[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 96 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8093-S8102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 1320. A bill to provide to the Federal land management agencies 
the authority and capability to manage effectively the Federal lands 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


      PUBLIC LANDS PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today represents 
a significant modification of S. 1253, which I introduced in the last 
Congress. This effort represents a large body of work--both oversight 
and legislative--to modernize the laws governing our stewardship over 
federally-owned, multiple-use lands.
  For those of you who have just tuned in, this bill is the result of 
15 oversight hearings that my Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land 
Management held during the 104th Congress. These hearings involved over 
200 witnesses,

[[Page S8094]]

representing all points of view, and reviewing all aspects of the 
management of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. 
The overwhelming conclusion from all of these witnesses--developers and 
environmentalists alike, public and private sector employees alike--was 
that the statutes governing federal land management--the 1976 Federal 
Land and Policy Management Act and the 1976 National Forest Management 
Act--are antiquated, and in need of updating. These statutes were 
passed by Congress in the mid-1970s to help solve land management 
problems. Today, they are a large part of the problem.
  I look at laws as ``tools'' for use by professional land managers and 
resource scientists that help establish priorities and make management 
decisions. These two tools are as antiquated as the slide-rule and 
computer punch cards that were the tools used by land managers at the 
time that these statutes were passed.
  As a consequence of this oversight review during the 104th Congress, 
and subsequent oversight hearings since, I drafted S. 1253 and 
circulated it at the outset of the 105th Congress. That draft, and the 
subsequently-introduced bill were, in turn, the subject of six informal 
workshops and another eight formal, legislative hearings to review the 
concepts embodied in both the first draft and the introduced version of 
S. 1253. The ideas that emanated from the oversight hearings were 
modified to reflect the suggestions of witnesses, and in recognition of 
how resource management problems have subsequently evolved.
  Also, during the course of the last eighteen months, we have held 
additional hearings, reviewed subsequent correspondence, and enjoyed 
additional dialogue about how to best modify the 1976 statutes. For 
instance, we held one hearing where all four of the former Chiefs of 
the Forest Service and one former Bureau of Land Management Director 
shared their views about the current state of federal land management, 
and where legislative action could assist their successors in 
discharging the public trust more effectively.
  During this time period there has been at least one seminal decision 
from the Supreme Court.  In Ohio Forestry Association versus Glickman, 
the Supreme Court has, in my view, significantly devalued the 
importance of the land management planning process authorized under the 
National Land Management Act, and probably FLPMA as well. In that 
decision, the Court denied standing to challenge resource management 
plans, essentially on the basis that no real decisions are made. While 
properly decided on the basis of existing law, I believe that decision 
produced the wrong result insofar as effective resource planning is 
concerned. The bill I am introducing today would explicitly set a new 
course, reversing the effect of this decision in order to make resource 
management plans more meaningful documents. In various other ways of a 
less significant nature, the bill I am introducing today also reflects 
the product of court decisions that have been rendered during the 
period that we have been reviewing these issues.

  The bill that I am introducing today is also the direct result of 
four important pieces of information. Let me describe each of these in 
turn.
  First, we held an extraordinary pair of hearings with the President 
of the Wilderness Society as the sole witness. These hearings were 
significant in the sense that we were not limited to the usual, five-
to-ten minute exchange to communicate with one another. Instead, we 
actually discussed the Wilderness Society's concerns and views about 
National Forest management for several hours.
  Second and equally important was the assistance provided by the 
Society of American Foresters. The Society laudably took on the task of 
appointing a working group of resource scientists and professionals to 
review the current state of federal land management and the proposals 
that we made in the last Congress, and to offer suggestions for 
improvement. I commend their report as an authoritative guide to needed 
changes in the current system. Most notably, the Society is emphatic, 
as am I, that many, if not most, of the problems that plague federal 
land management today can be resolved only through a cooperative effort 
between the Administration and Congress to produce a revised 
legislative charter for the land managing agencies.
  Third, we were in many important respects guided by Secretary of 
Agriculture, Dan Glickman's, Committee of Scientists Report, also 
issued earlier this year. I commend this report to the attention of 
Senators as well. In many areas, we find ourselves in agreement with 
the Committee of Scientists, particularly with regard to defining a new 
mission for the Forest Service. We would submit that this is needed for 
the Bureau of Land Management as well--even though that was beyond the 
Committee's charter. One area where the Committee's views are unclear 
is whether or not these improvements can be made exclusively through 
the rule-making process. The Committee seems to be of two minds about 
this. It is clear to us that the kinds of changes the Committee seeks 
cannot be accomplished through regulation. They must involve 
fundamental statutory changes to the agencies' missions. Any other path 
is, in our view, doomed to failure.
  Finally, we were informed at the time of the Administration's budget 
submission that the Administration would be sending forward a series of 
seven important legislative proposals governing federal land 
management. We were pleased that the Administration had at last come to 
the conclusion that legislative changes are necessary. This has been a 
source of intense dialogue between myself, Secretary Glickman, 
Undersecretary Lyons, and others in the Administration for more than 
two years. Given this recognition on their part, we felt duty-bound to 
wait for these proposals before going forward. In the bill I am 
introducing today, we have adopted, in pertinent part, five of the 
Administration's seven legislative proposals. A sixth proposal is the 
subject of a separate piece of legislation that was introduced in the 
House yesterday (HR 2389). I am working on a companion Senate bill to 
introduce shortly. Thus, I found the Administration's proposals 
something that I could agree with, and want to be responsive to.

  So, my work product is the result of a number of sources of 
information. It has taken at least six months longer to produce than I 
anticipated it would, but in the interest of: (1) securing the advice 
of Secretary Glickman's Committee of Scientists; (2) evaluating the 
Society of American Foresters' report; and (3) being responsive to the 
Administration's legislative proposals, I believe the wait was 
worthwhile.
  We will now move forward with additional hearings on this proposal 
confident that we are on the correct path to improve the quality of 
federal land management and, through a variety of means, increase 
public support for the future management of our federal forest lands.
  We invite both the Administration and Members on both sides of the 
aisle to join us in this effort. We move forward knowing that this 
proposal, like any other, is a working draft that will by necessity 
change, probably significantly, as we move forward.
  However, we also move forward knowing that legislative change in this 
area is both inevitable and vital. It is clear to me that this area of 
public discourse vitally needs a vibrant legislative debate and a new 
legislative charter so that our federal land managers can be provided 
with tools a little more modern than the slide-rule and mainframe 
computer punch cards.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 Section-by-Section Description--Public Lands Planning and Management 
                        Improvement Act of 1999

       Sec. 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.--This legislation--
     ``Public Lands Planning and Management Improvement Act of 
     1999''--provides new authority and gives greater 
     responsibility and accountability to the Forest Service, 
     Department of Agriculture, and Bureau of Land Management 
     (BLM), Department of the Interior, for planning and 
     management of federal lands under their jurisdiction. The two 
     statutes governing the agencies' land planning and 
     management--the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)--are now more 
     than two decades old; this legislation preserves those laws' 
     policies and requirements while it updates those laws to 
     reflect

[[Page S8095]]

