[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5124-5153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-804]



[[Page 5123]]

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

Part II





Department of Agriculture





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



Forest Service



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



National Forest System Land Management Planning Directives; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / 
Notices  

[[Page 5124]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

RIN 0596-AC02


National Forest System Land Management Planning Directives

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of agency final directives.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is issuing ten (10) final directives to 
Forest Service Manuals 1900 and 1920 and Forest Service Handbook 
1909.12; chapters zero code, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 80. These 
directives establish procedures and responsibilities for implementing 
national forest land management planning regulations at 36 CFR part 
219, subpart A, published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005 
(70 FR 1023). These directives provide consistent overall guidance to 
Forest Service line officers and employees in developing, amending, or 
revising land management plans for units of the National Forest System.

DATES: These directives are effective January 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the directives are available on the World Wide 
Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index or on a compact 
disc (CD). Copies of the directives on a CD can be obtained by 
contacting Regis Terney by e-mail ([email protected]), by phone at 1-
866-235-6652 or 202-205-0895, or by mail at Regis Terney, USDA Forest 
Service, Mailstop 1104, EMC, 3 Central, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20050-1104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regis Terney, Planning Specialist, 
Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (202) 205-0895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 5, 2005, the Department adopted final planning 
regulations for the National Forest System (NFS) at 36 CFR Part 219, 
subpart A (70 FR 1023) (also referred to as the 2005 planning rule). 
The 2005 planning rule provides broad programmatic direction in 
developing and carrying out land management planning. The rule 
explicitly directs the Chief of the Forest Service to establish 
planning procedures in the Forest Service directives system (36 CFR 
219.1(c)).
    The Forest Service directives consist of the Forest Service Manual 
(FSM) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH), which contain the agency's 
policies, practices, and procedures and serve as the primary basis for 
the internal management and control of programs and administrative 
direction to Forest Service employees. The directives for all agency 
programs are set out on the World Wide Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.
    Generally, the FSM contains legal authorities, objectives, 
policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a 
continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff to 
plan and execute programs and activities, while the FSH is generally 
the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for 
carrying out the policies, objectives, and responsibilities contained 
in the FSM.

Need for Direction

    Procedural and technical details associated with implementing the 
2005 planning rule are needed by NFS units to begin consistent plan 
amendments or revisions across all NFS units to prevent confusion and 
to improve public involvement and decisionmaking associated with 
developing, amending, or revising a land management plan.

Public Participation

    On March 23, 2005, the Forest Service issued 12 interim directives 
to FSM 1330, 1900, and 1920 and FSH 1909.12 asking for public comment. 
This notice of issuance involves final amendments for those interim 
directives, except for FSM 1330 and FSH 1909.12, chapters 70 and 90. 
FSM 1330 and FSH 1909.12, chapters 70 and 90 will be issued separately.
    Comments were submitted by mail, facsimile, and electronically. 
During the 90-day comment period (ending on June 21, 2005), the agency 
received 365 original responses and 8,727 copies of one form letter. 
These responses were analyzed by the Content Analysis Group and 
documented in a Content Analysis Report. Of the 365 original responses, 
the Forest Service received responses from 324 individuals and 41 
organizations, of which 150 were letters, 214 were forms of various 
types, and 1 resolution. The Forest Service received responses from 49 
states as well as from the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Army Post 
Office/Fleet Post Office, and foreign nations.

Response to Comments

Overview

    In response to comments, the Forest Service made substantive 
changes to the interim directives issued on March 23, 2005, by 
decreasing the length approximately 25 percent and reorganizing the 
text. This was accomplished primarily by:
    1. Reviewing direction to remove redundancies.
    2. Questioning the need for the direction.
    3. Discussing major topics once.
    4. Using more cross-referencing.
    5. Removing detailed exhibits from the final directives and 
placing, at a later date, more useful exhibits in technical guides on 
the Technical Information for Planning Site (TIPS) Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS.
    6. Moving detail about plan components, planning process, 
monitoring, sustainability, and science from FSM 1920 to the Forest 
Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12.
    7. Moving all information about the objections process from FSM 
1926 of the interim directives to FSH 1909.12, chapter 50.
    In addition, the Forest Service moved the previous content of FSM 
1922 to FSM 1926. Forest Service Manual 1926 now provides procedures to 
revise or amend plans using provisions of the planning regulations in 
effect before November 9, 2000 (1982 planning rule) for those 
Responsible Officials that choose to continue using those procedures in 
accord with 36 CFR 219.14. The Forest Service moved FSM 1922 because 
many readers confused the procedures for the 2005 planning rule with 
the procedures for using the 1982 planning rule.

Key Issues

Decisionmaking Process
Laws
    Comment: The Forest Service should comply with all applicable laws 
and with Executive Order 13352.
    Response: Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1901.1 identifies the laws 
setting forth the requirements for Forest Service planning, while other 
applicable authorities are discussed at FSM 1011. In addition, 
Responsible Officials are required to comply with applicable laws in 
development, revision, amendment, and implementation of plans (70 FR 
1034, Jan. 5, 2005).
    Executive Order (E.O.) 13352 provides that specific Federal 
agencies, including the USDA, should implement laws relating to the 
environment and natural resources in a manner that promotes cooperative 
conservation and emphasizes local participation in Federal 
decisionmaking. The public participation requirements from the 2005 
planning rule (36 CFR 219.9) and the directives (FSM 1921.61 and FSH 
1909.12, sec. 30) ensure that the interested public, state agencies, 
and local governments have the opportunity to participate. The Forest 
Service

[[Page 5125]]

believes that the 2005 planning rule and the Forest Service directives 
are consistent with E.O. 13352.
State Participation
    Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that states play a 
meaningful role in the planning process. This should include 
encouraging states to establish a state governing body, chartered by 
that state, with the authority to create general forest policies and 
produce a state guidance document for the management of Federal 
forestlands. This could define a state's position on the niche that 
Federal forestlands play in the state, clarify state expectations, and 
build support for Federal land management plans with State and local 
constituents.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that states should play a 
meaningful role in the planning process, including a role in defining 
the niche that National Forest System lands play in each state. The 
2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.9) and directives (FSM 1921.61) 
encourage that role. The Responsible Officials will work with state 
officials to jointly agree on the type and amount of participation. The 
Forest Service does not believe that a specific approach to state 
involvement should be identified in the directives because the state 
should decide what specific approach may be appropriate for them.
Cooperating Agency
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide local and state agencies 
the option of cooperating agency status for developing amendments or 
plan revisions.
    Response: Under Council on Environmental Quality regulations for 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); 
cooperating agency status is appropriate for other Federal, State, or 
local governments when they have jurisdiction by law or special 
knowledge about the action being addressed in a NEPA analysis (40 CFR 
1501.6). When other Federal, State, or local governments have 
jurisdiction by law or special knowledge about the action being 
addressed, the Responsible Official is encouraged to work with other 
State and local governments to determine if cooperating agency status 
is the most appropriate way for them to be involved. State and local 
governments contacted when the Forest Service is preparing a plan, plan 
amendment or plan revision are encouraged to identify their special 
expertise and/or jurisdiction by law to assist the local Responsible 
Official in determining appropriate designations as cooperating 
agencies. The Forest Service believes that the local Responsible 
Official is most able to determine how to involve state and local 
governments.
Governor's Consistency Review
    Comment: The Forest Service should add language to the FSM and 
create a process for state review of land management plans similar to 
the Governor's Consistency Review statutes created under the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
    Response: The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) does 
not have a requirement equivalent to the FLPMA requirement for a 
governor's consistency review. The Forest Service believes that the 
collaborative processes in the 2005 planning rule and the Forest 
Service directives, along with the potential for cooperating agency 
status when the Responsible Official and a state concludes this to be 
appropriate, will provide for meaningful State involvement in the 
planning process. The Forest Service believes that early state 
involvement, such as identifying a need for change and developing plan 
components, will be more beneficial to the Forest Service and the 
states than will a consistency review late in the planning process. 
States will also be invited to comment on proposed plans during the 90-
day comment period.
National Association of State Foresters
    Comment: The Forest Service should coordinate with the National 
Association of State Foresters on planning, monitoring, and 
assessments.
    Response: The Forest Service encourages the National Association of 
State Foresters to participate in Forest Service planning at all 
levels.
Comment Period
    Comment: The Forest Service should add 60 days to the comment 
period.
    Response: In past planning efforts, a 90-day public comment period 
on a proposed plan or plan revision has proved adequate. Historically, 
the Forest Service has extended comment periods where circumstances 
about a specific planning effort have merited an extension. The 2005 
planning rule does not preclude extending the comment period when 
needed.
Framework of Directives
Need for Regulations
    Comment: The Forest Service should address NFMA's requirement in 
the Code of Federal Regulations and not in the Forest Service 
Directives System.
    Response: The Forest Service interprets NFMA to afford the Forest 
Service discretion to provide policy guidance through regulations or 
the Forest Service directives. Final regulations for implementing the 
NFMA were published in the Federal Register, January 5, 2005 (70 FR 
1022). Those regulations provide that guidance in addition to that 
provided in the regulations will be provided in the directives. 
Directives are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.
Requirements and Content
    Comment: The Forest Service should have standards rather than weak 
guidelines, which allow too much discretion.
    Response: The decision to use guidelines rather than standards was 
made in the 2005 planning rule because the standards, as used 
previously in land management plans, proved too restrictive. The 
directives provide clarification about how guidelines should be written 
(FSH 1909.12, sec. 11.3). The Forest Service believes that guidelines 
will provide the necessary sideboards for designing projects and 
authorizing activities, while allowing line officers needed discretion 
to address site-specific situations.
    Comment: The Forest Service should create directives that are 
inclusive of all direction needed by the planners rather than awaiting 
white papers or technical guides.
    Response: The directives strive to provide the guidance needed to 
develop, revise, and amend plans. However, specific methods and 
analytical tools based on new information and changing technologies are 
expected to develop rapidly as the Forest Service gains experience 
carrying out the new planning and environmental management system 
processes. The Forest Service believes that using technical guides will 
allow more rapid response to these changes; such as, better examples of 
desired conditions, objectives, and associated monitoring programs, 
than could occur if all detailed planning techniques were placed in the 
directives.
National Direction
    Comment: The Forest Service should adopt a system with limited 
national direction for forest planners on complying with national legal 
mandates.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule and the Forest Service directives 
for implementing that rule are intended to provide the necessary 
guidance essential to ensure quality plans are developed without unduly 
limiting local innovation in the process and the plan content.

[[Page 5126]]

Plan Consistency
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide guidance to ensure 
consistency among Forests.
    Response: It is the responsibility of the Regional Foresters (FSM 
1921.04a) to coordinate planning between units in the region and 
between regions where units adjoin. The directives provide a framework 
for developing, revising, and amending plans; while allowing components 
of plans to adapt to local situations.
Project Information
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide complete and accurate 
information about projects. It is unclear how much explanation of 
possible project schedules and locations will occur in the plan.
    Response: Plans are intended to be strategic documents, providing 
limited or no information on schedules and locations of projects. Each 
plan will list proposed and possible actions anticipated to provide an 
array of opportunities or resource management programs (FSH 1909.12, 
sec. 11.2) and a planned timber sale program, including proportion of 
probable harvest methods (FSH 1909.12, sec. 65.4). Project disclosure 
comes at the project planning level.
Cumulative Effects
    Comment: The Forest Service should include requirements for 
cumulative effects analysis in the Forest Service directives.
    Response: Cumulative effects analysis occurs as a part of project-
level planning in accord with NEPA (FSM 1950, FSH 1909.15) rather than 
through forest planning. The comprehensive evaluation report (FSH 
1909.12, sec. 24.2), is intended to help provide context for project-
level cumulative effects analyses. The comprehensive evaluation report 
will be updated at least every 5 years.
Length and Clarity of Directives
    Comment: The Forest Service should shorten the length of the Forest 
Service directives. The sheer length of the directives makes them 
difficult to absorb. However, some respondents thought that the Forest 
Service should acknowledge that all sections of the Forest Service 
directives are incomplete, conceptual, ambiguous, and lack guidance 
about how concepts may be evaluated or applied and thought they should 
be clearer and more consistent.
    Response: The final directives have been reduced approximately 25% 
from the interim directives to improve clarity and remove 
inconsistencies identified by respondents. More guidance on methods 
will be available in technical guides.
Guideline Description
    Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that the statement 
``Direction that compels us to do action is not appropriate'' (FSH 
1909.12, sec. 12.23b) is an inappropriate statement. Another respondent 
stated that the directives system is not a substitute for plan 
direction (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.11, para. 3, item 3).
    Response: Although it has been reworded to provide clarity, the 
concept that guidelines should not be written to force action remains 
unchanged. Guidelines are intended to guide implementing actions, not 
cause actions to occur. The description of guidelines has been moved to 
FSH 1909.12, section 11.13 in the final directives.
    The directives system is not a substitute for plan direction. It 
would be redundant to repeat in the plan guidelines or technical design 
specifications what already exists in law, regulation, or agency 
directives. Where appropriate, these are referenced in a plan rather 
than repeated.
Legal Considerations
Litigation
    Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that the 2005 
planning rule is being litigated and use of the directives could be 
found invalid.
    Response: The Forest Service recognizes the potential implications 
from ongoing litigation of the 2005 planning rule; however, these 
implications are outside the scope of the directives.
Plan Implementation
    Comment: The Forest Service should include stipulations in the 
Forest Service directives that allow the public to challenge the agency 
in court if it fails to live up to a plan.
    Response: The Forest Service is committed to designing and carrying 
out activities consistent with plans. Administrative procedures are in 
place that allow the public appeal (36 CFR 215) or object (36 CFR 218) 
to certain management actions.
Consistency With NFMA
    Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that the directives are 
in accord with NFMA, including the act's biodiversity requirements.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the 2005 planning rule, 
and the Forest Service directives for carrying out that rule, are 
consistent with the requirements of NFMA. The Forest and Rangeland 
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended by NFMA, 
calls for plans to provide for diversity of plant and animal 
communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific 
land area (RPA, sec. 6(g)(3)(B)). The 2005 planning rule (36 CFR 
219.10(b)) provides for sustaining ecological systems by maintaining 
ecosystem diversity and species diversity. The Forest Service 
directives provide added guidance in FSM 1921.73 and FSH 1909.12, 
section 43, to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities.
National Trails System Act
    Comment: The Forest Service should specifically list the National 
Trails System Act in the Forest Services directives as an applicable 
law.
    Response: Forest Service Manual 1920.11 identifies statutory 
authorities relevant to planning and references other applicable 
authorities found in FSM 1011, including the National Trails System 
Act.
Forest Planning
Forest Planning Versus Project Planning
    Comment: The directives should acknowledge the increased role for 
project planning and provide guidance about how forest and project 
planning will link together. The interim directive's discussion of plan 
to project evaluation is too generic; for example, when in the process 
would cumulative effects on watershed be evaluated?
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 sets up procedures for 
developing, revising, and amending plans, as needed, to carry out the 
planning rule. The rule at 36 CFR 219.2(c) specifies that not one of 
the requirements of the rule apply to projects except as specifically 
provided. The final directives at FSH 1909.12, section 29, address how 
potential projects are identified and the finding that the project is 
consistent with the plan. Project analysis is discussed in detail in 
FSH 1909.15; agency procedures for compliance with NEPA. These 
directives and Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 
1500 to 1508 guide the environmental analysis for projects, including 
analysis of cumulative effects. Although the Forest Service expects 
that plan development, revision, and amendment will usually be 
categorically excluded, the comprehensive evaluation report will help 
set the context for project level analysis.

