National Forest System Land Management Planning, 8480-8528 [2011-2989]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8480-8528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2989]



[[Page 8479]]

Vol. 76

Monday,

No. 30

February 14, 2011

Part III





Department of Agriculture





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



Forest Service



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



36 CFR Part 219



National Forest System Land Management Planning; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 8480]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 219

RIN 0596-AC94


National Forest System Land Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is proposing a new planning 
rule to guide land and resource management planning for all units of 
the National Forest System (NFS) under the National Forest Management 
Act of 1976. The proposed rule sets forth process and content 
requirements to guide the development, amendment, and revision of land 
management plans to maintain, protect, and restore NFS lands while 
providing for sustainable multiple uses, including ecosystem services, 
so that NFS lands continuously provide ecosystem functions and 
contribute to social and economic sustainability. Planning under the 
proposed rule would be collaborative and science-based with the 
responsible official required to take the best available scientific 
information into account and provide opportunities for public 
participation throughout the planning process.
    The proposed framework consists of a three-part learning and 
planning cycle: Assessment, development/revision/amendment, and 
monitoring. The phases of the framework are complementary and are 
intended to create a feedback loop that allows the Forest Service to 
adapt management to changing conditions and to improve plans based on 
new information and monitoring. This framework is intended to move the 
Agency toward a more responsive planning process that allows the Agency 
to understand the landscape-scale context for management, adapt 
management to changing conditions, improve management based on new 
information and monitoring, and support an integrated and holistic 
approach to management that recognizes the interdependence of social, 
ecological, and economic systems.
    The Agency is requesting public comment on the proposed rule and on 
the alternatives that are described and evaluated in the accompanying 
draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Readers are invited to 
comment on each section of the proposed rule and on how provisions in 
the DEIS alternatives compare with the proposed rule. The Agency will 
carefully consider all public comments in preparing the final rule.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by May 16, 2011. The Agency 
will consider and place comments received after this date in the record 
only if practicable. Public meetings to discuss the proposed rule and 
draft environmental impact statement will be held throughout the 
country during the public comment period. A schedule of meeting dates 
and further information is available on the planning rule Web site at 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments through the public participation portal at 
https://www.govcomments.com/. Alternatively, submit comments by 
addressing them to Forest Service Planning DEIS, c/o Bear West Company, 
132 E 500 S, Bountiful, UT 84010; or via facsimile to 801-397-1605. 
Please identify your written comments by including ``planning rule'' on 
the cover sheet or the first page. Alternatively, submit comments 
through the World Wide Web/Internet Web site https://www.regulations.gov. All comments, including names and addresses, when 
provided, are placed in the record and are available for public 
inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments at https://contentanalysisgroup.com/fsrd/.

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: 

1. Additional Documents Are Available

    The following information is available online at https://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule: (1) This proposed rule; (2) a draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS) analyzing the effects of the 
proposed rule and alternatives to it; (3) the Civil Rights Impact 
Analysis for this proposed rule; (4) the cost-benefit analysis for this 
proposed rule; (5) summaries of the numerous roundtables and public 
meetings held to date to engage the public in the development of the 
proposed rule, and summaries of the input received thus far from 
comments to the Notice of Intent and the public meetings; and (6) the 
Forest Service directives on land management planning developed for the 
1982 planning procedures, which may currently be used under the 
transition language of the 2000 rule. This information may also be 
obtained upon written request from the Director, Ecosystem Management 
Coordination Staff, Forest Service, USDA, Mail Stop 1104, 1400 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1104. The final rule and 
environmental impact statement, when completed, will also be available 
on the above Web site.

2. Overview

    A new Agency planning rule is proposed to guide land managers in 
developing, amending, and revising land management plans for all units 
of the National Forest System (NFS), consisting of 155 national 
forests, 20 grasslands and 1 prairie. The new planning rule must be 
responsive to the challenges of climate change; the need for forest 
restoration and conservation, watershed protection, and wildlife 
conservation; and the need for the sustainable provision of benefits, 
services, resources, and uses of NFS lands, including ecosystem 
services and sustainable recreation. It must provide a process for 
planning that is adaptive, science-based, and collaborative with ample 
opportunities for active and effective public participation. The new 
planning rule must be clear, efficient, effective, and within the 
Agency's capability to implement on all NFS units. It must meet 
requirements under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as well 
as allow the Agency to meet its obligations under the Multiple-Use 
Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA), the Endangered Species Act, and the 
Wilderness Act, as well as other legal requirements. With stability in 
planning regulations, national land management planning can regain 
momentum, and units would be able to complete timely revisions that 
guide sustainable management of NFS lands.
    The vision for the proposed rule.
    The Forest Service mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and 
productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs 
of present and future generations. The NFS consists of 193 million 
acres of national forests and grasslands. Land management plans provide 
a framework for integrated resource management on NFS units, and guide 
project and activity decisionmaking on the unit. The Forest Service 
planning rule serves as the primary tool to ensure that land management 
plans continuously provide desired ecosystem functions, contribute to 
social and economic sustainability, are rooted in the best available 
scientific information, and are developed with public input and 
participation.
    The objective of this proposed rule is to guide the collaborative 
and science-based development, amendment, and revision of land 
management plans that