     the agencies' subsequent performance and experience.
       The need for new statutory authority is one of the 
     principal findings of a recent report on the planning and 
     management of national forest and BLM lands commissioned by 
     the Society of American Foresters (SAF), entitled Forest of 
     Discord: Options for Governing our National Forests and 
     Federal Public Lands. The report states that ``new 
     legislation seems the best approach for improving federal 
     land management * * * Because the problems that exist are 
     both serious and complex, the problems cannot be resolved 
     through regulatory reform or through the appropriations 
     process. Rather, new legislation is warranted.''
       The first version of this bill was introduced as S. 1253 on 
     October 3, 1997. Since then the Energy and Natural Resources 
     Committee has devoted significant attention to the 
     legislation. It has been the subject of 8 hearings and 6 
     workshops, including one hearing in which 4 former chiefs of 
     the Forest Service and one former director of the BLM spoke 
     about the need for legislation to modernize the existing 
     statutory base for federal land planning and managing, and 
     analyzed this bill through the prisms of their experiences as 
     agency heads, and two hearings in which the President of the 
     Wilderness Society provided an in depth critique of the 
     bill's provisions. Toward the end of 1998, the legislation 
     was substantially altered to accommodate numerous useful 
     suggestions of, and to remedy a number of concerns raised by, 
     the many witnesses.
       In the Spring of 1999, two important documents were 
     published: (1) the SAF-commissioned critique of Forest 
     Service and BLM planning and management and call for 
     legislation, authored by prominent academics, state 
     foresters, consultants, federal officials, and private 
     forestland managers; and (2) the report of the Committee of 
     Scientists appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     provide advice in the course of a new rulemaking governing 
     Forest Service planning, Sustaining the People's Lands: 
     Recommendations for Stewardship of the National Forests and 
     Grasslands into the Next Century. This bill was redrafted 
     again before its introduction to incorporate many suggestions 
     and concepts from these two landmark documents. As a result 
     of the two rewrites, this legislation is significantly 
     different from, and reflects a much broader array of views 
     and ideas than did, its predecessor in the 105th Congress.
       Sec. 2. Findings.--This section contains numerous findings 
     which explain the need for this legislation. Many of these 
     findings are shared by the Committee of Scientists and SAF 
     reports, and the language of the most prominent findings cite 
     those documents. The findings--
       Note the widespread public support for the twin principles 
     of federal land management--multiple use and sustained 
     yield--imposed on Forest Service lands in NFMA and on BLM 
     lands in FLPMA.
       Recognize that NFMA and FLPMA, enacted in 1976, established 
     resource management planning processes as the means to apply 
     these land management principles to the federal lands.
       State that, in the 2 decades since the enactment of NFMA 
     and FLPMA, fundamental flaws in the planning processes have 
     been exposed, to the dissatisfaction of all stakeholders.
       Find that these flaws threaten the planning and management 
     decisionmaking processes and undermine the agencies' ability 
     to fulfill their statutory land management responsibilities 
     and to accomplish management that is well grounded in 
     science.
       Note that Congress' desire for planning to be completed 
     within discrete time frames and to provide secure management 
     guidance has not been achieved.
       Describe how planning has yet to be completed 2 decades 
     after the enactment of NFMA and FLPMA, and how the Forest 
     Service and BLM are now engaged in an apparently perpetual 
     planning cycle that deprives both the agencies and the public 
     of stable and predictable management of federal lands.
       State that the two levels of planning contemplated and 
     required by NFMA and FLPMA have been expanded by the agencies 
     and the courts to include various planning exercises on 
     multiple, often conflicting, broader and narrower planning 
     scales that in many cases are focused on only a single 
     resource, are conducted without the procedural and public 
     participation safeguards required by those laws, and 
     result in guidance that conflicts with the planning that 
     is conducted in accordance with those laws.
       Find that the procedures and requirements of NFMA and FLPMA 
     often are not compatible, and even conflict, with procedures 
     and requirements of other, more generally applicable 
     environmental laws. The result is often the de facto transfer 
     of planning and management decisionmaking authority from the 
     land management agencies--the Forest Service and BLM--to 
     other environmental agencies--most notably the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine 
     Fisheries Service--that do not possess comparable land 
     management expertise.
       Find ``without doubt'' that Congress has failed to 
     reconcile the procedures and requirements of other 
     environmental laws with the planning and management processes 
     established by NFMA and FLPMA.
       State that the land management planning is conducted 
     without regard for likely funding constraints on plan 
     implementation and that the agencies' budgets and 
     Congressional appropriations are not linked to the plans.
       Describe how, even when the Forest Service and BLM retain 
     planning and management authority, they are often paralyzed 
     by an escalating number of administrative appeals and 
     lawsuits.
       Note that existing law does not recognize, nor integrate 
     into planning, important new land management concepts such as 
     ecosystem management and adaptive management which are being 
     imposed or incorporated in federal land planning and 
     management without statutory authority or clear public 
     understanding.
       State that new processes developed by stakeholders to 
     better participate in federal land planning and decision 
     making, such as the community collaborative deliberations of 
     the Quincy Library Group and Applegate Partnership, are not 
     recognized or encouraged by NFMA and FLPMA.
       Find that these flaws in planning and plan implementation, 
     including the administrative and judicial challenges, have 
     escalated Forest Service and BLM land management costs and 
     thereby reduced land management capability.
       Note that FLPMA and NFMA were enacted when federal land 
     ecosystems were regarded generally as healthy, but numerous 
     watersheds are degraded, species are declining because of 
     habitat loss, and forested areas are undergoing or are 
     threatened by an unprecedented forest health crisis.
       State that monitoring to develop an adequate basis for 
     planning and to determine whether plans are being implemented 
     adequately or conditions have changed sufficiently to warrant 
     new planning is often promised but rarely conducted.
       State that these flaws in planning and subsequently 
     inability to secure plan implementation have injured--both 
     environmentally and economically--all stakeholders, but 
     particularly local resource-dependent communities which have 
     no protection nor recourse under NFMA and FLPMA.
       Find that NFMA and FLPMA, and their implementing 
     regulations provide much guidance on planning, but virtually 
     none on plan implementation, thereby devaluing the term 
     ``Management'' common to both Acts' titles.
       Report the finding of the United States General Accounting 
     Office (GAO) that the statutory flaws and public distrust 
     discussed in these findings have contributed to, and been 
     compounded by, the agencies' lack of a clear mission 
     statement.
       And find that additional statutory direction for planning 
     and plan implementation is needed to secure stable and 
     predictable federal land management and to free the Forest 
     Service and BLM to exercise fully their professionalism in 
     making management decisions.
       Sec. 3. Definitions.--This section defines the terms used 
     in this legislation. For the purpose of this section-by-
     section description only two terms need definition here. 
     ``Federal lands'' means all federal lands managed by the BLM 
     (excluding Outer Continental Shelf lands) and Forest Service 
     (including national grasslands). The four ``Committees of 
     Congress'' are the authorizing committees with jurisdiction 
     over the Forest Service and BLM: the Committee on Resources 
     and Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the 
     United States Senate.
       Sec. 4. Supplemental Authority.--This section makes clear 
     that this legislation supplements the NFMA, FLPMA, and other 
     applicable law. Any inconsistency: between this bill and the 
     NFMA or FLPMA is resolved in favor of this bill; and between 
     this bill and the statutes governing management of units of 
     the National Wilderness Preservation, National Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers, and National Trails Systems is resolved in 
     favor of those statutes.
       Sec. 5. Transition.--This section makes clear that existing 
     plans, policies, and other guidance concerning the federal 
     lands that are in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     legislation remain valid until they are revised, amended, 
     changed, or terminated in accordance with this legislation.

TITLE I--ENSURING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL LAND 
                                PLANNING

       Sec. 101. Purposes.--The purposes of Title I are to provide 
     a mission statement for the Forest Service and BLM and 
     provide Congressional direction to those agencies on the 
     preparation and implementation of resource management plans 
     for, and the planning of management activities on, the 
     federal lands. This mission and direction are intended to 
     avoid the environmental, economic, and social injuries caused 
     by the existing flaws and past absence of mission and 
     direction in federal land planning. Most importantly, this 
     mission and direction are expected to achieve more stable, 
     predictable, timely, sustainable, and cost-effective 
     management of federal lands. This title is also intended to 
     encourage collaborative processes in federal land planning, 
     to ensure adequate monitoring, and to establish uniform, 
     expeditious procedures for administrative and judicial 
     appeals. Finally, this title would provide for consideration 
     during planning of funding constraints on, and during budget 
     setting of funding needs for, plan implementation. The 
     collaborative planning, monitoring, and budgetary purposes 
     were not in this bill's predecessor.

[[Page S8096]]

                           Part A. In General

       Sec. 102. Mission of the Land Management Agencies.--A 
     common theme of the SAF report (pp. 17-18), the Committee of 
     Scientists report (pp. xiv-xvi), and a 1997 GAO report 
     entitled, ``Forest Service Decision-making: A Framework for 
     Improving Performance.'' (p. 5) is the need for a new mission 
     direction for the Forest Service and BLM that provides 
     guidance beyond the multiple use and sustained yield 
     principles and incorporates the newer management concepts 
     concerning ecosystems, landscape management, and biological 
     diversity. This section provides that new mission statement. 
     It is: to manage the federal lands to assure the health, 
     sustainability, and productivity of the lands' ecosystems; 
     where consistent with that objective, to furnish a 
     sustainable flow of multiple goods, services, and amenities; 
     to preserve or establish a full range and diversity of 
     natural habitats of native species in a dynamic manner over 
     the landscape, and to designate discrete areas to conserve 
     certain resources or allow certain uses. This section was 
     rewritten, consistent with the Committee of Scientists and 
     SAF reports' recommendations, to accord priority to ecosystem 
     concerns and to clarify and ensure that the agencies are to 
     deliver amenities as well as goods and services.
       Sec. 103. Scientific Basis for Federal Land Decisions.--To 
     ensure that federal land planning and management is well 
     grounded in science (a particular concern of the Committee of 
     Scientists), this section requires the Forest Service and BLM 
     to use in all federal land decisions the ``best scientific 
     and commercial data available.'' Congress first adopted this 
     stringent standard in the Endangered Species Act of 1973; 
     this bill's standard is identical to that Act's.