[[Page 5127]]

Need for Change
    Comment: The general premise that plan revisions will address only 
those parts of plans needing change and the premise that the new 
planning regulations and directives provide a new paradigm for planning 
are in conflict. The emphasis should be on a need for change.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, sections 24 and 25, 
outline an adaptive management framework for annual and comprehensive 
evaluations. An important result of these evaluations is to determine 
the need for change in the plan or in monitoring requirements. The 2005 
planning rule significantly improves the process for plan development, 
revision, and amendment so that the attention of the Forest Service and 
the public can focus on only those items that appear to need change. 
The Forest Service does not see this as a conflict in the two premises.
Adaptive Management Practices
    Comment: An adaptive management approach will enable the Forest 
Service to keep up with the best available science and to better 
respond to changing conditions.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees. An adaptive management 
framework is a cornerstone for the 2005 planning rule and the final 
directives.
Mandatory Standards
    Concern: The Forest Service should continue to call for plans to 
contain mandatory, environmentally protective standards. Without 
quantitative, measurable, performance standards the plans will lack 
commitment, because performance cannot be measured or verified. 
Guidelines do not serve this purpose because deviations can be made as 
individual projects are designed. This defeats establishing a certain 
``minimum'' natural resource protection. This makes plans meaningless 
and circumvents the NFMA requirement to adopt plans and carry out 
projects consistent with those plans (16 U.S.C., sec. 1604). This, and 
other attempts to increase leeway for the Forest Service, does not make 
sense given the agency's historical lack of accountability.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule does not include standards as a 
plan component. The preamble to the proposed rule and the response to 
comments for the final rule state the reason for using guidelines. 
Conditions on the ground are variable and the Forest Service believes 
that mandatory standards are too restrictive. Guidelines allow more 
flexibility for making adjustments based on site-specific conditions. 
The guidelines in plans are expected to be measurable. Guidelines 
should be written with inherent latitude and flexibility to carry out 
projects and activities so that adjustment is seldom an issue. However, 
if adjustment of guidelines is necessary, the project analysis and 
decision document must articulate the reasons for adjusting the 
guidelines.
Forest Management Prescription
    Comment: Forest management prescriptions should be used to set 
performance standards and ensure needed protections and desired 
conditions. An example is the Appalachian Trail, which is now has 
specific management prescriptions in eight national forest plans, 
ensuring consistent administration of the trail.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 11.1 
specifically states that plan components may be developed for areas in 
units; usually called management areas or geographic areas. Nothing in 
the final directives prohibits the continued use of management areas; 
as for example, those used by several national forests to provide 
consistent management guidance for the Appalachian Trail. The Forest 
Service believes that plan components; including desired conditions, 
guidelines, and suitability of areas will provide the needed framework 
for providing desired experiences, conditions, and protections.
Plan Amendments
    Comment: The Forest Service should not allow a plan to be amended 
through site-specific project decisions because this discretion would 
be abused, used mainly to make easier commodity development, or would 
evade the rigorous cumulative effects analysis requirements intended by 
NEPA.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 25.4 and 35 CFR 
219.8(e) provide that the plan can be amended through approval of a 
project or activity. This type of amendment would be considered along 
with considering whether the project should be modified or rejected 
entirely if the Responsible Official decides the project is not 
consistent with the plan. Conditions on the land are highly variable 
and the provision for amendments through projects is an important 
aspect making plans adaptable and workable. Documentation of the reason 
for the plan amendment would be included with the project 
documentation. Amendments through projects may be considered for a 
variety of projects, not just those that would produce commodities. 
NEPA compliance at project level is unchanged.
Management and Geographic Areas
    Comment: The Forest Service should not call for plans to contain 
management and geographic areas.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 11.1 does not 
call for management and geographic areas. It is permissive in that a 
unit could use one, both, or neither.
Minimum Components
    Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that plans identify the 
minimum components and commitments needed to manage multiple uses on a 
sustainable basis and to maintain ecological integrity of forest lands. 
Forest Service Manual 1921.11 states that plan components should be 
realistic and achievable, reflecting the unit's anticipated budget, 
staffing and technical capability. Budget levels should not dictate 
whether an adequate plan is prepared to reach missions and objectives.
    Response: Plans must provide for biological diversity and address 
the ecological, economic, and social parts of sustainability as 
required by the 2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.10 and FSH 1909.12, ch. 
40). Past plans have included desired conditions and objectives that 
could not be reached. Having unrealistic plan components does not 
enhance sustainability, but does cause considerable frustration and the 
feeling that promises were broken. The Forest Service believes that the 
provisions of FSM 1921.11 are important and will lead to a much clearer 
focus on setting priorities for plan implementation. These plan 
components can always be adjusted if more resources become available.
National Strategic Plan
    Comment: The Forest Service should establish a national framework 
of goals and objectives in its Strategic Plan designed around key 
outputs mandated through Congressional direction. Lack of a consistent 
framework may cause confusion and lead to many different frameworks for 
developing land management plans. There is an inherent tension between 
providing consistency between plans and providing flexibility in the 
plans to address circumstances that are unique to individual forests.
    Response: The Forest Service's National Strategic Plan sets up 
goals, objectives, performance measures, and strategies for management 
of the NFS mission areas (36 CFR 219.2(a)). Specific performance 
measures are identified. The Strategic Plan

[[Page 5128]]

establishes a national vision, based on the Resource Planning Act 
assessment and the 127 land management plans for forests, grasslands, 
and prairies (FSM 1906.11(b)). The Regional Foresters are required to 
ensure use of the Forest Service National Strategic Plan as a context 
for developing or refining desired conditions (FSM 1921.04(a)). The 
Forest Service agrees that there should be a link between unit plans 
and the National Strategic Plan. This link is addressed in the 
directives. The link works both ways, with the unit plans considering 
national goals and objectives and the National Strategic Plan 
considering the plans of each unit.
Plan Set of Documents
    Comment: The Forest Service should include in the plan set of 
documents any material that may have been used to formulate the 
management plan.
    Response: The plan set of documents details that were in FSH 
1909.12, chapter 50 have been removed from the directives and placed in 
a technical guide on the Technical Information for Planning Site (TIPS) 
Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS. The Forest Service believes that 
detailed guidance and procedures for the plan set of documents and the 
planning record are more appropriate for a technical guide. The 
description of the plan set of documents is in the planning rule at 36 
CFR 219.7(a)(1). The plan set of documents is not limited to only those 
things listed in the rule. The Forest Service believes the documents 
included should be clearly relevant to plan development and components 
and should be limited to final documents.
Options
    Comment: There is no guarantee that the Forest Service will 
consider options. Not considering options may be illegal.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 25.32 discusses 
considering options to proposed changes in plan components. Options may 
not be required for some proposed changes that are limited in scope or 
if there are no choices to the proposal, such as amendments needed to 
put into effect conservation strategies for federally-listed threatened 
or endangered species. Options can be used as a valuable part of the 
collaborative approach to plan amendment, revision, or development. 
Options would be developed with public input and would look at a range 
of potential plan components. Options would not be needed for those 
components of a proposed plan where the public is in agreement with the 
proposal. The Forest Service believes that this iterative and 
collaborative approach will be useful, but should be used only where 
feasible options are available. There are no legal requirements that 
would mandate options be considered every time the plan is changed.
Legal Problems
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider legal problems that 
will arise from a planning process that is too casual, especially if 
the directives are not binding.
    Response: The planning rule and directives establish a planning 
process and provides a framework that complies with NFMA. As 
Responsible Officials develop, revise, or amend plans they are 
constrained and guided by a large body of law, regulation, and policy, 
as well as, public participation and oversight to ensure full legal 
compliance.
Multilevel Planning
    Comment: The directives description of multilevel planning is 
inconsistent with the planning rule. The rule is for plan development 
only and discussion of considering cumulative effects from projects is 
not appropriate.
    Response: The description of the Forest Service planning process 
has been moved to FSM 1906. Reference to cumulative effects from 
projects during the comprehensive evaluations has been deleted, 
although the Forest Service does believe that comprehensive evaluations 
should use available data from several sources and some information 
developed during project development and implementation will be useful.
Supreme Court Decisions
    Comment: The Forest Service should not try to extend the Supreme 
Court decisions in Ohio Forestry and Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness 
Association (SUWA) to forest planning. The questions addressed in these 
cases do not address the questions of the 2005 planning rule and 
directives about whether and environmental assessment (EA) or an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for preparation of a 
programmatic plan.
    Response: The explanation for this approach to compliance with NEPA 
is discussed in detail in the preamble to the final 2005 planning rule 
(70 FR 1034, Jan. 5, 2005). Many factors, besides the Supreme Court 
decisions cited, led to the approach in the final rule and directives.
Desired Conditions
    Comment: The directives should give added guidance on how to 
describe and select desired conditions from an ecological standpoint. 
Historical conditions or range of variability may not be a suitable 
guide. The directives should include how climatic, cultural and 
historical changes have and will influence desired conditions.
    Response: A technical guide will be available on the Technical 
Information for Planning Site (TIPS) Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS. The range of variation under historic disturbance regimes is an 
important context; however, additional direction on how to develop 
desired conditions is found in FSH 1909.12, chapter 40.
    Comment: Desired conditions should have an expanded role as a key 
plan component.
    Response: Plan components are discussed in FSH 1909.12, section 11. 
The Forest Service agrees that desired conditions are a key plan 
component. Other components such as objectives, guidelines, and 
suitable uses must be developed consistent with moving toward or 
maintaining desired conditions.
    Comment: The Forest Service should have an appropriate focus of 
desired conditions, whether on ecological, social or economic elements. 
Desired conditions should focus on vegetation conditions with general 
statements on the contribution to a range of recreation uses and 
contributions to economies through commodity production. Desired 
conditions should include considerable detail on social and economic 
elements, such as sense of remoteness, cultural heritage, and how 
ecosystem management will address human-related issues.
    Response: Desired conditions describe ecological, social, and 
economic attributes and should be integrated to consider the needs of 
all relevant resources, ongoing activities, and natural processes (FSH 
1909.12, sec. 11.11). The statements of desired conditions will vary 
considerably from unit to unit based on conditions and public wants. 
Some statements of desired conditions may focus more on vegetation 
conditions while others focus on social and economic conditions and 
contributions. It would be inappropriate for the directives to 
prescribe an emphasis that would be used on every unit.
Realistic Objectives
    Comment: The Forest Service should develop realistic desired 
conditions that can be maintained under expected budgets besides 
developing realistic objectives for the plan period. Desired conditions 
should be changed to produce more revenue if adequate

[[Page 5129]]

funding is not received to maintain desired conditions.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that all plan components should 
be realistic and achievable. They should show the unit's anticipated 
budget levels, staffing, and capability for the plan period (FSM 
1921.11). Through annual and comprehensive evaluations during plan 
implementation, the Forest Service may identify the need to adjust plan 
components that appear to be unrealistic. Adjustments in plan 
components would not always produce more revenue for plan 
implementation, as annual budgets are largely dependent on 
Congressional appropriations.
Monitoring
    Comment: The Forest Service should use monitoring as a tool to 
identify information that may improve land productivity or provide 
alternative means of meeting desired conditions.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the primary purpose of 
monitoring is to find out whether plan implementation is reaching plan 
objectives and desired conditions. The Forest Service agrees that 
monitoring the effects of management activities on the productivity of 
the land is important. Monitoring may trigger the need to look for 
alternative means of meeting the desired conditions.
Measurable, Quantitative Criteria
    Comment: To be a legitimate plan, it must include measurable, 
quantitative criteria for goals and objectives, including desired 
conditions, and make an affirmative commitment to reaching those 
results. Desired conditions are the foundation of a plan. A document 
lacking affirmative commitments to reaching goals, desired conditions, 
and objectives is not a plan.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that desired conditions and 
objectives should be measurable. If monitoring and plan evaluation 
identify that desired conditions cannot be reached, the plan should be 
amended or revised (FSH 1909.12, sec. 11.11). The Forest Service 
intends to carry out projects and activities to maintain or make 
progress toward desired conditions and objectives. However, because 
there is uncertainty, the Forest Service believes plans are 
aspirational.
Role of Responsible Official
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify who is the Responsible 
Official.
    Response: ``Responsible Official'' is defined in the definitions 
section of the planning rule (36 CFR 219.16). The Responsible Official 
is the official with the authority and responsibility to oversee the 
planning process and to approve plans, plan amendments, and plan 
revisions. The Responsible Official for plan development, revision, and 
amendment is the forest, grassland, or prairie supervisor (FSM 
1921.04(b)).
    Comment: The Responsible Official should be given more flexibility 
to respond to scientific advancements and threats from invasive 
species, disease, or wildfire. Another respondent was concerned that 
Responsible Officials have too much discretion and that the directives 
should include safeguards against abuse.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the authority and 
discretion for plan amendment, revision, and development provided by 
the 2005 planning rule and the directives is appropriate. The planning 
process is greatly streamlined, specifically with the intent of 
improving Forest Service capability to adapt to changing conditions and 
new information. Although there is greater discretion, the decisions of 
the Responsible Official are constrained and guided by a large body of 
law, regulation, and policy, as well as public and agency participation 
and oversight.
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the discretion of the 
Responsible Official to set the scope and applicability for project 
decision amendments so that every time a project was inconsistent with 
the plan, the Responsible Official would not be able to amend the plan 
to allow that project to go ahead; making the plan meaningless.
    Response: The discussion of amendments through project decisions is 
now set out at FSH 1909.12, section 25.4. The Forest Service has 
clarified that the Responsible Official may limit the scope and 
applicability of the plan amendment to apply only to the project or 
activity area. It is important to understand that these amendments 
would not exempt the project or activity from plan compliance, but 
would adjust plan components in response to more site-specific 
information gained through the project analysis. There is no way to 
find out in advance how often the option of amending a plan will be 
used; however, the directives advise that plans should be monitored to 
identify if there is a need for change over all or part of the plan 
area.
Role of Science in Planning
    Comment: The Forest Service should require the use of the best 
available science in forest planning. The role of science must not be 
diminished to just ``one aspect of decisionmaking,'' an aspect 
superseded by ``competing use demands,'' for example.
    Response: In FSM 1921.81, the Forest Service describes the steps 
required to ensure that the best available science is taken into 
account. In FSH 1909.12, section 41.1 direction was added about the 
scope, timing, and other aspects of a review. Forest Service Handbook 
1909.12, section 41.22, table 3, lays out the many steps in developing 
a plan and suggests appropriate reviews for each step.
Wildlife Conservation
    Comment: Science needs to be a major factor; monitoring and 
regulations need to be in place to keep a natural balance and conserve 
our wildlife, endangered species and their important habitats.
    Response: The Forest Service concurs that science is a major factor 
in decisionmaking. As written, the directives tie monitoring and 
science together.
Identification of Best Available Science
    Comment: The evaluation and determination of what science 
constitutes the best available science should be conducted by people 
with the appropriate scientific knowledge and background.
    Response: In response to comments, direction has been added to FSH 
1909.12, section 41.23 that describes the qualifications of the 
reviewers. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 41.1 provides more 
direction.
Consistency in the Use of Science
    Comment: The Forest Service should be consistent in its use of 
science. Under the directives, some forests will have plans based on 
top-notch scientific review, others will not.
    Response: To ensure consistency and quality, FSM 1921.8 and FSH 
1909.12, section 41 provide direction on how to take into account 
science. FSH 1909.12, section 41 emphasizes that the level of review 
must be commensurate with the controversy, uncertainty, or risk 
associated with the planning activity. To always require a type or 
scale of review means the same review would be done on all planning 
efforts regardless of the complexity or scope. The Responsible Official 
needs the flexibility to conduct a review that is appropriate to the 
issue being reviewed.
Definition of Best Available Science
    Comment: The Forest Service should require the Responsible Official 
to define the ``best available science.'' How will this be done? Again, 
the directives contain no direction for the responsible officials.