[[Page 8481]]

promote healthy, resilient, diverse, and productive national forests 
and grasslands. The Agency's goal is to create a planning framework 
that will guide management of NFS lands so they are ecologically 
sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability, with 
resilient ecosystems and watersheds, diverse plant and animal 
communities, and the capacity to provide people and communities with a 
range of social, economic, and ecological benefits now and for future 
generations. This planning framework will help the Agency to provide 
clean water, habitat for diverse fish, wildlife, and plant communities, 
and opportunities for recreational, spiritual, educational, and 
cultural sustenance.
    The rule proposes a framework for adaptive management and planning 
and reflects key themes from the public, as well as experience gained 
through the Agency's 30-year history with land management planning. The 
framework is intended to move the Agency toward a more adaptive system 
with more frequent amendments that can keep plans current between 
revisions. Plans will be revised at least every 15 years. However, 
under the proposed rule, the Agency expects plan amendments to be done 
more frequently than they are now. For example, as budgets and 
conditions on-the-ground change, the plan objectives may be amended 
every 3 to 5 years. Alternatively, if new information is learned about 
a threatened and endangered species, plan standards and guidelines may 
be updated more often. Some plans may even be amended annually to 
reflect up-to-date information.
    The proposed framework consists of a three-part learning and 
planning cycle: (1) Assessment, (2) development/revision/amendment, and 
(3) monitoring. The phases of the framework are complementary and are 
intended to create a feedback loop that allows the Forest Service to 
adapt management to changing conditions and to improve plans based on 
new information and monitoring.
    Throughout implementation of the cycle, the Forest Service would:
    (1) Assess conditions, stressors, and opportunities on the NFS unit 
within the context of the broader landscape and identify any need for 
changes to a plan;
    (2) Develop, Revise, or Amend land management plans based on the 
need for change in the plan; and
    (3) Monitor to detect changes on the unit and across the broader 
landscape, to test assumptions underlying management decisions, and to 
measure the effectiveness of management activity in achieving desired 
outcomes.
    The proposed rule would strengthen the role of public involvement 
in the planning process and provide numerous opportunities for 
meaningful public participation and dialogue. The proposed rule would 
require that the best available scientific information be taken into 
account and documented. The planning process would take into account 
other forms of knowledge, such as local information, national 
perspectives, and native knowledge. Ideas, resources, and knowledge 
should be shared with all interests, individuals, and groups throughout 
the planning process.
    The planning process also builds an understanding of the landscape-
scale context for unit-level management. Assessments, in particular, 
are designed to create an understanding of conditions, trends, and 
stressors on-and-off NFS lands in order to guide the development of 
plans to manage resources on the unit. The proposed rule has 
requirements in each phase for working with the public, partners, 
landowners, other government agencies, and Tribes and would require the 
responsible official to identify each unit's unique roles and 
contributions to the local area, region, and Nation.
    The proposed rule would include requirements for plan components. 
In the face of changing environmental conditions such as climate 
change, plans would include plan components to maintain or restore 
ecosystem and watershed health and resilience; protect key ecosystem 
elements, including water resources on the unit; and provide for plant 
and animal diversity. In doing so, responsible officials would take 
into account the various stressors or impacts that could affect the 
presence of ecological resources and their functions on the unit.
    Plans would also include plan components to contribute to social 
and economic sustainability. The proposed rule emphasizes integrated 
resource management so that all the relevant interdependent elements of 
sustainability are considered as a whole, instead of as separate 
resources or uses. Planning would consider the full suite of multiple 
uses, including ecosystem services, energy, minerals, outdoor 
recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and 
wilderness, to the extent relevant to the plan area. Plan components 
would be required to provide for multiple uses, including sustainable 
recreation and ecosystem services, and protect cultural and historic 
resources and specially designated areas (such as wilderness areas and 
wild and scenic rivers). Plans would also guide the management of 
timber harvest, as required by the NFMA.
    The proposed rule would create a two-tiered strategy for monitoring 
at the unit level and at a broader scale. Monitoring would be a central 
part of both content of plans and the planning process, allowing 
responsible officials to test assumptions, track changing conditions, 
measure management implementation and effectiveness in achieving 
desired outcomes, and feed new information back into the planning cycle 
so that plans and management can be changed as needed.
    Finally, the proposed rule would create a pre-decisional 
administrative review process to provide individuals and groups with an 
opportunity to resolve issues before the approval of a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision.

The History of Forest Planning and the Need for a New Planning Rule

    The NFMA at 16 U.S.C. 1604 requires the Agency to have a planning 
rule developed ``under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-
Yield Act of 1960, that set[s] out the process for the development and 
revision of the land management plans, and the guidelines and 
standards'' (16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)). This requirement is fulfilled through 
a planning rule, set out at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 
219 (36 CFR Part 219), which sets requirements for land management 
planning and content of plans.
    In 1979, the Department issued the first regulations to comply with 
this statutory requirement. The 1979 regulations were superseded by the 
1982 planning rule, which has formed the basis for all existing Forest 
Service land management plans.
    In 1989, the Agency initiated a comprehensive Critique of Land 
Management Planning, which identified a number of adjustments that were 
needed to the 1982 planning rule. The Critique found that the 1982 
planning rule process was complex, had significant costs, was lengthy, 
and was cumbersome for the public to provide input. The recommendations 
in the Critique and the Agency's experiences with planning led to the 
Agency issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for new 
regulations in 1991 and two proposed rules in 1995 and 1999.
    After working with a committee of scientists, the Department issued 
a final rule in 2000 to revise the 1982 regulations. The 2000 revision 
of the planning rule described a new framework for NFS planning; made 
sustainability the foundation for NFS planning and management; required 
the

[[Page 8482]]

