[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5124-5153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-804]
[[Page 5123]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest System Land Management Planning Directives; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 /
Notices
[[Page 5124]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
RIN 0596-AC02
National Forest System Land Management Planning Directives
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of issuance of agency final directives.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service is issuing ten (10) final directives to
Forest Service Manuals 1900 and 1920 and Forest Service Handbook
1909.12; chapters zero code, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 80. These
directives establish procedures and responsibilities for implementing
national forest land management planning regulations at 36 CFR part
219, subpart A, published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005
(70 FR 1023). These directives provide consistent overall guidance to
Forest Service line officers and employees in developing, amending, or
revising land management plans for units of the National Forest System.
DATES: These directives are effective January 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the directives are available on the World Wide
Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index or on a compact
disc (CD). Copies of the directives on a CD can be obtained by
contacting Regis Terney by e-mail (rterney@fs.fed.us), by phone at 1-
866-235-6652 or 202-205-0895, or by mail at Regis Terney, USDA Forest
Service, Mailstop 1104, EMC, 3 Central, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20050-1104.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regis Terney, Planning Specialist,
Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (202) 205-0895.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 5, 2005, the Department adopted final planning
regulations for the National Forest System (NFS) at 36 CFR Part 219,
subpart A (70 FR 1023) (also referred to as the 2005 planning rule).
The 2005 planning rule provides broad programmatic direction in
developing and carrying out land management planning. The rule
explicitly directs the Chief of the Forest Service to establish
planning procedures in the Forest Service directives system (36 CFR
219.1(c)).
The Forest Service directives consist of the Forest Service Manual
(FSM) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH), which contain the agency's
policies, practices, and procedures and serve as the primary basis for
the internal management and control of programs and administrative
direction to Forest Service employees. The directives for all agency
programs are set out on the World Wide Web/Internet at http://
www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.
Generally, the FSM contains legal authorities, objectives,
policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a
continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff to
plan and execute programs and activities, while the FSH is generally
the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for
carrying out the policies, objectives, and responsibilities contained
in the FSM.
Need for Direction
Procedural and technical details associated with implementing the
2005 planning rule are needed by NFS units to begin consistent plan
amendments or revisions across all NFS units to prevent confusion and
to improve public involvement and decisionmaking associated with
developing, amending, or revising a land management plan.
Public Participation
On March 23, 2005, the Forest Service issued 12 interim directives
to FSM 1330, 1900, and 1920 and FSH 1909.12 asking for public comment.
This notice of issuance involves final amendments for those interim
directives, except for FSM 1330 and FSH 1909.12, chapters 70 and 90.
FSM 1330 and FSH 1909.12, chapters 70 and 90 will be issued separately.
Comments were submitted by mail, facsimile, and electronically.
During the 90-day comment period (ending on June 21, 2005), the agency
received 365 original responses and 8,727 copies of one form letter.
These responses were analyzed by the Content Analysis Group and
documented in a Content Analysis Report. Of the 365 original responses,
the Forest Service received responses from 324 individuals and 41
organizations, of which 150 were letters, 214 were forms of various
types, and 1 resolution. The Forest Service received responses from 49
states as well as from the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Army Post
Office/Fleet Post Office, and foreign nations.
Response to Comments
Overview
In response to comments, the Forest Service made substantive
changes to the interim directives issued on March 23, 2005, by
decreasing the length approximately 25 percent and reorganizing the
text. This was accomplished primarily by:
1. Reviewing direction to remove redundancies.
2. Questioning the need for the direction.
3. Discussing major topics once.
4. Using more cross-referencing.
5. Removing detailed exhibits from the final directives and
placing, at a later date, more useful exhibits in technical guides on
the Technical Information for Planning Site (TIPS) Web site at http://
www.fs.fed.us/TIPS.
6. Moving detail about plan components, planning process,
monitoring, sustainability, and science from FSM 1920 to the Forest
Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12.
7. Moving all information about the objections process from FSM
1926 of the interim directives to FSH 1909.12, chapter 50.
In addition, the Forest Service moved the previous content of FSM
1922 to FSM 1926. Forest Service Manual 1926 now provides procedures to
revise or amend plans using provisions of the planning regulations in
effect before November 9, 2000 (1982 planning rule) for those
Responsible Officials that choose to continue using those procedures in
accord with 36 CFR 219.14. The Forest Service moved FSM 1922 because
many readers confused the procedures for the 2005 planning rule with
the procedures for using the 1982 planning rule.
Key Issues
Decisionmaking Process
Laws
Comment: The Forest Service should comply with all applicable laws
and with Executive Order 13352.
Response: Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1901.1 identifies the laws
setting forth the requirements for Forest Service planning, while other
applicable authorities are discussed at FSM 1011. In addition,
Responsible Officials are required to comply with applicable laws in
development, revision, amendment, and implementation of plans (70 FR
1034, Jan. 5, 2005).
Executive Order (E.O.) 13352 provides that specific Federal
agencies, including the USDA, should implement laws relating to the
environment and natural resources in a manner that promotes cooperative
conservation and emphasizes local participation in Federal
decisionmaking. The public participation requirements from the 2005
planning rule (36 CFR 219.9) and the directives (FSM 1921.61 and FSH
1909.12, sec. 30) ensure that the interested public, state agencies,
and local governments have the opportunity to participate. The Forest
Service
[[Page 5125]]
believes that the 2005 planning rule and the Forest Service directives
are consistent with E.O. 13352.
State Participation
Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that states play a
meaningful role in the planning process. This should include
encouraging states to establish a state governing body, chartered by
that state, with the authority to create general forest policies and
produce a state guidance document for the management of Federal
forestlands. This could define a state's position on the niche that
Federal forestlands play in the state, clarify state expectations, and
build support for Federal land management plans with State and local
constituents.
Response: The Forest Service agrees that states should play a
meaningful role in the planning process, including a role in defining
the niche that National Forest System lands play in each state. The
2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.9) and directives (FSM 1921.61)
encourage that role. The Responsible Officials will work with state
officials to jointly agree on the type and amount of participation. The
Forest Service does not believe that a specific approach to state
involvement should be identified in the directives because the state
should decide what specific approach may be appropriate for them.
Cooperating Agency
Comment: The Forest Service should provide local and state agencies
the option of cooperating agency status for developing amendments or
plan revisions.
Response: Under Council on Environmental Quality regulations for
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA);
cooperating agency status is appropriate for other Federal, State, or
local governments when they have jurisdiction by law or special
knowledge about the action being addressed in a NEPA analysis (40 CFR
1501.6). When other Federal, State, or local governments have
jurisdiction by law or special knowledge about the action being
addressed, the Responsible Official is encouraged to work with other
State and local governments to determine if cooperating agency status
is the most appropriate way for them to be involved. State and local
governments contacted when the Forest Service is preparing a plan, plan
amendment or plan revision are encouraged to identify their special
expertise and/or jurisdiction by law to assist the local Responsible
Official in determining appropriate designations as cooperating
agencies. The Forest Service believes that the local Responsible
Official is most able to determine how to involve state and local
governments.
Governor's Consistency Review
Comment: The Forest Service should add language to the FSM and
create a process for state review of land management plans similar to
the Governor's Consistency Review statutes created under the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
Response: The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) does
not have a requirement equivalent to the FLPMA requirement for a
governor's consistency review. The Forest Service believes that the
collaborative processes in the 2005 planning rule and the Forest
Service directives, along with the potential for cooperating agency
status when the Responsible Official and a state concludes this to be
appropriate, will provide for meaningful State involvement in the
planning process. The Forest Service believes that early state
involvement, such as identifying a need for change and developing plan
components, will be more beneficial to the Forest Service and the
states than will a consistency review late in the planning process.
States will also be invited to comment on proposed plans during the 90-
day comment period.
National Association of State Foresters
Comment: The Forest Service should coordinate with the National
Association of State Foresters on planning, monitoring, and
assessments.
Response: The Forest Service encourages the National Association of
State Foresters to participate in Forest Service planning at all
levels.
Comment Period
Comment: The Forest Service should add 60 days to the comment
period.
Response: In past planning efforts, a 90-day public comment period
on a proposed plan or plan revision has proved adequate. Historically,
the Forest Service has extended comment periods where circumstances
about a specific planning effort have merited an extension. The 2005
planning rule does not preclude extending the comment period when
needed.
Framework of Directives
Need for Regulations
Comment: The Forest Service should address NFMA's requirement in
the Code of Federal Regulations and not in the Forest Service
Directives System.
Response: The Forest Service interprets NFMA to afford the Forest
Service discretion to provide policy guidance through regulations or
the Forest Service directives. Final regulations for implementing the
NFMA were published in the Federal Register, January 5, 2005 (70 FR
1022). Those regulations provide that guidance in addition to that
provided in the regulations will be provided in the directives.
Directives are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.
Requirements and Content
Comment: The Forest Service should have standards rather than weak
guidelines, which allow too much discretion.
Response: The decision to use guidelines rather than standards was
made in the 2005 planning rule because the standards, as used
previously in land management plans, proved too restrictive. The
directives provide clarification about how guidelines should be written
(FSH 1909.12, sec. 11.3). The Forest Service believes that guidelines
will provide the necessary sideboards for designing projects and
authorizing activities, while allowing line officers needed discretion
to address site-specific situations.
Comment: The Forest Service should create directives that are
inclusive of all direction needed by the planners rather than awaiting
white papers or technical guides.
Response: The directives strive to provide the guidance needed to
develop, revise, and amend plans. However, specific methods and
analytical tools based on new information and changing technologies are
expected to develop rapidly as the Forest Service gains experience
carrying out the new planning and environmental management system
processes. The Forest Service believes that using technical guides will
allow more rapid response to these changes; such as, better examples of
desired conditions, objectives, and associated monitoring programs,
than could occur if all detailed planning techniques were placed in the
directives.
National Direction
Comment: The Forest Service should adopt a system with limited
national direction for forest planners on complying with national legal
mandates.
Response: The 2005 planning rule and the Forest Service directives
for implementing that rule are intended to provide the necessary
guidance essential to ensure quality plans are developed without unduly
limiting local innovation in the process and the plan content.
[[Page 5126]]
Plan Consistency
Comment: The Forest Service should provide guidance to ensure
consistency among Forests.
Response: It is the responsibility of the Regional Foresters (FSM
1921.04a) to coordinate planning between units in the region and
between regions where units adjoin. The directives provide a framework
for developing, revising, and amending plans; while allowing components
of plans to adapt to local situations.
Project Information
Comment: The Forest Service should provide complete and accurate
information about projects. It is unclear how much explanation of
possible project schedules and locations will occur in the plan.
Response: Plans are intended to be strategic documents, providing
limited or no information on schedules and locations of projects. Each
plan will list proposed and possible actions anticipated to provide an
array of opportunities or resource management programs (FSH 1909.12,
sec. 11.2) and a planned timber sale program, including proportion of
probable harvest methods (FSH 1909.12, sec. 65.4). Project disclosure
comes at the project planning level.
Cumulative Effects
Comment: The Forest Service should include requirements for
cumulative effects analysis in the Forest Service directives.
Response: Cumulative effects analysis occurs as a part of project-
level planning in accord with NEPA (FSM 1950, FSH 1909.15) rather than
through forest planning. The comprehensive evaluation report (FSH
1909.12, sec. 24.2), is intended to help provide context for project-
level cumulative effects analyses. The comprehensive evaluation report
will be updated at least every 5 years.
Length and Clarity of Directives
Comment: The Forest Service should shorten the length of the Forest
Service directives. The sheer length of the directives makes them
difficult to absorb. However, some respondents thought that the Forest
Service should acknowledge that all sections of the Forest Service
directives are incomplete, conceptual, ambiguous, and lack guidance
about how concepts may be evaluated or applied and thought they should
be clearer and more consistent.
Response: The final directives have been reduced approximately 25%
from the interim directives to improve clarity and remove
inconsistencies identified by respondents. More guidance on methods
will be available in technical guides.
Guideline Description
Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that the statement
``Direction that compels us to do action is not appropriate'' (FSH
1909.12, sec. 12.23b) is an inappropriate statement. Another respondent
stated that the directives system is not a substitute for plan
direction (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.11, para. 3, item 3).
Response: Although it has been reworded to provide clarity, the
concept that guidelines should not be written to force action remains
unchanged. Guidelines are intended to guide implementing actions, not
cause actions to occur. The description of guidelines has been moved to
FSH 1909.12, section 11.13 in the final directives.
The directives system is not a substitute for plan direction. It
would be redundant to repeat in the plan guidelines or technical design
specifications what already exists in law, regulation, or agency
directives. Where appropriate, these are referenced in a plan rather
than repeated.
Legal Considerations
Litigation
Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that the 2005
planning rule is being litigated and use of the directives could be
found invalid.
Response: The Forest Service recognizes the potential implications
from ongoing litigation of the 2005 planning rule; however, these
implications are outside the scope of the directives.
Plan Implementation
Comment: The Forest Service should include stipulations in the
Forest Service directives that allow the public to challenge the agency
in court if it fails to live up to a plan.
Response: The Forest Service is committed to designing and carrying
out activities consistent with plans. Administrative procedures are in
place that allow the public appeal (36 CFR 215) or object (36 CFR 218)
to certain management actions.
Consistency With NFMA
Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that the directives are
in accord with NFMA, including the act's biodiversity requirements.
Response: The Forest Service believes that the 2005 planning rule,
and the Forest Service directives for carrying out that rule, are
consistent with the requirements of NFMA. The Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended by NFMA,
calls for plans to provide for diversity of plant and animal
communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific
land area (RPA, sec. 6(g)(3)(B)). The 2005 planning rule (36 CFR
219.10(b)) provides for sustaining ecological systems by maintaining
ecosystem diversity and species diversity. The Forest Service
directives provide added guidance in FSM 1921.73 and FSH 1909.12,
section 43, to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities.
National Trails System Act
Comment: The Forest Service should specifically list the National
Trails System Act in the Forest Services directives as an applicable
law.
Response: Forest Service Manual 1920.11 identifies statutory
authorities relevant to planning and references other applicable
authorities found in FSM 1011, including the National Trails System
Act.
Forest Planning
Forest Planning Versus Project Planning
Comment: The directives should acknowledge the increased role for
project planning and provide guidance about how forest and project
planning will link together. The interim directive's discussion of plan
to project evaluation is too generic; for example, when in the process
would cumulative effects on watershed be evaluated?
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 sets up procedures for
developing, revising, and amending plans, as needed, to carry out the
planning rule. The rule at 36 CFR 219.2(c) specifies that not one of
the requirements of the rule apply to projects except as specifically
provided. The final directives at FSH 1909.12, section 29, address how
potential projects are identified and the finding that the project is
consistent with the plan. Project analysis is discussed in detail in
FSH 1909.15; agency procedures for compliance with NEPA. These
directives and Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR
1500 to 1508 guide the environmental analysis for projects, including
analysis of cumulative effects. Although the Forest Service expects
that plan development, revision, and amendment will usually be
categorically excluded, the comprehensive evaluation report will help
set the context for project level analysis.
[[Page 5127]]
Need for Change
Comment: The general premise that plan revisions will address only
those parts of plans needing change and the premise that the new
planning regulations and directives provide a new paradigm for planning
are in conflict. The emphasis should be on a need for change.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, sections 24 and 25,
outline an adaptive management framework for annual and comprehensive
evaluations. An important result of these evaluations is to determine
the need for change in the plan or in monitoring requirements. The 2005
planning rule significantly improves the process for plan development,
revision, and amendment so that the attention of the Forest Service and
the public can focus on only those items that appear to need change.
The Forest Service does not see this as a conflict in the two premises.
Adaptive Management Practices
Comment: An adaptive management approach will enable the Forest
Service to keep up with the best available science and to better
respond to changing conditions.
Response: The Forest Service agrees. An adaptive management
framework is a cornerstone for the 2005 planning rule and the final
directives.
Mandatory Standards
Concern: The Forest Service should continue to call for plans to
contain mandatory, environmentally protective standards. Without
quantitative, measurable, performance standards the plans will lack
commitment, because performance cannot be measured or verified.
Guidelines do not serve this purpose because deviations can be made as
individual projects are designed. This defeats establishing a certain
``minimum'' natural resource protection. This makes plans meaningless
and circumvents the NFMA requirement to adopt plans and carry out
projects consistent with those plans (16 U.S.C., sec. 1604). This, and
other attempts to increase leeway for the Forest Service, does not make
sense given the agency's historical lack of accountability.
Response: The 2005 planning rule does not include standards as a
plan component. The preamble to the proposed rule and the response to
comments for the final rule state the reason for using guidelines.
Conditions on the ground are variable and the Forest Service believes
that mandatory standards are too restrictive. Guidelines allow more
flexibility for making adjustments based on site-specific conditions.
The guidelines in plans are expected to be measurable. Guidelines
should be written with inherent latitude and flexibility to carry out
projects and activities so that adjustment is seldom an issue. However,
if adjustment of guidelines is necessary, the project analysis and
decision document must articulate the reasons for adjusting the
guidelines.
Forest Management Prescription
Comment: Forest management prescriptions should be used to set
performance standards and ensure needed protections and desired
conditions. An example is the Appalachian Trail, which is now has
specific management prescriptions in eight national forest plans,
ensuring consistent administration of the trail.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 11.1
specifically states that plan components may be developed for areas in
units; usually called management areas or geographic areas. Nothing in
the final directives prohibits the continued use of management areas;
as for example, those used by several national forests to provide
consistent management guidance for the Appalachian Trail. The Forest
Service believes that plan components; including desired conditions,
guidelines, and suitability of areas will provide the needed framework
for providing desired experiences, conditions, and protections.
Plan Amendments
Comment: The Forest Service should not allow a plan to be amended
through site-specific project decisions because this discretion would
be abused, used mainly to make easier commodity development, or would
evade the rigorous cumulative effects analysis requirements intended by
NEPA.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 25.4 and 35 CFR
219.8(e) provide that the plan can be amended through approval of a
project or activity. This type of amendment would be considered along
with considering whether the project should be modified or rejected
entirely if the Responsible Official decides the project is not
consistent with the plan. Conditions on the land are highly variable
and the provision for amendments through projects is an important
aspect making plans adaptable and workable. Documentation of the reason
for the plan amendment would be included with the project
documentation. Amendments through projects may be considered for a
variety of projects, not just those that would produce commodities.
NEPA compliance at project level is unchanged.
Management and Geographic Areas
Comment: The Forest Service should not call for plans to contain
management and geographic areas.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 11.1 does not
call for management and geographic areas. It is permissive in that a
unit could use one, both, or neither.