           Part B. Resource Management and Activity Planning

       Sec. 104. Levels of Planning.--To reduce the proliferating 
     number of federal land planning exercises, this section 
     limits the levels of Forest Service and BLM planning to two--
     multiple-use resource management planning for designated 
     planning units and site-specific planning for management 
     activities. The two agencies are given complete discretion to 
     designate planning units of whatever size and number they 
     consider appropriate in which to conduct the resource 
     management planning.
       The agencies may also conduct analyses or assessments for 
     geographical areas other than the planning units (including 
     ecoregion assessments as provided in Part F of this title). 
     The results of those analyses or assessments may be applied 
     to the federal lands by amending or revising the applicable 
     resource management plans.
       This section establishes a 3-year deadline for amending or 
     revising existing resource management plans to include 
     policies developed in planning conducted outside of the two 
     prescribed planning levels. Non-complying planning will no 
     longer apply to the federal lands at the end of the 3-year 
     period.
       Sec. 105. Contents of Planning and Allocations of Decisions 
     to Each Planning Level.--To eliminate redundant planning that 
     is time-consuming and costly, this section assigns specific 
     analyses to the two levels of planning established in section 
     104 and clarifies that the analyses may not be repeated 
     elsewhere in the planning process. This assignment of 
     planning tasks to specific planning levels is regarded as a 
     critically important change by the authors of the SAF report 
     (pp. 51, 59): ``The current land management planning 
     process is unclear about which decisions are made at which 
     points in the planning process. No public organization or 
     management system can be effective without clearly 
     articulated goals and an unambiguous decisionmaking 
     process, and in current planning, neither of these 
     conditions obtains. . . . Once the overall mission of the 
     lands has been identified, the most important questions 
     about land management planning on the national forests and 
     public lands relate to clarifying which issues are decided 
     at which levels of the decisionmaking process.''
       This section requires that resource management plans 
     contain 5 basic elements: (1) statement of management goals 
     and objectives; (2) allocation of land uses to specific areas 
     in the planning unit; (3) determination of outputs of goods, 
     services, and amenities from the unit; (4) environmental 
     protection policies; and (5) a description of the desired 
     future conditions of the unit's lands and the expected 
     duration of time needed to achieve those conditions. Basic 
     elements (1) and (3) are specifically recommended by the SAF 
     report (p. 57): ``Resource management plans should identify 
     and quantify (to the extent feasible) appropriate goals and 
     outcomes, including vegetation management goals and commodity 
     and amenity outputs.'' Element 2--land allocations--is, of 
     course, the historic backbone of planning and is recommended 
     by the Committee of Scientists report (p. xxxiii). ``Desired 
     future conditions'' is a new, basic element added to this 
     bill; this concept is recommended in the Committee of 
     Scientists report (p. xxviii) as ``[t]he central reference 
     point for strategic planning.'' The agencies are admonished 
     to tailor the environmental protection policies in element 4, 
     to the maximum extent feasible, not to be prescriptive 
     requirements generally applicable to the entire planning 
     unit, but rather to provide guidance for determining specific 
     requirements suitable for the precise conditions at 
     identified sites during the planning of individual management 
     activities.
       The agencies are tasked with describing the basic elements 
     in a manner that provides a basis for monitoring required by 
     section 116 and adaptive management required by section 117. 
     This requirement is new to this bill and is recommended by 
     SAF report (p. 57): ``The goals and outputs (including fiscal 
     expectations and downstream effects) should be set forth in a 
     manner that provides a basis for monitoring, evaluating, and 
     reporting agency performance.''.
       Additionally, the resource management plans are required to 
     contain: (1) a statement of historical uses, and trends in 
     conditions of, the resources covered by the plans; (2) a 
     comparison of the projected results of the basic elements 
     with recent agency performance and a discussion of any 
     expected, significant changes in management direction, 
     including any steps to be taken to ameliorate any adverse 
     economic, social, and economic consequences that might result 
     from those changes; (3) a schedule and procedure for 
     monitoring plan implementation, management of the covered 
     federal lands, and trends in the covered resources' uses and 
     conditions as required by section 116; (4) criteria for 
     determining when circumstances on the covered federal lands 
     warrant adaptive management of the resources as required by 
     sections 116(a)(3) and 117(c). The requirement to compare 
     projected results with past performance and discuss 
     significant differences is a new element in this bill that is 
     recommended in the SAF report (p. 57): ``The plans should 
     compare and contrast the goals and outcomes with recent 
     performance, highlighting situations where a significant 
     change in direction is proposed.'' The requirement for a 
     schedule and procedures for monitoring is recommended by both 
     the Committee of Scientists report (``An adequate plan 
     contains the methods and proposed measurements for monitoring 
     . . .''. (p. 108) and the SAF report (``The [planning] 
     decision document needs to specify the monitoring process . . 
     .''. (p. 27)).
       Another provision designed to reduce plan redundancies and 
     the time consumed in repetitive planning requires the 
     agencies to assign by a notice-and-comment rulemaking 
     specific analyses and decisions to each of the two planning 
     levels (as recommended in the SAF report (p. 59): ``Forest 
     planning regulations should identify the analyses and 
     decisions that must be made at each planning level''). The 
     agencies may not conduct or reconsider those analyses or 
     decisions in the planning level to which they are not 
     assigned. This section also assigns a number of analyses and 
     decisions by statute. In addition to the 5 basic elements 
     discussed previously, assigned to resource management 
     planning are resource inventories, cumulative effects 
     analyses (including effects on water quality), discussion of 
     relationship to State and local plans, identification of 
     federal lands which might be exchanged or otherwise disposed 
     of, and decisions on wilderness, unsuitability of lands for 
     certain uses (e.g., coal mining as required by section 522 of 
     the Surface Mining Control and reclamation Act and timber 
     harvesting as required by section 6 of the National Forest 
     Management Act), and visual objectives.
       Assigned to management activity planning are analyses of 
     site-specific resources and environmental effects, and 
     decisions concerning the design of, and requirements for, the 
     activity, including decisions related to water quality 
     effects of the activity, method for harvesting forest 
     products, revenue benefits, and a schedule and procedures for 
     monitoring the effects of the activity. These assignments of 
     decisionmaking comport with the recommendations in the SAF 
     report (p. 59): ``Forest or area plans might be the 
     appropriate place to analyze and decide wilderness 
     recommendations, output targets, supply-demand relationships, 
     and community impacts. [Localized] plans might be the 
     appropriate place to analyze and decide on 
     silvicultural practices and restoration activities and the 
     mix of habitats for species viability . . . [and] access 
     and management unit boundaries.''
       Among the more significant changes in this section from the 
     language of this bill's predecessors are the addition of 
     desired future uses to the plan's basic elements, the 
     emphasis on monitoring and adaptive management in resource 
     management planning, the requirement to address adverse 
     consequences of significant changes in management direction, 
     and the assignment of water quality analyses to both planning 
     levels.
       Sec. 106. Planning Deadlines.--To break the cycle of 
     perpetual planning, this section would set deadlines for 
     conducting the two-level planning. These deadlines are: (1) 
     for resource management planning--36 months for plan 
     preparation, 18 months for amendments defined as significant 
     by regulations, 12 months for amendments defined as non-
     significant by regulations, and 30 months for revisions; and 
     (2) for management activity planning--12 months for planning 
     significant activities, and 9 months for planning non-
     significant activities. All of these deadlines are longer 
     than those in the predecessor bill, as suggested by the 
     former agency heads and other witnesses. Also added is a 
     provision that adjusts the deadlines if an activity must be 
     submitted to Congress as a ``rule'' under section 251 of the 
     Contract with American Advancement Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
     868-874, 5 U.S.C. 801-808). Both the Committee of Scientists 
     report (``Planners should aim to complete the planning phases 
     from assessment through formal adoption of small landscape 
     plans within three years and preferably less than two.'' (p. 
     181)) and the SAF

[[Page S8097]]

     report (``deadlines for decisions should therefore be set'') 
     (p. 46)) recommend planning deadlines.
       Sec. 107. Plan Amendments and Revisions.--This section 
     ensures that the 5 basic elements of the resource management 
     plans are accorded equal dignity and that one element is not 
     arbitrarily sacrificed or ignored to achieve another. It 
     prohibits the Forest Service and BLM from applying a policy 
     to, or making a decision on, a resource management plan or a 
     management activity which is inconsistent with one of the 
     basis elements. To ensure that the agencies discover any such 
     inconsistency, this section requires each agency either to 
     report in writing with each land management activity decision 
     that the activity contributes to or does not preclude 
     achievement of the basic elements or to amend or revise the 
     plan to remove or reconcile the affected element. This 
     decision to amend would be made whenever the inconsistency is 
     discovered whether it is during the planning for a specific 
     management activity or during the monitoring of plan 
     implementation required by section 116. The agencies are 
     given the authority to waive an inconsistency without 
     amending the resource management plan for a single specific 
     management activity within any class of management activities 
     once during the life of the plan if the inconsistency does 
     not violate a nondiscretionary statutory requirement and the 
     determination is made that the waiver is in the public 
     interest.
       This section also requires that any change in federal land 
     management that is imposed by new law, regulation, or court 
     order or that is warranted by new information must be 
     effected by amending or revising the appropriate resource 
     management plans. Further, unless the agency determines that 
     the law or court requires otherwise and publishes that 
     determination, the change in management does not become 
     effective until the amendment or revision is adopted.
       This section directs that, when resource management plans 
     are revised, all provisions of those plans are to be 
     considered and analyzed in the environmental analysis 
     (environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental 
     assessment (EA)) and decision documents. This ensures that 
     the agency does not consider only those portions of the plans 
     that are particularly important to the most vociferous 
     advocates for a particular land use or management policy or 
     are of particular interest to the officials involved in the 
     planning exercise.
       Finally, this section clarifies that, while a resource 
     management plan is being amended or revised, management 
     activities are to continue and not be stayed in anticipation 
     of changes that might be made by the amendment or revision. 
     Exceptions to this stay prohibition include whenever a stay 
     is required by this bill, court order, or a formal 
     declaration by the Secretary (without delegating the 
     authority). However, the agencies can stay particular 
     activities for purposes that are unrelated to the purpose or 
     the likely effect of the amendment or revision. To ensure 
     that de facto stays do not occur, this section provides that, 
     except as described above, a plan amendment or revision may 
     not become effective until final decisions on management 
     activities that are scheduled to be made during the plan 
     amendment or revision process have been made.
       Changes to this section include wording that responds to a 
     concern expressed by the President of the Wilderness Society 
     that environmental policies could be made secondary to other 
     commodity-oriented policies. This was accomplished by 
     clarifying that no basic element--including the environmental 
     policies--can be made inconsistent and ignored, and that 
     exception can be made only once for any class of management 
     activities over the plan's life.
       Sec. 108. Consideration of Communities Dependent on Federal 
     Lands and Resources.--This section requires that, in 
     preparing, amending, or revising each resource management 
     plan, the Forest Service and BLM must consider if, and 
     explain whether, the plan will maintain to the maximum extent 
     feasible the stability of any community that has become 
     dependent on the commodity or non-commodity resources of 
     the federal lands to which the plan applies. Consideration 
     of dependent communities was strongly recommended in the 
     Committee of Scientists report (pp. xxi, 45): ``Within the 
     context of sustainability, planning should consider the 
     needs, resilience, and vulnerability of economies and 
     communities in selecting long-term management 
     strategies.'' ``The national forests and grasslands must 
     serve all of the nation's people; nevertheless, local 
     residents deserve particular attention when the 
     contributions of the forests to economic and social 
     sustainability are being considered.''
       The procedure for meeting this mandate is to include in the 
     EIS or EA on the plan, amendment, or revision a discussion 
     of: the impact of each plan alternative on the revenues and 
     budget, public services, wages, and social conditions of each 
     federal lands-dependent community; how the alternatives would 
     relate to historic community expectations; and how the 
     impacts were considered in the final plan decision.
       This section defines a community dependent on the commodity 
     or non-commodity resources of the federal lands as one which 
     is located in proximity to federal lands and is significantly 
     affected socially, economically, or environmentally by the 
     allocation of uses of one or more of the lands' commodity or 
     non-commodity resources. The secretaries are to consult with 
     the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor in establishing by 
     rulemaking criteria for identifying these communities.
       This section was changed to recognize that many communities 
     are as dependent on non-commodity resources (for professional 
     guiding, river running, hunting and fishing, etc.) as others 
     are dependent on commodity resources and that both types of 
     communities should be given special attention in planning.
       Sec. 109. Ecosystem Management Principles.--This section 
     provides a statutory basis for the relatively new ecosystem 
     management concept. It requires that this concept be 
     incorporated into planning. As the agencies accomplish this 
     integration of ecosystem management and planning, they are 
     cautioned that this new concept may not supersede other 
     statutory mandates. This section requires that the Forest 
     Service and BLM consider and discuss ecosystem management 
     principles in the EISs or EAs for resource management plans, 
     amendments, and revisions. It also states that these 
     principles are to be applied consistent with, and may not be 
     used as authority for not complying with, the other 
     requirements of this legislation, FLPMA, NFMA, and other 
     environmental laws applicable to resource management 
     planning.
       ``Ecosystem management'' is defined in section 3. That 
     definition has been altered in this bill to incorporate the 
     basic management mandate recommended by the Committee of 
     Scientists report (pp. xiv, 177): ``ecological, economic, and 
     social sustainability''.