consideration of the best available scientific information during the 
planning process; and set forth requirements for implementation, 
monitoring, evaluation, amendment, and revision of land management 
plans. However, a review in the spring of 2001 found that the 2000 rule 
was costly, complex, and procedurally burdensome. The results of the 
review led the Department to issue a new planning rule in 2005 and a 
revised version again in 2008, but each of those rules was held invalid 
by a Federal District Court on procedural grounds (Citizens for Better 
Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp.2d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (2005 rule); 
Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 632 F. Supp.2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 
2009) (2008 rule)).
    Though committees of scientists were created for the 1979 rule and 
2000 rule, a formal committee of scientists was not formed for this 
planning rule for several reasons. The Agency believes a collaborative 
approach, involving as many interests as possible, including the 
scientific community, is best for developing the planning rule. Science 
is one source of understanding and knowledge that informs planning and 
decision-making. Much of planning also involves consideration of public 
values in land management. This proposed rule is very much a science-
based rule and establishes a strong requirement for consideration and 
use of best available scientific information in planning. The proposed 
rule is based on some of the major recommendations from the 1999 
Committee of Scientists report: Sustainability, public participation 
and collaboration, adaptive management, monitoring and evaluation, the 
role of science, and the objection process; all concepts that were 
recommendations of that report. In addition, the Agency has reached out 
to the science community in developing this proposed rule. An open, 
public meeting of invited scientists occurred in Washington, DC, March 
29-30, 2010, to create a dialogue about the latest science relevant to 
the planning rule. Additionally, scientists have been involved in the 
development and review of the proposed rule from the beginning and will 
continue to be involved throughout the rule making process.
    Because it was the last promulgated rule to take effect and not to 
have been set aside by a court, the planning rule issued in 2000 
legally governs the development, amendment, or revision of plans until 
a new planning rule is issued. On December 18, 2009, the Department 
reinstated the 2000 rule in the Code of Federal Regulations as an 
interim measure and made technical amendments to update transition 
provisions to be in effect until a new planning rule is issued (74 FR 
67062). While the 2000 planning rule replaced the 1982 rule in the Code 
of Federal Regulations, the transition section of the 2000 rule allows 
units to use the 1982 planning rule procedures for plan revisions and 
amendments until a new planning rule is issued. The Agency's 
expectation, based on experience, is that those NFS units choosing to 
amend or revise plans during the development of this new rule will 
continue to use the 1982 rule procedures until the new planning rule is 
issued.
    The 1982 planning rule procedures have guided the development, 
amendment, and revision of all existing Forest Service land management 
plans. However, since 1982 much has changed in our understanding of how 
to create and implement effective land management plans. The body of 
science that informs land management planning in areas such as 
conservation biology and ecology has advanced considerably since 1982, 
as has our understanding of the values and benefits of NFS lands, and 
the challenges and stressors that may impact resources on the unit 
(including climate change).
    Because planning under the 1982 rule is often time consuming and 
cumbersome, it has been a challenge for units to keep plans current. 
Instead of updating plans as conditions on the ground change, units 
often wait and make changes all at once during the required revision 
process every 15 years. This can result in a drawn-out, difficult, and 
costly revision process. Plans in the interim lose much of their 
utility because they no longer reflect the reality on the ground. The 
focus of land management activity has also changed. Much of the 1982 
rule focused on creating plans that would mitigate negative 
environmental impacts from resource extraction activities. The 
protective measures in the 1982 rule were important, but now the Agency 
needs plans that do more than mitigate harm. The Agency needs a 
planning process that helps units identify their unique roles in the 
broader landscape and create land management plans to guide proactive 
contributions of the unit and of management to ecological, social, and 
economic sustainability.
    The instability created by the history of the planning rule has had 
a significant negative impact on the Agency's ability to manage the NFS 
and on its relationship with the public. At the same time, the vastly 
different context for management and improved understanding of science 
and sustainability that has evolved over the past three decades creates 
an urgent need for a planning framework that allows the Agency to 
respond to new challenges and management objectives for NFS lands. The 
NFMA requires that the Agency revise land management plans ``at least 
every 15 years.'' The NFS has 127 land management plans. Currently, 68 
plans are past due for plan revision. Most plans were developed between 
1983 and 1993 and should have been revised between 1998 and 2008. The 
Agency must establish a stable planning rule that is consistent with 
the current science and creates a planning process that can incorporate 
new knowledge as science continues to evolve, allowing the Agency to 
protect, reconnect, and restore national forests and grasslands for the 
benefit of human communities and natural resources.

What the Agency Heard

    The Agency strongly believes that involving the public through a 
participatory, open, and meaningful process is the best way to develop 
this planning rule. This belief has, and continues to be, reflected in 
the unprecedented participatory process created to develop this 
proposed rule. The Agency is working to make the process accessible 
through the use of updated methods of involvement such as new media and 
has engaged in efforts to involve diverse groups and interests.
    The development of this proposed rule has been informed by the 
26,000 comments made on the Notice of Intent (NOI); a Science Forum 
with panel discussions from 21 scientists; regional and national 
roundtables held in over 35 locations and attended by over 3,000 
people; national and regional tribal roundtables; feedback from Forest 
Service employees; and over 300 comments on the planning rule blog. 
Summary reports of this input are available at: https://fs.usda.gov/planningrule. A separate summary of the tribal consultation and 
participation and of how the proposed rule reflects tribal input is in 
a special section of this preamble called ``Consultation with Indian 
tribal governments.''
    The participatory process to develop this proposed rule began with 
a new approach to the NOI. While an NOI typically involves sending out 
a detailed proposed action for comment, the Agency wanted to involve 
the public in crafting the proposed rule from its very beginning. The 
December 2009 NOI for the proposed planning rule therefore asked for 
public feedback on a set of eight principles that could be used to 
guide future land management planning. The notice resulted in a broad 
discussion of what should be in a proposed rule and led to a robust