Minimum Components
Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that plans identify the
minimum components and commitments needed to manage multiple uses on a
sustainable basis and to maintain ecological integrity of forest lands.
Forest Service Manual 1921.11 states that plan components should be
realistic and achievable, reflecting the unit's anticipated budget,
staffing and technical capability. Budget levels should not dictate
whether an adequate plan is prepared to reach missions and objectives.
Response: Plans must provide for biological diversity and address
the ecological, economic, and social parts of sustainability as
required by the 2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.10 and FSH 1909.12, ch.
40). Past plans have included desired conditions and objectives that
could not be reached. Having unrealistic plan components does not
enhance sustainability, but does cause considerable frustration and the
feeling that promises were broken. The Forest Service believes that the
provisions of FSM 1921.11 are important and will lead to a much clearer
focus on setting priorities for plan implementation. These plan
components can always be adjusted if more resources become available.
National Strategic Plan
Comment: The Forest Service should establish a national framework
of goals and objectives in its Strategic Plan designed around key
outputs mandated through Congressional direction. Lack of a consistent
framework may cause confusion and lead to many different frameworks for
developing land management plans. There is an inherent tension between
providing consistency between plans and providing flexibility in the
plans to address circumstances that are unique to individual forests.
Response: The Forest Service's National Strategic Plan sets up
goals, objectives, performance measures, and strategies for management
of the NFS mission areas (36 CFR 219.2(a)). Specific performance
measures are identified. The Strategic Plan
[[Page 5128]]
establishes a national vision, based on the Resource Planning Act
assessment and the 127 land management plans for forests, grasslands,
and prairies (FSM 1906.11(b)). The Regional Foresters are required to
ensure use of the Forest Service National Strategic Plan as a context
for developing or refining desired conditions (FSM 1921.04(a)). The
Forest Service agrees that there should be a link between unit plans
and the National Strategic Plan. This link is addressed in the
directives. The link works both ways, with the unit plans considering
national goals and objectives and the National Strategic Plan
considering the plans of each unit.
Plan Set of Documents
Comment: The Forest Service should include in the plan set of
documents any material that may have been used to formulate the
management plan.
Response: The plan set of documents details that were in FSH
1909.12, chapter 50 have been removed from the directives and placed in
a technical guide on the Technical Information for Planning Site (TIPS)
Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS. The Forest Service believes that
detailed guidance and procedures for the plan set of documents and the
planning record are more appropriate for a technical guide. The
description of the plan set of documents is in the planning rule at 36
CFR 219.7(a)(1). The plan set of documents is not limited to only those
things listed in the rule. The Forest Service believes the documents
included should be clearly relevant to plan development and components
and should be limited to final documents.
Options
Comment: There is no guarantee that the Forest Service will
consider options. Not considering options may be illegal.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 25.32 discusses
considering options to proposed changes in plan components. Options may
not be required for some proposed changes that are limited in scope or
if there are no choices to the proposal, such as amendments needed to
put into effect conservation strategies for federally-listed threatened
or endangered species. Options can be used as a valuable part of the
collaborative approach to plan amendment, revision, or development.
Options would be developed with public input and would look at a range
of potential plan components. Options would not be needed for those
components of a proposed plan where the public is in agreement with the
proposal. The Forest Service believes that this iterative and
collaborative approach will be useful, but should be used only where
feasible options are available. There are no legal requirements that
would mandate options be considered every time the plan is changed.
Legal Problems
Comment: The Forest Service should consider legal problems that
will arise from a planning process that is too casual, especially if
the directives are not binding.
Response: The planning rule and directives establish a planning
process and provides a framework that complies with NFMA. As
Responsible Officials develop, revise, or amend plans they are
constrained and guided by a large body of law, regulation, and policy,
as well as, public participation and oversight to ensure full legal
compliance.
Multilevel Planning
Comment: The directives description of multilevel planning is
inconsistent with the planning rule. The rule is for plan development
only and discussion of considering cumulative effects from projects is
not appropriate.
Response: The description of the Forest Service planning process
has been moved to FSM 1906. Reference to cumulative effects from
projects during the comprehensive evaluations has been deleted,
although the Forest Service does believe that comprehensive evaluations
should use available data from several sources and some information
developed during project development and implementation will be useful.
Supreme Court Decisions
Comment: The Forest Service should not try to extend the Supreme
Court decisions in Ohio Forestry and Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness
Association (SUWA) to forest planning. The questions addressed in these
cases do not address the questions of the 2005 planning rule and
directives about whether and environmental assessment (EA) or an
environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for preparation of a
programmatic plan.
Response: The explanation for this approach to compliance with NEPA
is discussed in detail in the preamble to the final 2005 planning rule
(70 FR 1034, Jan. 5, 2005). Many factors, besides the Supreme Court
decisions cited, led to the approach in the final rule and directives.
Desired Conditions
Comment: The directives should give added guidance on how to
describe and select desired conditions from an ecological standpoint.
Historical conditions or range of variability may not be a suitable
guide. The directives should include how climatic, cultural and
historical changes have and will influence desired conditions.
Response: A technical guide will be available on the Technical
Information for Planning Site (TIPS) Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/
TIPS. The range of variation under historic disturbance regimes is an
important context; however, additional direction on how to develop
desired conditions is found in FSH 1909.12, chapter 40.
Comment: Desired conditions should have an expanded role as a key
plan component.
Response: Plan components are discussed in FSH 1909.12, section 11.
The Forest Service agrees that desired conditions are a key plan
component. Other components such as objectives, guidelines, and
suitable uses must be developed consistent with moving toward or
maintaining desired conditions.
Comment: The Forest Service should have an appropriate focus of
desired conditions, whether on ecological, social or economic elements.
Desired conditions should focus on vegetation conditions with general
statements on the contribution to a range of recreation uses and
contributions to economies through commodity production. Desired
conditions should include considerable detail on social and economic
elements, such as sense of remoteness, cultural heritage, and how
ecosystem management will address human-related issues.
Response: Desired conditions describe ecological, social, and
economic attributes and should be integrated to consider the needs of
all relevant resources, ongoing activities, and natural processes (FSH
1909.12, sec. 11.11). The statements of desired conditions will vary
considerably from unit to unit based on conditions and public wants.
Some statements of desired conditions may focus more on vegetation
conditions while others focus on social and economic conditions and
contributions. It would be inappropriate for the directives to
prescribe an emphasis that would be used on every unit.
Realistic Objectives
Comment: The Forest Service should develop realistic desired
conditions that can be maintained under expected budgets besides
developing realistic objectives for the plan period. Desired conditions
should be changed to produce more revenue if adequate
[[Page 5129]]
funding is not received to maintain desired conditions.
Response: The Forest Service agrees that all plan components should
be realistic and achievable. They should show the unit's anticipated
budget levels, staffing, and capability for the plan period (FSM
1921.11). Through annual and comprehensive evaluations during plan
implementation, the Forest Service may identify the need to adjust plan
components that appear to be unrealistic. Adjustments in plan
components would not always produce more revenue for plan
implementation, as annual budgets are largely dependent on
Congressional appropriations.
Monitoring
Comment: The Forest Service should use monitoring as a tool to
identify information that may improve land productivity or provide
alternative means of meeting desired conditions.
Response: The Forest Service believes that the primary purpose of
monitoring is to find out whether plan implementation is reaching plan
objectives and desired conditions. The Forest Service agrees that
monitoring the effects of management activities on the productivity of
the land is important. Monitoring may trigger the need to look for
alternative means of meeting the desired conditions.
Measurable, Quantitative Criteria
Comment: To be a legitimate plan, it must include measurable,
quantitative criteria for goals and objectives, including desired
conditions, and make an affirmative commitment to reaching those
results. Desired conditions are the foundation of a plan. A document
lacking affirmative commitments to reaching goals, desired conditions,
and objectives is not a plan.
Response: The Forest Service agrees that desired conditions and
objectives should be measurable. If monitoring and plan evaluation
identify that desired conditions cannot be reached, the plan should be
amended or revised (FSH 1909.12, sec. 11.11). The Forest Service
intends to carry out projects and activities to maintain or make
progress toward desired conditions and objectives. However, because
there is uncertainty, the Forest Service believes plans are
aspirational.
Role of Responsible Official
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify who is the Responsible
Official.
Response: ``Responsible Official'' is defined in the definitions
section of the planning rule (36 CFR 219.16). The Responsible Official
is the official with the authority and responsibility to oversee the
planning process and to approve plans, plan amendments, and plan
revisions. The Responsible Official for plan development, revision, and
amendment is the forest, grassland, or prairie supervisor (FSM
1921.04(b)).
Comment: The Responsible Official should be given more flexibility
to respond to scientific advancements and threats from invasive
species, disease, or wildfire. Another respondent was concerned that
Responsible Officials have too much discretion and that the directives
should include safeguards against abuse.
Response: The Forest Service believes that the authority and
discretion for plan amendment, revision, and development provided by
the 2005 planning rule and the directives is appropriate. The planning
process is greatly streamlined, specifically with the intent of
improving Forest Service capability to adapt to changing conditions and
new information. Although there is greater discretion, the decisions of
the Responsible Official are constrained and guided by a large body of
law, regulation, and policy, as well as public and agency participation
and oversight.
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the discretion of the
Responsible Official to set the scope and applicability for project
decision amendments so that every time a project was inconsistent with
the plan, the Responsible Official would not be able to amend the plan
to allow that project to go ahead; making the plan meaningless.
Response: The discussion of amendments through project decisions is
now set out at FSH 1909.12, section 25.4. The Forest Service has
clarified that the Responsible Official may limit the scope and
applicability of the plan amendment to apply only to the project or
activity area. It is important to understand that these amendments
would not exempt the project or activity from plan compliance, but
would adjust plan components in response to more site-specific
information gained through the project analysis. There is no way to
find out in advance how often the option of amending a plan will be
used; however, the directives advise that plans should be monitored to
identify if there is a need for change over all or part of the plan
area.
Role of Science in Planning
Comment: The Forest Service should require the use of the best
available science in forest planning. The role of science must not be
diminished to just ``one aspect of decisionmaking,'' an aspect
superseded by ``competing use demands,'' for example.
Response: In FSM 1921.81, the Forest Service describes the steps
required to ensure that the best available science is taken into
account. In FSH 1909.12, section 41.1 direction was added about the
scope, timing, and other aspects of a review. Forest Service Handbook
1909.12, section 41.22, table 3, lays out the many steps in developing
a plan and suggests appropriate reviews for each step.
Wildlife Conservation
Comment: Science needs to be a major factor; monitoring and
regulations need to be in place to keep a natural balance and conserve
our wildlife, endangered species and their important habitats.
Response: The Forest Service concurs that science is a major factor
in decisionmaking. As written, the directives tie monitoring and
science together.
Identification of Best Available Science
Comment: The evaluation and determination of what science
constitutes the best available science should be conducted by people
with the appropriate scientific knowledge and background.
Response: In response to comments, direction has been added to FSH
1909.12, section 41.23 that describes the qualifications of the
reviewers. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 41.1 provides more
direction.
Consistency in the Use of Science
Comment: The Forest Service should be consistent in its use of
science. Under the directives, some forests will have plans based on
top-notch scientific review, others will not.
Response: To ensure consistency and quality, FSM 1921.8 and FSH
1909.12, section 41 provide direction on how to take into account
science. FSH 1909.12, section 41 emphasizes that the level of review
must be commensurate with the controversy, uncertainty, or risk
associated with the planning activity. To always require a type or
scale of review means the same review would be done on all planning
efforts regardless of the complexity or scope. The Responsible Official
needs the flexibility to conduct a review that is appropriate to the
issue being reviewed.
Definition of Best Available Science
Comment: The Forest Service should require the Responsible Official
to define the ``best available science.'' How will this be done? Again,
the directives contain no direction for the responsible officials.
[[Page 5130]]
Response: Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1921.85 states, ``the
Responsible Official shall conduct timely and substantive reviews of
the science applied during the planning process.'' Best available
science cannot be described in a directive, but can be taken into
account by using appropriate procedures. A four-step discovery process
for best available science, modified in the final directives, is
described in FSM 1921.81. When the four-step process is followed and an
appropriate review is conducted the best available science should be
taken into account and properly influence plan components. Forest
Service Handbook 1909.12, section 41.23 requires that reviewers be
independent of the plan development and implementation process.
Responsible Official Discretion
Comment: The Forest Service should limit how cost influences the
appropriate science determinations that are left to the Responsible
Official.
Response: The Forest Service believes that the direction found in
FSM 1921.8 and FSH 1909.12, section 41 provides enough direction to
Responsible Officials regarding the role of science and properly
directs the Responsible Official to consider cost in assessing how to
best apply science in the planning effort. The Responsible Official is
required to disclose how best available science was taken into account.
Scientific Data From Citizen Groups
Comment: The Forest Service should consider scientifically sound
data provided by citizen groups. Citizen groups frequently contribute
scientifically sound data and analysis that counters and balances the
often pro-resource harvesting plans promoted by Forest Service
employees.
Response: The Forest Service agrees that citizen groups need to
have meaningful participation in the planning process. The input of
citizens can influence the application of science. The methods for
gathering and considering citizen input are addressed in the directives
under collaboration (FSM 1921.6 and FSH 1909.12, sec. 30).
Define ``Other Appropriate Means''
Comment: The Forest Service should define the phrase ``other
appropriate means'' as used in the Forest Service directives to
describe how the Responsible Official documents that science was
appropriately interpreted and applied in the planning process.
Response: The final directives identify four levels of review and
address when and how to use them in FSH 1909.12, section 41.
Use of Systematic Evidence Review
Comment: The Forest Service should consider a system of gathering
and synthesizing scientific information that is similar to the
``Systematic Evidence Review,'' a system used by the medical profession
to gather information for clinical practice guidelines.
Response: The Forest Service believes that the method described in
FSM 1921.81 represents the state-of-the-art for science review for
natural resource management, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. 2003. Science Consistency Reviews: A Primer for Application.
FS-771. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
9 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. The Science
Consistency Review: A Tool to Evaluate the Use of Scientific
Information in Land Management Decisionmaking. FS-772. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 32 p.).
Public Participation and Collaboration
Public Input
Comment: The Forest Service should provide more opportunity for
public input to the planning process to decrease litigation, make the
process more democratic, comply with NFMA, ensure resource protection,
ensure an appropriate range of alternatives, and determine the extent
of plan revisions.
Response: Public participation in land management planning is
required under NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)) and the Forest Service will
continue to fulfill its obligations to involve the public in meaningful
ways. The NFMA stresses public review of plans and revisions while
allowing other participation. The Forest Service believes the agency
directives are a better reflection of public and agency interest in an
open process that includes collaborative ways of working together
rather than methods that are more formal. Not everyone wants to
participate or provide input the same way. The Forest Service believes
Responsible Officials should have the discretion to design processes
that meet participant and agency needs and; as appropriate, go beyond
public review and public meetings. The directives (FSH 1909.12, sec.
31.4) provide Responsible Officials with the discretion to select the
most current and suitable activities for meeting requirements; yet,
they require those officials to involve the public in specific planning
activities, including evaluating whether need for changing the plan
exists, setting up the basis for that need, developing plan components,
designing the monitoring program, and conducting regular comprehensive
evaluations. These expectations go beyond land management planning and
into the activities of public land management.
Public Scrutiny of Plan Documents
Comment: The interim directives left open the possibility that
public scrutiny of some plan documents might not occur, specifically
referring to public involvement and scrutiny of management review
documents and annual monitoring reports.
Response: Responsible Officials should make publicly available
information developed as part of the planning process (FSM 1921.65).
Legal considerations, such as the Privacy Act or the FOIA, can impose
limits on certain disclosures affected by those considerations. The
section in the interim directives about management review has been
removed. The directives, FSH 1909.12, section 31.5, now clarify the
expectation that public participation will occur in identifying the
need for change. Also, Responsible Officials have the discretion to
involve interested and willing members of the public in agency work,
including the work of annual monitoring. The Forest Service's long
history of working with the public to do the work of responsible and
adaptive public land management will continue.
Roles of Line Officers
Comment: The interim directives referred to line officers playing a
variety of roles (FSM 1921.61 in the ID) during a collaborative process
and it was unclear whether this referred just to roles or to some
implied detail of the intended public participation process.
Response: The past reference has been removed because it did not
provide direction to agency officials and was, therefore, confusing to
readers.
Decision Responsibility
Comment: The interim directives were unclear about whether the
agency has ultimate responsibility for planning decisions, specifically
referring to interim direction about shared leadership as a goal of
public participation and collaboration.
Response: In NFMA, Congress has charged the Forest Service with the
responsibility and authority to manage lands in agency jurisdiction and
has made the agency solely accountable for the results of that
management. Even so, the agency is committed to exercising its
responsibility with the help of willing and interested individuals,
groups,
[[Page 5131]]
tribes, state and local governments, agencies, and other partners. The
Forest Service agrees that the phrase shared leadership was unclear.
The goal is to build better plans using principles that increase our
ability to put into effect, evaluate, and adapt those plans by working
with others who are willing to participate.
Responding to Specific Public Comments
Comment: Agency responses to public comments should address every
comment individually, rather than by grouping similar comments, because
salient points are often missed when grouping occurs.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 25.34 addresses
agency response to public comments. The Forest Service believes that
the directives provide Responsible Officials with appropriate
discretion to respond to individual comments when salient points merit
such a response while responding to groupings of similar comments when
a common salient point is evident. The emphasis is on concise responses
to salient points that substantively improve the land management plan
components or that differ from or support the Responsible Official's
reason for approving the plan.
Collaboration Aspirations
Comment: The interim direction about collaboration contained vague
and poorly defined aspirations that may negatively affect agency
aspirations for collaboration, in part by stressing a bureaucratically
centered approach to collaboration.
Response: The Forest Service agrees that the directives are not the
only mechanism by which the agency will realize its goal of
collaborative public land management and that aspirations, while
needed, are not enough. The directives set up the goal of building
better plans using public participation and collaboration activities;
clarify the Responsible Official's discretion about timing and methods
of those activities; and set up agency policy for public participation
in land management planning. The principles the agency will follow when
meeting this goal include building and maintaining working
relationships, trust, and collaborative capacity; encouraging a shared
understanding of values, concerns, roles, and the responsibilities of
all participants; and other principles found in FSH 1909.12, section
31.2. The Forest Service believes that this goal and these principles
are an important part of realizing the agency's goal of collaborative
public land management.
Define Collaborative Process
Comment: A clearly defined collaborative process is needed to
ensure uniformity, consistency, and enforceable standards. Some
respondents commented that Forest Supervisors could go ahead
unilaterally and not involve the public at key points. Others commented
that a measure of effectiveness is needed and that consultation with
social scientists should occur when developing that measure. Lastly, a
respondent commented that the term ``vision'' and the phrase ``strategy
development'' need definition for public participation and
collaboration.
