.  219.3 through 219.11, involves engaging the 
public (Sec. Sec.  219.12 through 219.18) and applying the best 
available science (Sec. Sec.  219.22 through 219.25) to contribute to 
sustainability (Sec. Sec.  219.19 through 219.21) in the use and 
enjoyment of National Forest System lands.
    (b) Levels of planning. Planning may be undertaken at the national, 
regional, national forest or grassland, and/or ranger district 
administrative levels depending on the scope and scale of issues.
    (1) The Chief of the Forest Service is responsible for national 
planning. National planning includes the Forest Service national 
strategic plan required under the Government Performance and Results 
Act of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 306, 31 U.S.C. 1115-1119 and 9703-9704) that 
establishes national long-term goals, outcome measures, and strategies 
to be considered in managing the National Forest System and the 
Resources Planning Act Program (16 U.S.C. 1600).
    (2) The Forest or Grassland Supervisor is the responsible official 
for a plan amendment or revision, except to the extent the Regional 
Forester or Chief decides to act as the responsible official.
    (3) When appropriate, two or more Forest or Grassland Supervisors, 
one or more Regional Foresters, or the Chief of the Forest Service may 
undertake planning which may amend or revise one or more plans.
    (4) The Chief of the Forest Service, Regional Foresters, National 
Forest and Grassland Supervisors, or District Rangers may authorize and 
implement site-specific actions.
    (c) An interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to planning. An 
interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to planning may be achieved 
by engaging the skills and interests of appropriate combinations of 
Forest Service staff, consultants, contractors, other federal agencies, 
states, American

[[Page 67064]]

Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, or local government personnel, or other 
interested or affected people consistent with applicable laws.
    (d) Key elements. The planning cycle begins with the identification 
and consideration of issues and concludes with the monitoring and 
evaluation of results. Based upon the scope and scale of issues, 
planning includes one or more of the following key elements:
    (1) Identification and consideration of issues (Sec.  219.4);
    (2) Information development and interpretation (Sec.  219.5);
    (3) Proposed actions (Sec.  219.6);
    (4) Plan decisions (Sec.  219.7);
    (5) Amendment (Sec.  219.8);
    (6) Revision (Sec.  219.9);
    (7) Site-specific decisions (Sec.  219.10); and
    (8) Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management (Sec.  
219.11).


Sec.  219.4  Identification and consideration of issues.

    (a) Origination of issues. Issues may originate from a variety of 
sources including, but are not limited to: Inventories, assessments, 
analyses, monitoring and evaluation of projects; discussions among 
people and proposals by organizations or governments interested in or 
affected by National Forest System management; Presidential, 
Departmental, and Forest Service conservation leadership initiatives; 
cooperatively developed landscape goals (Sec.  219.12(b)); evaluation 
of sustainability (Sec.  219.9(b)(4)); enactment of new laws; policies 
such as the Forest Service national strategic plan; and applications 
for authorization for occupancy and use of National Forest System 
lands.
    (b) Consideration of issues. The responsible official has the 
discretion to determine, at any time, whether and to what extent an 
issue is appropriate for consideration.
    (1) In making this determination, the responsible official should 
consider:
    (i) The scope, complexity, and geographic scale of potential 
actions that may address an issue;
    (ii) Statutory requirements;
    (iii) Organizational and community capabilities and available 
resources, including current and likely Forest Service budgets;
    (iv) The scientific basis and merit of available data and analyses;
    (v) The relationship of possible actions to the Forest Service 
national strategic plan, other existing plans, adopted conservation 
strategies, biological opinions, or other strategies applicable within 
all or a portion of the plan area; and
    (vi) The opinions of interested or affected individuals, 
organizations, or other entities and the social and cultural values 
related to an issue.
    (2) The responsible official should consider the extent to which 
addressing the issue relates to or provides:
    (i) Opportunities to contribute to the achievement of cooperatively 
developed landscape goals;
    (ii) Opportunities for the national forests and grasslands to 
contribute to the restoration or maintenance of ecological 
sustainability, including maintenance or restoration of watershed 
function, such as water flow regimes to benefit aquatic resources, 
groundwater recharge, municipal water supply, or other uses, and 
maintaining or restoring ecological conditions needed for ecosystem and 
species diversity;
    (iii) Opportunities for the national forests or grasslands to 
contribute to social and economic sustainability;
    (iv) Opportunities to recover threatened or endangered species and 
maintain or restore their habitat;
    (v) The potential for negative environmental effects, including 
human health, economic and social effects, upon minority and low income 
communities;
    (vi) Opportunities to maintain or restore ecological conditions 
that are similar to the biological and physical range of expected 
variability (Sec.  219.20(b)(1)); and
    (vii) Opportunities to contribute to knowledge about and 
preservation of historic and cultural resources.