[[Page 8483]]

dialogue with the public over the course of the national, tribal, 
regional, and Web-based public meetings. This discussion has allowed 
the Agency to craft a proposed rule that more fully responds to public 
comments and concerns.
    While input from the public, Tribes, and agency employees covered a 
broad range of opinion, there were areas of consistent shared support. 
Broad support exists for a simple but effective planning process; a 
planning rule designed to persist through changing times; up-front 
collaboration in developing proposals for plan revisions; creating 
plans that focus on NFS units, but also reflect consideration of the 
landscape beyond unit boundaries; and a strong monitoring plan 
component that improves accountability and encourages a mutual learning 
process with cooperators and partners. Additional themes that arose 
during public participation included the importance of public 
involvement and working with Tribes, the importance of working with 
State and local governments and other Federal agencies in land 
management planning; the importance of providing for sustainable 
recreation; the importance of creating a rule that meets the multiple 
use mandate of MUSYA; and the need for an efficient plan amendment and 
revision process that can keep pace with changing conditions.
    There were also broad areas of disagreement that emerged from the 
collaborative process. One point of tension was how to balance the need 
for national consistency with the need for local flexibility. Some 
people want a rule that is streamlined and only includes direction on 
meeting the minimum requirements of the NFMA, so that local units have 
more flexibility in how their plan is developed and in what it needs to 
contain. At the other end of the spectrum, others want a rule that is 
highly prescriptive and includes detailed national standards and 
processes.
    Another major area of disagreement was how the planning process 
should consider and balance the multiple uses of the NFS, as well as 
local versus national and regional interests. Many people asked for a 
rule that emphasizes one resource area over another or prioritizes the 
needs of local communities over the needs and desires of people who 
live further from NFS lands. Others asked for a rule that requires 
plans to include direction for only restoration and preservation of 
ecological conditions, while others sought a rule that provides for and 
emphasizes a full array of multiple uses that contribute to social and 
economic opportunities.
    While no rule can satisfy the entire spectrum of opinion, the 
Forest Service has worked to find a balance between these different 
needs and perspectives and has developed a proposed rule that is 
practical, workable, based on science, and reflective of public and 
agency values and input. The Agency is now eager to receive public 
feedback. Readers should carefully examine and consider the information 
in this preamble and proposed rule, as well as each of the alternatives 
that are described and evaluated in the accompanying draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS). In particular, Alternatives D 
and E explore substitute or additional rule language that reflects 
comments received by the Agency during the public engagement process 
and the comment period for the notice of intent. Suggestions explored 
and analyzed in these alternatives include different approaches to rule 
text on management of water resources and watersheds, collaboration, 
climate change adaption and mitigation, monitoring, and planning for 
services that connect people to the unit, like conservation education 
and volunteer opportunities. Based on the public's continued feedback, 
the Agency will consider substituting or adding specific provisions on 
these subjects for inclusion in the final rule.
    The Agency invites comments on each section of the proposed rule 
and on how provisions in the DEIS alternatives compare with the 
proposed rule. The Agency will carefully consider all public comments 
in preparing the final rule.

3. Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule

    The following section-by-section descriptions are provided to 
explain the approach taken in the proposed rule to NFS land management 
planning. The proposed rule would create an adaptive framework based on 
science and public participation to guide unit-level land management 
planning for the NFS with a focus on integrated management of all 
forest resources. The overarching objective of this proposed rule is to 
move all NFS units toward social, economic, and ecological 
sustainability.

Subpart A--National Forest System Land Management Planning

Section 219.1 Purpose and Applicability
    This section states that the purpose of Subpart A is to set out the 
planning requirements for developing, amending, and revising land 
management plans for the NFS in a national planning rule. The NFMA 
requires the Agency to have a planning rule developed under the 
principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA). The 
planning rule sets requirements for land management planning and 
content of plans and applies to all units in the NFS.
    The proposed planning rule is designed to guide the collaborative 
and science-based development, amendment, and revision of land 
management plans that would promote healthy, resilient, diverse, and 
productive national forests and grasslands. These plans would guide 
management of NFS lands so that they are ecologically sustainable and 
contribute to social and economic sustainability. Plans would guide 
management to maintain and restore resilient ecosystems and watersheds 
and diverse plant and animal communities. Plans would also guide 
management to provide people and communities with a range of social, 
economic, and ecological benefits for the present and into the future, 
including clean water; habitat for fish, wildlife, and plant 
communities; and opportunities for recreational, spiritual, 
educational, and cultural sustenance.
    The proposed rule is designed to create a collaborative and 
science-based planning process so that plans and their amendments 
reflect public values and the best available scientific information. It 
is intended to ensure that managers understand the role and 
contribution of their units and the context for management within the 
broader landscape. It is also designed to facilitate adaptation, 
creating a feedback loop to allow responsible officials to respond to 
new information and changing conditions.
    Comments from and discussions with the public as part of this rule-
making effort revealed growing concern about a variety of risks and 
stressors impacting resources, services, benefits, and uses on NFS 
lands. Issues included, for example: Climate change; insects and 
disease; recreation, timber, and shifts in other local demands and 
national market trends; population growth and other demographic shifts; 
water supply protection; and other ecosystem support services. 
Addressing these types of issues, risks, and contingencies requires a 
larger landscape perspective, information from a broader spectrum of 
sources and users, and a framework that can facilitate adaptation.
    Questions about multiple use and ecosystem services came up in the 
collaborative process for the rule.

[[Page 8484]]

Multiple use management is well established in law, policy and the 
Agency mission. ``Ecosystem services'' is a term that is used today to 
describe many consumptive and non-consumptive uses, as well as 
traditional and non-traditional uses, that people associate with 
national forests. In the proposed rule we use the phrase ``multiple 
uses, including ecosystem services'' in certain places to show an 
association between the terms so both are recognized in the rule and 
within our statutory authority as part of land management planning. The 
management of the multiple uses described by the MUSYA of 1960 (outdoor 
recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes) 
has broader application in today's context.
    The new requirements in the proposed rule should increase agency 
and unit capacity for adapting management plans to new and evolving 
information about risks, stressors, changing conditions, and management 
effectiveness. Agency intent is for responsible officials to use the 
proposed planning framework to keep plans and management activity 
current, relevant, and effective.
    This section of the proposed rule also would require the Chief of 
the Forest Service to establish procedures for planning in the Forest 
Service Directives System that provide further explanation of the 
methods to implement the requirements of the rule. The Forest Service 
Directives System is designed to contain implementation requirements 
and protocols that are more detailed than the rule and provide guidance 
and direction on how to implement the rule. Directives can be updated 
as protocols and methods evolve and improve over time.
    Some people wanted to see very detailed requirements in the rule, 
such as monitoring methods and protocols, while others emphasized the 
need to keep the rule simple so it would endure and could be 
implemented across different landscapes within the NFS. This section 
would ensure that the Agency would establish the needed detail in the 
Directives for effective implementation of the planning rule, while 
allowing rule language to remain strategic, relevant, and useful even 
as conditions change.
    Finally, this section makes clear that the proposed rule would not 
affect treaty rights or valid existing rights, and that plans must 
comply with all applicable laws and regulations. It also includes 
direction for how responsible officials must treat certain information 
that is culturally sensitive to an Indian Tribe or Tribes.
Section 219.2 Levels of Planning and Responsible Official