Response: The Forest Service believes that the goal of
collaborative public land management is best served by defining
principles of public participation and collaboration; defining the plan
components and planning activities that public participation and
collaboration must address; and providing Responsible Officials with
the discretion to tailor timing and methods to meet those mandates. The
Forest Service believes that a uniform and consistent process is
inappropriate for collaborative public land management because such a
process is autocratic and therefore, is not collaborative. Such a
process would not allow participants to help tailor the process to meet
their needs and agency mandates. Yet, the directives establish that
Responsible Officials, most often Forest Supervisors, must involve the
public in specific planning activities; including, identifying whether
any need to change the plan exists, developing plan components,
designing of the plan monitoring program, and updating of comprehensive
evaluations. At times, a series of public meetings may be appropriate.
At other times, other methods will be appropriate. Evidence of
responsiveness to the established principles should show the
effectiveness of the timing and methods chosen by the Responsible
Official. The Forest Service agrees that the term ``vision'' and the
phrase ``strategy development'' were unclear and has removed those
terms from the FSH 1909.12, chapter 30 regarding public participation
and collaboration.
Keeping Interested Participants Involved
Comment: The directives on public participation and collaboration
need clearer direction about how to keep interested participants
involved and not disenfranchised.
Response: The Forest Service agrees that keeping interested
participants engaged in the planning process is crucial to a successful
plan. The Forest Service believes the principles established in FSH
1909.12, chapter 30, reaffirm keeping interested participants involved
by building, earning, and maintaining the working relationships, trust,
and collaborative capacity. The agency will work with partners to
disseminate existing techniques for accomplishing this goal and will
develop more materials as needed.
Separate Topics
Comment: Separation of the topics of public participation and
collaboration is needed because public participation is mandated by law
or regulation, while collaboration is not, and collaboration is a
subset of public participation.
Response: The Forest Service must use a collaborative and
participatory planning process to comply with NFMA and its implementing
regulations in 36 CFR part 219. The Forest Service believes that
collaborative activities are an important form of public participation
during planning efforts and believes that collaborative activities
extend beyond planning efforts. By treating these topics together, the
Forest Service believes that better plans will result.
Consider Landowner Desires
Comment: The Forest Service should require Responsible Officials to
consider landowner desires when setting up plan components because
discretionary guidance is inconsistent with other references to
collaboration.
Response: In agency direction, the verb ``should'' requires
compliance except for justifiable reasons (FSM 1110). The Forest
Service regulations require Responsible Officials to involve the public
in developing plan components (36 CFR 219.9). The directives require
Responsible Officials to strive to identify and notify potentially
interested individuals, including landowners, and provide opportunities
to engage in setting up plan components (FSM 1921.62). The directives
also require Responsible Officials to involve the public in setting up
plan components (FSH 1909.12, sec. 31.5). The Forest Service believes
this direction requires consideration of landowner desires as part of
the participatory and collaborative process of identifying desired
social, ecological, and economic conditions.
Notification
Comment: The Forest Service should publish all plan amendments in
the Federal Register.
[[Page 5132]]
Response: Public notification procedures for plan amendments are
specified in the 2005 planning rule, 36 CFR 219.9(b)(2), and are not
modified by the planning directives.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Comment: The Forest Service should continue to do EISs including
developing alternatives for planning.
Response: The Forest Service has 25 years of experience developing,
amending, and revising plans under the requirements of NEPA. Based on
that experience, and the recognition by the Supreme Court in Ohio
Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club and Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance about plans themselves, the Forest Service believes that land
management plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments developed under
the 2005 planning rule, and that do not approve projects or activities,
do not individually or cumulatively result in significant effects on
the human environment. For these reasons, the Forest Service believes
that continuing the practice of developing EISs for plans is not
needed.
Public Participation
Comment: Public participation opportunities should be provided
consistent with the requirements of NEPA.
Response: The intent of the 2005 planning rule and the Forest
Service directives is that public participation in the planning process
be open and meaningful. The Forest Service believes that calling for
frequent and collaborative public involvement in the planning process
(FSM 1921.61, FSH 1909.12, sec. 30) will allow the views and values of
the public to be better shown in plans than has historically occurred
following the public involvement procedures specified by NEPA.
Cumulative Effects
Comment: Planning should give citizens information about the
cumulative effects of various forest uses.
Response: The comprehensive evaluation report (CER) (FSM 1921.2,
FSH 1090.12, sec. 24.2), while not considered a cumulative effects
analysis, is intended to provide context for understanding the effects
of various forest uses and activities. Because the CER is to be updated
at least every 5 years its value in providing this context should be
retained. Cumulative effects will be reviewed and disclosed during NEPA
compliance at the project level.
Options Proposed by the Public
Comment: Forest Supervisors should be required to consider plan
options that conservationists and others propose.
Response: Plan components, including options for plan components,
are required to be developed with public input and input from other
agencies (FSH 1909.12, sec. 25.32b).
Categorical Exclusion (CE)
Comment: The Forest Service should not categorically exclude (CE)
plans from NEPA requirements or allow the exclusion of public
participation in the planning process.
Response: Under the Council on Environmental Quality procedures for
carrying out NEPA, categorical exclusion of a proposed action from
documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or
environmental assessment (EA) is one way of complying with NEPA
requirements (40 CFR 1500.4(p), 1501.4(a), 1508.4). The Council on
Environmental Quality regulations specifically authorize Federal
agencies (40 CFR 1507.3(b)) to identify classes of actions that
normally do not call for either an EIS or an EA. The Forest Service
believes that adoption of a plan falls into this class of actions
because it does not result in specific on-the-ground action; and
therefore, does not result in effects that can be analyzed (40 CFR
1508.23). The 2005 planning rule and Forest Service directives make
open and meaningful public participation a central land management
planning responsibility of the Responsible Official (FSH 1909.12, sec.
30). The Forest Service requested public comment on the proposal
planning CE by notice in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005. The
comment period closed on March 7, 2005.
Scientific Input
Comment: Amending and revising plans using CEs would unfairly and
unwisely restrict scientists from providing important feedback to the
government about natural resources.
Response: The public involvement processes under the 2005 planning
rule and Forest Service directives are intended to involve all
interested members of the public, along with other agencies, states and
tribes.
Project Analysis
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify whether either an EIS or
EA will be needed for each project.
Response: Any proposed action carrying out a plan developed under
the 2005 planning rule (70 CFR part 1039) will be subject to Forest
Service NEPA procedures at the time of the project decision, except in
those rare instances when a project decision is made in a plan and that
decision is supported by an EIS or EA assessment. Determination of the
type of NEPA analysis and documentation will be made using Forest
Service procedures found in FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15 based on the
characteristics of the individual actions proposed.
NEPA Compliance for Directives
Comment: The Forest Service should develop permanent planning
directives through a process that complies with NEPA.
Response: The Forest Service directives have been developed in
compliance with NEPA procedures. Forest Service NEPA procedures (FSH
1909.15, sec. 31.12, category 2), which were developed in consultation
with the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 1507.3--Protection of the Environment,
Council on Environmental Quality, Agency procedures, allow Service-wide
policies to be categorically excluded from documentation in an EIS or
EA. Developing Forest Service directives fits that category.
NEPA Handbook
Comment: The Forest Service should delete all references to NEPA in
favor of directing planners to the NEPA handbook for the specifics of
NEPA compliance.
Response: This change has been made in the final directives.
Adaptive Management Process
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the stages at which the
adaptive management process undergoes NEPA compliance.
Response: NEPA analysis occurs at the project level.
NEPA Application
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify whether FSM 1922 applies
NEPA at the Forest planning level or the local project level for land
management planning using planning regulations before November 9, 2000.
Response: Forest Service Manual 1926.04b clarifies that planning
under the regulations in effect before November 9, 2000, calls for
compliance with NEPA procedures found in FSH 1909.15. Forest Service
Handbook 1909.15 identifies the NEPA requirements for project
decisions.
[[Page 5133]]
Project EISs
Comment: The Forest Service should call for EISs for individual
projects and not for land management plans.
Response: The intent of the 2005 planning rule and Forest Service
directives is to use EISs for plans only when the plan decision
includes projects otherwise needing an EIS. Individual projects will
include NEPA documentation consistent with the requirements of FSH
1909.15. The documentation (EIS, EA, or CE) will depend on the specific
proposal.
NEPA Compliance and Public Participation
Comment: The NFMA requires the Forest Service to meet NEPA
requirements for public participation and that those requirements
include an iterative process of developing alternatives, soliciting and
responding to public comments, and consideration of proposals from non-
agency sources.
Response: NFMA directs the Forest Service to specify procedures to
ensure that the agency prepares land management plans in accordance
with NEPA (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). NEPA directs the Forest Service and
other Federal agencies to make environmental information available to
the public before decisions occur and to encourage public involvement
in decisions that affect the quality of the human environment. The
directives set up procedures that ensure the agency prepares plans in
accordance with NEPA, make information available to the public before
decisions occur, and encourage public involvement in decisions and in
implementing those decisions. The directives also maintain agency
responsibility to consider and respond to public comments and to
provide environmental information before decisions occur. And the
directives set up the expectation that the planning process and the
plans will be adaptive and, therefore, iterative so that the agency and
the public work to develop plan components in a way that seeks
continual improvement.
Objections
Objection Process
Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that objections made by
the public are reviewed and that the reviewing officer responds point-
by-point and accepts e-mailed objections.
Response: Requirements of the objection process have been moved
from FSM 1926 to the FSH 1909.12, chapter 50. Although not requiring a
``point-by-point'' response, FSH 1909.12, section 51.31 calls for the
Reviewing Official to ``provide a response on any remaining issues,
including the basis of the response * * *'' This requirement ensures
that objection issues are addressed by the Reviewing Official but does
not require that the response be exhaustive to make prompt resolution
of objections easier based on the requirements of the final rule. The
final directives require acceptance of e-mailed objections (FSH
1909.12, sec. 51.13e).
Standing To Object
Comment: The Forest Service should make participation in the
objection process open only to those parties that have provided prior
written comment and limit the issues to those raised during the comment
period.
Response: The objection process is established in Title 36, Code of
Federal Regulations, part 219.13--and detailed in FSH 1909.12, chapter
50. Eligibility to file objections is based upon having participated in
the planning process through submission of at least one written comment
as an individual. A group may submit comments, but that does not
establish eligibility for all members of that group. The final
directives do not limit objections issues to those already submitted
during prior comment opportunities. A proposed plan, amendment, or
revision released for the objection period might provoke new responses
from interested parties that have participated throughout the planning
process. Limiting objection issues to past issues unnecessarily
constrains opportunities for new ideas or fresh perspectives to be
raised through objection that might improve the final plan.
Administrative Appeal
Comment: The Forest Service should provide provisions for
administrative appeal or judicial review of objections in the Forest
Service directives because any person, regardless of whether they
submitted comments, has standing to file an objection or judicial
review.
Response: The objection process under the planning rule and
directives replaces an administrative appeals process previously set
out at 36 CFR part 217. The directives do not address the availability
of judicial review, which will be governed by generally applicable
legal principles.
NEPA
Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that the objection
process in the Forest Service directives is compliant with NEPA that
actively and aggressively calls for public involvement, usually on a
national scale.
Response: The new planning rule and directives provide extensive
opportunity for public participation that exceeds requirement for
public participation under NEPA. See the Preamble to the 2005 planning
rule (70 FR 1034, Jan. 5, 2005) for more extensive discussion of the
relation between the 2005 planning rule and NEPA.
Extensions
Comment: The Forest Service should allow extensions to the
objection time period because a 30-day objection period is too short.
Response: The final directives retain the requirement of a 30-day
objection period with no time extension. The final rule is clear in its
intent to promote prompt resolution of objections through specific time
frame requirements while fostering collaboration to resolve objection
issues. Collaboration throughout the planning process is expected to
keep the public participants in the process informed so that when a
proposed plan, amendment, or revision is released for the objection
period, 30 days would be enough to review and submit a timely
objection.
Time Limit for Reviewing Officer
Comment: The Forest Service should provide a time limit for the
Reviewing Officer to respond to an objection.
Response: No time limit is required in the final directives for the
Reviewing Officer except to ``promptly render a written response to the
objection'' (36 CFR 219.13(c)). Unlike the administrative appeals
process, in which revised plans could go into effect after the record
of decision was signed, but before plan appeals were decided, the
Reviewing Officer and Responsible Official have an incentive to resolve
objections promptly because the plan, amendment, or revision cannot be
approved until objections are resolved.
Collaborative Process
Comment: The Forest Service should keep the objection process
separate from the collaborative process.
Response: The final rule and directives require that parties to the
objection must have submitted written comments before the objection
period (36 CFR 219.13(a)). A collaborative effort to resolve objection
issues is encouraged.
Mandatory Conflict Resolution
Comment: The Forest Service should make collaboration mandatory for
resolving conflicts during the objection
[[Page 5134]]
process and clarify how it will be carried out.
Response: The objection process is mandatory before approval of all
proposed plans, amendments, and revisions (36 CFR 219.13(a)).
Collaboration may be used to resolve objection issues through an effort
between the Reviewing Officer, the Responsible Official, and the
objector(s). The means of resolving objections is left to the Reviewing
Officer to decide (FSH 1909.12, sec. 50.47)).
Social, Ecological, and Economic Sustainability
General Concerns
Sustainability
Comment: The Forest Service should focus on conservation and
restoration of ecosystem diversity and provide standards in the
directives so that the Responsible Official will include meaningful
provisions for sustainability in the plan.
Response: Explanation of the goal of ecological sustainability is
provided in FSM 1921.73. Although that section does not provide strict
standards for ecological sustainability, it does provide the
Responsible Official enough direction to establish a framework that
will make appropriate contributions to ecological sustainability.
Specific provisions in the plan will be found during plan development
with public involvement.
Sustainability
Comment: The Forest Service should add a section to the Forest
Service directives that explains how to blend the three parts of
sustainability together rather than focusing solely on the ecological
aspects of sustainability.
Response: Plans must combine the parts of sustainability because
social and economic conditions affect, and are affected by, ecological
conditions, and also ecological conditions affect, and are affected by,
social and economic conditions. Plans are also required to set up plan
components, especially desired conditions, in response to connections
among the Forest and social, economic, and ecological systems.
Integrating these three facets of the environment is a new and
challenging task for Forest Service land management planning. The
manner of integration is, in the first instance, left to the discretion
of the Responsible Officer. Placing more specific direction in the
Forest Service directives is inappropriate at this time. Specific
recommendations about how to carry out integration employing best
available science will be found on the TIPS (Technical Information for
Planning Site at http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS) as forests gain knowledge
and experience about how to do the integration.
Sustainability
Comment: The Forest Service should base its assessment of
sustainability on properly functioning, ecological conditions and not
social or economic conditions.
Response: The Forest Service believes sustainability results from
the interaction of social, economic, and ecological conditions. The
assessment of ecological sustainability is based on the range of
variation wherever adequate information is available. This approach is
widely recognized in scientific literature. Proper functioning
condition (PFC) is an assessment tool that was developed for riparian
systems. Although PFC has seen some application to broader forest
communities, there is stronger scientific support for use of the range
of variation.
Evaluating the Elements of Sustainability
Comment: Productivity is conspicuously missing from the evaluation
criteria.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.26 refers to
the provision of ``ecological conditions'' for species. In the 2005
planning rule, ``ecological conditions'' are defined as ``components of
the biological and physical environment that can affect diversity of
plant and animal communities and the productive capacity of ecological
systems'' (emphasis added). Also, one of the characteristics of
ecosystem diversity listed in FSH 1909.12, section 43.12 is basic soil
productivity.
Properly Functioning Ecological Condition
Comment: All forest units should be maintained in a properly
functioning ecological condition to provide a gauge when uses being
applied to the unit are not sustainable. This should be assessed by
comparing exploited forest units to ``control'' units.
Response: Using the range of variability as context for
sustainability has considerable scientific support. ``Control'' units
are introduced in FSH 1909.12, section 43.13 using the term ``reference
areas''.
Sustainability Monitoring
Comment: Chapter 40 provides guidance for socioeconomic monitoring,
but no guidance for ecological sustainability monitoring. The Forest
Service should consider providing more specific guidance for ecological
sustainability monitoring into its handbook.
Response: Guidance for monitoring of sustainability is provided in
FSH 1909.12, section 12.
Ecosystem Diversity Characteristics
Comment: The Forest Service should revise its list of ecosystem
diversity characteristics in chapter 40 of its handbook because the
current list is too prescriptive.
Response: The characteristics displayed in FSH 1909.12, section
43.12, exhibit 01 are clearly labeled as examples and not
characteristics for which analysis is required. Therefore, the list
isn't prescriptive and will serve as an aid to help find those
characteristics that are appropriate for a given local situation.
Risk Assessment
Comment: Expand chapter 40 to include the risk assessment process
to determine the long-term impacts of untreated forest fuel conditions
on social, economic, and ecological sustainability.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.14a provides
guidance for use of a risk assessment process for all characteristics
of ecosystem diversity including those that would be impacted by forest
fuels.
Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities
Comment: Directives should ensure that national forests provide a
diversity of plant and animal communities by making the ecological
sustainability provisions mandatory.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.1 directs
that the assessment of ecosystem diversity ``inform * * * the
development of plan components through the establishment of desired
conditions, objectives, guidelines, and suitability determinations.''
The Responsible Official has to show that the plan developed in
accordance with these objectives satisfies the NFMA requirement to
provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities.
Trend Analysis
Comment: The Forest Service should require forest planners to
conduct trend analyses that evaluate the social, economic, and
ecological impacts from the lack of actions on forest vegetation, the
risk of catastrophic wildfires, soil movement, and the impact of these
and related ecological factors on the local communities.
Response: While the directives do not explicitly direct examination
of trends
[[Page 5135]]
from lack of action, direction added in several places suggests this
examination. In FSH 1909.12, section 43.1 the Responsible Official is
directed to compare natural variation of ecosystem characteristics to
projected future conditions. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section
43.14 calls for the development information about current conditions of
the selected ecosystem diversity characteristics, and projecting future
trends of those characteristics under existing plan guidance. These
projected future conditions cannot be interpreted to be limited to
lands getting management activities. For social and economic trends,
FSH 1909.12, section 42.21 directs the Responsible Official to evaluate
changing conditions that may affect relevant economic indicators and
social systems. Changing conditions are subject to this evaluation,
whether the result of activity or lack of activity.
Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that the Service
directives give Responsible Officials conflicting guidance about trend
analysis. The directives say that trend analysis is at the discretion
of the Responsible Official but then gives duties.