[[Page 5130]]

    Response: Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1921.85 states, ``the 
Responsible Official shall conduct timely and substantive reviews of 
the science applied during the planning process.'' Best available 
science cannot be described in a directive, but can be taken into 
account by using appropriate procedures. A four-step discovery process 
for best available science, modified in the final directives, is 
described in FSM 1921.81. When the four-step process is followed and an 
appropriate review is conducted the best available science should be 
taken into account and properly influence plan components. Forest 
Service Handbook 1909.12, section 41.23 requires that reviewers be 
independent of the plan development and implementation process.
Responsible Official Discretion
    Comment: The Forest Service should limit how cost influences the 
appropriate science determinations that are left to the Responsible 
Official.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the direction found in 
FSM 1921.8 and FSH 1909.12, section 41 provides enough direction to 
Responsible Officials regarding the role of science and properly 
directs the Responsible Official to consider cost in assessing how to 
best apply science in the planning effort. The Responsible Official is 
required to disclose how best available science was taken into account.
Scientific Data From Citizen Groups
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider scientifically sound 
data provided by citizen groups. Citizen groups frequently contribute 
scientifically sound data and analysis that counters and balances the 
often pro-resource harvesting plans promoted by Forest Service 
employees.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that citizen groups need to 
have meaningful participation in the planning process. The input of 
citizens can influence the application of science. The methods for 
gathering and considering citizen input are addressed in the directives 
under collaboration (FSM 1921.6 and FSH 1909.12, sec. 30).
Define ``Other Appropriate Means''
    Comment: The Forest Service should define the phrase ``other 
appropriate means'' as used in the Forest Service directives to 
describe how the Responsible Official documents that science was 
appropriately interpreted and applied in the planning process.
    Response: The final directives identify four levels of review and 
address when and how to use them in FSH 1909.12, section 41.
Use of Systematic Evidence Review
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider a system of gathering 
and synthesizing scientific information that is similar to the 
``Systematic Evidence Review,'' a system used by the medical profession 
to gather information for clinical practice guidelines.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the method described in 
FSM 1921.81 represents the state-of-the-art for science review for 
natural resource management, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service. 2003. Science Consistency Reviews: A Primer for Application. 
FS-771. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 
9 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. The Science 
Consistency Review: A Tool to Evaluate the Use of Scientific 
Information in Land Management Decisionmaking. FS-772. Washington, DC: 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 32 p.).
Public Participation and Collaboration
Public Input
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide more opportunity for 
public input to the planning process to decrease litigation, make the 
process more democratic, comply with NFMA, ensure resource protection, 
ensure an appropriate range of alternatives, and determine the extent 
of plan revisions.
    Response: Public participation in land management planning is 
required under NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)) and the Forest Service will 
continue to fulfill its obligations to involve the public in meaningful 
ways. The NFMA stresses public review of plans and revisions while 
allowing other participation. The Forest Service believes the agency 
directives are a better reflection of public and agency interest in an 
open process that includes collaborative ways of working together 
rather than methods that are more formal. Not everyone wants to 
participate or provide input the same way. The Forest Service believes 
Responsible Officials should have the discretion to design processes 
that meet participant and agency needs and; as appropriate, go beyond 
public review and public meetings. The directives (FSH 1909.12, sec. 
31.4) provide Responsible Officials with the discretion to select the 
most current and suitable activities for meeting requirements; yet, 
they require those officials to involve the public in specific planning 
activities, including evaluating whether need for changing the plan 
exists, setting up the basis for that need, developing plan components, 
designing the monitoring program, and conducting regular comprehensive 
evaluations. These expectations go beyond land management planning and 
into the activities of public land management.
Public Scrutiny of Plan Documents
    Comment: The interim directives left open the possibility that 
public scrutiny of some plan documents might not occur, specifically 
referring to public involvement and scrutiny of management review 
documents and annual monitoring reports.
    Response: Responsible Officials should make publicly available 
information developed as part of the planning process (FSM 1921.65). 
Legal considerations, such as the Privacy Act or the FOIA, can impose 
limits on certain disclosures affected by those considerations. The 
section in the interim directives about management review has been 
removed. The directives, FSH 1909.12, section 31.5, now clarify the 
expectation that public participation will occur in identifying the 
need for change. Also, Responsible Officials have the discretion to 
involve interested and willing members of the public in agency work, 
including the work of annual monitoring. The Forest Service's long 
history of working with the public to do the work of responsible and 
adaptive public land management will continue.
Roles of Line Officers
    Comment: The interim directives referred to line officers playing a 
variety of roles (FSM 1921.61 in the ID) during a collaborative process 
and it was unclear whether this referred just to roles or to some 
implied detail of the intended public participation process.
    Response: The past reference has been removed because it did not 
provide direction to agency officials and was, therefore, confusing to 
readers.
Decision Responsibility
    Comment: The interim directives were unclear about whether the 
agency has ultimate responsibility for planning decisions, specifically 
referring to interim direction about shared leadership as a goal of 
public participation and collaboration.
    Response: In NFMA, Congress has charged the Forest Service with the 
responsibility and authority to manage lands in agency jurisdiction and 
has made the agency solely accountable for the results of that 
management. Even so, the agency is committed to exercising its 
responsibility with the help of willing and interested individuals, 
groups,

[[Page 5131]]

tribes, state and local governments, agencies, and other partners. The 
Forest Service agrees that the phrase shared leadership was unclear. 
The goal is to build better plans using principles that increase our 
ability to put into effect, evaluate, and adapt those plans by working 
with others who are willing to participate.
Responding to Specific Public Comments
    Comment: Agency responses to public comments should address every 
comment individually, rather than by grouping similar comments, because 
salient points are often missed when grouping occurs.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 25.34 addresses 
agency response to public comments. The Forest Service believes that 
the directives provide Responsible Officials with appropriate 
discretion to respond to individual comments when salient points merit 
such a response while responding to groupings of similar comments when 
a common salient point is evident. The emphasis is on concise responses 
to salient points that substantively improve the land management plan 
components or that differ from or support the Responsible Official's 
reason for approving the plan.
Collaboration Aspirations
    Comment: The interim direction about collaboration contained vague 
and poorly defined aspirations that may negatively affect agency 
aspirations for collaboration, in part by stressing a bureaucratically 
centered approach to collaboration.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that the directives are not the 
only mechanism by which the agency will realize its goal of 
collaborative public land management and that aspirations, while 
needed, are not enough. The directives set up the goal of building 
better plans using public participation and collaboration activities; 
clarify the Responsible Official's discretion about timing and methods 
of those activities; and set up agency policy for public participation 
in land management planning. The principles the agency will follow when 
meeting this goal include building and maintaining working 
relationships, trust, and collaborative capacity; encouraging a shared 
understanding of values, concerns, roles, and the responsibilities of 
all participants; and other principles found in FSH 1909.12, section 
31.2. The Forest Service believes that this goal and these principles 
are an important part of realizing the agency's goal of collaborative 
public land management.
Define Collaborative Process
    Comment: A clearly defined collaborative process is needed to 
ensure uniformity, consistency, and enforceable standards. Some 
respondents commented that Forest Supervisors could go ahead 
unilaterally and not involve the public at key points. Others commented 
that a measure of effectiveness is needed and that consultation with 
social scientists should occur when developing that measure. Lastly, a 
respondent commented that the term ``vision'' and the phrase ``strategy 
development'' need definition for public participation and 
collaboration.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the goal of 
collaborative public land management is best served by defining 
principles of public participation and collaboration; defining the plan 
components and planning activities that public participation and 
collaboration must address; and providing Responsible Officials with 
the discretion to tailor timing and methods to meet those mandates. The 
Forest Service believes that a uniform and consistent process is 
inappropriate for collaborative public land management because such a 
process is autocratic and therefore, is not collaborative. Such a 
process would not allow participants to help tailor the process to meet 
their needs and agency mandates. Yet, the directives establish that 
Responsible Officials, most often Forest Supervisors, must involve the 
public in specific planning activities; including, identifying whether 
any need to change the plan exists, developing plan components, 
designing of the plan monitoring program, and updating of comprehensive 
evaluations. At times, a series of public meetings may be appropriate. 
At other times, other methods will be appropriate. Evidence of 
responsiveness to the established principles should show the 
effectiveness of the timing and methods chosen by the Responsible 
Official. The Forest Service agrees that the term ``vision'' and the 
phrase ``strategy development'' were unclear and has removed those 
terms from the FSH 1909.12, chapter 30 regarding public participation 
and collaboration.
Keeping Interested Participants Involved
    Comment: The directives on public participation and collaboration 
need clearer direction about how to keep interested participants 
involved and not disenfranchised.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that keeping interested 
participants engaged in the planning process is crucial to a successful 
plan. The Forest Service believes the principles established in FSH 
1909.12, chapter 30, reaffirm keeping interested participants involved 
by building, earning, and maintaining the working relationships, trust, 
and collaborative capacity. The agency will work with partners to 
disseminate existing techniques for accomplishing this goal and will 
develop more materials as needed.
Separate Topics
    Comment: Separation of the topics of public participation and 
collaboration is needed because public participation is mandated by law 
or regulation, while collaboration is not, and collaboration is a 
subset of public participation.
    Response: The Forest Service must use a collaborative and 
participatory planning process to comply with NFMA and its implementing 
regulations in 36 CFR part 219. The Forest Service believes that 
collaborative activities are an important form of public participation 
during planning efforts and believes that collaborative activities 
extend beyond planning efforts. By treating these topics together, the 
Forest Service believes that better plans will result.
Consider Landowner Desires
    Comment: The Forest Service should require Responsible Officials to 
consider landowner desires when setting up plan components because 
discretionary guidance is inconsistent with other references to 
collaboration.
    Response: In agency direction, the verb ``should'' requires 
compliance except for justifiable reasons (FSM 1110). The Forest 
Service regulations require Responsible Officials to involve the public 
in developing plan components (36 CFR 219.9). The directives require 
Responsible Officials to strive to identify and notify potentially 
interested individuals, including landowners, and provide opportunities 
to engage in setting up plan components (FSM 1921.62). The directives 
also require Responsible Officials to involve the public in setting up 
plan components (FSH 1909.12, sec. 31.5). The Forest Service believes 
this direction requires consideration of landowner desires as part of 
the participatory and collaborative process of identifying desired 
social, ecological, and economic conditions.
Notification
    Comment: The Forest Service should publish all plan amendments in 
the Federal Register.