Levels of Planning

    Planning occurs at three levels--national strategic planning, NFS 
unit planning, and project or activity planning. Section 219.2 of the 
proposed rule describes these levels of agency planning and identifies 
specific attributes and requirements for unit-level planning. The first 
level is national strategic planning. At the second level of planning, 
land management plans are established for administrative units of the 
NFS (typically an individual forest, grassland, or prairie although in 
some instances, a plan will cover more than one forest or grassland). 
Land management plans (also called forest plans, or grassland plans), 
establish requirements and constraints for on-the-ground management 
decisions; they do not authorize projects or activities and do not 
commit the Forest Service to take any action. The proposed rule would 
provide guidance for this level of planning. The third level of 
planning includes development of on-the-ground projects and activities, 
which must be consistent with the unit's land management plan. The 
environmental effects of decisions made at the unit and project levels 
are analyzed and there are opportunities for public involvement at both 
levels.
    Some members of the public suggested the Forest Service undertake 
two additional scales of planning, one at a regional scale between 
national and unit scales and another at a finer scale such as a ranger 
district or watershed. The 1982 rule required the preparation of a 
regional guide and a planning process for the development of that 
guide. The proposed rule does not include a requirement for regional 
planning. After several years of developing and using regional guides, 
the Agency found that they added an additional and time-consuming level 
of planning that often delayed progress of unit planning. Regional 
plans also tended to remain static and did not change as new 
information or science became available. Furthermore, most major issues 
that emerged regionally, such as issues regarding lynx or grizzly 
bears, were ultimately dealt with directly in the individual unit 
plans, usually through simultaneous amendment of multiple unit plans.
    The proposed rule also does not include a requirement for finer 
scale planning (district or watershed scale) below the unit plan level. 
In many cases, units are building this kind of planning into the 
development of the management plan for the unit, with several of them 
using watersheds to organize planning. The proposed rule would allow 
for this to occur, and in Sec.  219.7, would require identification of 
priority watersheds for restoration. However, on some units, watershed 
scale planning might not be appropriate or needed, such as on small NFS 
units or on units with highly intermixed ownerships. Some units that 
are influenced by disturbance regimes that are not defined by watershed 
boundaries may choose other ecological units on which to organize 
planning. This approach is intended to allow the responsible official 
to determine how planning on the unit is best organized based on the 
resources and desired conditions on the unit.

Responsible Official

    The proposed rule identifies the unit supervisor as the responsible 
official for unit-level plans. This is a change from the 1982 rule, 
which identified the regional forester as the responsible official. 
This change is intended to facilitate and encourage active public 
participation by ensuring that the person sitting at the table during 
the planning process is the decisionmaker.
    During public participation to develop the proposed rule, the 
Agency heard from members of the public who felt that empowering the 
supervisor with decisionmaking authority would strengthen the 
collaborative process, while others preferred the current assignment of 
authority to the regional forester because of concerns that the unit 
supervisor may be more inclined to place too much of an emphasis on 
local needs and concerns without being sufficiently responsive to 
national needs or issues of regional consistency. In the proposed rule, 
the Agency tried to create a balance by ensuring that planning would 
not happen in isolation. There are a number of places in the proposed 
rule that call for coordination with other staff in the Agency, 
including the appropriate research station director. The regional 
forester and regional office planning and resource specialists would 
continue to be involved by providing an additional level of oversight, 
including reviewing draft and final products developed during the 
planning process and participating in the development of those 
products. Regional office oversight would help to provide consistency 
in interpretation and implementation of the planning rule and other 
agency planning requirements on units within the region.
    The proposed rule also specifically would allow the option for a 
higher-level official, such as a regional forester,

[[Page 8485]]