            Part C. Encouragement of Collaborative Planning

       Decentralized, collaborative planning is emphasized in both 
     the Committee of Scientists report (pp. xxiii-xxv) and the 
     SAF report (p. 46). Although the provisions in this part have 
     appeared in earlier versions of this bill, they are arranged 
     here into one part in order to emphasize the collaborative 
     planning concept.
       Sec. 110. Participation of Local, Multi-Interest 
     Committees.--To encourage local solutions to federal land 
     management issues developed through collaborative planning by 
     neighboring citizens of diverse interests, this section 
     provides for the establishment of two types of local, matter-
     interest committees. The first is the ``independent committee 
     of local interests'' established without the direction, 
     intervention, or funding of the agencies and including at 
     least one representative of a non-commodity interest and one 
     representative of a commodity interest. Prototypes for this 
     type of committee are the Quincy Library Group and Applegate 
     Partnership.
       This section encourages these independent committees to 
     prepare planning recommendations for the federal lands by 
     imposing the requirement on the agencies that they include 
     those recommendations as alternatives in the EISs or EAs 
     which accompany the preparation, amendment, or revision of 
     resource management plans. If more than two independent 
     committees are established and submit planning alternatives 
     for the same federal lands, the Forest Service or BLM will 
     include the alternatives of the two committees it determines 
     to be most broadly representative of the interests to be 
     affected by the plan, amendment, or revision, and will 
     attempt to consolidate for analysis or otherwise discuss the 
     other committees' alternatives. Finally, the section 
     authorizes the Forest Service and BLM to provide to any 
     independent committee whose planning alternative is adopted 
     sufficient funds to monitor the alternative's implementation. 
     These independent committees would be exempt from the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act.
       Second, the agencies are empowered to establish local 
     committees corresponding to the federal land's planning 
     units. The membership of these committees must be broadly 
     representative of interests affected by planning for the 
     planning units for which they are formed. The agencies must 
     seek the advice of the committees prior to adopting, 
     amending, or revising the relevant resource management 
     plans and provide the committees with funding to monitor 
     plan implementation.
       Sec. 111. Citizen Petitions for Plan Amendments or 
     Revisions.--Section 122 establishes deadlines for challenging 
     resource management plans, amendments, and revisions. The 
     section provides a procedure for citizens who believe a plan 
     has become inadequate after the deadlines have passed to seek 
     change in the plan and, if unsuccessful in obtaining change, 
     to challenge the plan. This section authorizes any person to 
     challenge a plan after the deadline solely on the basis of 
     new information, law, or regulation. The mechanism for 
     challenge is a petition for plan amendment or revision. The 
     Forest Service or BLM must accept or deny the petition within 
     90 days, and any request for a stay within 5 days, or receipt 
     of the petition. If the agency fails to respond to or denies 
     the petition or stay request, the petitioner may file suit 
     immediately against the plan. If the agency accepts the 
     petition, the process of amending or revising the plan begins 
     immediately. The agency's decision to accept or deny the 
     petition is not subject to the consultation requirement of 
     the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the environmental 
     analysis requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act (NEPA).
       The principal change in this section was in response to the 
     testimony of the President of

[[Page S8098]]

     the Wilderness Society. It adds the opportunity for a 
     petitioner to seek a stay of any activities subject to the 
     petitioned plan amendment.
       Sec. 112. Notice and Comment on Management Activities.--
     This section adopts a provision from the provision in the 
     Fiscal Year 1993 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation 
     Act which provided procedures for adminsitrative appeals of 
     Forest Service land management activities. In this bill and 
     its prior versions the appeal procedures were incorporated in 
     a broader administrative appeals section (here, section 122). 
     Consequently, this bill and its predecessors would repeal 
     that 1993 appropriations act rider. As pointed out by the 
     President of the Wilderness Society, inadvertently dropped 
     from the repealed language was a provision requiring notice 
     (by mail and newspaper) and comment (within a 30 day period) 
     on Forest Service land management activities. This section 
     restores that provision and expands it to include land 
     management activities of the BLM.

   Part D. Consideration and Disclosure of Budget and Funding Effects

       Sec. 113. Disclosure of Funding Constraints on Planning and 
     Management.--To ensure that planning decisions are not based 
     on overly optimistic funding expectations and are not 
     rendered irrelevant by enactment of differing appropriations, 
     this section requires that the EIS or EA on ech resource 
     management plan, or plan amendment or revision, contain a 
     determination on how the 5 basic elements (goals and 
     objectives, land use allocations, outputs of goods and 
     services, environmental protection policies and standards, 
     and desired future conditions) will be implemented within a 
     range of funding levels (with at least one level which 
     provides less funds annually, and one level which provides 
     more funds annually, than the level of funding for the fiscal 
     year in which the EIS or EA is prepared).
       The Committee of Scientists, the SAF report authors, and 
     the GAO (Forest Service Issues Related to Management of 
     National Forests for Multiple Uses, 1996) all recognized the 
     fundamental problem of what the Committee of Scientists (p. 
     107) called the ``disconnect between budgets and plans.'' As 
     described in the SAF report (p. 22), ``Even though the Forest 
     Service has generally received the funds requested for land 
     management planning, it has not delivered the outputs that 
     the plans specify. Some plans have been developed without 
     budget constraints. This gap between plans and reality means 
     that many of the actions called for in the plans and 
     justified on multiple-use grounds can never be realized 
     simply because of lack of funds.'' All three reports 
     basically call for the same remedy (i.e., ``Forest or area 
     plans should explain how the goals and outcomes would be 
     affected by differing budgets.'' SAF report, p. 62) that is 
     provided in this section.
       Sec. 114. Fully Allocated Costs Analysis.--To ensure that 
     the costs to all uses are revealed, this section directs the 
     Forest Service and BLM to disclose in the EISs and EAs on 
     resource management plans, amendments, and revisions the 
     fully allocated cost including foregone revenues, expressed 
     as a user fee or cost-per-beneficiary, of each non-commodity 
     output from the federal lands to which the plans apply.
       Sec. 115. Budget and Cost Disclosures.--To better relate 
     the agencies' planning process with Congress' appropriations 
     process, this section requires that the President's budget 
     request to Congress include an appendix that discloses the 
     amount of funds that would be required to achieve 100% of the 
     annual outputs of goods and services in, and otherwise 
     implement fully, each Forest Service and BLM resource 
     management plan. This provision, together with section 113, 
     implements two critical recommendations in the SAF report (p. 
     62): ``A persistent criticism of resource management plans is 
     that annual appropriations have not always matched the 
     funding assumptions. Forest or area plans should explain 
     how the goals and outcomes would be affected by differing 
     budgets. Annual reporting on agency performance can then 
     compare and contrast the goals and targets of the plan 
     with the requested budgets and actual appropriations.''.
       In the face of escalating planning costs, particularly 
     those associated with ecoregion assessments, this section 
     also requires the agencies to submit to Congress each year an 
     accounting of the total costs and cost per function or 
     procedure for each plan, amendment, revision or assessment 
     published in the preceding year.