[[Page 5132]]

    Response: Public notification procedures for plan amendments are 
specified in the 2005 planning rule, 36 CFR 219.9(b)(2), and are not 
modified by the planning directives.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    Comment: The Forest Service should continue to do EISs including 
developing alternatives for planning.
    Response: The Forest Service has 25 years of experience developing, 
amending, and revising plans under the requirements of NEPA. Based on 
that experience, and the recognition by the Supreme Court in Ohio 
Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club and Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance about plans themselves, the Forest Service believes that land 
management plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments developed under 
the 2005 planning rule, and that do not approve projects or activities, 
do not individually or cumulatively result in significant effects on 
the human environment. For these reasons, the Forest Service believes 
that continuing the practice of developing EISs for plans is not 
needed.
Public Participation
    Comment: Public participation opportunities should be provided 
consistent with the requirements of NEPA.
    Response: The intent of the 2005 planning rule and the Forest 
Service directives is that public participation in the planning process 
be open and meaningful. The Forest Service believes that calling for 
frequent and collaborative public involvement in the planning process 
(FSM 1921.61, FSH 1909.12, sec. 30) will allow the views and values of 
the public to be better shown in plans than has historically occurred 
following the public involvement procedures specified by NEPA.
Cumulative Effects
    Comment: Planning should give citizens information about the 
cumulative effects of various forest uses.
    Response: The comprehensive evaluation report (CER) (FSM 1921.2, 
FSH 1090.12, sec. 24.2), while not considered a cumulative effects 
analysis, is intended to provide context for understanding the effects 
of various forest uses and activities. Because the CER is to be updated 
at least every 5 years its value in providing this context should be 
retained. Cumulative effects will be reviewed and disclosed during NEPA 
compliance at the project level.
Options Proposed by the Public
    Comment: Forest Supervisors should be required to consider plan 
options that conservationists and others propose.
    Response: Plan components, including options for plan components, 
are required to be developed with public input and input from other 
agencies (FSH 1909.12, sec. 25.32b).
Categorical Exclusion (CE)
    Comment: The Forest Service should not categorically exclude (CE) 
plans from NEPA requirements or allow the exclusion of public 
participation in the planning process.
    Response: Under the Council on Environmental Quality procedures for 
carrying out NEPA, categorical exclusion of a proposed action from 
documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or 
environmental assessment (EA) is one way of complying with NEPA 
requirements (40 CFR 1500.4(p), 1501.4(a), 1508.4). The Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations specifically authorize Federal 
agencies (40 CFR 1507.3(b)) to identify classes of actions that 
normally do not call for either an EIS or an EA. The Forest Service 
believes that adoption of a plan falls into this class of actions 
because it does not result in specific on-the-ground action; and 
therefore, does not result in effects that can be analyzed (40 CFR 
1508.23). The 2005 planning rule and Forest Service directives make 
open and meaningful public participation a central land management 
planning responsibility of the Responsible Official (FSH 1909.12, sec. 
30). The Forest Service requested public comment on the proposal 
planning CE by notice in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005. The 
comment period closed on March 7, 2005.
Scientific Input
    Comment: Amending and revising plans using CEs would unfairly and 
unwisely restrict scientists from providing important feedback to the 
government about natural resources.
    Response: The public involvement processes under the 2005 planning 
rule and Forest Service directives are intended to involve all 
interested members of the public, along with other agencies, states and 
tribes.
Project Analysis
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify whether either an EIS or 
EA will be needed for each project.
    Response: Any proposed action carrying out a plan developed under 
the 2005 planning rule (70 CFR part 1039) will be subject to Forest 
Service NEPA procedures at the time of the project decision, except in 
those rare instances when a project decision is made in a plan and that 
decision is supported by an EIS or EA assessment. Determination of the 
type of NEPA analysis and documentation will be made using Forest 
Service procedures found in FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15 based on the 
characteristics of the individual actions proposed.
NEPA Compliance for Directives
    Comment: The Forest Service should develop permanent planning 
directives through a process that complies with NEPA.
    Response: The Forest Service directives have been developed in 
compliance with NEPA procedures. Forest Service NEPA procedures (FSH 
1909.15, sec. 31.12, category 2), which were developed in consultation 
with the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to Title 40, Code of 
Federal Regulations, Part 1507.3--Protection of the Environment, 
Council on Environmental Quality, Agency procedures, allow Service-wide 
policies to be categorically excluded from documentation in an EIS or 
EA. Developing Forest Service directives fits that category.
NEPA Handbook
    Comment: The Forest Service should delete all references to NEPA in 
favor of directing planners to the NEPA handbook for the specifics of 
NEPA compliance.
    Response: This change has been made in the final directives.
Adaptive Management Process
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the stages at which the 
adaptive management process undergoes NEPA compliance.
    Response: NEPA analysis occurs at the project level.
NEPA Application
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify whether FSM 1922 applies 
NEPA at the Forest planning level or the local project level for land 
management planning using planning regulations before November 9, 2000.
    Response: Forest Service Manual 1926.04b clarifies that planning 
under the regulations in effect before November 9, 2000, calls for 
compliance with NEPA procedures found in FSH 1909.15. Forest Service 
Handbook 1909.15 identifies the NEPA requirements for project 
decisions.

[[Page 5133]]

Project EISs
    Comment: The Forest Service should call for EISs for individual 
projects and not for land management plans.
    Response: The intent of the 2005 planning rule and Forest Service 
directives is to use EISs for plans only when the plan decision 
includes projects otherwise needing an EIS. Individual projects will 
include NEPA documentation consistent with the requirements of FSH 
1909.15. The documentation (EIS, EA, or CE) will depend on the specific 
proposal.
NEPA Compliance and Public Participation
    Comment: The NFMA requires the Forest Service to meet NEPA 
requirements for public participation and that those requirements 
include an iterative process of developing alternatives, soliciting and 
responding to public comments, and consideration of proposals from non-
agency sources.
    Response: NFMA directs the Forest Service to specify procedures to 
ensure that the agency prepares land management plans in accordance 
with NEPA (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). NEPA directs the Forest Service and 
other Federal agencies to make environmental information available to 
the public before decisions occur and to encourage public involvement 
in decisions that affect the quality of the human environment. The 
directives set up procedures that ensure the agency prepares plans in 
accordance with NEPA, make information available to the public before 
decisions occur, and encourage public involvement in decisions and in 
implementing those decisions. The directives also maintain agency 
responsibility to consider and respond to public comments and to 
provide environmental information before decisions occur. And the 
directives set up the expectation that the planning process and the 
plans will be adaptive and, therefore, iterative so that the agency and 
the public work to develop plan components in a way that seeks 
continual improvement.
Objections
Objection Process
    Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that objections made by 
the public are reviewed and that the reviewing officer responds point-
by-point and accepts e-mailed objections.
    Response: Requirements of the objection process have been moved 
from FSM 1926 to the FSH 1909.12, chapter 50. Although not requiring a 
``point-by-point'' response, FSH 1909.12, section 51.31 calls for the 
Reviewing Official to ``provide a response on any remaining issues, 
including the basis of the response * * *'' This requirement ensures 
that objection issues are addressed by the Reviewing Official but does 
not require that the response be exhaustive to make prompt resolution 
of objections easier based on the requirements of the final rule. The 
final directives require acceptance of e-mailed objections (FSH 
1909.12, sec. 51.13e).
Standing To Object
    Comment: The Forest Service should make participation in the 
objection process open only to those parties that have provided prior 
written comment and limit the issues to those raised during the comment 
period.
    Response: The objection process is established in Title 36, Code of 
Federal Regulations, part 219.13--and detailed in FSH 1909.12, chapter 
50. Eligibility to file objections is based upon having participated in 
the planning process through submission of at least one written comment 
as an individual. A group may submit comments, but that does not 
establish eligibility for all members of that group. The final 
directives do not limit objections issues to those already submitted 
during prior comment opportunities. A proposed plan, amendment, or 
revision released for the objection period might provoke new responses 
from interested parties that have participated throughout the planning 
process. Limiting objection issues to past issues unnecessarily 
constrains opportunities for new ideas or fresh perspectives to be 
raised through objection that might improve the final plan.
Administrative Appeal
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide provisions for 
administrative appeal or judicial review of objections in the Forest 
Service directives because any person, regardless of whether they 
submitted comments, has standing to file an objection or judicial 
review.
    Response: The objection process under the planning rule and 
directives replaces an administrative appeals process previously set 
out at 36 CFR part 217. The directives do not address the availability 
of judicial review, which will be governed by generally applicable 
legal principles.
NEPA
    Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that the objection 
process in the Forest Service directives is compliant with NEPA that 
actively and aggressively calls for public involvement, usually on a 
national scale.
    Response: The new planning rule and directives provide extensive 
opportunity for public participation that exceeds requirement for 
public participation under NEPA. See the Preamble to the 2005 planning 
rule (70 FR 1034, Jan. 5, 2005) for more extensive discussion of the 
relation between the 2005 planning rule and NEPA.
Extensions
    Comment: The Forest Service should allow extensions to the 
objection time period because a 30-day objection period is too short.
    Response: The final directives retain the requirement of a 30-day 
objection period with no time extension. The final rule is clear in its 
intent to promote prompt resolution of objections through specific time 
frame requirements while fostering collaboration to resolve objection 
issues. Collaboration throughout the planning process is expected to 
keep the public participants in the process informed so that when a 
proposed plan, amendment, or revision is released for the objection 
period, 30 days would be enough to review and submit a timely 
objection.
Time Limit for Reviewing Officer
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide a time limit for the 
Reviewing Officer to respond to an objection.
    Response: No time limit is required in the final directives for the 
Reviewing Officer except to ``promptly render a written response to the 
objection'' (36 CFR 219.13(c)). Unlike the administrative appeals 
process, in which revised plans could go into effect after the record 
of decision was signed, but before plan appeals were decided, the 
Reviewing Officer and Responsible Official have an incentive to resolve 
objections promptly because the plan, amendment, or revision cannot be 
approved until objections are resolved.
Collaborative Process
    Comment: The Forest Service should keep the objection process 
separate from the collaborative process.
    Response: The final rule and directives require that parties to the 
objection must have submitted written comments before the objection 
period (36 CFR 219.13(a)). A collaborative effort to resolve objection 
issues is encouraged.
Mandatory Conflict Resolution
    Comment: The Forest Service should make collaboration mandatory for 
resolving conflicts during the objection

[[Page 5134]]

process and clarify how it will be carried out.
    Response: The objection process is mandatory before approval of all 
proposed plans, amendments, and revisions (36 CFR 219.13(a)). 
Collaboration may be used to resolve objection issues through an effort 
between the Reviewing Officer, the Responsible Official, and the 
objector(s). The means of resolving objections is left to the Reviewing 
Officer to decide (FSH 1909.12, sec. 50.47)).

Social, Ecological, and Economic Sustainability

General Concerns

Sustainability
    Comment: The Forest Service should focus on conservation and 
restoration of ecosystem diversity and provide standards in the 
directives so that the Responsible Official will include meaningful 
provisions for sustainability in the plan.
    Response: Explanation of the goal of ecological sustainability is 
provided in FSM 1921.73. Although that section does not provide strict 
standards for ecological sustainability, it does provide the 
Responsible Official enough direction to establish a framework that 
will make appropriate contributions to ecological sustainability. 
Specific provisions in the plan will be found during plan development 
with public involvement.
Sustainability
    Comment: The Forest Service should add a section to the Forest 
Service directives that explains how to blend the three parts of 
sustainability together rather than focusing solely on the ecological 
aspects of sustainability.
    Response: Plans must combine the parts of sustainability because 
social and economic conditions affect, and are affected by, ecological 
conditions, and also ecological conditions affect, and are affected by, 
social and economic conditions. Plans are also required to set up plan 
components, especially desired conditions, in response to connections 
among the Forest and social, economic, and ecological systems. 
Integrating these three facets of the environment is a new and 
challenging task for Forest Service land management planning. The 
manner of integration is, in the first instance, left to the discretion 
of the Responsible Officer. Placing more specific direction in the 
Forest Service directives is inappropriate at this time. Specific 
recommendations about how to carry out integration employing best 
available science will be found on the TIPS (Technical Information for 
Planning Site at http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS) as forests gain knowledge 
and experience about how to do the integration.
Sustainability
    Comment: The Forest Service should base its assessment of 
sustainability on properly functioning, ecological conditions and not 
social or economic conditions.
    Response: The Forest Service believes sustainability results from 
the interaction of social, economic, and ecological conditions. The 
assessment of ecological sustainability is based on the range of 
variation wherever adequate information is available. This approach is 
widely recognized in scientific literature. Proper functioning 
condition (PFC) is an assessment tool that was developed for riparian 
systems. Although PFC has seen some application to broader forest 
communities, there is stronger scientific support for use of the range 
of variation.
Evaluating the Elements of Sustainability
    Comment: Productivity is conspicuously missing from the evaluation 
criteria.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.26 refers to 
the provision of ``ecological conditions'' for species. In the 2005 
planning rule, ``ecological conditions'' are defined as ``components of 
the biological and physical environment that can affect diversity of 
plant and animal communities and the productive capacity of ecological 
systems'' (emphasis added). Also, one of the characteristics of 
ecosystem diversity listed in FSH 1909.12, section 43.12 is basic soil 
productivity.
Properly Functioning Ecological Condition
    Comment: All forest units should be maintained in a properly 
functioning ecological condition to provide a gauge when uses being 
applied to the unit are not sustainable. This should be assessed by 
comparing exploited forest units to ``control'' units.
    Response: Using the range of variability as context for 
sustainability has considerable scientific support. ``Control'' units 
are introduced in FSH 1909.12, section 43.13 using the term ``reference 
areas''.
Sustainability Monitoring
    Comment: Chapter 40 provides guidance for socioeconomic monitoring, 
but no guidance for ecological sustainability monitoring. The Forest 
Service should consider providing more specific guidance for ecological 
sustainability monitoring into its handbook.
    Response: Guidance for monitoring of sustainability is provided in 
FSH 1909.12, section 12.
Ecosystem Diversity Characteristics
    Comment: The Forest Service should revise its list of ecosystem 
diversity characteristics in chapter 40 of its handbook because the 
current list is too prescriptive.
    Response: The characteristics displayed in FSH 1909.12, section 
43.12, exhibit 01 are clearly labeled as examples and not 
characteristics for which analysis is required. Therefore, the list 
isn't prescriptive and will serve as an aid to help find those 
characteristics that are appropriate for a given local situation.
Risk Assessment
    Comment: Expand chapter 40 to include the risk assessment process 
to determine the long-term impacts of untreated forest fuel conditions 
on social, economic, and ecological sustainability.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.14a provides 
guidance for use of a risk assessment process for all characteristics 
of ecosystem diversity including those that would be impacted by forest 
fuels.
Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities
    Comment: Directives should ensure that national forests provide a 
diversity of plant and animal communities by making the ecological 
sustainability provisions mandatory.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.1 directs 
that the assessment of ecosystem diversity ``inform * * * the 
development of plan components through the establishment of desired 
conditions, objectives, guidelines, and suitability determinations.'' 
The Responsible Official has to show that the plan developed in 
accordance with these objectives satisfies the NFMA requirement to 
provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities.
Trend Analysis
    Comment: The Forest Service should require forest planners to 
conduct trend analyses that evaluate the social, economic, and 
ecological impacts from the lack of actions on forest vegetation, the 
risk of catastrophic wildfires, soil movement, and the impact of these 
and related ecological factors on the local communities.
    Response: While the directives do not explicitly direct examination 
of trends