Sec.  219.5  Information development and interpretation.

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


Sec.  219.6  Proposed actions.

    (a) Proposal. The responsible official may propose to amend or 
revise a plan, propose a site-specific action, or both.
    (b) NEPA requirements. Unless otherwise provided by law, the 
responsible official must analyze the effects of the proposal and 
alternative(s) in conformance with Forest Service

[[Page 67065]]

NEPA procedures. The responsible official may use issues identified and 
information reviewed pursuant to Secs. 219.4-219.5 for scoping required 
in Forest Service NEPA procedures.


Sec.  219.7  Plan decisions.

    Plan decisions guide or limit uses of National Forest System 
resources and provide the basis for future agency action. Plan 
decisions link the requirements of laws, regulations, Executive Orders, 
policies, and the Forest Service national strategic plan to specific 
national forests and grasslands. While plan decisions generally do not 
commit resources to a site-specific action, plan decisions provide a 
framework for authorizing site-specific actions that may commit 
resources. In making decisions, the responsible official should seek to 
manage National Forest System resources in a combination that best 
serves the public interest without impairment of the productivity of 
the land consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. 
Plan decisions may apply to all or part of a plan area. Paragraphs (a) 
through (e) of this section describe the decisions in a plan.
    (a) Desired resource conditions. These plan decisions define the 
resource conditions sought within all or portions of the plan area. 
Desired resource conditions may include, but are not limited to, the 
desired watershed and ecological conditions and aquatic and terrestrial 
habitat characteristics.
    (b) Objectives. These plan decisions are concise statements 
describing measurable results intended to contribute to sustainability 
(Sec.  219.19), including a desired level of uses, values, products, 
and services, assuming current or likely budgets and considering other 
spending levels as appropriate. Objectives include an estimate of the 
time and resources needed for their completion.
    (c) Standards. These plan decisions are the requirements and 
limitations for land uses and management actions necessary for the 
achievement of desired conditions and objectives and compliance with 
applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and policies. Standards 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Limitations on even-aged timber harvest methods;
    (2) Maximum size openings from timber harvest;
    (3) Methods for achieving aesthetic objectives by blending the 
boundaries of vegetation treatments; and
    (4) Other requirements to achieve multiple-use of the national 
forests and grasslands.
    (d) Designation of suitable land uses. These plan decisions 
identify lands within the National Forest System that are or are not 
suitable for specific uses (Sec.  219.26), including, but not limited 
to: the transportation system; livestock grazing; special designations 
as described in Sec.  219.27; and lands where timber production is an 
objective (Sec.  219.28).
    (e) Monitoring strategy. A monitoring strategy is required by each 
plan as described in Sec.  219.11(a).


Sec.  219.8  Amendment.

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


Sec.  219.9  Revision.

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

[[Page 67066]]

statement for at least 90 calendar days. Following public comment, the 
responsible official must oversee preparation of a final environmental 
impact statement in accordance with Forest Service NEPA procedures.
    (e) Final decision on plan revision. The revision process is 
completed when the responsible official signs a record of decision for 
a plan revision.


Sec.  219.10  Site-specific decisions.

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


Sec.  219.11  Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management.

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

[[Page 67067]]

    (ii) A description of the plan area's contribution to the 
achievement of applicable outcomes of the Forest Service national 
strategic plan.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability


Sec.  219.12  Collaboration and cooperatively developed landscape 
goals.

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


Sec.  219.13  Coordination among Federal agencies.

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


Sec.  219.14  Involvement of State and local governments.

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


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

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


Sec.  219.16  Relationships with interested individuals and 
organizations.

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


Sec.  219.17  Interaction with private landowners.

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


Sec.  219.18  Role of advisory committees.

    (a) Advisory committees. Advisory