               Part E. Monitoring and Adaptive Management

       Set out in this part are the two most important functions 
     conducted by the agencies (in addition to responding to 
     citizen petitions for plan amendment or revision authorized 
     by section 111) to ensure that resource management plans--
     once prepared--are implemented and kept current. The first of 
     these functions is monitoring. A recurring theme of numerous 
     studies (including both the Committee of Scientists and SAF 
     reports and the 1997 GAO report, Forest Service Decision-
     making: A Framerwork for Improving Performance) is that, in 
     the words of the SAF report (p. 51), ``[b]oth natural 
     resources monitoring and program implementation monitoring 
     are currently inadequate.'' The Committee of Scientists 
     report emphasizes that the second of these functions--
     adaptive management--is wholly dependent on adequate 
     monitoring. Because monitoring is expensive (SAF report, p. 
     38) and is not typically a prerequisite to land management 
     decisions, it is usually deprived of necessary funding by 
     both Congress and the agencies. This part provides statutory 
     emphasis for, and attempts to provide more secure funding to, 
     these critical functions. This part consolidates and 
     strengthens various provisions in the previous version of 
     this bill.
       Sec. 116. Monitoring.--This section requires use of funds 
     from the Monitoring Funds established by section 118 to 
     monitor the implementation of each resource management plan 
     at least biennially. The monitoring is to (1) ensure that no 
     basic element (goal, land allocation, output, environmental 
     policy, or desired future condition) of the plan is 
     constructively changed through a pattern of incompatible 
     management activities or of failures to undertake compatible 
     management activities, (2) determine that no conflict has 
     arisen between any of the basic elements of the plan, and (3) 
     determine if circumstances warrant adaptive management of the 
     plan. The monitoring is to be conducted in accordance with 
     the procedures for monitoring that are required to be 
     included in each resource management plan by section 105. 
     Likewise, the determination of circumstances warranting 
     adaptive management are to be made in accordance with the 
     criteria for such determinations which section 105 also 
     requires be included in each plan.
       Sec. 117. Adaptive Management and Other Changes Due to 
     Monitoring.--This section requires corrective management 
     actions or plan amendments or revisions whenever, as provided 
     in section 116, the monitoring discloses changed 
     circumstances, conflicts in plan elements, or circumstances 
     warranting adaptive management.
       Sec. 118. Monitoring Funds.--This section would implement a 
     recommendation in the SAF report (p. 62) that ``[m]onitoring 
     should be separately and adequately funded.'' This section 
     establishes a Public Lands Monitoring Fund for BLM lands and 
     Forest Lands Monitoring Fund for Forest Service lands to 
     provide a supplemental funding source for important 
     monitoring activities. The Funds would receive all monies 
     collected from federal lands in any fiscal year that are in 
     excess of federal land revenues projected in the President's 
     baseline budget (minus the State's and local government's 
     share as required by law). The monies in the Funds may be 
     used, without appropriations, to conduct the monitoring 
     required by section 116 or to fund the monitoring of the 
     local, multi-interest committees under section 110.
       Added to this section is a provision that encourages each 
     agency to use private contractors, including contractors 
     under the Jobs in the Woods Program, to conduct monitoring, 
     except the monitoring done by the multi-interest committees.

                 Part F. Planning--Related Assessments

       Sec. 119. Purpose and Authorization of Ecoregion and Other 
     Assessments.--The purpose of this part and section is to 
     authorize the new practice of preparing ecoregion and other 
     assessments of environmental, economic, and social issues and 
     conditions that transcend the boundaries of planning units 
     established pursuant to section 104 for the purpose of 
     informing the resource management planning for, and the 
     planning of management activities on, the federal lands. The 
     Committee of Scientists (pp. xxvi-xxvii) endorses assessments 
     as vehicles for ``provid[ing] the context for. . . . 
     planning.''
       First, this section authorizes the Forest Service and BLM 
     to prepare these ecoregion or other assessments, which may 
     include non-federal lands if the Governors of the affected 
     States or the governing bodies of the affected Indian tribes, 
     as the case may be, agree. It requires the agency to give the 
     four Committees of Congress and the public 90 days advance 
     notice before initiating an assessment. The notice to 
     Congress and Federal Register notice must include: (1) a 
     description of the land involved; (2) the agency officials 
     responsible; (3) the estimated costs of and the deadlines 
     for the assessment; (4) the charter for the assessment; 
     (5) the public, State, local government and tribal 
     participation procedures; (6) a thorough explanation of 
     how the region or area for the assessment was identified 
     and the attributes which establish it; and (7) detailed 
     reasons for the decision to prepare the assessment.
       Sec. 120. Status, Effect, and Application of Assessments.--
     This section provides that the assessments must not contain 
     any decisions concerning resource management planning or 
     management activities. The Committee of Scientists (p. xxvi) 
     endorses this approach: ``A critical component of the 
     framework proposed by the Committee is that assessments are 
     not decision documents and should not be made to function 
     under the NEPA processes associated with decision-making.'' 
     The section also establishes a procedure for applying 
     information or analysis contained in ecoregion or other 
     assessments to the planning and management activities. It 
     directs the relevant agency to make a decision within 6 
     months of completion of an assessment whether any information 
     or analyses in the assessment warrants amendments to, or 
     revisions of, a resource management plan for the federal 
     lands to which the assessment applies. If the decision is 
     made for an amendment or revision, no management activity on 
     federal lands may be delayed or altered on the basis of the 
     assessment while the amendment or revision is prepared. This 
     section also prohibits any federal official from using an 
     assessment as an

[[Page S8099]]

     independent basis to regulate non-federal lands. Finally, as 
     the assessments are non-decisional, this section provides 
     that they will not be subject to the consultation 
     requirements of the Endangered Species Act or the 
     environmental documentation requirements of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act. (``Most critically, assessments do 
     not produce decisions and, therefore, should not be made to 
     function under the NEPA processes associated with decision 
     making.'' Committee of Scientists report, p. 95.)
       Sec. 121. Reports to Congress on Assessments.--This section 
     mandates three reports on ecoregion and other assessments.
       First, this section directs the agencies to report 
     biennially to the four Committees of Congress on ecosystem 
     and other assessments, their implications for federal land 
     management, and any resource management plan amendments or 
     revisions based on assessments. The reports also must include 
     the agencies' views of the benefits and detriments of, and 
     recommendations for improving, assessments.
       Second, this section requires the GAO to prepare and submit 
     to the same Committees of Congress a report on each 
     assessment 3 years after the conclusion of the assessment. 
     The report is to: review the degree of protection for non-
     commodity resources on, and the level of goods and services 
     from, the relevant federal lands that are projected by the 
     assessment; provide an evaluation of whether such resource 
     protection and amount of goods and services were actually 
     delivered and, if not, why; and recommendations to change 
     assessments to change assessments to secure more accurate 
     projections and better delivery.
       Third, the GAO is directed to provide the Committees of 
     Congress with an overall evaluation of the efficacy of 
     assessments seven years after enactment.
       Dropped from this bill was the Pacific Northwest Plan 
     Review provision that was contained in earlier versions and 
     was criticized by witnesses for environmental organizations.