[[Page 5135]]

from lack of action, direction added in several places suggests this 
examination. In FSH 1909.12, section 43.1 the Responsible Official is 
directed to compare natural variation of ecosystem characteristics to 
projected future conditions. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 
43.14 calls for the development information about current conditions of 
the selected ecosystem diversity characteristics, and projecting future 
trends of those characteristics under existing plan guidance. These 
projected future conditions cannot be interpreted to be limited to 
lands getting management activities. For social and economic trends, 
FSH 1909.12, section 42.21 directs the Responsible Official to evaluate 
changing conditions that may affect relevant economic indicators and 
social systems. Changing conditions are subject to this evaluation, 
whether the result of activity or lack of activity.
    Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that the Service 
directives give Responsible Officials conflicting guidance about trend 
analysis. The directives say that trend analysis is at the discretion 
of the Responsible Official but then gives duties.
    Response: The directives have been changed in several places to 
clarify the requirements for trend analysis (FSH 1909.12, sec. 24.23). 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.1 and FSH 1909.12, section 
43.14 direct the Responsible Official to look at trends in ecological 
conditions. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 42.21 gives 
guidance on evaluating trends that effect social and economic 
sustainability. The details of methods of evaluation are left to the 
Responsible Official's discretion.
Range of Variation
    Comment: The Forest Service should caution against using range of 
variation to justify management toward typical system equilibrium; 
disclimaxes, disturbance states, or a prevalence of early successional 
stages to increase short-term yield.
    Response: The directives are clear that the intent of evaluating 
ecosystem diversity is to ``determine possible risks to the 
sustainability of ecosystem diversity over time, determine the 
potential contribution of National Forest System (NFS) lands to 
ecosystem diversity of the larger landscape, and determine needed 
change'' (FSM 1921.73a). The directives also caution that ``there may 
be ecological, social, or economic reasons for identifying desired 
conditions that are outside the range of variation and the range of 
desired conditions may be narrower than the range of variation'' (FSH 
1909.12, sec. 43.13). The directives stipulate that ``The range of 
variation for an ecosystem characteristic is most comprehensively 
described by a frequency distribution for conditions experienced by 
that characteristic over time, including the areal extent of those 
conditions'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.13). The directives note that ``In 
general, the likelihood of negative outcomes is greater for those 
ecosystem characteristics whose condition show greater departure from 
the range of variation'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.14a) and finally 
stipulate that the Responsible Official should ``describe the 
ecological reason for the plan components based on evaluating ecosystem 
diversity'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.14a).
    In summary, the directives provide guidance to the Responsible 
Official to: (1) Consider the range of variation on NFS lands in the 
larger landscape; (2) consider the full range of variation and the 
frequency with which various conditions occurred; (3) consider all 
facets of ecological, economic, and social sustainability, and not just 
range of variation, when setting up desired conditions; (4) estimate 
risk resulting from departure from range of variation; and (5) show the 
ecological reason for plan components. Use of range of variation 
information to simply justify maximum timber yields would not be 
consistent with this direction.
Economic Considerations
Fire Condition Class
    Comment: The Forest Service should note fire condition class 
information in assessing current conditions as called for in section 
43.14 of its handbook. Forest planners should evaluate the social, 
economic, and ecological implications of current forest fuel conditions 
because they create future risks to air quality and the quality and 
quantity of forage and water.
    Response: Forest fuel condition is one of many forest conditions 
that planners may evaluate for their contribution to or potential risk 
to sustainability. Fire Regime Condition Class information was added to 
exhibit 01 of FSH 1909.12, section 43.12. On forests where risks from 
fuel conditions are significant, they will be addressed in the planning 
process.
Historic Range of Variation
    Comment: The Forest Service should drop the references to, and 
analysis of, historic range of variation in the guidance documents and 
create a process that truly balances social, economic, and ecological 
sustainability goals because using historic range of variation as a 
benchmark or guideline will preclude balancing environmental goals with 
social and economic goals.
    Response: Using the range of variability as a context for setting 
up plan components is not inconsistent with reaching an appropriate 
balance of social, economic, and ecological sustainability. The 
directives are careful to stipulate that range of variability should be 
used as a context for evaluating current and desired conditions, but do 
not always become desired conditions themselves. The directives further 
acknowledge that there may be ecological, social, and economic reasons 
for setting up desired conditions that are outside the range of 
variability and that it may be impossible in many cases to recreate the 
range of variability.
Social and Economic Elements
    Comment: The ecological section is very prescriptive in the type 
and source of information planners can use while the social and 
economic elements are much more generic directing the planners to use 
``best available information.''
    Response: The difference in detail between the social and economic 
sustainability section and the ecological sustainability section can be 
traced to a difference in wording employed by the final rule. While it 
is the goal of the plan to contribute to the sustainability of social 
and economic systems in a general sense, the plan must provide a 
framework to contribute to sustaining native ecological systems by 
providing ecological conditions to support diversity of native plant 
and animal species in the plan area (70 FR 1059, Jan. 5, 2005). This 
creates a greater responsibility for addressing ecological 
sustainability in the land management planning process and requires 
more detailed guidance in the directives.
Social and Economic Sustainability
    Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that it is not the 
purpose of the NFS or Federal lands to guarantee economic and social 
sustainability or economic gain to businesses and local economies.
    Response: Plans are not required to guarantee social and economic 
sustainability, but rather are required to contribute to social and 
economic systems. There is clear recognition in the rule and directives 
that social and economic sustainability cannot stand on its own and is 
inextricably linked to ecologic sustainability. The Multiple-Use 
Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) authorizes and directs the Secretary to

[[Page 5136]]

develop and administer the resources for multiple-use and the sustained 
yield of the several products and services that are obtained from 
management of the surface resources. The Forest Service views 
sustainability under the proposed and final rule as a single objective 
with interrelated and interdependent social, economic, and ecological 
elements. This concept of sustainability is linked closely to MUSYA in 
that economic and social elements are treated as interrelated and 
interdependent with ecological elements of sustainability.
Budgets
    Comment: The Forest Service should remove the many references 
throughout the Forest Service directives that constrain the planning 
process based on anticipated budgets because plans should be 
aspirational and unconstrained by financial considerations when 
addressing desired future conditions.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 11 states that 
plan objectives should be based on budgets and other assumptions that 
are realistic expectations for the next 15 years. The same section also 
states that the Responsible Official is responsible for adapting the 
plan to respond to changing situations and for developing budgets and 
projects that implement the plan's components. The Forest Service 
believes these guidelines represent a reasonable and prudent approach 
when developing a plan that can be implemented. The comprehensive 
evaluations, required every 5 years, will allow for reconsidering the 
effects of budget constraints on plan implementation. Contributions to 
the sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems are 
limited by agency authorities, budget, and the capability of the plan 
area (36 CFR 219.10).
Ecosystem Health
    Comment: The Forest Service should not give economic considerations 
the same weight as ecosystem health because sustained productivity 
requires a functioning ecosystem.
    Response: The final rule and directives recognize that economic, 
social, and ecological sustainability are interrelated and that a plan 
must integrate the elements of sustainability. Any relative weighting 
is done during the collaborative process of developing desired 
conditions.
Forest Level Assessment
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider creating a national 
forest level assessment of the agency's capability to annually and 
cumulatively meet the goals of each plan as part of the budget 
preparation and review process.
    Response: During the collaborative process, it is anticipated that 
this type of information will be shared and weighed by all interested 
parties, though no specific direction for this is offered in the 
directives. The final rule states that contributions to the 
sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems are limited 
by agency authorities, budget, and the capability of the plan area (36 
CFR 219.10).
Disclose Financial Expenditures
    Comment: The Forest Service should disclose all financial 
expenditures to the general public.
    Response: This information is available in the annual ``Forest 
Service Performance and Accountability Report'' which can be viewed at 
http://www.fs.fed.us.gov/publications.
Cumulative Economic Impacts
    Comment: The Forest Service should include the cumulative economic 
impacts in every forest planning document, including a three-year 
cumulative impact study.
    Response: In the past, job and income effects have not often been 
expressed in terms of cumulative impacts over time. Increased public 
participation and collaboration should produce plans that provide 
interested parties with more of the information they require. 
Cumulative effects analysis will be done during project level NEPA 
analysis, as appropriate. These issues are also addressed during the 
development of the Allotment Management Plan for each range allotment 
on NFS units.
Role of Timber
    Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge in the Forest 
Service directives the potential role of timber in contributing to 
economic and social sustainability.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 60 requires the 
Responsible Official to take into account all elements of 
sustainability (social, economic, and ecological) and follow the public 
participation process for plan development, plan amendment, or plan 
revision to involve the public in this analysis of timber harvesting. 
During this part of the planning process, the contribution of timber 
harvest and production will be considered when appropriate (FSH 
1909.12, ch. 60).
Contributing to Sustainability
    Comment: The Forest Service should expand the Forest Service 
directives to include a section on how to contribute to social and 
economic sustainability similar to the instruction on contributing to 
ecological sustainability.
    Response: In FSH 1909.12, section 42.21, ``Evaluation Guidelines'' 
states for economic systems, consider opportunities to, such as 
employment, income, capital, housing, and fiscal health for important 
economic units. These economic units may include the contribution of 
payments to states and local governments.
Business Management Evaluation
    Comment: The Forest Service should require a business management 
evaluation as part of the sustainability evaluation, which carefully 
reviews costs and revenues and how these factors can be changed and 
improved. Forest planners should identify all the revenues generated 
from a national forest, the source of those revenues, and how those 
revenues are expected to change over time as part of the economic 
review.
    Response: Discretion is left to the Responsible Official to decide 
how detailed the evaluation needs to be. The rigor of analysis used in 
assessing social, economic, and ecological systems should be 
proportional to the level of risk to those systems and to the degree to 
which past, present, and projected conditions in the plan area 
contribute to that risk. A business analysis could be an important part 
of this assessment if deemed appropriate by the Responsible Official.
Cost Increase
    Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that under the new 
planning system the costs will increase perhaps 80-90 percent because 
of the contraction of forest planning and the increased responsibility 
for project planning.
    Response: Before the 2005 planning rule was released, the Forest 
Service did a benefit/cost analysis that showed that the cost of the 
new rule is expected to be similar to that of the 1982 planning rule. 
Experience with applying the 2005 planning rule will give more 
information on relative costs.
Economic and Social Costs
    Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that the economic 
and social costs of forest planning are borne by the people at the 
state and local level.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule addresses this problem by 
requiring that social and economic sustainability are taken into 
account as well as basing the planning process on collaboration. 
Further direction is provided in the Forest Service directives (FSH 
1919.12,

[[Page 5137]]

sec. 42). Local constituencies will have an important opportunity to 
have their voices and concerns heard throughout the planning process.
Economic Impact of Timber Sales
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider the economic impact 
that timber sales have on the state of Michigan's economic well-being.
    Response: This is exactly the type of local concern that is 
addressed through collaboration. As part of planning process, the 
Responsible Official is required to involve the public in developing 
and updating the comprehensive evaluation report, establishing the 
components of the plan, and designing the monitoring program. For 
example, collaboration is used to describe distinctive roles and 
contributions that the planning unit has to the ecological system and 
the human community.
Domestic Livestock
    Comment: The Forest Service should be required to produce accurate 
data on domestic livestock management to document the need for change. 
There should be a built-in allowance for the increase in animal units 
when monitoring to show that range.
    Response: The monitoring strategy for a plan is developed 
collaboratively: ``As part of planning process, the Responsible 
Official shall involve the public in developing and updating the 
comprehensive evaluation report, establishing the components of the 
plan, and designing the monitoring program'' (36 CFR 219.9(a)). 
Therefore, if the Forest Service proposes a project to develop an 
inventoried roadless area, the environmental analysis must look at 
whether to develop the area or not, not just alternative ways of 
developing the area.
Species Protection
Species
    Comment: The Forest Service should admit that there is a drastic 
decline in the strength of regulations for species protection, 
including the removal of the viability requirement. There should be 
more protection for rare species, regionally sensitive species, 
species-of-conservation-concern in State Comprehensive Wildlife 
Strategies, and species listed as threatened and endangered by states. 
Restrictive criteria for identifying species-of-concern and relying on 
ecosystem provisions to provide for species and species diversity 
should be removed. Requirements for enhancement of fish populations, 
increasing protection provisions, increasing the number of species 
identified for protection, monitoring populations, and broadening 
current species protection provisions to prevent decline of species 
making them eligible for endangered species listing should be included 
in the directives.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule and directives are explicitly 
designed to provide for ecological sustainability through the 
combination of ecosystem diversity and species diversity approaches. 
The new rule addresses a much broader range of species than the 1982 
planning rule; plant species, invertebrates and lichens are included 
besides vertebrates. Species-of-concern will be identified based on 
NatureServe rankings, but identifying species-of-interest will consider 
many sources including those listed by states as threatened or 
endangered and those identified in state comprehensive plans as species 
of conservation concern. The primary purpose for identifying species-
of-concern is to put in place provisions that will contribute to 
keeping those species from being listed as threatened or endangered. 
The combined criteria for species-of-concern and species-of-interest 
should lead to identification of all species for which there are 
legitimate conservation concerns. Particularly, criterion five for 
species-of-interest (FSH 1909.12, sec. 43.22c), which directs 
identifying ``additional species that valid, existing information 
indicates are of regional or local conservation concern due to factors 
that may include significant threats to populations or habitat, 
declining trends in populations or habitat, rarity, or restricted 
ranges.'' Species for which there are no conservation concerns should 
be adequately conserved through the ecosystem diversity approach.
    The directives are not as prescriptive as the viability requirement 
was, but under the 2005 planning rule and directives, the enhancement 
of conditions for fish and wildlife populations is the expected outcome 
of new plans.
Populations
    Comment: The Forest Service should collect data about species 
populations and trend data for at least some species-of-concern, 
species-of-interest and other species because implementing plan 
components for species diversity described in FSH 1909.12, section 
43.25, will need information about the populations, trends, and 
distributions of certain species. These species should be monitored 
over the life of the plan or until they are no longer of concern or 
interest to assess whether plan components conserve species.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule and directives do not anticipate 
gathering population data for developing a plan. Nor do they specify 
the types of data that will be needed for implementation of plans or 
contain prescriptive requirements for monitoring on any resource. It is 
possible that more data on populations of some species may be needed 
during plan implementation. The types and amount of data needed will be 
determined by the Responsible Official taking into account best 
available science.
    The rule and directives require that monitoring questions be 
articulated revolving primarily around desired conditions and the 
degree to which they are being achieved. Priority will be given to 
monitoring questions that address desired conditions for which there is 
``a high degree of uncertainty associated with management assumptions'' 
(FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.1). Species populations may be identified for 
monitoring through this process.
Species Diversity
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the intent of the Forest 
Service directives' species diversity sections to show the direction 
provided in the regulations and focus on biological diversity at the 
landscape and ecosystem level. There are several sections in the 
handbook and manual that suggests that the past approach of providing 
for individual species remains.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule sets up the requirement that 
Responsible Officials provide for diversity of plant and animal 
communities using an approach that addresses ecosystem diversity and 
species diversity (36 CFR 219.10). The rule stipulates that the species 
diversity approach is to be used when the components set up through 
ecosystem diversity need to be supplemented to provide appropriate 
ecological conditions for listed species, species-of-concern, and 
species-of-interest. The provisions in the directives are a direct 
reflection of this approach to providing for diversity of plant and 
animal communities.
Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities
    Comment: The Forest Service should make its handbook consistent 
with the law by aligning provisions to focus on diversity of plant and 
animal communities rather than species diversity.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 61 has been re-
drafted to address vegetation management requirements at the project 
level. The