Response: The directives have been changed in several places to
clarify the requirements for trend analysis (FSH 1909.12, sec. 24.23).
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.1 and FSH 1909.12, section
43.14 direct the Responsible Official to look at trends in ecological
conditions. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 42.21 gives
guidance on evaluating trends that effect social and economic
sustainability. The details of methods of evaluation are left to the
Responsible Official's discretion.
Range of Variation
Comment: The Forest Service should caution against using range of
variation to justify management toward typical system equilibrium;
disclimaxes, disturbance states, or a prevalence of early successional
stages to increase short-term yield.
Response: The directives are clear that the intent of evaluating
ecosystem diversity is to ``determine possible risks to the
sustainability of ecosystem diversity over time, determine the
potential contribution of National Forest System (NFS) lands to
ecosystem diversity of the larger landscape, and determine needed
change'' (FSM 1921.73a). The directives also caution that ``there may
be ecological, social, or economic reasons for identifying desired
conditions that are outside the range of variation and the range of
desired conditions may be narrower than the range of variation'' (FSH
1909.12, sec. 43.13). The directives stipulate that ``The range of
variation for an ecosystem characteristic is most comprehensively
described by a frequency distribution for conditions experienced by
that characteristic over time, including the areal extent of those
conditions'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.13). The directives note that ``In
general, the likelihood of negative outcomes is greater for those
ecosystem characteristics whose condition show greater departure from
the range of variation'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.14a) and finally
stipulate that the Responsible Official should ``describe the
ecological reason for the plan components based on evaluating ecosystem
diversity'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.14a).
In summary, the directives provide guidance to the Responsible
Official to: (1) Consider the range of variation on NFS lands in the
larger landscape; (2) consider the full range of variation and the
frequency with which various conditions occurred; (3) consider all
facets of ecological, economic, and social sustainability, and not just
range of variation, when setting up desired conditions; (4) estimate
risk resulting from departure from range of variation; and (5) show the
ecological reason for plan components. Use of range of variation
information to simply justify maximum timber yields would not be
consistent with this direction.
Economic Considerations
Fire Condition Class
Comment: The Forest Service should note fire condition class
information in assessing current conditions as called for in section
43.14 of its handbook. Forest planners should evaluate the social,
economic, and ecological implications of current forest fuel conditions
because they create future risks to air quality and the quality and
quantity of forage and water.
Response: Forest fuel condition is one of many forest conditions
that planners may evaluate for their contribution to or potential risk
to sustainability. Fire Regime Condition Class information was added to
exhibit 01 of FSH 1909.12, section 43.12. On forests where risks from
fuel conditions are significant, they will be addressed in the planning
process.
Historic Range of Variation
Comment: The Forest Service should drop the references to, and
analysis of, historic range of variation in the guidance documents and
create a process that truly balances social, economic, and ecological
sustainability goals because using historic range of variation as a
benchmark or guideline will preclude balancing environmental goals with
social and economic goals.
Response: Using the range of variability as a context for setting
up plan components is not inconsistent with reaching an appropriate
balance of social, economic, and ecological sustainability. The
directives are careful to stipulate that range of variability should be
used as a context for evaluating current and desired conditions, but do
not always become desired conditions themselves. The directives further
acknowledge that there may be ecological, social, and economic reasons
for setting up desired conditions that are outside the range of
variability and that it may be impossible in many cases to recreate the
range of variability.
Social and Economic Elements
Comment: The ecological section is very prescriptive in the type
and source of information planners can use while the social and
economic elements are much more generic directing the planners to use
``best available information.''
Response: The difference in detail between the social and economic
sustainability section and the ecological sustainability section can be
traced to a difference in wording employed by the final rule. While it
is the goal of the plan to contribute to the sustainability of social
and economic systems in a general sense, the plan must provide a
framework to contribute to sustaining native ecological systems by
providing ecological conditions to support diversity of native plant
and animal species in the plan area (70 FR 1059, Jan. 5, 2005). This
creates a greater responsibility for addressing ecological
sustainability in the land management planning process and requires
more detailed guidance in the directives.
Social and Economic Sustainability
Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that it is not the
purpose of the NFS or Federal lands to guarantee economic and social
sustainability or economic gain to businesses and local economies.
Response: Plans are not required to guarantee social and economic
sustainability, but rather are required to contribute to social and
economic systems. There is clear recognition in the rule and directives
that social and economic sustainability cannot stand on its own and is
inextricably linked to ecologic sustainability. The Multiple-Use
Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) authorizes and directs the Secretary to
[[Page 5136]]
develop and administer the resources for multiple-use and the sustained
yield of the several products and services that are obtained from
management of the surface resources. The Forest Service views
sustainability under the proposed and final rule as a single objective
with interrelated and interdependent social, economic, and ecological
elements. This concept of sustainability is linked closely to MUSYA in
that economic and social elements are treated as interrelated and
interdependent with ecological elements of sustainability.
Budgets
Comment: The Forest Service should remove the many references
throughout the Forest Service directives that constrain the planning
process based on anticipated budgets because plans should be
aspirational and unconstrained by financial considerations when
addressing desired future conditions.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 11 states that
plan objectives should be based on budgets and other assumptions that
are realistic expectations for the next 15 years. The same section also
states that the Responsible Official is responsible for adapting the
plan to respond to changing situations and for developing budgets and
projects that implement the plan's components. The Forest Service
believes these guidelines represent a reasonable and prudent approach
when developing a plan that can be implemented. The comprehensive
evaluations, required every 5 years, will allow for reconsidering the
effects of budget constraints on plan implementation. Contributions to
the sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems are
limited by agency authorities, budget, and the capability of the plan
area (36 CFR 219.10).
Ecosystem Health
Comment: The Forest Service should not give economic considerations
the same weight as ecosystem health because sustained productivity
requires a functioning ecosystem.
Response: The final rule and directives recognize that economic,
social, and ecological sustainability are interrelated and that a plan
must integrate the elements of sustainability. Any relative weighting
is done during the collaborative process of developing desired
conditions.
Forest Level Assessment
Comment: The Forest Service should consider creating a national
forest level assessment of the agency's capability to annually and
cumulatively meet the goals of each plan as part of the budget
preparation and review process.
Response: During the collaborative process, it is anticipated that
this type of information will be shared and weighed by all interested
parties, though no specific direction for this is offered in the
directives. The final rule states that contributions to the
sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems are limited
by agency authorities, budget, and the capability of the plan area (36
CFR 219.10).
Disclose Financial Expenditures
Comment: The Forest Service should disclose all financial
expenditures to the general public.
Response: This information is available in the annual ``Forest
Service Performance and Accountability Report'' which can be viewed at
http://www.fs.fed.us.gov/publications.
Cumulative Economic Impacts
Comment: The Forest Service should include the cumulative economic
impacts in every forest planning document, including a three-year
cumulative impact study.
Response: In the past, job and income effects have not often been
expressed in terms of cumulative impacts over time. Increased public
participation and collaboration should produce plans that provide
interested parties with more of the information they require.
Cumulative effects analysis will be done during project level NEPA
analysis, as appropriate. These issues are also addressed during the
development of the Allotment Management Plan for each range allotment
on NFS units.
Role of Timber
Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge in the Forest
Service directives the potential role of timber in contributing to
economic and social sustainability.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 60 requires the
Responsible Official to take into account all elements of
sustainability (social, economic, and ecological) and follow the public
participation process for plan development, plan amendment, or plan
revision to involve the public in this analysis of timber harvesting.
During this part of the planning process, the contribution of timber
harvest and production will be considered when appropriate (FSH
1909.12, ch. 60).
Contributing to Sustainability
Comment: The Forest Service should expand the Forest Service
directives to include a section on how to contribute to social and
economic sustainability similar to the instruction on contributing to
ecological sustainability.
Response: In FSH 1909.12, section 42.21, ``Evaluation Guidelines''
states for economic systems, consider opportunities to, such as
employment, income, capital, housing, and fiscal health for important
economic units. These economic units may include the contribution of
payments to states and local governments.
Business Management Evaluation
Comment: The Forest Service should require a business management
evaluation as part of the sustainability evaluation, which carefully
reviews costs and revenues and how these factors can be changed and
improved. Forest planners should identify all the revenues generated
from a national forest, the source of those revenues, and how those
revenues are expected to change over time as part of the economic
review.
Response: Discretion is left to the Responsible Official to decide
how detailed the evaluation needs to be. The rigor of analysis used in
assessing social, economic, and ecological systems should be
proportional to the level of risk to those systems and to the degree to
which past, present, and projected conditions in the plan area
contribute to that risk. A business analysis could be an important part
of this assessment if deemed appropriate by the Responsible Official.
Cost Increase
Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that under the new
planning system the costs will increase perhaps 80-90 percent because
of the contraction of forest planning and the increased responsibility
for project planning.
Response: Before the 2005 planning rule was released, the Forest
Service did a benefit/cost analysis that showed that the cost of the
new rule is expected to be similar to that of the 1982 planning rule.
Experience with applying the 2005 planning rule will give more
information on relative costs.
Economic and Social Costs
Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that the economic
and social costs of forest planning are borne by the people at the
state and local level.
Response: The 2005 planning rule addresses this problem by
requiring that social and economic sustainability are taken into
account as well as basing the planning process on collaboration.
Further direction is provided in the Forest Service directives (FSH
1919.12,
[[Page 5137]]
sec. 42). Local constituencies will have an important opportunity to
have their voices and concerns heard throughout the planning process.
Economic Impact of Timber Sales
Comment: The Forest Service should consider the economic impact
that timber sales have on the state of Michigan's economic well-being.
Response: This is exactly the type of local concern that is
addressed through collaboration. As part of planning process, the
Responsible Official is required to involve the public in developing
and updating the comprehensive evaluation report, establishing the
components of the plan, and designing the monitoring program. For
example, collaboration is used to describe distinctive roles and
contributions that the planning unit has to the ecological system and
the human community.
Domestic Livestock
Comment: The Forest Service should be required to produce accurate
data on domestic livestock management to document the need for change.
There should be a built-in allowance for the increase in animal units
when monitoring to show that range.
Response: The monitoring strategy for a plan is developed
collaboratively: ``As part of planning process, the Responsible
Official shall involve the public in developing and updating the
comprehensive evaluation report, establishing the components of the
plan, and designing the monitoring program'' (36 CFR 219.9(a)).
Therefore, if the Forest Service proposes a project to develop an
inventoried roadless area, the environmental analysis must look at
whether to develop the area or not, not just alternative ways of
developing the area.
Species Protection
Species
Comment: The Forest Service should admit that there is a drastic
decline in the strength of regulations for species protection,
including the removal of the viability requirement. There should be
more protection for rare species, regionally sensitive species,
species-of-conservation-concern in State Comprehensive Wildlife
Strategies, and species listed as threatened and endangered by states.
Restrictive criteria for identifying species-of-concern and relying on
ecosystem provisions to provide for species and species diversity
should be removed. Requirements for enhancement of fish populations,
increasing protection provisions, increasing the number of species
identified for protection, monitoring populations, and broadening
current species protection provisions to prevent decline of species
making them eligible for endangered species listing should be included
in the directives.
Response: The 2005 planning rule and directives are explicitly
designed to provide for ecological sustainability through the
combination of ecosystem diversity and species diversity approaches.
The new rule addresses a much broader range of species than the 1982
planning rule; plant species, invertebrates and lichens are included
besides vertebrates. Species-of-concern will be identified based on
NatureServe rankings, but identifying species-of-interest will consider
many sources including those listed by states as threatened or
endangered and those identified in state comprehensive plans as species
of conservation concern. The primary purpose for identifying species-
of-concern is to put in place provisions that will contribute to
keeping those species from being listed as threatened or endangered.
The combined criteria for species-of-concern and species-of-interest
should lead to identification of all species for which there are
legitimate conservation concerns. Particularly, criterion five for
species-of-interest (FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.22c), which directs
identifying ``additional species that valid, existing information
indicates are of regional or local conservation concern due to factors
that may include significant threats to populations or habitat,
declining trends in populations or habitat, rarity, or restricted
ranges.'' Species for which there are no conservation concerns should
be adequately conserved through the ecosystem diversity approach.
The directives are not as prescriptive as the viability requirement
was, but under the 2005 planning rule and directives, the enhancement
of conditions for fish and wildlife populations is the expected outcome
of new plans.
Populations
Comment: The Forest Service should collect data about species
populations and trend data for at least some species-of-concern,
species-of-interest and other species because implementing plan
components for species diversity described in FSH 1909.12, section
43.25, will need information about the populations, trends, and
distributions of certain species. These species should be monitored
over the life of the plan or until they are no longer of concern or
interest to assess whether plan components conserve species.
Response: The 2005 planning rule and directives do not anticipate
gathering population data for developing a plan. Nor do they specify
the types of data that will be needed for implementation of plans or
contain prescriptive requirements for monitoring on any resource. It is
possible that more data on populations of some species may be needed
during plan implementation. The types and amount of data needed will be
determined by the Responsible Official taking into account best
available science.
The rule and directives require that monitoring questions be
articulated revolving primarily around desired conditions and the
degree to which they are being achieved. Priority will be given to
monitoring questions that address desired conditions for which there is
``a high degree of uncertainty associated with management assumptions''
(FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.1). Species populations may be identified for
monitoring through this process.
Species Diversity
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the intent of the Forest
Service directives' species diversity sections to show the direction
provided in the regulations and focus on biological diversity at the
landscape and ecosystem level. There are several sections in the
handbook and manual that suggests that the past approach of providing
for individual species remains.
Response: The 2005 planning rule sets up the requirement that
Responsible Officials provide for diversity of plant and animal
communities using an approach that addresses ecosystem diversity and
species diversity (36 CFR 219.10). The rule stipulates that the species
diversity approach is to be used when the components set up through
ecosystem diversity need to be supplemented to provide appropriate
ecological conditions for listed species, species-of-concern, and
species-of-interest. The provisions in the directives are a direct
reflection of this approach to providing for diversity of plant and
animal communities.
Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities
Comment: The Forest Service should make its handbook consistent
with the law by aligning provisions to focus on diversity of plant and
animal communities rather than species diversity.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 61 has been re-
drafted to address vegetation management requirements at the project
level. The
[[Page 5138]]
role of land management planning and sustainability is addressed in FSH
1909.12, chapter 40. The planning rule lists two criteria for
sustaining ecological systems; ecosystem diversity and species
diversity. These criteria are consistent with the requirements of NFMA.
Sustainability
Comment: The Forest Service should include various discussions in
section 61.7 of the Forest Service directives to provide a sustainable
and functioning ecological condition.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 61 has been
revised to address vegetation management requirements at the project
level. The role of land management planning and sustainability is
addressed in FSH 1909.12, chapter 40.
Species Viability
Comment: The Forest Service should not repeal the NFMA's species
viability requirement because the viability requirement provides a way
to accurately assess species population numbers and will prevent
species from being listed as endangered species. One respondent thought
it was unclear whether the viable population standard, as it exists
now, would be included in the desired conditions component using the
new rule.
Response: The viability standard will no longer be used. But, the
directives require that national forests and grasslands continue to:
(1) Identify listed species, species-of-concern, and species-of-
interest; (2) collect available data and information for the species
including population data; (3) develop management direction for the
species; and (4) assess the effects of management direction.
Elimination of the viability requirement was a decision made with
publication of the 2005 planning rule. The directives reflect that
decision. The following points were made about the viability provision
when the rule was published:
``The species viability requirement was not adopted for several
reasons. First, the Forest Service's experience under the 1982
planning rule has been that ensuring species viability is not always
possible. For example, viability of some species on NFS lands may
not be achievable because of species specific distribution patterns
(such as a species on the extreme and fluctuating edge of its
natural range), or when the reasons for species decline are caused
by factors outside the control of the agency (such as habitat change
in South America causing decline of some Neotropical birds), or when
the land lacks the capability to support species (such as a drought
affecting fish habitat). Second, the number of recognized species
present on the units of the NFS is very large. It is clearly
impractical to analyze all species and past attempts to analyze the
full suite of species by way of groups, surrogates, and
representatives have had mixed success in practice. Third, focus on
the viability requirement has often diverted attention and resources
away from an ecosystem approach to land management that, in the
Department's view, is the most efficient and effective way to manage
for the broadest range of species with the few resources available
for the task.''
Populations
Comment: The Forest Service should include enforceable requirements
in the Forest Service directives to analyze and monitor wildlife
populations and health of species with determinations on trends.
Nowhere in the directives, is there a requirement to monitor
populations of species.
Response: The 2005 planning rule and resulting directives do not
contain prescriptive requirements for monitoring of any resource.
Rather they require that monitoring questions be addressed in the
context of desired conditions and the degree to which they are being
achieved. Priority will be given to monitoring questions that address
desired conditions for which there is ``a high degree of uncertainty
associated with management assumptions'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.1).
Species populations may be identified for monitoring through this
process.
Management Indicator Species (MIS)
Comment: The Forest Service should continue to use MIS as a tool
for evaluating the effects of land management activities because
analysis of habitat and individual species data are needed to maintain
species diversity.
Response: The concept of MIS was not included in the 2005 planning
rule, except for transition provisions at 36 CFR 219.14, because recent
scientific evidence identified flaws in the MIS concept. The concept of
MIS was that population trends for certain species that were monitored
could represent trends for other species. Through time, this was found
not to be the case.
Genetic Diversity
Comment: The Forest Service should conserve genetic diversity at
the population level with decisions being made at the individual
national forest level.
Response: It is the intent that decisions about species
conservation under NFMA will be made on individual national forests and
will address genetic diversity when needed.
Habitat Viability
Comment: The Forest Service should not adopt habitat viability as
its framework to protect biodiversity under NFMA because determining
the population viability of individual species calls for data on the
population's status.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.26 requires
that the connection between habitat conditions and species consequences
be assessed as part of evaluating the effects of plan components on
species. This assessment would be based on existing information. Also,
FSH 1909.12, section 43.23 calls for identifying critical information
that is essential to management for species diversity and is currently
lacking. Collection of that information should become a high priority
of monitoring programs.
Wildlife Corridors
Comment: The Forest Service should have a broader ecological plan
focusing on connectivity and wildlife corridors.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.25 describes
plan components for species diversity that would address the whole
range of issues associated with species conservation including habitat
connectivity.
State Strategies
Comment: The Forest Service should include specific language in the
manual and handbook encouraging consultation with State Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategies to reduce potentially duplicative
planning efforts.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.22c directs
that species identified as conservation concerns in the State
Comprehensive Wildlife Strategies be considered for identification as
species-of-interest. Directions to consult would not be appropriate
because the timing of Forest Service and state planning efforts are not
likely to coincide; however, we do direct the Responsible Official to
take into account State Comprehensive Wildlife Strategies and we
encourage the Responsible Official to participate in ongoing planning
efforts where NFS lands are found (FSH 1909.12, ch. 30).