                     Part G. Challenges To Planning

       The purposes of this part are to ensure that challenges--
     both administrative and judicial--of resource management 
     plans and management activities are brought more timely, and 
     by those who truly participate in the agencies' processes. It 
     does not eliminate challenges or insulate agency decisions 
     from challenges.
       Sec. 122. Administrative Appeals.--This section directs the 
     Forest Service and BLM to promulgate rules to govern 
     administrative appeals of decisions to approve resource 
     management plans, amendments, and revisions, and of decisions 
     to approve, disapprove, or otherwise take final action on 
     management activities. While allowing the agencies 
     considerable discretion in rulemaking, this section does 
     provide that the rules must: (1) require that, in order to 
     bring an appeal, the appellant must have commented in writing 
     during the agency process on the issue or issues to be 
     appealed if an opportunity to comment was provided and if the 
     issue or issues were manifest at that time (SAF report 
     recommendation (p.58): ``Increase the requirements for filing 
     an administrative appeal by requiring participation in the 
     decision process related to the specific decision''); (2) 
     provide that administrative appeals of plans may not 
     challenge analyses or decisions assigned to management 
     activities under section 105 and administrative appeals of 
     management activities may not challenge analyses or decisions 
     assigned to plans under section 105; (3) provide deadlines 
     for bringing the administrative appeals (not more than 120 
     days after a plan or revision decision, 90 days after an 
     amendment decision, and 45 days after a management  activity 
     decision); (4) provide deadlines for final decisions on 
     the appeals (not more than 120 days for appeal of a plan 
     or revision, 90 days for appeal of a plan amendment, and 
     45 days for appeal of a management activity, with possible 
     15 days extension for each); (5) provide that, in the 
     event of failure to render a decision by the applicable 
     deadline, the decision on which the appeal is based is to 
     be deemed a final agency action which allows the appellant 
     to file suit immediately; (6) require the agency to 
     consider and balance environmental and/or economic injury 
     in deciding whether to issue a stay pending appeal; (7) 
     provide that no stay may extend more than 30 days beyond a 
     final decision on an appeal of a plan, amendment, or 
     revision or 15 days beyond a final decision on an appeal 
     of a management activity; and (8) establish categories of 
     management activities excluded from administrative appeals 
     (but not lawsuits) because of emergency, time-sensitive, 
     or other exigent circumstances.
       This section is more comprehensive than the section of the 
     Fiscal Year 1993 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation 
     Act which concerned appeals only of management activities 
     (not management plans, amendments, and revisions) of the 
     Forest Service (not BLM). As this section supplants that more 
     limited provision, it repeals that provision when the new 
     appeals rules required by this section become effective.
       Sec. 123. Judicial Review.--This section establishes venue 
     and standing requirements in, sets deadlines for, and 
     otherwise governs lawsuits over resource management plans, 
     amendments, revisions, and petitions and management 
     activities.
       The venue for plan-related litigation is the U.S. Circuit 
     Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the lands (or the 
     largest portion of the lands) to which the plan applies are 
     located. The venue for litigation over a management activity, 
     or petition for plan amendment or revision is the U.S. 
     District Court in the district where the lands (or the 
     largest portion of the lands) on which the activity would 
     occur or to which the plan applies are located.
       This section also clarifies that standing and intervention 
     of right is to be granted to the fullest extent permitted by 
     the Constitution. This means those who are economically 
     injured cannot be barred by the non-constitutional, 
     prudential ``zone of interest'' test developed by the 
     judiciary. This section also overturns the Supreme Court's 
     1998 decision in Ohio Forestry Association v. Sierra Club 
     (118 S. Ct. 1665 (1998)) which drastically limited the 
     ability of environmental organizations or other litigants 
     from filing lawsuits challenging resource management plans. 
     On the other hand, this section limits standing to those who 
     make a legitimate effort to resolve their concerns during the 
     agency's decisionmaking process and do not engage in 
     ``litigation by ambush'' by withholding their concerns until 
     after the agency decision is made. Specifically, this section 
     requires that the plaintiff must have participated in the 
     agency's decisionmaking process and submitted a written 
     statement on the issue or issues to be litigated if the 
     opportunity to comment was provided and the issue or issues 
     were manifest at that time, and must have exhausted 
     opportunities for administrative review.
       Deadlines for bringing suit are 90 days after the final 
     decision on the administrative appeal of a resource 
     management plan, amendment, or revision, and 30 days after a 
     final decision on the administrative appeal of a management 
     activity or final disposition of a petition for plan 
     amendment or revision. If the challenge involves a statute 
     (e.g., Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act) which 
     requires a period of notice before filing a citizen suit, 
     suit must be filed no later than 7 days after the end of that 
     notice period.
       This section bars suits brought on the basis of new 
     information, law, or regulation until after a petition for 
     plan amendment or revision is filed and a decision is made on 
     it.
       This section also clarifies that suits concerning resource 
     management plans and management activities are to be decided 
     on the administrative record.
       Several changes were made to this section to respond to 
     concerns expressed by the President of the Wilderness 
     Society.

  TITLE II--COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

       Sec. 201. Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to 
     eliminate primarily procedural conflicts among, and 
     coordinate, the various land management and environmental 
     laws without reducing--indeed enhancing--environmental 
     protection. A wide variety of reports from diverse sources 
     have consistently sounded the theme that conflicting laws 
     have made management of federal lands more difficult. Among 
     these reports are both the Committee of Scientists report (p. 
     xli) and the SAF report (pp. 23-24), the 1992 Office of 
     Technology Assessment report Forest Service Planning: 
     Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs and Sustaining 
     Ecosystems (p. 59), and the 1997 GAO report Forest Service 
     Decision-making: A Framework for Improving Performance (p. 
     11). The SAF report (p. 23) summarizes one fundamental 
     consequence: ``Because [other federal and state] agencies 
     have different missions, they interpret statutes and 
     regulations differently. The result, too often, is that they 
     fail to agree on land management decisions. In recent cases, 
     land management has been guided as much by decisions of the 
     regulatory agencies as by the resource agencies.''
       The SAF report finds that legislation is required to 
     address this problem; the Committee Scientists report (p. 
     xli), which focuses on recommendations to improve Forest 
     Service regulations, opines that, as to this problem, 
     legislative action may be necessary. This part approaches, 
     but does not go as far as, the principal recommendation of 
     the SAF report (pp. 55-56) relevant to this problem: 
     ``Consistent with sound land management theory, the federal 
     land management agencies should be given broad authority and 
     responsibility to meet all environmental requirements. 
     Consultation is appropriate, but other federal and state 
     agencies should not have the responsibility for approving 
     land management activities. If the federal land management 
     agencies do not act in a prudent, responsible fashion, their 
     actions should be subject to legal challenges.''
       Sec. 202. Environmental Analysis.--This section describes 
     how compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
     will occur in resource management planning and planning for 
     management activities. It requires that EIS be prepared 
     whenever a resource management plan is developed or revised. 
     (Plan amendments may have either and EIS or EA depending on 
     their significance.) This section also provides that, for 
     management activities, an EA ordinarily is prepared. The EA 
     for the management activity is to be tiered to the EIS for 
     the applicable resource management plan. The agency may 
     prepare a full EIS on a management activity if it determines 
     the nature or scope of the activity's environmental impacts 
     is substantially different from, or greater than, the nature 
     or scope of impacts analyzed in the EIS on the applicable 
     resource management plan.

[[Page S8100]]

       Sec. 203. Wildlife Protection.--This section addresses the 
     relationship of the Endangered Species Act to federal land 
     planning and management. First, it provides a certification 
     procedure by which the Forest Service and BLM can become 
     certified by the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct the 
     consultation responsibilities normally assigned to the Fish 
     and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Services 
     by section 7 of the ESA. If they are certified, the two land 
     management agencies will have the authority to prepare the 
     biological opinions under the ESA just as they now prepare 
     EISs under NEPA.
       Second, this section addresses situations in which the 
     resource management plan may have to undergo consultation 
     because of a new designation of an endangered or threatened 
     species or of a species' critical habitat, or new information 
     about an already designated species or habitat. This section 
     requires that a decision be reached as to whether 
     consultation is required on the plan within 90 days of the 
     new designation, and that any amendment to or revision of the 
     plan be completed within 12 or 18 months, respectively, after 
     the new designation. It also allows individual management 
     activities to continue under the plan while it is being 
     amended or revised, if those activities either separately 
     undergo consultation concerning the newly designated species 
     or habitat or are determined not to require consultation.
       Sec. 204. Water Quality Protection.--This section addresses 
     the relationship of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to federal land 
     planning and management. It provides that any management 
     activity that constitutes a non-point source of water 
     pollution is to be considered in compliance with applicable 
     CWA provisions if the State in which the activity will occur 
     certifies that it meets best management practices or their 
     financial equivalent. The agency, however, may choose not to 
     seek State certification and satisfy the separate applicable 
     CWA requirements.
       Sec. 205. Air Quality Protection.--This section addresses 
     the relationship of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to federal land 
     planning and management. It provides that, when a Forest 
     Service forest supervisor or BLM district manager (after 
     providing an opportunity for review by the appropriate 
     Governor) finds that a prescribed fire will reduce the 
     likelihood of greater emissions from a wildfire, and will be 
     conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts on air quality 
     to the extent practicable, the prescribed fire is deemed to 
     be in compliance with applicable CAA provisions.
       Sec. 206. Meetings With Users of the Federal Lands.--This 
     section addresses the relationship of the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (FACA) to federal land planning and management. 
     It clarifies that the agencies may meet without violating 
     FACA with one or more: holders of, or applicants for, federal 
     permits, leases, contracts or other authorizations for use of 
     the federal lands; other than persons who conduct activities 
     on the federal lands; and persons who own or manage lands 
     adjacent to the federal lands.