[[Page 5138]]

role of land management planning and sustainability is addressed in FSH 
1909.12, chapter 40. The planning rule lists two criteria for 
sustaining ecological systems; ecosystem diversity and species 
diversity. These criteria are consistent with the requirements of NFMA.
Sustainability
    Comment: The Forest Service should include various discussions in 
section 61.7 of the Forest Service directives to provide a sustainable 
and functioning ecological condition.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 61 has been 
revised to address vegetation management requirements at the project 
level. The role of land management planning and sustainability is 
addressed in FSH 1909.12, chapter 40.
Species Viability
    Comment: The Forest Service should not repeal the NFMA's species 
viability requirement because the viability requirement provides a way 
to accurately assess species population numbers and will prevent 
species from being listed as endangered species. One respondent thought 
it was unclear whether the viable population standard, as it exists 
now, would be included in the desired conditions component using the 
new rule.
    Response: The viability standard will no longer be used. But, the 
directives require that national forests and grasslands continue to: 
(1) Identify listed species, species-of-concern, and species-of-
interest; (2) collect available data and information for the species 
including population data; (3) develop management direction for the 
species; and (4) assess the effects of management direction. 
Elimination of the viability requirement was a decision made with 
publication of the 2005 planning rule. The directives reflect that 
decision. The following points were made about the viability provision 
when the rule was published:

    ``The species viability requirement was not adopted for several 
reasons. First, the Forest Service's experience under the 1982 
planning rule has been that ensuring species viability is not always 
possible. For example, viability of some species on NFS lands may 
not be achievable because of species specific distribution patterns 
(such as a species on the extreme and fluctuating edge of its 
natural range), or when the reasons for species decline are caused 
by factors outside the control of the agency (such as habitat change 
in South America causing decline of some Neotropical birds), or when 
the land lacks the capability to support species (such as a drought 
affecting fish habitat). Second, the number of recognized species 
present on the units of the NFS is very large. It is clearly 
impractical to analyze all species and past attempts to analyze the 
full suite of species by way of groups, surrogates, and 
representatives have had mixed success in practice. Third, focus on 
the viability requirement has often diverted attention and resources 
away from an ecosystem approach to land management that, in the 
Department's view, is the most efficient and effective way to manage 
for the broadest range of species with the few resources available 
for the task.''
Populations
    Comment: The Forest Service should include enforceable requirements 
in the Forest Service directives to analyze and monitor wildlife 
populations and health of species with determinations on trends. 
Nowhere in the directives, is there a requirement to monitor 
populations of species.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule and resulting directives do not 
contain prescriptive requirements for monitoring of any resource. 
Rather they require that monitoring questions be addressed in the 
context of desired conditions and the degree to which they are being 
achieved. Priority will be given to monitoring questions that address 
desired conditions for which there is ``a high degree of uncertainty 
associated with management assumptions'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.1). 
Species populations may be identified for monitoring through this 
process.
Management Indicator Species (MIS)
    Comment: The Forest Service should continue to use MIS as a tool 
for evaluating the effects of land management activities because 
analysis of habitat and individual species data are needed to maintain 
species diversity.
    Response: The concept of MIS was not included in the 2005 planning 
rule, except for transition provisions at 36 CFR 219.14, because recent 
scientific evidence identified flaws in the MIS concept. The concept of 
MIS was that population trends for certain species that were monitored 
could represent trends for other species. Through time, this was found 
not to be the case.
Genetic Diversity
    Comment: The Forest Service should conserve genetic diversity at 
the population level with decisions being made at the individual 
national forest level.
    Response: It is the intent that decisions about species 
conservation under NFMA will be made on individual national forests and 
will address genetic diversity when needed.
Habitat Viability
    Comment: The Forest Service should not adopt habitat viability as 
its framework to protect biodiversity under NFMA because determining 
the population viability of individual species calls for data on the 
population's status.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.26 requires 
that the connection between habitat conditions and species consequences 
be assessed as part of evaluating the effects of plan components on 
species. This assessment would be based on existing information. Also, 
FSH 1909.12, section 43.23 calls for identifying critical information 
that is essential to management for species diversity and is currently 
lacking. Collection of that information should become a high priority 
of monitoring programs.
Wildlife Corridors
    Comment: The Forest Service should have a broader ecological plan 
focusing on connectivity and wildlife corridors.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.25 describes 
plan components for species diversity that would address the whole 
range of issues associated with species conservation including habitat 
connectivity.
State Strategies
    Comment: The Forest Service should include specific language in the 
manual and handbook encouraging consultation with State Comprehensive 
Wildlife Conservation Strategies to reduce potentially duplicative 
planning efforts.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.22c directs 
that species identified as conservation concerns in the State 
Comprehensive Wildlife Strategies be considered for identification as 
species-of-interest. Directions to consult would not be appropriate 
because the timing of Forest Service and state planning efforts are not 
likely to coincide; however, we do direct the Responsible Official to 
take into account State Comprehensive Wildlife Strategies and we 
encourage the Responsible Official to participate in ongoing planning 
efforts where NFS lands are found (FSH 1909.12, ch. 30).
Altered Systems
    Comment: In FSH 1909.12, section 43.1 it states ``where systems are 
highly altered, a species conservation plan focus may be more 
appropriate.'' We are concerned that some would argue or litigate that 
the entire NFS is highly altered and therefore the entire NFS should be 
subjected to a species conservation plan focus.

[[Page 5139]]

    Response: This section has been rewritten and the example cited in 
this comment is no longer present.
Previous Rule No Longer Applies
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify provisions in its 
handbook to better focus on biological diversity at the landscape and 
ecosystem level and reinstate language from the September 29, 2004, 
``Interpretative Rule'' explaining the meaning of the ``Use of Best 
Available Science in Implementing Land Management Plans'' to make it 
clear that the 1982 and 2000 planning rules no longer apply to 
projects. Some people have insisted that the 1982 planning rule 
required population counts before approving projects and activities.
    Response: The Forest Service has clarified provisions for ecosystem 
diversity and species diversity in FSH 1909.12. The Forest Service does 
not need to reinstate the Interpretative Rule. The previous planning 
regulations are no longer in effect. However, the 2005 planning rule 
allows Responsible Officials to continue to use the provisions of the 
planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000, to develop, 
amend, or revise land management plans in specific cases (36 CFR 
219.14). The 2005 planning rule explicitly states, ``site-specific 
monitoring or surveying of a proposed project or activity area is not 
required'' (36 CFR 219.14(f)).
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
    Comment: The Forest Service should clearly state in the Forest 
Service directives the Endangered Species Act-related requirements for 
forest planners or delete these references because provisions 
constraining forest planning to advance conserving of species is 
unlawfully limiting the agency's discretion to manage for multiple 
uses.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 does not increase the 
habitat values for the conservation, recovery, or improvement of listed 
species, or increase the benefits for ESA listed species. Direction in 
the handbook will allow the Forest Service to contribute to reaching 
the purposes and requirements of the ESA and NFMA for species and 
ecosystem conservation, while also contributing to society's demand for 
other resources.
Species-Specific Management
    Comment: The Forest Service should amend the directives to clearly 
state that species-specific management should be tried only when the 
maintenance or creation of that species' habitat is defined as a 
desired condition consistent with multiple-use objectives and 
identified desired future conditions.
    Response: Forest Service Manual 1921.73 states that species-
specific direction will be developed only when needed to supplement 
direction for ecosystem diversity to provide appropriate ecological 
conditions for listed species, species-of-concern, and species-of-
interest. This intent is reiterated in FSH 1909.12, section 43.21. 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, sections 43.22b and 43.22c set up that 
species-of-concern are identified because management actions may be 
needed to prevent listing under the ESA. Species-of-interest are 
identified because the Responsible Official finds that management 
actions are needed to reach ecological or other multiple-use 
objectives. This clearly satisfies the concern that species specific 
direction will only be established when needed to reach desired 
conditions. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.25 further sets 
up that plan components developed for species diversity will be 
consistent with the limits of agency authorities, the capability of the 
plan area, and multiple-use objectives.
Late Successional Habitats
    Comment: The Forest Service should give priority to late 
successional forests. In the Eastern United States, much of the 
landscape is in private ownership and because of land-use patterns; 
much of the private land is in an early- to mid-successional stage. But 
Public lands in the Eastern United States offer a chance to promote 
late successional habitats and species.
    Response: Evaluations of ecological sustainability are intended to 
consider national forests and grasslands in relation to other lands. 
Forest Service Manual 1921.73a directs the Responsible Official to use 
evaluations to determine the potential contribution of national forests 
and grasslands to ecosystem diversity of the larger landscape. Forest 
Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.11 sets up that the area of 
analysis for ecosystem diversity will generally include non-National 
Forest System lands to consider broad-scale conditions and trends. 
These national directives do not set up which components of ecosystem 
diversity will be stressed in the plans of a particular region relying 
instead on the unit-specific analysis to help determine that emphasis.
Self-Sustaining Populations
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the Forest Service's 
directives' approach to conserving species-of-concern because the 
phrase ``contributing to'' self-sustaining populations is vague and 
indirect.
    Response: The agency uses the phrase ``contribute'' recognizing 
that NFS lands may not be enough to maintain self-sustaining 
populations of those species that are distributed across lands of many 
ownerships.
Criteria for Species-of-Concern
    Comment: Clarify the criteria for recognizing species-of-concern to 
clearly state that evidence must exist (either scientific reports or 
expert opinion) that the species will continue to decline under the 
plan.
    Response: Species-of-concern will be identified using explicit 
criteria about their ranking on NatureServe and their listing status 
under the Endangered Species Act. Once identified, these species will 
be screened to see if they need further consideration in the planning 
process. They may be dropped from further consideration if they are 
considered secure in the plan area, are not affected by management, or 
there is too little information about them to complete a credible 
assessment.
Identifying Species
    Comment: The Forest Service should direct forest planners to 
identify species-of concern and species-of-interest based on the best 
available scientific information because a lack of information should 
not be a justification for listing a species-of-interest or species-of-
concern. The directives should provide greater discretion to agency 
decision makers and limit species-specific action.
    Response: The Responsible Official must take into account best 
available science throughout the planning process. Also, FSH 1909.12, 
section 43.22d states that only species for which there is adequate 
knowledge to complete a credible assessment will be carried forward in 
the planning process.
Increase Conservation of Species
    Comment: The Forest Service should clearly state that plans do not 
need to include provisions that increase conserving of species-of-
concern and species-of-interest.
    Response: No such caveat is needed because there is nothing in the 
directives that suggests that conservation will be increased.
Sensitive Species
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify how species-of-concern 
and species-of-interest encompass or do not encompass sensitive species 
because all of the species that the Regional Foresters designate as 
sensitive in their

[[Page 5140]]

respective regions must be considered in planning for the affected 
forests.
    Response: The criteria for species-of-concern and species-of-
interest are listed in FSH 1909.12, section 43.22. The wildlife 
directives governing the identification of sensitive species are 
subject to change because they were based on the viability requirement 
from the 1982 planning rule. Since those directives may now change, 
they are not cited in the Forest Service directives. However, the 
criteria for species-of-concern or species-of-interest are similar to 
the criteria generally used for developing the existing regional lists 
of sensitive species.
Criteria for Listing
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider adding more criteria 
for listing species-of-interest because forest planners will find many 
common species that are ranked S1 or S2 on NatureServe or are listed as 
threatened or endangered by the states.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 43.22c 
recognizes that species ranked S1 and S2 and state-listed species may 
not be of concern in a particular plan area and so suggests additional 
criteria that should be applied before species are identified as 
species-of-interest.
State-Listed Species
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider listing species that 
meet the criteria for species-of-interest as species-of-concern instead 
to ensure the continued existence of important ecosystem components 
such as native plant and wildlife species. The Forest Service should 
treat state-listed species in a similar fashion to federally listed 
species in the Forest Service directives.
    Response: In general, species that require the highest levels of 
conservation attention are those that meet the criteria for species-of-
concern. The directives recognize that other species, those fitting the 
criteria for species-of-interest, may also require specific management 
considerations. Identification of species-of-concern and species-of 
interest is only the first step in determining what plan components 
will be developed for species. Through the processes of information 
collection, evaluation of species status including risk factors, and 
evaluation of plan components, the Responsible Official will determine 
appropriate contributions of the national forest or grassland to 
ecological conditions needed to meet objectives for the species. If 
plan components are needed on the national forest or grassland to avoid 
the need to list species, they will be identified through this process 
regardless of the initial identification of a species as being of 
concern or of interest.
Endangered Species
    Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that endangered species, 
species-of-concern, and species-of-interest are sufficiently protected. 
In addition, all species that might be listed as endangered or 
threatened should be identified as species-of-concern in order to avoid 
the need to list them. Additionally, the genetic viability of species 
should be protected in order to maintain biodiversity.
    Response: Through the processes of identifying species-of-concern 
and species-of-interest information collection, evaluation of species 
status including risk factors, and evaluation of plan components, the 
Responsible Official will determine appropriate contributions of the 
national forest or grassland to ecological conditions needed to meet 
objectives for the species, including genetic viability, as 
appropriate. If plan components are needed on the national forest or 
grassland to avoid the need to list species, they will be identified 
through this process.
Ecological Community
    Comment: The Forest Service should base species diversity on the 
overall composition and diversity of species within an ecological 
community rather than basing it predominately on single species 
management approaches revolving around specially identified species.
    Response: The hierarchical approach using ecosystem diversity and 
species diversity is intended to provide for the overall composition 
and diversity of species. Plan components established for ecosystem 
diversity should provide for populations of the majority of species. 
The species diversity approach then provides a check for those species 
for which additional plan components may be needed.
Population Data
    Comment: The Forest Service should obtain population and trend data 
for at least some species-of-concern, species-of-interest, and other 
species. These species should be monitored over the life of the plan or 
until they are no longer of concern or interest to assess whether plan 
components conserve species.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule and directives do not contain 
prescriptive requirements for monitoring of any resource. Rather, they 
require that monitoring questions be addressed through desired 
conditions and the degree to which they are being achieved. Priority 
will be given to monitoring questions that address desired conditions 
for which there is ``a high degree of uncertainty associated with 
management assumptions'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.1). Species populations 
may be identified for monitoring through this process.
Non-Discretionary Wording
    Comment: The Forest Service should make the consideration of 
endangered species, species-of-concern, and species-of-interest non-
discretionary.
    Response: While there is some discretion in the wording for species 
diversity in the directives, the following steps are generally 
required: (1) Identify listed species, species-of-concern and species-
of-interest; (2) collect available data and information for the species 
including an assessment of risk factors; (3) develop plan components 
for the species as necessary; and (4) assess the potential outcomes of 
plan components. These steps, combined with the ecosystem diversity 
approach, should provide for significant consideration of species that 
require conservation attention.
Enforceable Standards
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide enforceable standards 
and use more than one data source when determining which species to 
protect. Without enforceable standards, there is no way for the public 
or other branches of the government to hold the Forest Service 
accountable for protecting species and their habitats.
    Response: The Forest Service is accountable for federally-listed 
species under the Endangered Species Act and accountable for diversity 
of plant and animal species under the provisions of NFMA. That 
accountability is not changed by the directives.
    While there is some dependence on NatureServe for identifying 
species-of-concern and species-of-interest, numerous other sources are 
listed in the directives including State Comprehensive Wildlife 
Strategies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation 
Concern Priority List, state lists of threatened and endangered 
species, and other sources of valid information indicating significant 
threats to a species population or habitat.
Federally Listed Species
    Comment: The Forest Service should require Responsible Officials to 
contribute to conserving federally listed