to choose to serve as the responsible official. For example, a higher-
level official could assume responsibility for decisionmaking when 
planning issues apply to multiple units.
Section 219.3 Role of Science in Planning
    This section of the proposed rule addresses the role of science in 
planning and would require that the responsible official take into 
account the best available scientific information. This requirement 
would apply throughout the planning process. The intent of this 
requirement is to ensure that the responsible official has access to 
and considers the best available scientific information in order to 
make informed decisions when developing, revising, and amending land 
management plans; that social, economic, and ecological science would 
be appropriately interpreted and applied throughout the planning 
process; and that the best available scientific information would 
increase the understanding of risks and uncertainties and improve 
assumptions made in the course of decisionmaking.
    This proposed rule emphasizes the use of science as an important 
source of information for decisionmaking with the intent that the best 
available scientific information be used to inform, but not dictate, 
decisions. The term ``taking into account'' is used because this term 
expresses that science is just one source of information for the 
responsible official and only one aspect of decisionmaking. Land 
management planning is complex and decisonmakers must consider such 
things as balancing competing values or competing ecological concerns. 
There also may be competing scientific perspectives or uncertainty in 
the science. While the appropriate interpretation and application of 
science provides the foundation for planning, the Agency recognizes 
that other forms of information, such as local and indigenous 
knowledge, public input, agency policies, results of monitoring and the 
experience of land managers must also be taken into account.
    This proposed rule imposes a duty on the responsible official to 
review the available scientific information and determine which is the 
best, that is, the most accurate, reliable, and relevant information 
for the particular matter under consideration. The responsible official 
does not have unfettered discretion in making this determination, but 
must demonstrate and document how the determination was made.
    In some circumstances, the best available scientific information 
would be that which is developed using the scientific method, which 
includes clearly stated questions, well designed investigations and 
logically analyzed results, documented clearly and subjected to peer 
review. However, in other circumstances the best available scientific 
information for the matter under consideration may be information from 
analyses of data obtained from a local area, or studies to address a 
specific question in one area. In other circumstances, the best 
available scientific information could be the result of expert opinion, 
panel consensus, or observations, as long as the responsible official 
has a reasonable basis for relying on that information. Regardless of 
the source of the information, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) Information Quality Bulletin on Peer Review may apply.
    The proposed rule would require the responsible official to 
document how the best available scientific information was taken into 
account in the assessment report, the plan decision document, and the 
monitoring evaluation reports. Through this requirement, the Agency 
seeks to ensure science is considered throughout the planning process 
and decisions are well-thought-out and reasoned. This requirement would 
also provide transparency and an explanation to the public as to how 
science was used and how the responsible official arrived at important 
decisions.
    It is important to note that the Agency is already required to 
incorporate science into decisionmaking. The Agency has a longstanding 
practice of considering relevant factors and explaining the bases for 
its decisions. Including this section in the proposed rule, with its 
explicit requirements for determining and documenting the consideration 
of the information most accurate, reliable, and relevant to making 
planning decisions, will help to ensure a consistent approach across 
the National Forest System. However, this section is not intended to 
impose a higher standard for judicial review than the existing 
``arbitrary and capricious'' standard.
    The requirements of this section of the proposed rule are also 
separate from those of NEPA (40 CFR 1502.22(b)), which requires the 
responsible official to seek out missing or incomplete scientific 
information needed for an environmental impact statement, unless the 
costs of doing so are prohibitive. This section of the proposed rule 
does not change that requirement. However, the requirements proposed in 
section 219.3 apply throughout the planning process, and are focused on 
ensuring the responsible official takes into account the best 
scientific information that is already available. Thus, while an 
assessment report or monitoring evaluation report may identify gaps or 
inconsistencies in data or scientific knowledge, this rule would not 
impose the affirmative duty that the CEQ regulation applies to EISs, 
that is, to engage in new studies or develop new information, or to 
document that the costs of seeking new information are prohibitive.
    During the public participation process to create this proposed 
rule, questions were raised as to what, if anything, the rule should 
say about the role of science in decisionmaking. Some suggested that 
science should inform planning but not have a dominant or exclusive 
role in the decisions. Others wanted more structure or national 
standards. Many expressed the desire that the input of non-scientists 
be used to inform agency decisionmaking as many of the issues and 
problems have social and economic aspects that cannot be resolved 
through scientific or technical solutions. There were differing 
opinions on how science should be used to resolve differences in value 
judgments and how science and public participation should be integrated 
and weighted in the decisionmaking process. The Agency believes the 
proposed rule would strike the appropriate balance for using science as 
an integral and foundational, but not the sole, influence on planning.
    The Forest Service Directive System would contain further detail on 
how to document the consideration of science including identifying the 
sources of data such as peer reviewed articles, scientific assessments, 
or other scientific information, and when applicable, the Forest 
Services' information quality guidelines and OMB's Information Quality 
Bulletin on Peer Review. Direction about science reviews may be found 
in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12--Land Management Planning, Chapter 
40--Science and Sustainability.
Section 219.4 Requirements for Public Participation

Participation Opportunities

    The proposed rule seeks to ensure that the Forest Service provides 
meaningful opportunities for the public to participate early and 
throughout the planning process. This section lists the specific points 
during the planning process when opportunities for public participation 
would be provided. In order to meet these requirements, the responsible 
official must be proactive considering who may be interested in the 
plan, who might be affected by a

[[Page 8486]]

plan or change to a plan, and how to encourage various constituents and 
entities to engage. Additionally, the proposed rule would require the 
responsible official to use collaborative processes when possible, to 
take into account the various roles and responsibilities of 
participants and the responsibilities of the Forest Service itself, and 
to create a process that is open and accessible.
    To develop the public participation requirements of this proposed 
rule, the Forest Service used the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) publication: Collaboration in NEPA--A Handbook for NEPA 
Practitioners at: https://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ntf/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct_2007.pdf, (the rule definition of collaboration, at Sec.  219.19, 
references the CEQ handbook). The CEQ handbook describes a spectrum of 
engagement, including the categories of inform, consult, involve, and 
collaborate. Each of these categories is associated with a set of 
tools, from traditional activities such as notice and comment on the 
inform end of the spectrum, to consensus building or a Federal advisory 
committee on the collaborative end of the spectrum. Because 
``collaboration'' is often associated with only those activities on one 
end of the public engagement spectrum, the rule uses the term ``public 
participation'' to clarify the level of public engagement that could be 
used in the planning process. Every planning process would involve 
traditional scoping and public comment; in addition, the responsible 
official would determine the combination of additional public 
participation strategies that would best engage a diverse set of people 
and communities in the planning process.
    It is important to clarify that while this section of the rule 
commits the Agency to public participation requirements and encourages 
collaboration, the Forest Service would retain final decisionmaking 
authority and responsibility throughout the planning process.
    A successful planning process must be socially inclusive in order 
to adequately reflect the range of values, needs, and preferences of 
society, and especially those who may be affected by land management 
planning. The outcomes of public participation can include a greater 
understanding of interests underlying the issues, a shared 
understanding of the conditions on the unit and in the broader 
landscape that provide the context for planning, the development of 
alternatives that could accommodate a wide range of interests, and the 
potential development of a shared vision for the unit, as well as an 
understanding of how and why planning decisions are made. People 
expressed the desire to participate at a number of points in the 
planning process, including, but not limited to, crafting the proposed 
plan revision or plan amendment and monitoring unit progress toward 
meeting the plan desired conditions, objectives, or other plan 
components.
    The proposed rule specifically would require the responsible 
official to encourage participation by the public, Tribes, governments, 
scientists, and other individuals by sharing knowledge, ideas, and 
resources. It is also expected that the responsible official would rely 
on proactive, contemporary tools, such as the Internet, to encourage 
widespread participation.
    Because the make-up and dynamics of the communities surrounding 
each planning area differ, and because the level of interest in 
decisionmaking may vary, based on the scope and potential impact of the 
decision being contemplated, the responsible official would need the 
flexibility to select the public participation methods that would best 
meet the needs of interested people and communities. Some people wanted 
a rule that contains thorough process and method requirements detailing 
how each unit would conduct public participation. Others wanted the 
responsible official to have full discretion for how public 
participation would be conducted. The Agency is proposing a balanced 
approach that would require the responsible official to engage a 
diverse array of people and communities throughout the planning process 
but would allow flexibility in the methods.
    Many people discussed the need for the Forest Service to make a 
stronger effort to engage groups and communities that traditionally 
have been underrepresented in land management planning. This is 
reflected in the requirement that responsible officials encourage the 
participation of youth, low-income populations, and minority 
populations in the planning process and in the requirements to be 
proactive to use contemporary tools to reach out to the public and 
consider the accessibility of the process to interested groups and 
individuals. The Agency recognizes the need to engage a full range of 
interests and individuals in the planning process and the 
responsibility to promote environmental justice.