Altered Systems
Comment: In FSH 1909.12, section 43.1 it states ``where systems are
highly altered, a species conservation plan focus may be more
appropriate.'' We are concerned that some would argue or litigate that
the entire NFS is highly altered and therefore the entire NFS should be
subjected to a species conservation plan focus.
[[Page 5139]]
Response: This section has been rewritten and the example cited in
this comment is no longer present.
Previous Rule No Longer Applies
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify provisions in its
handbook to better focus on biological diversity at the landscape and
ecosystem level and reinstate language from the September 29, 2004,
``Interpretative Rule'' explaining the meaning of the ``Use of Best
Available Science in Implementing Land Management Plans'' to make it
clear that the 1982 and 2000 planning rules no longer apply to
projects. Some people have insisted that the 1982 planning rule
required population counts before approving projects and activities.
Response: The Forest Service has clarified provisions for ecosystem
diversity and species diversity in FSH 1909.12. The Forest Service does
not need to reinstate the Interpretative Rule. The previous planning
regulations are no longer in effect. However, the 2005 planning rule
allows Responsible Officials to continue to use the provisions of the
planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000, to develop,
amend, or revise land management plans in specific cases (36 CFR
219.14). The 2005 planning rule explicitly states, ``site-specific
monitoring or surveying of a proposed project or activity area is not
required'' (36 CFR 219.14(f)).
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Comment: The Forest Service should clearly state in the Forest
Service directives the Endangered Species Act-related requirements for
forest planners or delete these references because provisions
constraining forest planning to advance conserving of species is
unlawfully limiting the agency's discretion to manage for multiple
uses.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 does not increase the
habitat values for the conservation, recovery, or improvement of listed
species, or increase the benefits for ESA listed species. Direction in
the handbook will allow the Forest Service to contribute to reaching
the purposes and requirements of the ESA and NFMA for species and
ecosystem conservation, while also contributing to society's demand for
other resources.
Species-Specific Management
Comment: The Forest Service should amend the directives to clearly
state that species-specific management should be tried only when the
maintenance or creation of that species' habitat is defined as a
desired condition consistent with multiple-use objectives and
identified desired future conditions.
Response: Forest Service Manual 1921.73 states that species-
specific direction will be developed only when needed to supplement
direction for ecosystem diversity to provide appropriate ecological
conditions for listed species, species-of-concern, and species-of-
interest. This intent is reiterated in FSH 1909.12, section 43.21.
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, sections 43.22b and 43.22c set up that
species-of-concern are identified because management actions may be
needed to prevent listing under the ESA. Species-of-interest are
identified because the Responsible Official finds that management
actions are needed to reach ecological or other multiple-use
objectives. This clearly satisfies the concern that species specific
direction will only be established when needed to reach desired
conditions. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.25 further sets
up that plan components developed for species diversity will be
consistent with the limits of agency authorities, the capability of the
plan area, and multiple-use objectives.
Late Successional Habitats
Comment: The Forest Service should give priority to late
successional forests. In the Eastern United States, much of the
landscape is in private ownership and because of land-use patterns;
much of the private land is in an early- to mid-successional stage. But
Public lands in the Eastern United States offer a chance to promote
late successional habitats and species.
Response: Evaluations of ecological sustainability are intended to
consider national forests and grasslands in relation to other lands.
Forest Service Manual 1921.73a directs the Responsible Official to use
evaluations to determine the potential contribution of national forests
and grasslands to ecosystem diversity of the larger landscape. Forest
Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.11 sets up that the area of
analysis for ecosystem diversity will generally include non-National
Forest System lands to consider broad-scale conditions and trends.
These national directives do not set up which components of ecosystem
diversity will be stressed in the plans of a particular region relying
instead on the unit-specific analysis to help determine that emphasis.
Self-Sustaining Populations
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the Forest Service's
directives' approach to conserving species-of-concern because the
phrase ``contributing to'' self-sustaining populations is vague and
indirect.
Response: The agency uses the phrase ``contribute'' recognizing
that NFS lands may not be enough to maintain self-sustaining
populations of those species that are distributed across lands of many
ownerships.
Criteria for Species-of-Concern
Comment: Clarify the criteria for recognizing species-of-concern to
clearly state that evidence must exist (either scientific reports or
expert opinion) that the species will continue to decline under the
plan.
Response: Species-of-concern will be identified using explicit
criteria about their ranking on NatureServe and their listing status
under the Endangered Species Act. Once identified, these species will
be screened to see if they need further consideration in the planning
process. They may be dropped from further consideration if they are
considered secure in the plan area, are not affected by management, or
there is too little information about them to complete a credible
assessment.
Identifying Species
Comment: The Forest Service should direct forest planners to
identify species-of concern and species-of-interest based on the best
available scientific information because a lack of information should
not be a justification for listing a species-of-interest or species-of-
concern. The directives should provide greater discretion to agency
decision makers and limit species-specific action.
Response: The Responsible Official must take into account best
available science throughout the planning process. Also, FSH 1909.12,
section 43.22d states that only species for which there is adequate
knowledge to complete a credible assessment will be carried forward in
the planning process.
Increase Conservation of Species
Comment: The Forest Service should clearly state that plans do not
need to include provisions that increase conserving of species-of-
concern and species-of-interest.
Response: No such caveat is needed because there is nothing in the
directives that suggests that conservation will be increased.
Sensitive Species
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify how species-of-concern
and species-of-interest encompass or do not encompass sensitive species
because all of the species that the Regional Foresters designate as
sensitive in their
[[Page 5140]]
respective regions must be considered in planning for the affected
forests.
Response: The criteria for species-of-concern and species-of-
interest are listed in FSH 1909.12, section 43.22. The wildlife
directives governing the identification of sensitive species are
subject to change because they were based on the viability requirement
from the 1982 planning rule. Since those directives may now change,
they are not cited in the Forest Service directives. However, the
criteria for species-of-concern or species-of-interest are similar to
the criteria generally used for developing the existing regional lists
of sensitive species.
Criteria for Listing
Comment: The Forest Service should consider adding more criteria
for listing species-of-interest because forest planners will find many
common species that are ranked S1 or S2 on NatureServe or are listed as
threatened or endangered by the states.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.22c
recognizes that species ranked S1 and S2 and state-listed species may
not be of concern in a particular plan area and so suggests additional
criteria that should be applied before species are identified as
species-of-interest.
State-Listed Species
Comment: The Forest Service should consider listing species that
meet the criteria for species-of-interest as species-of-concern instead
to ensure the continued existence of important ecosystem components
such as native plant and wildlife species. The Forest Service should
treat state-listed species in a similar fashion to federally listed
species in the Forest Service directives.
Response: In general, species that require the highest levels of
conservation attention are those that meet the criteria for species-of-
concern. The directives recognize that other species, those fitting the
criteria for species-of-interest, may also require specific management
considerations. Identification of species-of-concern and species-of
interest is only the first step in determining what plan components
will be developed for species. Through the processes of information
collection, evaluation of species status including risk factors, and
evaluation of plan components, the Responsible Official will determine
appropriate contributions of the national forest or grassland to
ecological conditions needed to meet objectives for the species. If
plan components are needed on the national forest or grassland to avoid
the need to list species, they will be identified through this process
regardless of the initial identification of a species as being of
concern or of interest.
Endangered Species
Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that endangered species,
species-of-concern, and species-of-interest are sufficiently protected.
In addition, all species that might be listed as endangered or
threatened should be identified as species-of-concern in order to avoid
the need to list them. Additionally, the genetic viability of species
should be protected in order to maintain biodiversity.
Response: Through the processes of identifying species-of-concern
and species-of-interest information collection, evaluation of species
status including risk factors, and evaluation of plan components, the
Responsible Official will determine appropriate contributions of the
national forest or grassland to ecological conditions needed to meet
objectives for the species, including genetic viability, as
appropriate. If plan components are needed on the national forest or
grassland to avoid the need to list species, they will be identified
through this process.
Ecological Community
Comment: The Forest Service should base species diversity on the
overall composition and diversity of species within an ecological
community rather than basing it predominately on single species
management approaches revolving around specially identified species.
Response: The hierarchical approach using ecosystem diversity and
species diversity is intended to provide for the overall composition
and diversity of species. Plan components established for ecosystem
diversity should provide for populations of the majority of species.
The species diversity approach then provides a check for those species
for which additional plan components may be needed.
Population Data
Comment: The Forest Service should obtain population and trend data
for at least some species-of-concern, species-of-interest, and other
species. These species should be monitored over the life of the plan or
until they are no longer of concern or interest to assess whether plan
components conserve species.
Response: The 2005 planning rule and directives do not contain
prescriptive requirements for monitoring of any resource. Rather, they
require that monitoring questions be addressed through desired
conditions and the degree to which they are being achieved. Priority
will be given to monitoring questions that address desired conditions
for which there is ``a high degree of uncertainty associated with
management assumptions'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.1). Species populations
may be identified for monitoring through this process.
Non-Discretionary Wording
Comment: The Forest Service should make the consideration of
endangered species, species-of-concern, and species-of-interest non-
discretionary.
Response: While there is some discretion in the wording for species
diversity in the directives, the following steps are generally
required: (1) Identify listed species, species-of-concern and species-
of-interest; (2) collect available data and information for the species
including an assessment of risk factors; (3) develop plan components
for the species as necessary; and (4) assess the potential outcomes of
plan components. These steps, combined with the ecosystem diversity
approach, should provide for significant consideration of species that
require conservation attention.
Enforceable Standards
Comment: The Forest Service should provide enforceable standards
and use more than one data source when determining which species to
protect. Without enforceable standards, there is no way for the public
or other branches of the government to hold the Forest Service
accountable for protecting species and their habitats.
Response: The Forest Service is accountable for federally-listed
species under the Endangered Species Act and accountable for diversity
of plant and animal species under the provisions of NFMA. That
accountability is not changed by the directives.
While there is some dependence on NatureServe for identifying
species-of-concern and species-of-interest, numerous other sources are
listed in the directives including State Comprehensive Wildlife
Strategies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation
Concern Priority List, state lists of threatened and endangered
species, and other sources of valid information indicating significant
threats to a species population or habitat.
Federally Listed Species
Comment: The Forest Service should require Responsible Officials to
contribute to conserving federally listed
[[Page 5141]]
species so as not to present a possible conflict with the Endangered
Species Act, section 7(a)(1).
Response: Forest Service Manual 1921.76c states that ``plan
components for federally-listed species must comply with requirements
and procedures of the Endangered Species Act and should, as
appropriate, implement approved recovery plans and/or address threats
identified in listing decisions.''
Surrogate Species
Comment: The Forest Service should clearly identify the criteria
for identifying surrogate species in section 43.24 of its handbook and
how this tool is to be used in the forest planning process because if
workable guidelines for forest planners cannot be developed, then this
section should be deleted.
Response: As with any other approach used in NFMA planning, species
grouping and the selection of surrogates must take into account the
best available science and applicable portions of the Data Quality Act
(44 U.S.C. 3516). An approach that does not satisfy these criteria
would not be used.
Risk Levels
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify how Responsible
Officials will determine that information is valid and sufficient to
indicate risk levels to species.
Response: Determinations of Responsible Officials will consider
best available science and meet applicable Data Quality Act (44 U.S.C.
3516) standards regarding public acknowledgement of known data quality.
Responsible Officials will take into account best available science and
known risk levels when indicating risk levels to species (FSH 1909.12,
sec. 41).
NatureServe
Comment: The Forest Service should not rely on NatureServe as the
sole source for species-of-concern designations. Concerns about
NatureServe related to: (1) Frequency with which the ratings are
updated; (2) public access to the data used in determining the
rankings; (3) consistency of ranking across states; (4) use of only
global rankings instead of global and national rankings to determine
species-of-concern; and (5) failure of NatureServe to recognize some
taxonomic units that could be listable.
Response: The intent of the directives is to provide an independent
and objective means of prioritizing species for conservation. The most
comprehensive source of this information is the network of state
natural heritage programs that make up the NatureServe network.
Although it is the best source of data available, the NatureServe
ranking system is not perfect. Imperfections in the NatureServe
database were one of the reasons for establishing the species-of-
interest category. Species that are not ranked or are locally rare
(rather than globally rare) may be identified as species-of-interest,
resulting in the establishment of appropriate plan components. Species
and other taxonomic units that are listed and proposed under the
Endangered Species Act will be identified for establishment of
appropriate plan components regardless of their NatureServe ranking.
NatureServe ranks are ``categorical,'' not continuous data, and so
cannot have associated errors. However, NatureServe has a system for
identifying uncertainty in ranks. Also, a summary of the reasons for
each rank is presented with the species comprehensive report on the
NatureServe explorer Web site. Those who are interested in details that
are more specific can contact their local state natural heritage
program to see all of the data that was used to establish a rank.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring Movement Toward Objectives
Comment: The Forest Service should have monitoring programs that
will allow it to adjust its management actions so that it can meet
long-term objectives and respond to the unexpected.
Response: Forest Service Manual 1921.5 requires that monitoring
provide data and information to evaluate progress toward meeting
objectives and desired conditions. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12,
section 12, calls for designing a monitoring program that provides a
basis for continuing improvement, focuses on key desired conditions,
and recognizes the need to monitor management assumptions that have a
high degree of uncertainty.
Accountability and Performance-Based Standards
Comment: The directives should include added requirements for
accountability and performance-based standards including details of
what would be monitored and how this monitoring would be done.
Response: The directives require the monitoring program to identify
key questions and performance measures (FSM 1921.5). Forest Service
Handbook 1909.12, section 12.2, provides for performance measures as a
basis for accountability. These performance measures are tied to near-
term objectives and long-term desired conditions. Annual evaluation
reports and 5-year comprehensive evaluation reports are to be used to
summarize and evaluate the results of monitoring as a means of
identifying needed plan adjustments. The Forest Service believes that
these requirements are enough for inclusion in the monitoring program,
with monitoring details included in the Monitoring Guide and Annual
Monitoring Workplan (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.3).
State Goals for Federal Lands
Comment: Monitoring reviews should include feedback on the
accomplishment of state goals defined for Federal lands. The Forest
Service should coordinate plan monitoring with a few state-wide
indicators of sustainability that can assess whether the state
governing body's goals and objectives are being met.
Response: The Forest Service encourages state participation in
planning. Forest Service Manual 1921.62 identifies the value of
planning collaboratively with the public and other agencies. The roles
of the public and other agencies are more clearly described in FSH
1909.12, chapter 30. State involvement during these collaborative
efforts is intended to ensure that state goals are appropriately
considered in plan components and the associated monitoring program.
Specific Monitoring Requirements
Comment: The Forest Service directives should provide more specific
monitoring guidance designed to measure and maintain ecological
sustainability, including things such as: monitoring of key potential
natural vegetation types; desired conditions and objectives
contributing to sustainability; key ecological attributes of each
potential vegetation type and species; and performance measures for
each ecological attribute.
Response: The guidance for developing, putting into effect, and
documenting a monitoring program is intended to provide a monitoring
framework applicable to all plans (FSM 1921.5 and FSH 1909.12, sec.
12). The specific details for each monitoring program are not
identified in the directives because the Forest Service believes it is
necessary to tailor these details to show unit-specific situations.
Implementation, Effectiveness, and Validation Monitoring
Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the
[[Page 5142]]
directives include more direction for monitoring; specifically, that
monitoring be conducted on 3 levels--implementation, effectiveness, and
validation--during the 3-year transition period for putting into effect
the 2005 planning rule.
Response: During the transition period and until plans are revised
or amended to be consistent with the 2005 planning rule, monitoring
will be conducted consistent with existing monitoring requirements,
many of which specifically address implementation, effectiveness, and
validation monitoring. The 2005 planning rule and directives stress
monitoring of plan components, specifically to find out if actions
taken during plan implementation are reaching plan objectives and
moving the unit toward desired conditions. Although not specifically
addressed in the directives, monitoring plan implementation and the
effectiveness of implementation actions are required to meet monitoring
program requirements. Validation monitoring is considered to be a
research need and will be done outside the plan monitoring program.
Public Involvement
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify which members of the
public will be invited and how they will be involved in designing the
monitoring program. This should include coordination and consultation
with the public, state governments, and so on in developing and
revising monitoring programs.
Response: Involvement of the public in monitoring program design is
required by the 2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.9(a)) and is discussed
in the directives (FSM 1921.5 and FSH 1909.12, sec. 12). But, the
specifics of how this involvement is to occur and who will be involved
cannot be appropriately determined in the directives. The Forest
Service believes that these details are best addressed by the
Responsible Official for individual planning efforts.
Monitoring Partnerships
Comment: The Forest Service should support state partnerships in
collecting and assessing monitoring data used for annual evaluation
reports and comprehensive evaluation reports.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 12.2 recognizes
the value of selecting performance measures with agency partners to
make easier monitoring across all landownerships.
Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators
Comment: The Forest Service should use the Montreal Process
Criteria and Indicators as a framework for monitoring efforts.
Response: The Forest Service has invested substantial energy in
assessing the applicability of the Montreal Process Criteria and
Indicators along with other international and national approaches and
commitments to sustainable development such as the Santiago
Declaration, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and
the Ottawa Local Unit Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) Test
(Monitoring for Forest Management Unit Scale Sustainability: The Local
Unit Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) Test Technical
Edition, USDA Forest Service, Inventory and Monitoring Institute Report
No. 4, October 2002). Although using criteria and indicators have value
and are being used in some plan revision efforts; the Forest Service
concluded that the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators were not
applicable at the forest scale.
Monitoring Responsibility
Comment: The Forest Service should not leave monitoring of logging
impacts to independent Forest Supervisor's discretion.
Response: The Forest Service agrees that the plan monitoring
program should be developed with public participation and has directed
Responsible Officials to do so.
New Information
Comment: The Forest Service should use monitoring to identify
information not contemplated in plan development that could lead to new
systems that improve land productivity or meet desired conditions in
another way.
Response: The 2005 planning rule requires monitoring to determine
the effects of management on the productivity of the land. The final
directives on monitoring show the need to monitor key desired
conditions and objectives besides those about land productivity and
that monitoring take into account the best available science.
Funding
Comment: The Forest Service should increase funding for its fish
and wildlife monitoring programs.
Response: The Forest Service expects that the reduced cost of
planning under the 2005 planning rule will permit better funding of
monitoring. The priorities for funding monitoring by program area will
depend on individual forest monitoring programs tied to key desired
conditions and objectives.