   TITLE III--DEVELOPMENT OF A GLOBAL RENEWABLE RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

       Sec. 301. Purposes.--The purpose of this title is to 
     replace the Renewable Resource Assessment and Renewable 
     Resource Program administered by the Forest Service under the 
     Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 
     with a Global Renewable Resources Assessment administered by 
     an independent National Council on Renewable Resource Policy.
       Sec. 302. Global Renewable Resources Assessment.--This 
     section emphasizes the vital importance of renewable 
     resources to national and international social, economic, and 
     environmental well-being, and of the need for a long-term 
     perspective in the use and conservation of renewable 
     resources. To achieve that perspective, this section directs 
     that a Global Renewable Resources Assessment be prepared 
     every 5 years. The Assessment must include: (1) an analysis 
     of national and international renewable resources supply and 
     demand; (2) an inventory of national and international 
     renewable resources, including opportunities to improve their 
     yield of goods and services; (3) an analysis of environmental 
     constraints and their effects on renewable resource 
     production in the U.S. and elsewhere; (4) an analysis of the 
     extent to which the renewable resources management programs 
     of other countries ensure sustainable use and production of 
     such resources; (5) a description of national and 
     international research programs on renewable resources; (6) a 
     discussion of policies, laws, etc. that are expected to 
     affect significantly the use and ownership of public and 
     private renewable resource lands; and (7) recommendations for 
     administrative or legislative initiatives.
       Sec. 303. National Council on Renewable Resources Policy.--
     This section establishes the National Council on Renewable 
     Resources Policy. Its functions are the preparation and 
     submission to Congress of the Global Renewable Resources 
     Assessment and the periodic submission to the Forest Service, 
     BLM, and four Committees of Congress of recommendations for 
     administrative and legislative changes or initiatives.
       The Council has 15 members, 5 each appointed by the 
     President, President pro tempore of the Senate, and Speaker 
     of the House. The Chair is to be selected from the members. 
     This section has typical provisions for filling vacancies, 
     appointment of an Executive Director, compensation of the 
     members and the Executive Director, appointment of personnel, 
     authority to contract with federal agencies, and rulemaking 
     and other powers of the Council.
       This section strives to ensure the independence of the 
     Council in three ways. First, it requires that the Council 
     submit its budget request concurrently to both the President 
     and the Appropriations Committees of Congress. Second, it 
     requires concurrent submission of the Assessment, analyses, 
     recommendations, and testimony to Executive Branch officials 
     or agencies and the four Committees of Congress. Finally, it 
     prohibits any attempt by a federal official or agency to 
     require prior submission of the Assessment, analyses, 
     recommendations, or testimony for approval, comments, or 
     review.
       Sec. 304. Repeal of Certain Provisions of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act.--This section 
     repeals those provisions of the Forest and Rangeland 
     Renewable Resources Planning Act that direct the Forest 
     Service to prepare a Renewable Resource Assessment and 
     Renewable Resource Program.

                       TITLE IV--ADMINISTRATION.

                           Part A. In General

       Sec. 401. Confirmation of the Chief of the Forest 
     Service.--This section provides for Senate confirmation of 
     appointments to the office of Chief of the Forest Service, 
     thereby establishing the same appointment procedures as those 
     applicable to the Director of the BLM. This section also sets 
     certain minimum qualifications for the appointee: (1) a 
     degree in a scientific or engineering discipline that is 
     relevant to federal land management; (2) 5 years or more 
     experience in decisionmaking concerning management, or 
     research concerning the management, of federal lands or other 
     public lands; and (3) 5 years or more experience in 
     administering an office or program with a number of employees 
     equal to, or greater than, the average number of employees in 
     national forest supervisors' offices.
       Sec. 402. Interagency Transfer and Interchange Authority.--
     This section authorizes the BLM and Forest Service to 
     transfer between them adjacent lands not exceeding 5,000 
     acres or exchange adjacent lands not exceeding 10,000 acres 
     per transaction. These transactions are: (1) to occur without 
     tranfer of funds; (2) to be effective 30 days or more after 
     publication of Federal Register notice; (3) not to affect any 
     legislative designation for the lands involved; and (4) 
     subject to valid existing rights. In response to the 
     testimony of the President of the Wilderness Society, a 
     proviso is added that absolutely prohibits modification or 
     removal of any special designation of, or any special 
     management direction applicable to, lands transferred or 
     interchanged under this section that was made or provided by 
     statute, except by another Act of Congress. The proviso also 
     provides that administrative designations may be altered or 
     removed only by amendments to the applicable resource 
     management plans.
       Sec. 403. Commercial Filming Activities.--This section 
     requires the agencies to issue permits and charge fees for 
     commercial filming and still photography on federal lands. It 
     is modelled on S. 568, introduced by Senator Thomas.
       Criteria for setting the fee for commercial filming are 
     based on the scale of the filming activities and their 
     potential impact on the federal lands. The agencies are also 
     to recover any costs they incur as a result of the filming 
     activities. The agencies are required to issue permits and 
     collect fees for still photography when models or props 
     not part of the federal lands or resources are used, and 
     may issue permits and collect fees when there is a 
     likelihood of resource impact, disruption of public use, 
     or risk to public health or safety.
       The fees and costs collected under this section are to be 
     retained in a special account in the Treasury and used, 
     without appropriation, for high-priority visitor or resource 
     management activities in the federal land units where the 
     permitted activities occurred.
       Sec. 404. Visitor Facilities Improvement Demonstration 
     Programs.--This section is modeled on legislation prepared by 
     the Forest Service for the Administration's FY 2000 budget 
     request. It directs the agencies to develop demonstration 
     programs to evaluate the use of private funding for the 
     construction, rehabilitation, maintenance, and operation of 
     federally owned visitor centers on federal lands. Each agency 
     is authorized to undertake up to 15 projects in which 
     individuals, corporations, public agencies, and non-profit 
     groups are selected competitively to develop and operate new, 
     or improve and operate existing, visitor centers. The terms 
     of the projects are to be based on the agencies' estimates of 
     the time necessary for the concessionaires to depreciate 
     their capital investments in the projects, but in no case 
     more than 30 years. When a project is terminated or revoked, 
     the agency or succeeding concessionaire will purchase any 
     remaining value in the capital investment that is not fully 
     depreciated. The agencies are also authorized to sell 
     existing federally owned visitor facilities at fair market 
     value, so long as the purchasers agree that any construction 
     will be consistent with the applicable resource management 
     plans.
       The agencies are directed to charge concession fees 
     established by the concessionaires' competitive bids, and 
     those fees are to be used, without appropriation, for 
     enhancing

[[Page S8101]]

     visitor services and facilities. The concessionaires must 
     provide bonds 5 years before the end of the projects to 
     ensure that the visitor facilities will be in satisfactory 
     condition for future use. The Secretary of Agriculture and 
     the Secretary of the Interior are each required to submit a 
     report to the four Committees of Congress evaluating the 
     demonstration program and making any appropriate 
     recommendations on whether to make the program permanent.
       Sec. 405. Fees for Linear Rights-of-Ways.--This section 
     incorporates legislation prepared by the Forest Service for 
     the Administration's FY 2000 budget request. It directs each 
     agency to collect rental fees for all linear rights-of-way 
     for power lines, roads, pipelines, etc. under section 501 of 
     FLPMA and the Act of February 25, 1920, except for rights-of-
     way that are exempted by law or regulation.
       Sec. 406. Fees for Processing Records Requests.--To 
     discourage inordinately broad ``fishing expedition'' requests 
     under the Freedom of Information Act that severely tax agency 
     funding and personnel, this section prohibits the waiver or 
     reduction of fees under that Act for any records request to 
     the Forest Service or BLM that will cost in excess of $1000 
     for a single request or for multiple requests of any one 
     party within a 6-month period.
       Sec. 407. Off-Budget Study.--The SAF report speculates (pp. 
     27-28) that under certain assumptions the BLM and the Forest 
     Service could become ``self-financing.'' The Committee of 
     Scientists report (p. 179) suggests that ``the Forest Service 
     should consider the development of more self-funding 
     activities to reduce its dependence on appropriated funds.'' 
     To test these speculations and suggestions, this section 
     tasks the GAO with the responsibility to conduct a study for 
     Congress of the feasibility of making the Forest Service and 
     BLM self-supporting by taking the agencies off-budget (no 
     appropriated funds) and returning to them all revenues 
     generated on federal lands (with mineral revenues from 
     national forest lands allocated to the Forest Service), 
     except revenues which by other laws are paid to States and 
     local governments.
       Sec. 408. Exemption From Strict Liability for the Recovery 
     of Fire Suppression Costs. Section 504 of FLPMA directed the 
     Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations governing 
     liability of users of rights-of-way granted under that Act. 
     The subsequent regulations imposed liability without fault 
     for, among other things, the recovery of fire suppression 
     costs of up to $1 million (43 C.F.R. Sec. 2803.1-5). This 
     section would amend section 504 to relieve entities that use 
     the rights-of-way for electrical transmission from strict 
     liability for such costs. This provision does not relieve 
     these entities from liability for fire suppression costs when 
     they are at fault.