Tribal Participation in Land Management Planning

    The proposed rule also acknowledges the Federal Government's unique 
obligations and responsibilities to Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 
Corporations in the planning process. The proposed rule recognizes the 
government-to-government relationship that creates a unique role for 
federally recognized Tribes. As required by Executive Order 13175, 
government-to-government consultation would continue throughout the 
development of plans separately, and in addition to, the process for 
public participation. The Agency also seeks to involve Tribes and 
Alaska Native Corporations throughout the planning process and the 
proposed rule would require the responsible official to encourage their 
participation in the public process. The responsible official would 
work with Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations to seek out native 
knowledge, including information about land ethics, cultural issues, 
and sacred and culturally significant sites as an additional 
opportunity for information sharing and dialog that would augment the 
consultation process.
    Several Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations are concerned about 
keeping information confidential to protect sites from vandalism. 
Responsible officials will protect confidentiality regarding 
information given by Tribes in the planning process and may enter into 
agreements to do so. Participation in a collaborative process would be 
voluntary and would supplement, not replace consultation.
    The Agency heard from Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations that 
the rule should clearly state how the rights and interests of Tribes 
and Alaska Native Corporations would be provided for in the planning 
process. The comments emphasized the obligations the Forest Service has 
to honor the exercise of treaty rights on NFS lands and the need to 
fully recognize the government-to-government relationship that exists 
between the Federal Government and federally recognized Indian Tribes. 
Requirements in this section of the proposed rule, as well as Sec.  
219.1, seek to respond to those comments.

Coordination With Other Public Planning Efforts

    Some local governments also asked that the planning rule require 
land management plans to strive for consistency with local government 
plans. The proposed rule would require that during the plan development 
or plan revision process, the responsible official would review the 
planning and land use policies of federally recognized Indian Tribes 
and of other Federal, State, and local governments and document the 
results of the review in

[[Page 8487]]

the draft EIS. The review would include assessments conducted by other 
Federal agencies, statewide forest resource assessments, community 
wildfire protection plans, or state wildlife action plans. The review 
would consider the objectives of federally recognized Indian Tribes, 
and of other Federal, State, and local governments, as expressed in 
their plans and policies, and would assess the compatibility and 
interrelated impacts of these plans and policies. The review would 
include a determination of how each Forest Service plan should address 
the impacts identified or how each plan might contribute to joint 
goals.
    Requiring land management plans to be consistent with local 
government plans; however, would not allow the flexibility needed to 
address the diverse management needs on NFS lands and could hamper the 
Agency's ability to address regional and national interests on Federal 
lands. In the event of conflict with Forest Service planning 
objectives, consideration of alternatives for resolution within the 
context of achieving NFS goals or objectives for the unit would be 
explored.
Section 219.5 Planning Framework
    This section provides an overview of a proposed new framework for 
land management planning that would require a three-part learning and 
planning cycle: assessment, development/revision/amendment, and 
monitoring. This new framework is science-based and would provide a 
blueprint for the land management process, creating a structure within 
which land managers and partners could work together to understand what 
is happening on the land, revise management plans to respond to 
existing and predicted conditions and needs, and monitor changing 
conditions and the effectiveness of management actions to provide a 
continuous feedback loop for adaptive management.
    In the assessment phase, the responsible official would conduct a 
review of conditions on the ground and in the context of the broader 
landscape, using available ecological, social, and economic data to the 
extent possible. The assessment phase would lead to the identification 
of a potential need to change the unit's plan. In the development, 
revision, or amendment phase, the responsible official would work with 
other government agencies, Tribes, and the public to use the 
information gathered in the assessment phase to shape a proposed action 
that would respond to the need for change. This process would include 
scoping and public comment in accordance with agency National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and would culminate in a 
plan decision. In the monitoring phase, the responsible official would 
implement a monitoring plan informed by the assessment and developed as 
part of the plan, revision, or amendment. This phase would give 
managers data to evaluate management actions and measure effectiveness, 
test assumptions, track changing conditions, and make adjustments to 
both projects and to the land management plan as needed.
    This framework would also guide land managers in working with the 
public and partners before, during, and after plans are written, 
offering participation opportunities to partners and interested parties 
throughout the planning process. An open and participatory approach for 
each phase of the framework is intended to ensure planning efforts are 
well understood; informed by public knowledge and opinion; and 
responsive to ecological, social, and economic conditions that may be 
impacted by management on the unit.
    The approach described in the proposed framework responds to the 
public's stated desire for participation throughout land management 
planning. The assessment phase would allow for early public 
participation--well before a proposed action--so that stakeholders 
could engage in joint fact-finding and develop a mutual understanding 
of the interconnections among social, economic, and ecological 
communities and systems. The development/revision/amendment element of 
the framework responds to the public desire to help develop and provide 
meaningful input to proposals for land management plans. The monitoring 
part of the framework responds to stakeholder's desires for a 
systematic, deliberate, monitoring approach that can inform, and be 
informed, by other monitoring efforts relevant to management on the 
unit. Both stakeholders and the Agency recognize the potential 
efficiencies of a uniform monitoring approach and hope to increase 
information sharing and learning opportunities.
    The proposed framework embraces adaptive management in planning and 
reflects key themes heard from the public, as well as experience gained 
through the Agency's 30-year history with land management planning. The 
new proposed framework is intended to establish a more responsive and 
agile process that would allow the Agency to adapt management to 
changing conditions and improves management based on new information 
and monitoring. As proposed, the framework would support a more 
integrated and holistic approach to management recognizing the 
interdependence among all parts of the ecosystem including the 
communities (biotic and human) and systems (functions and values) that 
are part of each forest.
Section 219.6 Assessments
    This section sets out both process and content requirements for 
assessments. Assessments are intended to provide a solid base of 
information and context for plan decisionmaking. The responsible 
official would have discretion to set the scale and scope of the 
assessment but would engage the public early and would encourage 
participation in the assessment process. The content of assessments 
would be used to develop new plans and plan revisions, to develop 
monitoring questions, and to provide a feedback loop. The scope and 
scale of an assessment could be comprehensive, such as those for a 
revision, or they could be narrow, such as those for an amendment 
focused on one issue.
    Responsible officials would use assessments to determine the unique 
roles and contributions of the unit within the context of the broader 
landscape as well as the need to change the plan. Assessments should 
provide useful information to the responsible official to develop plan 
components and other content for a new or revised plan, to identify 
gaps in needed information that might be filled by a monitoring 
program, to identify changing conditions that the Agency might need to 
track, or to identify assumptions that should be tested later.