State Guidance
Comment: The Forest Service should incorporate state guidance into
management reviews where available.
Response: Reviews are conducted, based on monitoring results and
evaluations, to help determine if there is a need to amend or revise
the plan (FSH 1909.12, sec. 24). Where state guidance is shown in a
plan component being monitored or evaluated, this guidance will be
considered during reviews.
Comprehensive Evaluation Report
Comment: The Forest Service should specify in the planning
directives what media will be used to make the annual and five-year
comprehensive evaluation reports available to the public.
Response: The comprehensive evaluation report is a part of the plan
set of documents. This may be available to the public in various forms.
The Forest Service does not believe that it is appropriate to specify
one national approach given the diversity of audiences interested in
planning.
Comprehensive Evaluation Report Content
Comment: The Forest Service should require that the comprehensive
evaluation report contain a thorough compilation and description of
baseline data about ecological system types and species.
Response: Comprehensive evaluation reports are described in FSM
1921.2. Added details on their content are found in FSH 1909.12,
sections 13.1, 24.2, and 43.1. In combination, these sections provide
for inclusion of a wide range of ecological data and analysis in the
report, including trend analysis for key social, economic, and
ecological resources (FSH 1909.12, sec. 24.23).
Alternatives
Comment: The Forest Service should consider having the
comprehensive evaluation report require the Forest Supervisor to
consider alternatives and their impacts in detail.
Response: Based on more than 20 years of experience doing planning
EISs, including many fully-developed alternatives, the Forest Service
has concluded that it will be more efficient to consider options for
specific plan components than to continue developing full alternatives.
These options are discussed in FSH 1909.12, section 25.32b. This is
shown in the rule and in the final directives.
Comment: Monitoring program of work. The Forest Service should
delete from the Forest Service directives the provision establishing a
monitoring team and a formal process for setting up
[[Page 5143]]
an annual program of work and instead require a comprehensive
evaluation report be finished on a five-year schedule.
Response: The provision dealing with the establishment of a
monitoring team has been removed from the directives. The Forest
Service believes that defining an annual program of work (FSH 1909.12,
sec. 12.3) is needed to ensure that annual monitoring priorities are
identified and done consistently with available resources.
Comprehensive evaluation reports are required every 5 years.
Environmental Management System (EMS)
Comment: The Forest Service should provide more direction to carry
out EMS including the relation of EMS to land management planning, the
role the public plays in EMS, the types of information needed for EMS,
the types of audits to be done, and how the Forest Service will use an
international standard.
Response: Confusion is understandable given the lack of EMS
experience in the Forest Service, many agency partners, and other
interested parties. Based on roughly one year of EMS field experience
with qualified consultants, the agency has changed many parts of the
EMS directives, mainly by simplifying and clarifying direction. Forest
Service Manual 1331 will address EMS authorities, objectives, policies,
and responsibilities. The EMS direction about land management planning
is in FSM 1921.9. The Forest Service is likely to provide added EMS
guidance through a technical guide or other means as more experience is
gained.
Comment: The Forest Service should not use EMS or the ISO standard
for EMS because it is not applicable to national forest management, the
public lacks access to the standard, and the standard would preclude
public participation.
Response: The Forest Service is committed to using ISO 14001 under
the 2005 planning rule and believes that EMS can be applied to the
national forests in a way that will contribute to quality management.
The ISO 14001 standard is available for public review in all Forest
Service offices. EMS documentation will be available to the public.
Role of Public and States
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the roles of the public
and the states in EMS development and implementation.
Response: The Forest Service believes that public and state
involvement in EMS development and implementation will be beneficial,
but that no direction on this involvement is needed besides that
already in FSM 1921.61 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 30. The Forest Service
intends to use the existing public and state involvement direction to
inform EMS implementation without directing EMS-specific roles.
Management Review
Comment: The Forest Service should provide ``management review''
direction in the directives to provide consistency across the national
forests.
Response: The ISO 14001 standard provides direction for management
reviews and the Forest Service believes that no added direction is
required at this time.
EMS Terms
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify confusion over terms
used in EMS with terms used in planning, especially the ``independent
audit'' definition.
Response: The Forest Service recognizes that in some instances
planning and EMS use similar terms with slightly different meanings.
Applying the definitions in the ISO 14001 standard to EMS will be
needed to conform to the standard, but this should not hinder the
agency's ability to use different definitions in planning. As the
agency gains more EMS experience, clarification can be given about how
EMS terms relate to planning terms. Definitions have been added to FSM
1331 specific to Forest Service EMS policies and procedures
(administrative unit, facility, and independent second-party EMS
audit). The definition ``independent audit'' has been changed to be
consistent with USDA's definition of independent audit.
Independent Audits
Comment: The Forest Service should explain how they will use
independent EMS audits and certification boards.
Response: The Forest Service is preparing for internal audits
according to ISO 14001 and is also looking at options to meet USDA
guidance for independent audits. This is an area where added guidance
may be developed as the Forest Service gains experience in EMS.
Planning and EMS
Comment: The Forest Service directives should clarify the relation
between the plans and the EMS and should use an ISO 14001 EMS template
for communicating guidelines to Forest Service units.
Response: Forest Service units are sharing templates and examples
as they are developed; however, because an EMS is a continuous
improvement process, the Forest Service does not expect to have EMS
templates in the directives. Planning direction and guidance about EMS
are found in FSM 1921.9; however, in the final directives the agency
has only retained information about EMS establishment requirements
under the 2005 planning rule and has maintained minimum direction on
the relation of the EMS to the land management plan. As the agency
gains more experience with EMS, more direction can be added.
Monitoring Data
Comment: The Forest Service should set up regional centers at
regional land-grant universities or research stations to serve as
repositories for monitoring data and the results of EMS reviews.
Response: The Forest Service has implemented a corporate database,
the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), which the agency
intends to use to store monitoring data common to many Forest Service
units. The Forest Service believes that storing data with one
consistent corporate approach is efficient and will best serve members
of the public interested in viewing that data. It is unknown how the
results of EMS reviews will be stored or made available to the public.
Timber Management
General Concerns
Comment: The Forest Service should make the Forest Service
directives about timber management less discretionary.
Response: The direction provided in the Forest Service manual and
handbook must comply with all the applicable natural resource laws,
including the NFMA. The NFMA sets up the benchmarks for ecological,
social, and economic sustainability that the agency must meet in
managing national forests. The law also gives the Secretary of
Agriculture the discretion to determine how best to carry out these
statutory mandates. The directive system is used by the agency to
reiterate and, when needed, provide more specific explanations,
procedures, and guidance in the framework provided by the statute for
use by field units. The Forest Service believes that the directives
provide the appropriate amount of discretion.
Forest Land
Comment: The Forest Service must change section 62.21a of its
handbook to
[[Page 5144]]
revise the description of what is forest land to avoid erroneous
calculations.
Response: The description and calculation methods for determination
of forest lands outlined in this section are consistent with NFMA and
the 2005 planning rule. Forest land's definition remains unchanged from
the 1982 planning rule. The combination of forest inventory data,
detailed aerial photos, extensive on-the-ground knowledge, and
experience ensures that the assessment of National Forest System land
meeting the definition of ``forest land'' is accurate for land
management planning purposes.
Rotation Age
Comment: The Forest Service should explain its reason for changing
``rotation age's'' definition to an ``age range due to the need to
`meet the needs of other resources' '' because forest management
literature has always referred to ``forest rotation'' as a precise,
fixed stand harvest age expressed in years.
Response: The definition and use of ``rotation age'' in the
directives is consistent with the meaning of the term as used by the
Society of American Foresters. ``Rotation age'' at the plan level is a
range of ages based on local forest types and growing conditions,
rather than a precise age that can be assigned broadly across a
national forest. The Society of American Forester's definition refers
to rotation age at the stand level. By definition, a specific and
precise rotation age can only be determined at the individual stand
level.
Invasive Species
Comment: The Forest Service should direct planners to identify and
address invasive species rather than native and non-native ecosystems
to avoid litigation.
Response: In response to comments, the Forest Service has removed
references to native and non-native ecosystems from FSH 1909.12,
chapter 60.
Suitability Determinations
Comment: The Forest Service should explain its reason for deferring
key planning decisions until project level analysis. This may be used
to reclassify unsuitable lands as suitable. The Forest Service should
amend the project level analysis directive to include explicit criteria
for acceptance or rejection of a project. Key planning decisions should
be made at the initial planning level or project level analysis must be
clearly developed.
Response: Lands that are classified as ``generally suitable for
timber harvest or timber production'' in the land management plan are
continually evaluated during project level implementation of the plan
and may be identified as unsuitable at that stage. General suitability
for various uses will be found at the plan level using criteria
identified in the plan set of documents. Project level analysis is the
decision level where ``irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources'' are made. Project level analysis must follow the NEPA
process. The NEPA process is clearly developed and defined (FSM 1950
and FSH 1909.15). The data used for project level analysis is more site
specific and ensures that a better resource management decision will be
made than at the forest-wide strategic planning level. For these
reasons, determining final timber suitability must be made at the
project level. If the Responsible Official finds that the project or
activity is inconsistent with the general suitability identification,
the plan should be amended.
Unsuitable Timber Lands
Comment: The Forest Service should make sure that enough areas will
continue to be identified and designated as ``unsuitable for timber
production'' by reviewing plan documents at least every ten years to
see if changes have occurred that make it necessary to remove lands
from the ``suitable for timber production'' group and by removing lands
identified as ``unsuitable for timber production'' from the timber land
base for ten years as required by NFMA.
Response: Guidance on identifying lands not suitable for timber
production and the review of those determinations are found in FSM
1920.12c and FSH 1909.12, section 62.3. Guidance includes the NFMA (16
U.S.C. 1604(k)) requirement to review lands not suited for timber
production every 10 years. Lands that are classified as ``generally
suitable for timber harvest or timber production'' in the land
management plan are continually evaluated during project level
implementation of the plan and may be identified as unsuitable at that
stage. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 60 has been modified to
clearly define lands generally suited for timber production and ``other
lands'' where harvests may occur for other objectives. The clear
identification of ``other lands'' called for in the directives more
explicitly defines lands that may receive ``salvage sales or sales
necessitated to protect other multiple-use values'' as allowed by 16
U.S.C. 1604(k).
Comment: The Forest Service should consider that the process for
designating lands as unsuitable for timber harvest is circular and the
definition of ``unsuitable lands'' contains no criteria determining
unsuitability as required by NFMA. Lands unsuitable for timber should
not be found by residual calculation only after the suitable timber
lands are identified. NFMA requires that unsuitable lands be identified
first. Why were new terms ``generally suitable'' and ``actually
suitable'' created? These terms are not mentioned or authorized by
NFMA.
Response: Substantial changes were made to the draft FSH 1909.12,
chapter 60 to clarify and define the suitability determination process.
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 62.1 lists the general
categories of lands not suitable for timber harvest as outlined in
Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, section 219.12--Suitable uses
and provisions required by NFMA. The Secretary has discretion under the
act to determine how best to develop suitability determination
criteria. The criteria in these general categories are developed at the
forest level considering the specific physical, biological, and
economic elements under 16 U.S.C. 1604(k).
NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(k)) does not specify that unsuitable lands be
identified first; it simply directs the Secretary to identify
unsuitable lands. Identification of the suitability of lands for timber
harvest and timber production at the land management plan level is a
general determination made for planning purposes; therefore, the term
``generally suitable'' and ``generally unsuitable'' are used. The final
suitability determination is made at the project level.
Generally and Actually Suitable
Comment: The Forest Service should explain the reason for creating
the new terms, ``generally suitable'' and ``actually suitable'' in the
Forest Service directives' guidance for designation of timber lands.
These terms are not mentioned or authorized by NFMA.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 62 has been
revised to clarify the suitability process. Identification of the
suitability of lands for timber harvest and timber production at the
land management plan level is a general determination made for planning
purposes; therefore, use of the terms ``generally suitable'' and
``generally unsuitable.'' The final directives do not use the term,
actually-suitable. The decision on suitability of lands for a specific
use is appropriately made at the site-specific project level. The NFMA
recognizes that the
[[Page 5145]]
suitability of lands for timber harvest will change by directing the
Secretary to review suitability determinations every ten years. The act
also gives the Secretary discretion about the most appropriate method
for determining suitability.
Below-Cost Timber Sales
Comment: The Forest Service should set out a process for
identifying lands where the costs of timber production and road
construction are unlikely to be covered by future receipts. These lands
should be deemed unsuitable and off-limits to timber harvest to meet
the goal of limiting below-cost timber sales. The Forest Service should
explain its reason for ending all economic tests for determining
whether lands are unsuitable for timber harvest.
Response: The NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(k)) does specify that economics
is one factor to be considered in identifying lands not suited for
timber production. In response to comments, FSH 1909.12, section 62.21
includes added direction on the role of economics in suitability
determinations. Timber harvest on lands deemed not suited for timber
production in the land management plan is explicitly allowed by NFMA
(16 U.S.C. 1604(k)) for salvage and for other multiple-use purposes.
The NFMA does not prohibit harvest when costs exceed revenues.
Classes of Suitable Timber Lands
Comment: The Forest Service should not create two classes of
suitable timber lands because it dramatically and artificially expands
the suitable timber base and projected timber sale levels.
Response: The NFMA requires identifying lands suitable for timber
production. The NFMA also allows timber harvest on lands identified as
unsuitable for timber production. The definitions section of the
directives, FSH 1909.12, section 60.5 provides an explanation of the
differences between these two activities. The interim directives were
written to explicitly recognize the lands where harvest is permitted by
the NFMA on lands identified as unsuitable for timber production. The
lands suitable for timber harvest are lands where timber harvest is a
tool that may be used to meet ecological goals, such as restoration of
appropriate fire regimes, but commercial harvest is not a primary goal
for the area. Both types of land are considered when estimating the
Timber Sale Program Quantity for the plan. Setting up the added group
of lands suitable for timber harvest identifies added lands where
harvest may occur but does not dramatically increase timber sale
quantity.
Harvest and Reforestation Guidelines
Timber Sale Volume
Comment: The Forest Service should not require specific timber
volume objectives to be specified in plans because timber sale volume
is not an independent objective.
Response: Land management plans are required to identify objectives
(36 CFR 219.7 (a)(2)(ii)). Objectives are described as follows:
``Objectives are concise projections of measurable, time-specific
intended outcomes. The objectives for a plan are the means of measuring
progress toward achieving or maintaining desired conditions.'' The NFMA
(16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(2), 1604(f)(2), 16 U.S.C. 1611) requires that a land
management plan must provide timber management projections; however,
there is no specific requirement to identify timber sale volume as a
plan objective.
Even-Aged Management
Comment: The Forest Service should stop practicing even-aged
management of timber.
Response: Even-aged management is a legitimate, silvicultural
practice that may be used to create or maintain healthy forested
landscapes. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 64.5 outlines the
requirements for ensuring that clear-cutting is the best silvicultural
technique and that other even-aged cuts, such as shelter wood harvest
are appropriate. This guidance complies with the NFMA (16 U.S.C.
1604(g)(3)(F)(i)).
Clearcuts
Comment: The Forest Service should revise the Forest Service
directives to include standards that limit the size of clearcuts,
protect streams from logging, ensure prompt reforestation, restrict the
annual rate of cutting, and determine what land is economically
suitable for timber production.
Response: Maximum size limits for even-aged harvest systems are
addressed in FSM 1921.12e; protection of streams in FSM 1921.12a,
paragraph 3; reforestation requirements in FSM 1921.12g; harvest rates
in FSM 1921.12d; and suitability determinations in FSM 1921.12c. More
detailed guidance is found in FSH 1909.12, chapter 60 for even-aged
harvest, reforestation and stocking requirements, suitability
determinations, calculation of long-term sustained yield, and
calculation of timber sale program quantities. Detailed direction on
watershed protection and management may be found in FSM 2520.
Even-Aged Regeneration Harvest
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify its guidelines of
maximum size limits for even-aged regeneration harvest to allow the
public to comment.
Response: Public review of proposals to exceed maximum harvest size
limits is required by 16 U.S.C. 1609(g)(3)(F)(iv). Forest Service
Manual 1921.12e establishes the size limitations for individual harvest
units. Added guidance on size limitations may be in the plan and
subject to public notice and comment. Projects often contain many
individual harvest units. Project size will vary depending on local
conditions and considerations. The environmental analysis conducted for
each project, as required by the NEPA, provides individuals and
organizations the opportunity to provide input on issues of concern to
them.
Culmination of Mean Annual Increment
Comment: The Forest Service should apply the culmination of mean
annual increment requirement to uneven-aged stands that are being
managed to produce wood fiber and to ensure that stands reach their
optimum economic value.
Response: By definition, uneven-aged management harvests are
regulated by specifying the number or proportion of trees of particular
sizes to retain in each area, thereby maintaining a planned
distribution of size classes (FSH 1909.12, sec. 60.5). Application of
culmination of mean increment uneven-aged management would not be a
sound silvicultural practice (16 U.S.C. 1609(m)).
Comment: The Forest Service should provide a more specific reason
than ``for the use of sound silviculture'' when allowing departures
from harvesting of stands at the culmination of mean annual increment.
Response: The phrase ``culmination of mean annual increment'' is
taken directly from the NFMA. The NFMA authorizes the Secretary to set
up standards to ensure that stands of trees have generally reached the
culmination of mean annual increment provided the standards do not
preclude using sound silvicultural practices.
Projected Trends
Comment: The Forest Service should provide more specific direction
to forest planners in describing ``projected trends of future forest
ecological conditions'' and ``projected vegetative and other
environmental changes.''
Response: Trend analysis is described at FSH 1909.12, section
24.23. Forest Service Manual 1921.7 provides general
[[Page 5146]]
guidance on sustainability. Changes were also made to FSH 1909.12,
section 65.4 to better address projected trends.
Environmental Policy Statement
Comment: The Forest Service should clarify and revise section 61 of
its handbook to address various goals and provide a foundation for
national forests to develop their environmental policy statement.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 61 has been
redrafted to address vegetation management requirements at the project
level. The role of land management planning and sustainability is
addressed in FSH 1909.12, chapter 40. Requirements for the
environmental policy are addressed in ISO 14001 and FSM 1330.
Size of Timber Cuts
Comment: The Forest Service should modify its provision for size of
timber cuts to stipulate that they should exceed maximum size limits
only where such exception is consistent with sustainable use and
ecological considerations.
Response: Exceptions to the size limits as described in FSM
1921.12a and 1921.12e are subject to environmental analysis and
documentation as required by the NFMA and must comply with the long-
term sustainability desired conditions and objectives established in
that unit's land management plan.