[[Page 5141]]

species so as not to present a possible conflict with the Endangered 
Species Act, section 7(a)(1).
    Response: Forest Service Manual 1921.76c states that ``plan 
components for federally-listed species must comply with requirements 
and procedures of the Endangered Species Act and should, as 
appropriate, implement approved recovery plans and/or address threats 
identified in listing decisions.''
Surrogate Species
    Comment: The Forest Service should clearly identify the criteria 
for identifying surrogate species in section 43.24 of its handbook and 
how this tool is to be used in the forest planning process because if 
workable guidelines for forest planners cannot be developed, then this 
section should be deleted.
    Response: As with any other approach used in NFMA planning, species 
grouping and the selection of surrogates must take into account the 
best available science and applicable portions of the Data Quality Act 
(44 U.S.C. 3516). An approach that does not satisfy these criteria 
would not be used.
Risk Levels
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify how Responsible 
Officials will determine that information is valid and sufficient to 
indicate risk levels to species.
    Response: Determinations of Responsible Officials will consider 
best available science and meet applicable Data Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 
3516) standards regarding public acknowledgement of known data quality. 
Responsible Officials will take into account best available science and 
known risk levels when indicating risk levels to species (FSH 1909.12, 
sec. 41).
NatureServe
    Comment: The Forest Service should not rely on NatureServe as the 
sole source for species-of-concern designations. Concerns about 
NatureServe related to: (1) Frequency with which the ratings are 
updated; (2) public access to the data used in determining the 
rankings; (3) consistency of ranking across states; (4) use of only 
global rankings instead of global and national rankings to determine 
species-of-concern; and (5) failure of NatureServe to recognize some 
taxonomic units that could be listable.
    Response: The intent of the directives is to provide an independent 
and objective means of prioritizing species for conservation. The most 
comprehensive source of this information is the network of state 
natural heritage programs that make up the NatureServe network.
    Although it is the best source of data available, the NatureServe 
ranking system is not perfect. Imperfections in the NatureServe 
database were one of the reasons for establishing the species-of-
interest category. Species that are not ranked or are locally rare 
(rather than globally rare) may be identified as species-of-interest, 
resulting in the establishment of appropriate plan components. Species 
and other taxonomic units that are listed and proposed under the 
Endangered Species Act will be identified for establishment of 
appropriate plan components regardless of their NatureServe ranking.
    NatureServe ranks are ``categorical,'' not continuous data, and so 
cannot have associated errors. However, NatureServe has a system for 
identifying uncertainty in ranks. Also, a summary of the reasons for 
each rank is presented with the species comprehensive report on the 
NatureServe explorer Web site. Those who are interested in details that 
are more specific can contact their local state natural heritage 
program to see all of the data that was used to establish a rank.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring Movement Toward Objectives
    Comment: The Forest Service should have monitoring programs that 
will allow it to adjust its management actions so that it can meet 
long-term objectives and respond to the unexpected.
    Response: Forest Service Manual 1921.5 requires that monitoring 
provide data and information to evaluate progress toward meeting 
objectives and desired conditions. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, 
section 12, calls for designing a monitoring program that provides a 
basis for continuing improvement, focuses on key desired conditions, 
and recognizes the need to monitor management assumptions that have a 
high degree of uncertainty.
Accountability and Performance-Based Standards
    Comment: The directives should include added requirements for 
accountability and performance-based standards including details of 
what would be monitored and how this monitoring would be done.
    Response: The directives require the monitoring program to identify 
key questions and performance measures (FSM 1921.5). Forest Service 
Handbook 1909.12, section 12.2, provides for performance measures as a 
basis for accountability. These performance measures are tied to near-
term objectives and long-term desired conditions. Annual evaluation 
reports and 5-year comprehensive evaluation reports are to be used to 
summarize and evaluate the results of monitoring as a means of 
identifying needed plan adjustments. The Forest Service believes that 
these requirements are enough for inclusion in the monitoring program, 
with monitoring details included in the Monitoring Guide and Annual 
Monitoring Workplan (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.3).
State Goals for Federal Lands
    Comment: Monitoring reviews should include feedback on the 
accomplishment of state goals defined for Federal lands. The Forest 
Service should coordinate plan monitoring with a few state-wide 
indicators of sustainability that can assess whether the state 
governing body's goals and objectives are being met.
    Response: The Forest Service encourages state participation in 
planning. Forest Service Manual 1921.62 identifies the value of 
planning collaboratively with the public and other agencies. The roles 
of the public and other agencies are more clearly described in FSH 
1909.12, chapter 30. State involvement during these collaborative 
efforts is intended to ensure that state goals are appropriately 
considered in plan components and the associated monitoring program.
Specific Monitoring Requirements
    Comment: The Forest Service directives should provide more specific 
monitoring guidance designed to measure and maintain ecological 
sustainability, including things such as: monitoring of key potential 
natural vegetation types; desired conditions and objectives 
contributing to sustainability; key ecological attributes of each 
potential vegetation type and species; and performance measures for 
each ecological attribute.
    Response: The guidance for developing, putting into effect, and 
documenting a monitoring program is intended to provide a monitoring 
framework applicable to all plans (FSM 1921.5 and FSH 1909.12, sec. 
12). The specific details for each monitoring program are not 
identified in the directives because the Forest Service believes it is 
necessary to tailor these details to show unit-specific situations.
Implementation, Effectiveness, and Validation Monitoring
    Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the

[[Page 5142]]

directives include more direction for monitoring; specifically, that 
monitoring be conducted on 3 levels--implementation, effectiveness, and 
validation--during the 3-year transition period for putting into effect 
the 2005 planning rule.
    Response: During the transition period and until plans are revised 
or amended to be consistent with the 2005 planning rule, monitoring 
will be conducted consistent with existing monitoring requirements, 
many of which specifically address implementation, effectiveness, and 
validation monitoring. The 2005 planning rule and directives stress 
monitoring of plan components, specifically to find out if actions 
taken during plan implementation are reaching plan objectives and 
moving the unit toward desired conditions. Although not specifically 
addressed in the directives, monitoring plan implementation and the 
effectiveness of implementation actions are required to meet monitoring 
program requirements. Validation monitoring is considered to be a 
research need and will be done outside the plan monitoring program.
Public Involvement
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify which members of the 
public will be invited and how they will be involved in designing the 
monitoring program. This should include coordination and consultation 
with the public, state governments, and so on in developing and 
revising monitoring programs.
    Response: Involvement of the public in monitoring program design is 
required by the 2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.9(a)) and is discussed 
in the directives (FSM 1921.5 and FSH 1909.12, sec. 12). But, the 
specifics of how this involvement is to occur and who will be involved 
cannot be appropriately determined in the directives. The Forest 
Service believes that these details are best addressed by the 
Responsible Official for individual planning efforts.
Monitoring Partnerships
    Comment: The Forest Service should support state partnerships in 
collecting and assessing monitoring data used for annual evaluation 
reports and comprehensive evaluation reports.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 12.2 recognizes 
the value of selecting performance measures with agency partners to 
make easier monitoring across all landownerships.
Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators
    Comment: The Forest Service should use the Montreal Process 
Criteria and Indicators as a framework for monitoring efforts.
    Response: The Forest Service has invested substantial energy in 
assessing the applicability of the Montreal Process Criteria and 
Indicators along with other international and national approaches and 
commitments to sustainable development such as the Santiago 
Declaration, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and 
the Ottawa Local Unit Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) Test 
(Monitoring for Forest Management Unit Scale Sustainability: The Local 
Unit Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) Test Technical 
Edition, USDA Forest Service, Inventory and Monitoring Institute Report 
No. 4, October 2002). Although using criteria and indicators have value 
and are being used in some plan revision efforts; the Forest Service 
concluded that the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators were not 
applicable at the forest scale.
Monitoring Responsibility
    Comment: The Forest Service should not leave monitoring of logging 
impacts to independent Forest Supervisor's discretion.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that the plan monitoring 
program should be developed with public participation and has directed 
Responsible Officials to do so.
New Information
    Comment: The Forest Service should use monitoring to identify 
information not contemplated in plan development that could lead to new 
systems that improve land productivity or meet desired conditions in 
another way.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule requires monitoring to determine 
the effects of management on the productivity of the land. The final 
directives on monitoring show the need to monitor key desired 
conditions and objectives besides those about land productivity and 
that monitoring take into account the best available science.
Funding
    Comment: The Forest Service should increase funding for its fish 
and wildlife monitoring programs.
    Response: The Forest Service expects that the reduced cost of 
planning under the 2005 planning rule will permit better funding of 
monitoring. The priorities for funding monitoring by program area will 
depend on individual forest monitoring programs tied to key desired 
conditions and objectives.
State Guidance
    Comment: The Forest Service should incorporate state guidance into 
management reviews where available.
    Response: Reviews are conducted, based on monitoring results and 
evaluations, to help determine if there is a need to amend or revise 
the plan (FSH 1909.12, sec. 24). Where state guidance is shown in a 
plan component being monitored or evaluated, this guidance will be 
considered during reviews.
Comprehensive Evaluation Report
    Comment: The Forest Service should specify in the planning 
directives what media will be used to make the annual and five-year 
comprehensive evaluation reports available to the public.
    Response: The comprehensive evaluation report is a part of the plan 
set of documents. This may be available to the public in various forms. 
The Forest Service does not believe that it is appropriate to specify 
one national approach given the diversity of audiences interested in 
planning.
Comprehensive Evaluation Report Content
    Comment: The Forest Service should require that the comprehensive 
evaluation report contain a thorough compilation and description of 
baseline data about ecological system types and species.
    Response: Comprehensive evaluation reports are described in FSM 
1921.2. Added details on their content are found in FSH 1909.12, 
sections 13.1, 24.2, and 43.1. In combination, these sections provide 
for inclusion of a wide range of ecological data and analysis in the 
report, including trend analysis for key social, economic, and 
ecological resources (FSH 1909.12, sec. 24.23).
Alternatives
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider having the 
comprehensive evaluation report require the Forest Supervisor to 
consider alternatives and their impacts in detail.
    Response: Based on more than 20 years of experience doing planning 
EISs, including many fully-developed alternatives, the Forest Service 
has concluded that it will be more efficient to consider options for 
specific plan components than to continue developing full alternatives. 
These options are discussed in FSH 1909.12, section 25.32b. This is 
shown in the rule and in the final directives.
    Comment: Monitoring program of work. The Forest Service should 
delete from the Forest Service directives the provision establishing a 
monitoring team and a formal process for setting up

[[Page 5143]]

an annual program of work and instead require a comprehensive 
evaluation report be finished on a five-year schedule.
    Response: The provision dealing with the establishment of a 
monitoring team has been removed from the directives. The Forest 
Service believes that defining an annual program of work (FSH 1909.12, 
sec. 12.3) is needed to ensure that annual monitoring priorities are 
identified and done consistently with available resources. 
Comprehensive evaluation reports are required every 5 years.
Environmental Management System (EMS)
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide more direction to carry 
out EMS including the relation of EMS to land management planning, the 
role the public plays in EMS, the types of information needed for EMS, 
the types of audits to be done, and how the Forest Service will use an 
international standard.
    Response: Confusion is understandable given the lack of EMS 
experience in the Forest Service, many agency partners, and other 
interested parties. Based on roughly one year of EMS field experience 
with qualified consultants, the agency has changed many parts of the 
EMS directives, mainly by simplifying and clarifying direction. Forest 
Service Manual 1331 will address EMS authorities, objectives, policies, 
and responsibilities. The EMS direction about land management planning 
is in FSM 1921.9. The Forest Service is likely to provide added EMS 
guidance through a technical guide or other means as more experience is 
gained.
    Comment: The Forest Service should not use EMS or the ISO standard 
for EMS because it is not applicable to national forest management, the 
public lacks access to the standard, and the standard would preclude 
public participation.
    Response: The Forest Service is committed to using ISO 14001 under 
the 2005 planning rule and believes that EMS can be applied to the 
national forests in a way that will contribute to quality management. 
The ISO 14001 standard is available for public review in all Forest 
Service offices. EMS documentation will be available to the public.
Role of Public and States
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the roles of the public 
and the states in EMS development and implementation.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that public and state 
involvement in EMS development and implementation will be beneficial, 
but that no direction on this involvement is needed besides that 
already in FSM 1921.61 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 30. The Forest Service 
intends to use the existing public and state involvement direction to 
inform EMS implementation without directing EMS-specific roles.
Management Review
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide ``management review'' 
direction in the directives to provide consistency across the national 
forests.
    Response: The ISO 14001 standard provides direction for management 
reviews and the Forest Service believes that no added direction is 
required at this time.
EMS Terms
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify confusion over terms 
used in EMS with terms used in planning, especially the ``independent 
audit'' definition.
    Response: The Forest Service recognizes that in some instances 
planning and EMS use similar terms with slightly different meanings. 
Applying the definitions in the ISO 14001 standard to EMS will be 
needed to conform to the standard, but this should not hinder the 
agency's ability to use different definitions in planning. As the 
agency gains more EMS experience, clarification can be given about how 
EMS terms relate to planning terms. Definitions have been added to FSM 
1331 specific to Forest Service EMS policies and procedures 
(administrative unit, facility, and independent second-party EMS 
audit). The definition ``independent audit'' has been changed to be 
consistent with USDA's definition of independent audit.
Independent Audits
    Comment: The Forest Service should explain how they will use 
independent EMS audits and certification boards.
    Response: The Forest Service is preparing for internal audits 
according to ISO 14001 and is also looking at options to meet USDA 
guidance for independent audits. This is an area where added guidance 
may be developed as the Forest Service gains experience in EMS.
Planning and EMS
    Comment: The Forest Service directives should clarify the relation 
between the plans and the EMS and should use an ISO 14001 EMS template 
for communicating guidelines to Forest Service units.
    Response: Forest Service units are sharing templates and examples 
as they are developed; however, because an EMS is a continuous 
improvement process, the Forest Service does not expect to have EMS 
templates in the directives. Planning direction and guidance about EMS 
are found in FSM 1921.9; however, in the final directives the agency 
has only retained information about EMS establishment requirements 
under the 2005 planning rule and has maintained minimum direction on 
the relation of the EMS to the land management plan. As the agency 
gains more experience with EMS, more direction can be added.
Monitoring Data
    Comment: The Forest Service should set up regional centers at 
regional land-grant universities or research stations to serve as 
repositories for monitoring data and the results of EMS reviews.
    Response: The Forest Service has implemented a corporate database, 
the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), which the agency 
intends to use to store monitoring data common to many Forest Service 
units. The Forest Service believes that storing data with one 
consistent corporate approach is efficient and will best serve members 
of the public interested in viewing that data. It is unknown how the 
results of EMS reviews will be stored or made available to the public.