Process Requirements

    This section of the proposed rule would require an assessment prior 
to plan revision or development. The responsible official would reach 
out to the public, Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal 
agencies, States, local governments, and scientists to start the 
assessment and help identify the questions and issues to be considered. 
The responsible official would also be required to coordinate with the 
regional forester, and agency staff from State and Private Forestry, 
Research and Development, as well as other governmental and non-
governmental partners to consolidate existing information and develop 
strategies for satisfying any additional information needs. Early 
engagement with a diverse set of interests is needed to create an 
accurate depiction of the issues affecting the plan area and a solid 
base of understanding for any changes needed to the plan.

[[Page 8488]]

    This section of the proposed rule would require the responsible 
official to document the assessment in a report or set of reports. To 
bring transparency and accountability to the assessment process, the 
reports would be available to the public. The report, or set of 
reports, would be included in the planning record and document how the 
relevant best available scientific information was taken into account. 
Within the report, the responsible official would identify how a new 
plan should be proposed or identify the potential need to change an 
existing plan based on the assessment.

Content Requirements

    At a minimum, the content of assessments for revisions and new 
plans would provide information to support development of plan 
components that meet the substantive requirements of other rule 
provisions such as sustainability (Sec.  219.8), diversity (Sec.  
219.9), multiple uses (Sec.  219.10), and the timber requirements based 
on the NFMA (Sec.  219.11). In order that planners have sufficient 
information to meet the requirements set out in sections 219.8 through 
219.11, assessments would include information on existing conditions, 
trends, and stressors, both on and off the unit, which might impact 
resources or ecological, social, or economic sustainability.
    An assessment is expected to use existing information and be 
conducted rapidly in order to respond to changing conditions. Existing 
information may come from sources inside or outside the Forest Service, 
such as assessments conducted by other Federal agencies, statewide 
forest resource assessments, community wildfire protection plans, or 
state wildlife action plans. Existing information would be gathered and 
synthesized for relevant ecological, economic, and social conditions 
and trends within the context of the broader landscape. However, 
nothing in this section would restrict the responsible official from 
gathering new information to address the issues or questions for the 
assessment.

Assessments for Plan Amendments

    Because plan amendments vary in their complexity, this section 
provides a flexible approach to preparing an assessment for a plan 
amendment. Plan amendments would be based on a documented need for 
change but do not require an assessment. In some cases, the information 
from monitoring and evaluation would identify the need for change, or 
the need may arise from an unexpected proposed use such as a new permit 
application. Thus, there would be no need for an assessment. In other 
cases, the assessment would focus on an issue or question that only 
affects a portion of the plan area. In such a case, the scope of the 
assessment would be narrow and scale would be small. In other cases, 
particularly for complex issues that cross unit boundaries, the 
responsible official could conduct a more comprehensive assessment for 
an amendment.
Section 219.7 Plan Development or Plan Revision
    This section sets out requirements for how to develop a new plan or 
revise an existing plan. This section has two primary topics: (1) The 
process for developing or revising plans and (2) the plan, which 
includes plan components and other content in the plan. Plans and plan 
revisions provide direction and guidance and management for the unit as 
a whole. Plan revisions are required every 15 years under the NFMA. 
Most plans would be revised in the 15-year period. However, the 
responsible official has the discretion to determine at any time that 
conditions on a unit have changed significantly such that a plan must 
be revised. A plan revision before the 15-year requirement has been 
rare in the past, and is expected to be rare in the future.
    A plan revision is considered an entirely new plan even if it uses 
much of the same direction and guidance as the previous version.

Process Requirements

    The responsible official would begin by notifying the public of the 
start of a process to draft a proposed plan. That proposal would be 
informed by the assessment(s) that would identify the need to change 
the plan as well as information about the unique roles of the unit in 
the context of the broader landscape.
    Drafting a proposed plan with public participation is a change from 
current planning processes. Typically