Catastrophic Events
Comment: The Forest Service should amend its handbook's provisions
for restoration of areas deforested by catastrophic events to include
reasonable assurances of adequate restocking.
Response: The policy direction on reforestation in FSH 1909.12,
chapter 60 of the interim directives has been removed as it is
redundant to FSM 2470. The agency policy on reforestation has not
changed and is founded in the NFMA, section 3(d)(1) that states, ``It
is the policy of the Congress that all forested lands in the NFS be
maintained in appropriate forest cover * * * in accordance with land
management plans.'' Land management plans may address the degree to
which reforestation is required after catastrophic events.
Volume Trends
Comment: The Forest Service should display volume trends using
Forest Inventory and Analysis data.
Response: Changes were made to the exhibits in FSH 1909.12, section
65.6 to better display volume trends.
Averages
Comment: The Forest Service should provide more direction on when
using an average would be more desirable than using field-developed
inventory information.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 63.4 has been
reorganized to address this topic. This section provides direction on
calculating conversions for saw timber, small roundwood, and biomass.
Forest Plan Amendment
Comment: The Forest Service should provide direction in section 63
of its handbook on when a plan amendment would be required or reference
applicable sections of the FSM.
Response: Direction on plan amendments is found in FSM 1921.3 and
FSH 1909.12, chapter 20. The Responsible Official must determine
whether changed conditions or other issues require a plan amendment.
Evaluation Reports
Comment: The Forest Service should direct planners to cite the
report, ``The Scientific Basis for Silvicultural and Management
Decisions in the NFS (Forest Service General Technical Report (GTR) WO-
55),'' rather than requiring evaluation reports.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 60 has been
reorganized so that this topic is now discussed in section 65.4. Forest
Service GTR WO-55 is useful as a general reference but is not detailed
enough for use at the plan level.
Long Term Sustained Yield
Definition of Long Term Sustained Yield (LTSY)
Comment: The Forest Service should not use lands not suited for
timber production for calculating the Long Term Sustained Yield
Capacity (LTSYC) because it will be difficult to estimate timber
harvests for objectives other than timber production. Harvests for
other objectives will cause them to be sporadic and uneven. The LTSY
and Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) are calculated from different
land bases, allowing excessive harvesting on lands suitable for timber
production.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 60 has been
modified to clearly define lands generally suited for timber production
and ``other lands'' where harvests may occur for other objectives. The
chapter has also been changed to require that the LTSY and TSPQ be
calculated separately for those two classes of lands. Calculating the
LTSY from lands generally suited for timber production is the same as
the calculation used under the 1982 planning rule. The practice of
calculating the LTSY on unsuitable lands is new. The Forest Service
agrees it will be more difficult to make reliable estimates of the
LTSYC and TSPQ from lands where timber harvest is a by-product of
reaching other goals. The Forest Service believes these difficulties
can be addressed when experience is obtained. Added guidance to the
field may be needed later to show the results of that experience.
Harvesting Below the LTSYC
Comment: The Forest Service violates NFMA because they do not
require a decade-end reconciliation of harvest with sustained yield
limits. There are no cases where harvesting above the calculated LTSYC
would be consistent with multiple-use objectives. More detailed
direction is needed to spell out the few circumstances under which a
departure is permitted because the language guiding the Responsible
Official in considering departures is too weak. The amount of timber
harvest permitted is artificially inflated by allowing departures and
by calculating LTSYC from all lands where timber harvest can occur. The
directives allow departures to continue indefinitely, making the LTSY
limit meaningless.
Response: The term ``departure'' used in relation to the Long Term
Sustained Yield Capacity (LTSYC) has been replaced with the more
descriptive phrase ``planned harvest exceeding the LTSYC''. Specific
direction addressing planned harvests that exceed the LTSYC is now
found in FSH 1909.12, section 63.5. Planned harvests that exceed the
LTSYC are permitted by 16 U.S.C. 1611. This statute does not require a
decade-end reconciliation of harvest with the sustained yield limit.
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 63.4 requires the Responsible
Official to meet specific criteria, take into account all the parts of
sustainability, and involve the public when considering a planned
harvest that exceeds the LTSYC. Harvests exceeding the LTSYC are
reconciled during revision of the plan.
In response to public comment, the directives have been modified so
that the relation between the TSPQ and the LTSYC must be considered
separately on lands suitable for timber production and ``other lands''
where harvests may occur. This separate assessment should address
concerns that harvest levels will be artificially inflated.
Restoration activities being undertaken now and in the near future
are examples where short-term timber harvest levels may exceed the
LTSYC.
[[Page 5147]]
Many areas have stand densities that are much higher than historical
levels creating greater fire risk. Timber harvest treatments may be
used on these lands to reduce fuels and reach a desired stand density.
Future fuel reduction treatments on these lands may be a combination of
small harvests and controlled burns, making the long-term harvest
levels lower than short-term harvest levels.
Wilderness and Roadless Areas
Wilderness Recommendations
Comment: The Forest Service should recommend all roadless areas to
Congress for permanent protection through wilderness designation.
Response: The agency will do an evaluation of inventoried roadless
areas for possible recommendation for wilderness designation during
revision of a land management plan. The outcome of that evaluation will
determine which areas are administratively recommended for wilderness
designation by Congress.
Public Support
Comment: The Forest Service must consider that the public has
expressed overwhelming support for roadless area conservation when
determining how the roadless areas will be managed.
Response: Responsible Officials will consider all appropriate
public input when revising land management plans. It is appropriate for
the Responsible Official to develop plan components; such as, desired
conditions, to protect roadless character for lands not recommended for
wilderness.
Contiguous Roadless Areas
Comment: The Forest Service should inventory all roadless areas
contiguous to existing wilderness as one area because that was the will
of Congress.
Response: It would not be appropriate to combine many separated
roadless and undeveloped areas and consider them as one area when
determining their suitability for the inventory of potential
wilderness. Each area is potentially unique and must demonstrate
characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness.
Protection of Roadless Areas
Comment: The Forest Service should use the protective safeguards
and exceptions in the roadless rule as the baseline for protecting
roadless areas.
Response: The Roadless Areas Conservation Rule was withdrawn and
replaced by the State Petitioning rule on May 13, 2005. The directives
for plan revision and amendment are directed toward the inventory and
evaluation of roadless areas rather than their protection.
Consideration of wilderness suitability is inherent in land management
planning. Unless otherwise provided by law, all roadless, undeveloped
areas that satisfy the definition of wilderness found in section 2(c)
of the Wilderness Act of 1964 are evaluated and considered for
recommendation as potential wilderness areas during plan development or
revision. Management of those inventoried roadless areas is subject to
the land management planning process, which includes collaboration with
and involvement by all interested parties.
RARE I and II
Comment: The Forest Service should explain the current status of
the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) I and II studies.
Response: In 1972, the agency undertook an inventory and evaluation
of all undeveloped areas in the NFS that could be considered for
possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System
(NWPS). This first roadless area review and evaluation, later called
RARE I, concluded in October of 1973 with the selection of 274
wilderness study areas containing 12.3 million acres. These selections
were made from an inventory of 1,449 areas containing 56 million acres.
The reviews of these study areas were to be completed in the planning
process.
In 1977, concerns were expressed that the planning process might be
too slow for completing timely reviews for the 274 study areas. There
were also concerns that some areas might have been overlooked and that
RARE I did not adequately inventory the national grasslands or the
eastern national forests. In response to these concerns, the Secretary
started RARE II. RARE II was finished in January of 1979 and identified
2,919 areas containing just over 62 million acres; recommended that 15
million acres be added to the NWPS, 36 million acres be allocated to
non-wilderness uses, and about 11 million acres be placed into a
further planning category.
In June of 1979, the state of California began a lawsuit
challenging the RARE II decision to designate inventoried roadless
areas in the state as non-wilderness. The U.S. District Court and the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the RARE II Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) did not comply with the
requirements of NEPA.
Following the Ninth Circuit's decision in 1982, the planning
regulations were revised in 1983 to require evaluating inventoried
roadless areas for wilderness potential in land management planning.
The planning regulation allowed the agency to maintain discretion over
developing inventoried roadless areas after a land management plan was
finished. Subsequent court decisions supported the concept that non-
wilderness multiple-use management prescriptions assigned to
inventoried roadless areas in land management plans are permissive
rather than a mandate or commitment to development because the ``no
action'' alternative still exists for these areas. Environmental
analysis and NEPA documents, for site-specific project proposals in
inventoried roadless areas assigned to non-wilderness management
prescriptions, must look at whether to develop, not just how to
develop.
Areas Previously Released by Congress
Comment: The directives should clearly note in FSM 1923 that areas
released from wilderness consideration by Congress in past wilderness
bills will not be included as potential wilderness areas.
Response: In the 1982 planning regulations, as amended, and the
current 2005 planning regulations, there is a requirement to consider
and evaluate, unless otherwise provided by law, all NFS lands
possessing wilderness characteristics for recommendation as potential
wilderness areas during the development or revision of a land
management plan (36 CFR 219.7(a)(5)(ii). The policy statement in FSM
1923 reiterates this requirement: ``Unless otherwise provided by law,
all roadless, undeveloped areas that satisfy the definition of
wilderness found in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 shall be
evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential wilderness
areas during plan development or revision.'' Although wording varies to
some degree in the various wilderness bills, this wording usually
considers these areas being subject to wilderness reviews during the
plan revision process.
Roadless Rule
Comment: The Forest Service should restore the roadless rule.
Response: On July 14, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Wyoming found the roadless rule to be unlawful and ordered
that the rule ``be permanently enjoined.'' On May 13, 2005, USDA
promulgated a new rule at 36 CFR part 294 entitled ``State Petitions
for Inventoried Roadless Area Management.'' This new rule establishes a
petitioning process that will provide Governors with an opportunity to
seek establishment of or adjustment to
[[Page 5148]]
management requirements for NFS inventoried roadless areas in their
states. This opportunity for submitting state petitions is available
until November 13, 2006. If a petition is accepted by the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Forest Service will work cooperatively with the state
to propose a state-specific rule that will address the provisions of
the petition. A proposed rule will be accompanied by the appropriate
NEPA documentation and made available for public review and comment.
Following evaluation and consideration of all public comments, the
Secretary can then promulgate the state-specific rule for the
management of inventoried roadless areas in that state.
Protect Roadless Areas
Comment: The Forest Service should protect roadless areas.
Response: Evaluating inventoried roadless areas for their
wilderness potential, and the management of inventoried roadless areas
not recommended for wilderness, takes place in the land management
planning process that includes collaboration with and involvement of
interested parties. Also, the United States Department of Agriculture
promulgated the state petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area
Management Rule on May 13, 2005, that established a petition process
that provides Governors with an opportunity to seek establishment of or
adjustment to land management requirements for NFS inventoried roadless
areas in their states through a state-specific rulemaking.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Review of Potential Rivers
Comment: The Forest Service should require a review of potential
wild and scenic rivers during all forest plan revisions.
Response: The final directives retain revisiting a wild and scenic
river evaluation as changed circumstances warrant. Previously, a
systematic inventory conducted to find eligible rivers or a
comprehensive administrative unit-wide suitability study must have been
documented in the planning record.
Evaluation Factors
Comment: The Forest Service should stress certain topics in the
Forest Service directives' Wild and Scenic Rivers section including
consideration of adjacent wetlands and estuaries/coastal zones, current
condition of riparian and adjacent forest, catastrophic events,
invasive species, the role of active management (vs. restrictions) to
help maintain or enhance designations, and compatibility with other
unique land allocations.
Response: The final directives retain a detailed discussion of
factors to consider in evaluating the suitability of an eligible river
for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National
System) in FSH 1909.12, section 82.41. These factors include the
potential uses of land and water that would be enhanced, foreclosed, or
curtailed by designation. Consideration of current conditions,
including other land allocations, is also a part of eligibility as
described in FSH 1909.12, sections 82.14 and 82.14a.
Hydrology
Comment: The Forest Service should consider unique or exemplary
hydrology as a primary criterion for Wild and Scenic River designation.
Response: The final directives retain hydrology as an example of
``other similar values'' for which a river may be found eligible (FSH
1909.12, sec. 82.14a, para.7).
Native Species
Comment: The Forest Service should stress natural/native species,
habitat diversity, and avoiding the spread of invasive species in Wild
and Scenic River areas.
Response: The final directives retain emphasis on resident/
anadromous fish populations, indigenous wildlife species, and various
aspects of associated habitat, including diversity, in determining
whether such values are ``outstandingly remarkable'' (FSH 1909.12, sec.
82.14a, paras. 4 and 5). Botany may also be evaluated as an
``outstandingly remarkable'' value; including emphasis on native
species/plant communities and habitat diversity.
Corridor Widths
Comment: The Forest Service should justify the one-quarter mile
boundary. It seems arbitrary, especially when the role of topography is
not acknowledged. Also, there is no mention of key wetlands, oxbows,
estuaries, and so on, as part of study area.
Response: For a legislatively mandated study, Congress established
in section 4(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act a boundary of one-
quarter mile from the ordinary high water mark on each side of the
river. The final directives retain a minimum boundary of one-quarter
mile with the added guidance that such a boundary ``may include
adjacent areas needed to protect the resources or facilitate management
of the river area'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 81.3).
River System or Basin Integrity
Comment: While holistic, watershed-based management strategy seems
appropriate, a vague and undefined suitability factor like ``the
contribution to river system or basin integrity'' provides little or no
understanding and focus for decisions.
Response: The final directives retain ``contribution to river
system or basin integrity'' as one of the factors that may be used to
evaluate the suitability of an eligible river for the National Forest
System. Input from organizations and individuals familiar with specific
river resources should be sought to define factors like the
contribution to river system or basin integrity.
Benefits From Designation
Comment: The Forest Service should explain whether the wild and
scenic river evaluation required in the Forest Service directives would
include a disclosure of positive outcomes expected from specific
management components of wild and scenic designation.
Response: The final directives retain direction from section 4(a)
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; for example, to address the
reasonably potential uses of the land and water that would be enhanced,
foreclosed, or curtailed with designation. Such analysis would include
the positive benefits to land and water from designation. The final
directives retain providing ``guidelines as integral parts of the
alternative'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 83.24).
Vegetation Management and Roads
Comment: The Forest Service should consider that while limiting
access roads and tree/vegetation cutting in areas eligible for wild and
scenic river status may be suitable for that designation, it may also
significantly increase the risk of losing key values that contributed
to the designation.
Response: The final directives retain the ability to use a range of
vegetation management and timber harvest practices in scenic and
recreational river corridors provided these practices protect, restore,
or enhance the river environment. Cutting of trees and other vegetation
is not permitted in wild river corridors except ``when needed * * *
protect the environment, including wildfire suppression.''
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Projects
Comment: The Forest Service should provide more specific guidance
in the Forest Service directives Wild and Scenic Rivers section in
regard to authorized and prohibited fish and wildlife habitat
management projects.
[[Page 5149]]
Response: The final directives retain existing guidance for
evaluating wildlife and fish projects in addition to the requirement to
evaluate any part of such project that has potential to affect the
river's free-flowing character as a water resources project.
Projects To Control Non-Native Species
Comment: Evaluating fish and wildlife habitat management projects,
such as impoundments intended to prevent non-native or invasive species
from migrating upstream as water resources projects may prevent or
preclude activities needed to protect or restore native species.
Response: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has a three-fold purpose:
protecting and enhancing a river's free-flowing character, its water
quality, and its ``outstandingly remarkable'' values. Free-flowing is
defined broadly in the act as ``flowing in natural condition without
impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping or other modification
of the waterway.'' The final directives retain guidance to evaluate any
part of a wildlife or fish project that has potential to affect a
river's free-flowing character as water resources projects, consistent
with the act. This requirement is not an automatic prohibition of in-
stream wildlife or fish projects.
Condition Classes
Comment: The Forest Service should consider revising the Forest
Service directives on wild and scenic river evaluation to add a
requirement to assess and disclose the current anticipated ``condition
classes'' of the riparian and adjacent forest to such major influences
as wildfires, insects, and diseases.
Response: The final directives retain a detailed discussion of
factors to consider in evaluating the suitability of an eligible river
for inclusion in the National Forest System in FSH 1909.12, section
82.41. These factors include the potential uses of land and water that
would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed by designation.
Environmental and Heritage Preservation
Environmental Protection
Comment: The Forest Service should protect our environment for the
benefit of future generations, protect animal and plant species,
protect water resources, prevent global warming, protect from oil and
logging interests, protect the air supply including visibility, and
provide recreational opportunities.
Response: The Forest Service is mandated by many statutes to
protect and manage the NFS for multiple-use values. The Forest Service
directives allow all these important environmental issues to be
considered during the forest planning process as the Responsible
Official deems appropriate.
Comment: The Forest Service should start thinking in terms of
habitat restoration and high rise dwellings to alleviate the pressure
on wildlife.
Response: Habitat restoration is certainly a management option that
can be considered during the forest planning process. High rise
dwellings are not in the scope of Forest Service directives.
Comment: The Forest Service should support developing alternative
sources of power and building materials.
Response: These issues are outside the scope of the Forest Service
directives. The Forest Service and United States Department of
Agriculture did evaluate the potential for renewable energy development
on NFS lands. The technical report titled, Assessing the Potential for
Renewable Energy on National Forest System Lands, written by R.
Karsteadt, D. Dahle, D. Heimiller and T. Nealon can be viewed at http:/
/www.osti.gov/bridge or paper copies are available for sale from the
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 865-576-8401,
FAX 865-576-5728 or e-mail mail to: reports@adonis.osti.gov.
Comment: The Forest Service should protect heritage resources
because the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires it.
Response: The comment is correct and the Forest Service is legally
mandated to protect heritage resources on NFS lands by the National
Historic Preservation Act and a host of other statutes and Executive
orders.
Resource Extraction
Comment: The Forest Service should stop oil and gas extraction and
tree harvesting on NFS Lands. Others think that the Forest Service
should maintain an even balance between resource extraction and
protection of wild areas. One respondent stated that all historical
improvements should be disclosed along with their cost and who paid for
them. Some respondents believed that industries are being allowed to
profit from the national forests at a cost that will be borne by future
generations.
Response: The Forest Service directives guide planning for the
management of the NFS. The many legal authorities governing the Forest
Service's management of NFS lands require it to consider resource
extraction and timber harvesting among the multiple uses to which those
lands are subject.
Mineral Extraction Activities
Comment: The Forest Service should not allow the economic benefits
of mineral extraction activities to outweigh environmental concerns.
Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 13.13d is in
accord with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
Under FLPMA, multiple-use includes Federal energy and mineral resources
underlying NFS lands. Exploration and production of those resources is
considered one of the ``principle or major uses'' under FLPMA which,
under section 202(e)(1) of that act, are to be given special
consideration in the planning process.
Fire Management
Comment: The Forest Service should thin and maintain the forest
floor to properly manage fires to reduce the risk of catastrophic
fires. Other respondents claim that thinning to reduce fuels will not
promote public safety.
Response: The Forest Service directives offer no specific guidance
on management activities that should or should not be used to address
catastrophic fires. However, the planning rule and the directives
require that management activities be monitored for their effectiveness
in reaching the objectives and desired conditions stated in the plan.
Transportation
Comment: The Forest Service should designate ``no motor vehicle''
areas and reclaim existing roads. Others think the Forest Service
should stop subsidizing construction of roads for logging, mining, and
energy interests. One respondent commented that the directives should
contain a provision for ``no new road of any kind.''
Response: The Forest Service disagrees that the directives should
contain explicit direction on road management. The directives are
intended to provide guidance on planning. This guidance directs the
Responsible Official to consider some of the issues raised by the
respondents when developing desired conditions, objectives, and
guidelines for transportation.
Water Resources Management
Water Quality Data
Comment: The Forest Service should be cautious when using water
quality limited stream data generated by the
[[Page 5150]]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Response: The Forest Service will use the best available data and
use that data consistent with the requirements of the Data Quality Act
(35 U.S.C. 3516).
Watershed Planning
Comment: The Forest Service should carry out intermediate watershed
planning.
Response: The Department of Agriculture along with several other
Departments and Agencies developed a Unified Federal Policy for a
Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management (65 FR
62566, Oct. 18, 2000). This policy requires that a science-based
approach be used for watershed assessments. The information generated
during the assessments will become part of the basis for identifying
management opportunities and priorities and for developing alternatives
to protect or restore watersheds. The Forest Service has developed a
science-based approach and has documented the procedures (Ecosystem
Analysis at the Watershed Scale, Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis
Version 2.2, August 1995) available at the Northwest Forest Plan
Information Center and Library (http://www.reo.gov/library). Currently,
each national forest conducts at least one watershed assessment a year
dependent on funding availability. Information from these assessments
may be used in the comprehensive evaluation.
Water Rights
Comment: The Forest Service should be more careful when addressing
ownership of water rights.
Response: The Responsible Official is directed to identify the
method used to identify the unit's non-consumptive water needs, and the
options available to support the states' water allocation process (FSH
1909.12, sec. 13.11c).
Recreation Management
Trails
Comment: The Forest Service should make trails open and accessible
to the public. It would be reasonable to fund forests that are used
rather than those that are closed to the public.
Response: The Forest Service directives do not restrict trail use
by the public.
Appalachian Trail
Comment: The Forest Service should identify the Appalachian
National Scenic Trail as a special management or geographic area under
the Forest Service directives. This will help to define this as a
special area with legislative designation and improve the chances for
protection and consistent management across administrative boundaries.
Response: Special areas such as the Congressionally-designated
Appalachian National Scenic Trail are addressed under FSM 1921.02b,
Special Area Designations. Forests are required to recognize that these
areas are nationally important and that the plan provides appropriate
guidance to protect, maintain, and enhance the values associated with
these areas. Special areas will be described in the vision document as
desired conditions. These desired conditions may be written for
geographic conditions such as the Appalachian Trail that traverses
several national forests in the East. The desired conditions describe
the ecological, economic, and social attributes that characterize the
outcome of land management and the Appalachian Trail.
Comment: The Forest Service should determine the suitability of
land for various resources, not just timber production because NFMA
requires it. Suitability for recreational use of off-road vehicles is
especially needed because off-road vehicle abuse damages the
environment.
Response: Off-road vehicle use is addressed separately in 36 CFR
parts 212, 251, 261, and 295, Travel Management; Designated Routes and
Areas for Motor Vehicle Use issued on November 9, 2005. Section 212.55
specifically addresses Criteria for designation of roads, trails, and
areas. Due to the complex nature of this management issue, such choices
and evaluations are best made at the local level, with full involvement
of Federal, tribal, state, and local governments, motorized and non-
motorized users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the
2005 planning rule. Forest Service directives for this rule have not
been developed at this time.
Lands Management
Land Acquisition
Comment: The Forest Service should put more emphasis on better
management of existing lands rather than on land acquisition. The
Federal government cannot afford to care for what it has let alone buy
more. Jobs are cutout and these are jobs that are justified for forest
management. This is either due to lack of funding or they are following
projects such as the ``Wildlands Project'' where a primitive setting is
desired. This ideology is not practical in the 21st century and will
prove to be a loss of resources for future generations.
Response: Land acquisition is an important program for conserving
resources that might not be protected if not federally owned. The
Forest Service directives do provide some general guidelines for
considering land acquisitions during the planning process at FSH
1909.12, section 13.13g. Land acquisition is considered a viable
management option for the NFS and is authorized by several statutes.
More detailed policy and guidelines can be found in FSM 5420, Land
Purchases and Donations and FSH 5409.13, Land Acquisition Handbook.
Special Areas
Comment: The Forest Service should consider designating special
areas and clarify who has the authority to designate such areas
including recreational, wildlife, scenic, paleontological, and other
areas not listed at FSM 1921. The directives should clarify who has the
authority to designate such areas not just botanical and geologic.
Response: FSM 1921, exhibit 01 issued in interim directive 1920-
2005-2 has been moved to FSH 1909.12, section 11.15. The exhibit
contains examples of some special areas that may be considered during
the planning process. The exhibit is not a comprehensive list.
Content of Directives
The following is an overview of what the directives contain related
to land management planning.
Forest Service Manual (FSM)
FSM 1900--Planning--Chapter Zero Code
In general, the zero code sections of the directive coding scheme
are used to identify general instructions, such as authority,
objectives, and policy that apply to all subsequent direction within
the section where the zero code is set out. The final directive changes
definitions and other changes to be consistent with the 2005 planning
rule. The final directive establishes policy that analysis should be
appropriate to the decision being made and the risks associated with
that decision, and that planning should be done in a reasonable manner,
at reasonable costs, and in a reasonable amount of time.
FSM Chapter 1920--Land Management Planning
FSM 1920.2--Objectives
The final directive revises objectives to reflect the principles of
the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)
[[Page 5151]]
and to update sustainability wording consistent with the 2005 planning
rule.
FSM 1920.3--Policy
The final directive adds that the responsible official must conduct
sustainability evaluations within an area large enough to consider
broad-scale factors and trends over large landscapes when plans are
prepared or revised.
FSM 1920.4--Responsibility
The final directive reserves the authority to the Chief to approve
the schedule of plan revisions at FSM 1920.41.
FSM 1921--Land Management Planning Under the 2005 Planning Rule
The final directive changes the caption from ``Regional Planning''
to ``Land Management Planning Under the 2005 planning rule.'' Forest
Service Manual 1921.03 adds policy that project or activity decisions
should not be included in plans. Forest Service Manual 1921.04 adds
responsibilities for Regional Foresters and Forest Supervisors. Forest
Service Manual 1921.1 includes direction on plan requirements and
vegetation management requirements from the National Forest Management
Act.
Forest Service Manual 1921.12 adds a section on National Forest
Management Act requirements. Forest Service Manual 1921.12a adds
requirements for timber management in carrying out projects and
activities. Forest Service Manual 1921.12b adds requirements for
vegetation management guidance in land management plans. Forest Service
Manual 1921.12c adds requirements for identifying lands not suitable
for timber production with re-evaluation to occur every ten years.
Forest Service Manual 1921.12d adds requirements for estimating long-
term sustained-yield capacity (LTSYC) and limitations on timber harvest
on ``lands generally suitable for timber harvest'' to be equal to or
less than the LTSYC. Also, adds exceptions to these limits of timber
harvest and requirements for timber management projections. Forest
Service Manual 1921.12e adds requirements for guidelines of maximum
size limits for even-aged regeneration harvest. Forest Service Manual
1921.12f adds requirements for culmination of mean annual increment
(CMAI) of growth and even-aged regeneration harvest and clarifies when
the CMAI concept does not apply. Forest Service Manual 1921.12g adds
requirements for plan guidance on restocking.
Forest Service Manual 1921.2 includes direction on plan
evaluations. Forest Service Manual 1921.21 requires the Responsible
Official to review evaluations and determine if changes are needed in
plan components. Forest Service Manual 1921.3 describes the Responsible
Official's discretion to determine the need for change in plan
components and the need for a plan amendment or plan revision. Forest
Service Manual 1921.4 describes plan implementation and FSM 1921.5
describes plan monitoring. Forest Service Manual 1921.6 describes
public participation and collaboration requirements.
Forest Service Manual 1921.7 describes social and economic
evaluation, civil rights and environmental justice compliance,
ecological evaluation, ecosystem diversity, species diversity, and plan
components for sustainability. The final directive establishes at FSM
1921.73 that the rigor of analysis should be proportional to the level
of risk to ecosystems and species. A key requirement at FSM 1921.77c
states that for species-of-concern, the plan should provide for
appropriate ecological conditions that are of appropriate quality,
distribution, and abundance to allow species populations to be well
distributed and interactive, within the bounds of the life history,
distribution, and natural population fluctuations of the species within
the capability of the landscape and consistent with multiple-use
objectives.
Forest Service Manual 1921.8 describes the role of science in
planning, including uncertainty, review, and documentation. Forest
Service Manual 1921.9 provides that an environmental management system
(EMS) must be established for each National Forest System (NFS) unit
developing, revising, and amending plans under 36 CFR 219.5 and 36 CFR
219.14 and include the scope of the unit's activities, products, and
services implementing the plan.
FSM 1922--Backcountry and Primitive Areas
This section establishes a reserved code for backcountry and
primitive areas for issuances of an interim directive or field
supplementation.
FSM 1923--Wilderness Evaluation
At FSM 1923, guidance is added on what areas should be subject to
evaluation based on direction from the 1982 planning rule.
Responsibilities are added for the forest, grassland, or prairie
supervisor. Guidance is added on when a legislative environmental
impact statement is required. Minor changes are made to text to agree
with the 2005 planning rule.
FSM 1924--Wild and Scenic River Evaluation
At FSM 1924, policy is added to complete legislatively mandated
studies within a specified study period and to clarify conditions under
which previous river studies may need to be revisited. A responsibility
is added for the Regional Forester to prepare legislative proposals for
river proposals and one was added for forest, grassland, or prairie
supervisor to approve management direction for rivers found eligible or
recommended for designation.
FSM 1925--Management of Inventoried Roadless Areas
This section provides a cross-reference to another interim
directive (id 1920-2004-1) on inventoried roadless areas, which became
effective on July 16, 2004.
FSM 1926--Land Management Planning Using Planning Regulations in Effect
Before November 9, 2000
Previous direction on FSM 1922 has been moved to FSM 1926. There
are editorial changes from the previous text at FSM 1922 to be
consistent with the 2005 planning rule. The caption is changed from
``Forest Planning'' to ``Land Management Planning Using Planning
Regulations in Effect before November 9, 2000.''
Forest Service Handbook (FSH)
FSH 1909.12--Land Management Planning Handbook
The final directive to this handbook includes a change from a one-
digit chapter coding scheme to a two-digit coding scheme; for example,
chapter 2 becomes chapter 20. The current direction in chapters 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, and 6 is removed in its entirety and those chapters, with two-
digit coding, are revised to be consistent with the 2005 planning rule
at 36 CFR part 219. Chapter 80 (formerly chapter 8) and the zero code
chapter contain changes to assure consistency with the 2005 planning
rule.
Chapter 10--Land Management Plan
This chapter provides direction on what constitutes a plan and
direction on consideration of individual resources. Section 11
describes: (1) Desired conditions, (2) guidelines, (3) identification
of areas generally suitable for various uses, (4) guidance for special
conditions (5) objectives, (6) proposed and possible actions, (7) plan
consistency, and (8) special areas and documentation. Section 12
includes guidance on the monitoring questions,
[[Page 5152]]
performance measures. Section 13 includes guidance on consideration of
various resources during the planning process, including air, water,
fire, recreation, heritage resources, minerals, range, travel
management, and land use.
Chapter 20--The Adaptive Planning Process
This chapter provides guidance on the adaptive planning process and
includes procedural steps for amending and revising plans. Section 24
describes how to review and evaluate a plan and provides guidance on
evaluation report content and format. Section 25 describes how to amend
or revise a plan. Section 28 describes content for the approval
document for plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision.
Section 29 describes the application of plan direction to projects.
Chapter 30--Public Participation and Collaboration
This chapter provides guidance on public participation and
collaboration.
Chapter 40--Science and Sustainability
This chapter provides guidance on science and sustainability.
Section 41 provides direction on science reviews and discusses purposes
of a review, levels of review, review strategy, and identification of
reviewers. Section 42 describes social and economic sustainability and
provides a framework for social and economic evaluation. Section 43
describes ecological sustainability and describes how to analyze
ecosystem diversity and species diversity.
Ecosystem Diversity and Analysis
The steps in the ecosystem diversity analysis include:
a. Selecting the appropriate scales;
b. Identifying the characteristics of ecosystem diversity that will
be the focus of the analysis;
c. Developing information on the range of variation;
d. Describing the current condition of the selected
characteristics;
e. Describing the current condition and trend of the selected
characteristics of ecosystem diversity;
f. Evaluating the status of ecosystem diversity;
g. Describing risks to selected characteristics of ecosystem
diversity; and
h. Developing plan components for ecosystem diversity.
Species Diversity Analysis
The steps in the species diversity analysis include:
a. Establishing the ecosystem context for species;
b. Identifying listed species, species-of-concern, and species-of-
interest;
c. Screening species-of-concern and species-of-interest for further
consideration in the planning process;
d. Collecting information;
e. Identifying species groups/surrogate species for analysis and
management; and
f. Developing additional plan components for species diversity if
needed.
Section 43.22b provides guidance to responsible officials in
identifying species-of-concern and species-of-interest. For instance,
it states that the responsible official may identify species with ranks
of G-1 through G-3 on the NatureServe ranking system as species-of-
concern. Additionally, section 43.22c specifies how responsible
officials may review species with the ranks of S-1, S-2, N1, or N2 on
the NatureServe ranking system for potential species-of-interest.
Species-of-interest may include hunted, fished, and other species
identified cooperatively with state fish and wildlife agencies
consistent with the Sikes Act.
Chapter 50--Objection Process
This chapter provides guidance for the pre-decisional objection
process, including guidance on: computation of periods, evidence of
timely filing, lead objector, dismissal of objections, timeframes for
resolving objections, response of reviewing officials, and maintaining
records.
Chapter 60--Forest Vegetation Resource Planning
This chapter adds guidance on timber and forest vegetation resource
planning, including guidance on identifying lands generally suitable
for timber production, suitability determinations at the project level,
and long-term sustained-yield capacity.
Chapter 80--Wild and Scenic River Evaluation
This chapter revises terminology, such as the term ``study report''
to ``study report/applicable NEPA document'' and updates terminology,
such as, ``management prescriptions'' to ``management direction,'' and
so forth. In addition, chapter 80 provides more explicit guidance for
the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) study process that is consistent with
a November 21, 1996, memorandum to Regional Foresters from the
Directors, Ecosystem Management Coordination and Recreation, Heritage,
and Wilderness Resources Staffs, Washington Office, with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture-U.S. Department of the Interior Guidelines,
and with the river study direction of other Federal agencies. These
changes strengthen and reinforce the linkage of the river study process
to land management planning.
Regulatory Certifications
Environmental Impact
These final directives provide the detailed direction to agency
employees necessary to carry out the provisions of the final 2005
planning rule adopted at 36 CFR part 219 governing land management
planning. Section 31.12 of FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 43208; Sept. 18, 1992,)
excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact
statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide
administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.'' The
agency's conclusion is that these final directives fall within this
category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist as
currently defined that require preparation of an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement.
Regulatory Impact
These directives have been reviewed under USDA procedures. The
final directives would not have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor state or local
governments. The directives would not interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy issues.
Finally, the directives would not alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients of such programs.
Moreover, the directives have been considered in light of Executive
Order 13272 regarding proper consideration of small entities and the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). No
direct or indirect financial impact on small businesses or other
entities has been identified. Therefore, it is hereby certified that
these final directives will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as defined by the act.
No Takings Implications
These final directives have been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12360,
Governmental Actions and Interference with
[[Page 5153]]
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and it has been determined
that they would not pose the risk of a taking of private property as
they are limited to the establishment of administrative procedures.
Energy Effects
These final directives have been analyzed under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that they do not
constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive
order.
Civil Justice Reform
These final directives have been reviewed under Executive Order
12988, Civil Justice Reform. These final directives will direct the
work of Forest Service employees and are not intended to preempt any
state and local laws and regulations that might be in conflict or that
would impede full implementation of these directives. The directives
would not retroactively affect existing permits, contracts, or other
instruments authorizing the occupancy and use of National Forest System
lands and would not require the institution of administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging their
provisions.
Unfunded Mandates
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22,
1995, the effects of these final directives on state, local, and tribal
governments, and on the private sector have been assessed and do not
compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any state, local, or
tribal government, or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a
statement under section 202 of the act is not required.
Federalism
The agency has considered these final directives under the
requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has made
a assessment that the final directives conform with the federalism
principles set out in this Executive order; would not impose any
significant compliance costs on the states; and would not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Moreover,
these final directives address the land management planning process on
national forests, grasslands, or other units of the National Forest
System, which do not directly affect the states.
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
These final directives do not have tribal implications as defined
by Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments, and therefore, advance consultation with tribes is
not required.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
These final directives do not contain any record keeping or
reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as
defined in 5 CFR part 1320 and, therefore, impose no paperwork burden
on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and implementing
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.
Conclusion
These final directives provide consistent interpretation of the
2005 planning rule for line and staff officers, and interdisciplinary
teams. As a consequence, the agency can fulfill its commitment to
improve public involvement and decisionmaking associated 1 with
developing, amending, or revising a land management plan. The Forest
Service has developed these planning directives to set forth the legal
authorities, objectives, policy, responsibilities, direction, and
overall guidance needed by Forest Service line officers, agency
employees, and others to use the 2005 planning rule.
The full text of these manual and handbook references are available
on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us.directives. Single paper
copies are available upon request from the address and telephone
numbers listed earlier in this notice as well as from the nearest
regional office, the location of which are also available on the
Washington Office headquarters homepage on the World Wide Web at http:/
/www.fs.fed.us.
Dated: January 10, 2006.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief.
[FR Doc. 06-804 Filed 1-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-U