                        Part B. Nonfederal Lands

       This part seeks to increase the timeliness and cost 
     efficiency of Forest Service and BLM decisionmaking which 
     directly affects private lands.
       Sec. 409. Access to Adjacent or Intermingled Nonfederal 
     Lands.--This section establishes procedures for processing 
     applications for access to nonfederal land across federal 
     land as guaranteed by section 1323 of the Alaska National 
     Interests Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). First, this 
     section requires that the application processing be completed 
     within 180 days and, if it is not, the access be deemed 
     approved. It sets a 15-day deadline for notifying the 
     applicant whether the application is complete. This 
     section makes clear that the analyses conducted under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species 
     Act are to consider the effects of the construction, 
     maintenance and use of the access across the federal lands 
     not the use of the nonfederal lands to be accessed. 
     Finally, it clarifies that any restrictions imposed on the 
     access grant pursuant to section 1323 of ANILCA may limit 
     or condition the construction, maintenance, or use of the 
     access across the federal lands, but not the use of the 
     nonfederal lands to be accessed.
       Sec. 410. Exchanges of Federal Lands for Nonfederal 
     Lands.--This section establishes procedures for exchanges 
     under, and amends, section 206(b) of FLPMA. As any management 
     activity on any federal lands or interests in lands newly 
     acquired under an exchange will be required to undergo full 
     National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act 
     review, this section provides that on the exchange itself an 
     EA satisfies the environmental analysis requirements of 
     section 102(2) NEPA and any consultation required under ESA 
     will be completed within 45 days instead of the 90-day period 
     provided by section 7 of ESA. Further, this section provides 
     that any exchange mandated by Congress requires no NEPA 
     documentation. This section also explicitly states that no 
     management activity may be undertaken on the newly acquired 
     federal lands or interests in land until NEPA and ESA are 
     fully complied with and, if necessary, the applicable 
     resource management plan is amended or revised. This section 
     requires that processing of the exchange must be completed 
     within one year of the date of submission of the exchange 
     application. Further, the nonfederal land or interests in 
     land in the exchange are to be appraised without restrictions 
     imposed by federal or State law to protect an environmental 
     value or resource if protection of that value or resource is 
     the very reason why the land is being acquired by the federal 
     government.
       This section also allows the Forest Service and BLM to 
     offer for competitive bid the exchange of federal lands or 
     interests in land that meets certain conditions. It also 
     authorizes the agencies to identify early or ``prequalify'' 
     federal lands or interests in land for exchange. Further, 
     when an exchange involves school trust lands, the agency is 
     excused from conducting a cultural assessment under section 
     106 of the National Historic Preservation Act if it enters 
     into an agreement with the State that ensures State 
     protection after the exchange of archaeological resources or 
     sites to the maximum extent practicable. Further, this 
     section authorizes the Forest Service to exchange federally 
     owned subsurface resources within the National Forest System 
     or acquired under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937.
       This section establishes special funds with a cap of 
     $12,000,000 for the agencies to use, subject to 
     appropriations, for processing land exchanges (including 
     making cash equalization payments where required to equalize 
     values of exchange properties). Finally, the maximum value of 
     lands in an exchange which may be undertaken on the basis of 
     approximately equal value (rather than strictly equal value) 
     is raised from $150,000 to $500,000.

                      Part C. The Forest Resource

       This part contains 5 sections concerning sales of forest 
     products on federal lands. This bill drops a provision 
     contained in its predecessors that allowed bidding on timber 
     sales for the express purpose of protecting--not harvesting--
     the trees. This provision had the distinction of garnering 
     opposition from both the timber industry and the 
     environmental community.
       Sec. 411. Timber Sale Preparation User Fee.--This section 
     is modeled on legislation prepared by the Forest Service for 
     the Administration's FY 2000 budget request. It authorizes 
     the agencies to develop 8-year pilot programs to recover from 
     timber purchasers the direct costs of timber sale preparation 
     and harvest administration. Alternatively, purchasers can 
     elect to contract with parties on approved agency lists to 
     conduct timber sale administration activities. Exempted from 
     collection under the programs would be the costs of complying 
     with the National Environmental Policy Act, conducting 
     stewardship timber sales under section 347 of the fiscal year 
     1999 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, and 
     conducting timber sales where the fees would adversely affect 
     the sales' marketability or the ability of small businesses 
     to bid on the sales. Fees collected are to be used to pay for 
     the administration of the pilot programs.
       Sec. 412. Forest Health Credits in Sales of Forest 
     Products.--This section provides the Forest Service and BLM 
     with an optional approach to undertaking forest health 
     management activities that would be impractical for the 
     agencies to accomplish under existing procedures or within 
     existing programs. This approach permits the agencies to 
     include new provisions in the standard contract provisions 
     for any salvage sale of forest products or any sale of forest 
     products constituting a forest health enhancement project 
     under section 413. These new provisions would obligate the 
     purchaser to undertake certain forest health management 
     activities which could logically be performed as part of the 
     sale. In return, the purchaser receives ``forest health 
     credits'' to offset the cost of performing the activities 
     against the purchaser's payment for the forest products. 
     These forest health management activities are subject to the 
     same contractual requirements as all other harvesting 
     activities. Sale contracts with these forest health credits 
     provisions are to have terms of no more than 3 years.
       Before forest health credits provisions can be included in 
     a contract of sale of forest products, the agency concerned 
     has to identify and select the specific forest health 
     management activities. Forest health activities would be 
     eligible for forest health credits if the agency concerned 
     finds that: (1) they would address the effects of the 
     operation of the sale or past sales, or involve vegetation 
     management within the sale area; and (2) they could be 
     accomplished most effectively when performed as part of the 
     sale contract, and would not likely be performed otherwise. 
     Forest health management activities are defined to include 
     thinning, salvage, stand improvement, reforestation, 
     prescribed burning or other fuels management, insect or 
     disease control, riparian or other habitat improvement, or 
     other activity which has any of 5 purposes: improve forest 
     health; safeguard human life, property, and communities; 
     protect other forest resources threatened by adverse forest 
     health conditions; restore the integrity of ecosystems, 
     watersheds, and habitats damaged by adverse forest health 
     conditions; or protect federal investments in forest 
     resources and future federal, State, and local revenues.
       Once the determination is made to add forest health 
     management activities requirements to a sale of forest 
     products, the specific activities are identified, and their 
     costs are appraised, the required activities and the forest 
     health credits assigned to those activities are identified in 
     the sale's advertisement and prospectus. (After the sale, the 
     agency, with the concurrence of a sale purchaser, can alter 
     the scope of the forest health management activities or 
     amount of credits when warranted by changed conditions.) This 
     section provides that sales with forest health credits need 
     not return more

[[Page S8102]]

     revenues than they cost and are not to be considered in 
     determining the revenue effects of individual forest, Forest 
     Service region, or national forest products sales programs.
       Appropriated funds can be used to offset the costs of 
     forest health management activities prescribed in a forest 
     products sale contract (typically when the total cost of such 
     activities would otherwise exceed the value of the offered 
     forest products materials or likely dampen competitive 
     interest in the sale), but only if those funds are derived 
     from the resource function or functions which would directly 
     benefit from the performance of the activities and are 
     appropriated in the fiscal year in which the sale is offered. 
     The amount of any appropriated funds to be paid for forest 
     health management activities under a sale contract also must 
     be announced in the sale's advertisement and prospectus.
       All forest health credits earned by the purchaser are 
     redeemable. Earned forest health credits can be transferred 
     to any other sale of forest products held by the purchaser 
     which is located in the same region of the Forest Service or 
     same jurisdiction of the BLM State office, as the case may 
     be. The credits are considered ``earned'' when the 
     purchaser satisfactorily performs the forest health 
     management activity to which the credits are assigned in 
     the sale advertisement. If the purchaser normally would be 
     required to pay for all the forest products materials 
     prior to completion of a forest health management activity 
     or activities assigned forest health credits, the 
     purchaser could elect to defer a portion of the final 
     payment for the harvested materials equal to the forest 
     health credits assigned to the activity.
       This section sunsets in 5 years, but previously awarded 
     contracts for sale of forest products with forest health 
     credits provisions remain in effect under the terms of this 
     section after that time. To assist the Congress in 
     determining whether this section should be reenacted, the 
     Forest Service and BLM are required to monitor the 
     performance of sales contracts with forest health credits and 
     submit a joint report to Congress assessing the contracts' 
     effectiveness and whether continued use of such contracts is 
     advised.
       Sec. 413. Special Funds.--This section gives permanent 
     status to the funds for salvage sales of forest products of 
     the Forest Service and BLM and expands their purposes to 
     allow use of the fund monies for a full array of forest 
     health enhancement projects.
       Sec. 414. Private Contractors.--To ensure that processing 
     of sales of forest products is accomplished in a timely 
     manner in an era of severe budget and personnel constraints, 
     this section encourages that the agencies, to the maximum 
     extent possible, use private contractors to prepare the 
     sales. To ensure the integrity of sale decisionmaking, this 
     section also requires the agencies to review the contractors' 
     work before making any decisions on the sales and bars the 
     contractors from commenting on or participating in the sales' 
     decisions.
       Sec. 415. Special Forest Products.--This section is modeled 
     on legislation prepared by the Forest Service for the 
     Administration's FY 2000 budget request. It directs the 
     Forest Service to collect fees for the fair market value 
     (established by appraisal methods or bidding procedures) of 
     special forest products harvested from national forest lands 
     and the costs for authorizing and monitoring the harvesting. 
     Special forest products are defined as any vegetation or 
     other life form not excluded from fees by regulation. The 
     Forest Service is to use the fair market value fees collected 
     under this section for conducting inventories of special 
     forest products and assessing and addressing any impacts from 
     harvesting activities, and the recovered costs for 
     administration of the program.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

       Sec. 501. Regulations.--This section requires the Forest 
     Service and BLM to promulgate rules to implement this 
     legislation within a year and a half of its enactment.
       Sec. 502. Authorization of Appropriations.--This section 
     authorizes appropriations to implement this legislation for 
     10 fiscal years after enactment. It also sunsets at the same 
     time all other statutory authorizations for appropriations to 
     the Forest Service and BLM for management of the federal 
     lands.
       Sec. 503. Effective Date.--This section provides that this 
     legislation will take effect upon its enactment, and 
     admonishes that no decision or action authorized by this 
     legislation is to be delayed pending rulemaking.
       Sec. 504. Savings Clauses.--This section ensures that 
     nothing in this legislation conflicts with the law pertaining 
     to the revested Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay 
     Wagon Road grant lands in Oregon. Further, this section bars 
     construing any provision of this legislation as terminating 
     any valid lease, permit, right-of-way, or other right or 
     authorization of use of the federal land existing upon 
     enactment and as altering in any way any Native American 
     treaty right. Finally, this section provides that all actions 
     under this legislation are subject to valid existing rights.
       Sec. 505. Severability.--This final section contains the 
     standard severability clause.
                                 ______