Timber Management

General Concerns

    Comment: The Forest Service should make the Forest Service 
directives about timber management less discretionary.
    Response: The direction provided in the Forest Service manual and 
handbook must comply with all the applicable natural resource laws, 
including the NFMA. The NFMA sets up the benchmarks for ecological, 
social, and economic sustainability that the agency must meet in 
managing national forests. The law also gives the Secretary of 
Agriculture the discretion to determine how best to carry out these 
statutory mandates. The directive system is used by the agency to 
reiterate and, when needed, provide more specific explanations, 
procedures, and guidance in the framework provided by the statute for 
use by field units. The Forest Service believes that the directives 
provide the appropriate amount of discretion.
Forest Land
    Comment: The Forest Service must change section 62.21a of its 
handbook to

[[Page 5144]]

revise the description of what is forest land to avoid erroneous 
calculations.
    Response: The description and calculation methods for determination 
of forest lands outlined in this section are consistent with NFMA and 
the 2005 planning rule. Forest land's definition remains unchanged from 
the 1982 planning rule. The combination of forest inventory data, 
detailed aerial photos, extensive on-the-ground knowledge, and 
experience ensures that the assessment of National Forest System land 
meeting the definition of ``forest land'' is accurate for land 
management planning purposes.
Rotation Age
    Comment: The Forest Service should explain its reason for changing 
``rotation age's'' definition to an ``age range due to the need to 
`meet the needs of other resources' '' because forest management 
literature has always referred to ``forest rotation'' as a precise, 
fixed stand harvest age expressed in years.
    Response: The definition and use of ``rotation age'' in the 
directives is consistent with the meaning of the term as used by the 
Society of American Foresters. ``Rotation age'' at the plan level is a 
range of ages based on local forest types and growing conditions, 
rather than a precise age that can be assigned broadly across a 
national forest. The Society of American Forester's definition refers 
to rotation age at the stand level. By definition, a specific and 
precise rotation age can only be determined at the individual stand 
level.
Invasive Species
    Comment: The Forest Service should direct planners to identify and 
address invasive species rather than native and non-native ecosystems 
to avoid litigation.
    Response: In response to comments, the Forest Service has removed 
references to native and non-native ecosystems from FSH 1909.12, 
chapter 60.
Suitability Determinations
    Comment: The Forest Service should explain its reason for deferring 
key planning decisions until project level analysis. This may be used 
to reclassify unsuitable lands as suitable. The Forest Service should 
amend the project level analysis directive to include explicit criteria 
for acceptance or rejection of a project. Key planning decisions should 
be made at the initial planning level or project level analysis must be 
clearly developed.
    Response: Lands that are classified as ``generally suitable for 
timber harvest or timber production'' in the land management plan are 
continually evaluated during project level implementation of the plan 
and may be identified as unsuitable at that stage. General suitability 
for various uses will be found at the plan level using criteria 
identified in the plan set of documents. Project level analysis is the 
decision level where ``irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 
resources'' are made. Project level analysis must follow the NEPA 
process. The NEPA process is clearly developed and defined (FSM 1950 
and FSH 1909.15). The data used for project level analysis is more site 
specific and ensures that a better resource management decision will be 
made than at the forest-wide strategic planning level. For these 
reasons, determining final timber suitability must be made at the 
project level. If the Responsible Official finds that the project or 
activity is inconsistent with the general suitability identification, 
the plan should be amended.
Unsuitable Timber Lands
    Comment: The Forest Service should make sure that enough areas will 
continue to be identified and designated as ``unsuitable for timber 
production'' by reviewing plan documents at least every ten years to 
see if changes have occurred that make it necessary to remove lands 
from the ``suitable for timber production'' group and by removing lands 
identified as ``unsuitable for timber production'' from the timber land 
base for ten years as required by NFMA.
    Response: Guidance on identifying lands not suitable for timber 
production and the review of those determinations are found in FSM 
1920.12c and FSH 1909.12, section 62.3. Guidance includes the NFMA (16 
U.S.C. 1604(k)) requirement to review lands not suited for timber 
production every 10 years. Lands that are classified as ``generally 
suitable for timber harvest or timber production'' in the land 
management plan are continually evaluated during project level 
implementation of the plan and may be identified as unsuitable at that 
stage. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 60 has been modified to 
clearly define lands generally suited for timber production and ``other 
lands'' where harvests may occur for other objectives. The clear 
identification of ``other lands'' called for in the directives more 
explicitly defines lands that may receive ``salvage sales or sales 
necessitated to protect other multiple-use values'' as allowed by 16 
U.S.C. 1604(k).
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider that the process for 
designating lands as unsuitable for timber harvest is circular and the 
definition of ``unsuitable lands'' contains no criteria determining 
unsuitability as required by NFMA. Lands unsuitable for timber should 
not be found by residual calculation only after the suitable timber 
lands are identified. NFMA requires that unsuitable lands be identified 
first. Why were new terms ``generally suitable'' and ``actually 
suitable'' created? These terms are not mentioned or authorized by 
NFMA.
    Response: Substantial changes were made to the draft FSH 1909.12, 
chapter 60 to clarify and define the suitability determination process. 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 62.1 lists the general 
categories of lands not suitable for timber harvest as outlined in 
Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, section 219.12--Suitable uses 
and provisions required by NFMA. The Secretary has discretion under the 
act to determine how best to develop suitability determination 
criteria. The criteria in these general categories are developed at the 
forest level considering the specific physical, biological, and 
economic elements under 16 U.S.C. 1604(k).
    NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(k)) does not specify that unsuitable lands be 
identified first; it simply directs the Secretary to identify 
unsuitable lands. Identification of the suitability of lands for timber 
harvest and timber production at the land management plan level is a 
general determination made for planning purposes; therefore, the term 
``generally suitable'' and ``generally unsuitable'' are used. The final 
suitability determination is made at the project level.
Generally and Actually Suitable
    Comment: The Forest Service should explain the reason for creating 
the new terms, ``generally suitable'' and ``actually suitable'' in the 
Forest Service directives' guidance for designation of timber lands. 
These terms are not mentioned or authorized by NFMA.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 62 has been 
revised to clarify the suitability process. Identification of the 
suitability of lands for timber harvest and timber production at the 
land management plan level is a general determination made for planning 
purposes; therefore, use of the terms ``generally suitable'' and 
``generally unsuitable.'' The final directives do not use the term, 
actually-suitable. The decision on suitability of lands for a specific 
use is appropriately made at the site-specific project level. The NFMA 
recognizes that the

[[Page 5145]]

suitability of lands for timber harvest will change by directing the 
Secretary to review suitability determinations every ten years. The act 
also gives the Secretary discretion about the most appropriate method 
for determining suitability.
Below-Cost Timber Sales
    Comment: The Forest Service should set out a process for 
identifying lands where the costs of timber production and road 
construction are unlikely to be covered by future receipts. These lands 
should be deemed unsuitable and off-limits to timber harvest to meet 
the goal of limiting below-cost timber sales. The Forest Service should 
explain its reason for ending all economic tests for determining 
whether lands are unsuitable for timber harvest.
    Response: The NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(k)) does specify that economics 
is one factor to be considered in identifying lands not suited for 
timber production. In response to comments, FSH 1909.12, section 62.21 
includes added direction on the role of economics in suitability 
determinations. Timber harvest on lands deemed not suited for timber 
production in the land management plan is explicitly allowed by NFMA 
(16 U.S.C. 1604(k)) for salvage and for other multiple-use purposes. 
The NFMA does not prohibit harvest when costs exceed revenues.
Classes of Suitable Timber Lands
    Comment: The Forest Service should not create two classes of 
suitable timber lands because it dramatically and artificially expands 
the suitable timber base and projected timber sale levels.
    Response: The NFMA requires identifying lands suitable for timber 
production. The NFMA also allows timber harvest on lands identified as 
unsuitable for timber production. The definitions section of the 
directives, FSH 1909.12, section 60.5 provides an explanation of the 
differences between these two activities. The interim directives were 
written to explicitly recognize the lands where harvest is permitted by 
the NFMA on lands identified as unsuitable for timber production. The 
lands suitable for timber harvest are lands where timber harvest is a 
tool that may be used to meet ecological goals, such as restoration of 
appropriate fire regimes, but commercial harvest is not a primary goal 
for the area. Both types of land are considered when estimating the 
Timber Sale Program Quantity for the plan. Setting up the added group 
of lands suitable for timber harvest identifies added lands where 
harvest may occur but does not dramatically increase timber sale 
quantity.
Harvest and Reforestation Guidelines
Timber Sale Volume
    Comment: The Forest Service should not require specific timber 
volume objectives to be specified in plans because timber sale volume 
is not an independent objective.
    Response: Land management plans are required to identify objectives 
(36 CFR 219.7 (a)(2)(ii)). Objectives are described as follows: 
``Objectives are concise projections of measurable, time-specific 
intended outcomes. The objectives for a plan are the means of measuring 
progress toward achieving or maintaining desired conditions.'' The NFMA 
(16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(2), 1604(f)(2), 16 U.S.C. 1611) requires that a land 
management plan must provide timber management projections; however, 
there is no specific requirement to identify timber sale volume as a 
plan objective.
Even-Aged Management
    Comment: The Forest Service should stop practicing even-aged 
management of timber.
    Response: Even-aged management is a legitimate, silvicultural 
practice that may be used to create or maintain healthy forested 
landscapes. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 64.5 outlines the 
requirements for ensuring that clear-cutting is the best silvicultural 
technique and that other even-aged cuts, such as shelter wood harvest 
are appropriate. This guidance complies with the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 
1604(g)(3)(F)(i)).
Clearcuts
    Comment: The Forest Service should revise the Forest Service 
directives to include standards that limit the size of clearcuts, 
protect streams from logging, ensure prompt reforestation, restrict the 
annual rate of cutting, and determine what land is economically 
suitable for timber production.
    Response: Maximum size limits for even-aged harvest systems are 
addressed in FSM 1921.12e; protection of streams in FSM 1921.12a, 
paragraph 3; reforestation requirements in FSM 1921.12g; harvest rates 
in FSM 1921.12d; and suitability determinations in FSM 1921.12c. More 
detailed guidance is found in FSH 1909.12, chapter 60 for even-aged 
harvest, reforestation and stocking requirements, suitability 
determinations, calculation of long-term sustained yield, and 
calculation of timber sale program quantities. Detailed direction on 
watershed protection and management may be found in FSM 2520.
Even-Aged Regeneration Harvest
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify its guidelines of 
maximum size limits for even-aged regeneration harvest to allow the 
public to comment.
    Response: Public review of proposals to exceed maximum harvest size 
limits is required by 16 U.S.C. 1609(g)(3)(F)(iv). Forest Service 
Manual 1921.12e establishes the size limitations for individual harvest 
units. Added guidance on size limitations may be in the plan and 
subject to public notice and comment. Projects often contain many 
individual harvest units. Project size will vary depending on local 
conditions and considerations. The environmental analysis conducted for 
each project, as required by the NEPA, provides individuals and 
organizations the opportunity to provide input on issues of concern to 
them.
Culmination of Mean Annual Increment
    Comment: The Forest Service should apply the culmination of mean 
annual increment requirement to uneven-aged stands that are being 
managed to produce wood fiber and to ensure that stands reach their 
optimum economic value.
    Response: By definition, uneven-aged management harvests are 
regulated by specifying the number or proportion of trees of particular 
sizes to retain in each area, thereby maintaining a planned 
distribution of size classes (FSH 1909.12, sec. 60.5). Application of 
culmination of mean increment uneven-aged management would not be a 
sound silvicultural practice (16 U.S.C. 1609(m)).
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide a more specific reason 
than ``for the use of sound silviculture'' when allowing departures 
from harvesting of stands at the culmination of mean annual increment.
    Response: The phrase ``culmination of mean annual increment'' is 
taken directly from the NFMA. The NFMA authorizes the Secretary to set 
up standards to ensure that stands of trees have generally reached the 
culmination of mean annual increment provided the standards do not 
preclude using sound silvicultural practices.
Projected Trends
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide more specific direction 
to forest planners in describing ``projected trends of future forest 
ecological conditions'' and ``projected vegetative and other 
environmental changes.''
    Response: Trend analysis is described at FSH 1909.12, section 
24.23. Forest Service Manual 1921.7 provides general

[[Page 5146]]

guidance on sustainability. Changes were also made to FSH 1909.12, 
section 65.4 to better address projected trends.
Environmental Policy Statement
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify and revise section 61 of 
its handbook to address various goals and provide a foundation for 
national forests to develop their environmental policy statement.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 61 has been 
redrafted to address vegetation management requirements at the project 
level. The role of land management planning and sustainability is 
addressed in FSH 1909.12, chapter 40. Requirements for the 
environmental policy are addressed in ISO 14001 and FSM 1330.
Size of Timber Cuts
    Comment: The Forest Service should modify its provision for size of 
timber cuts to stipulate that they should exceed maximum size limits 
only where such exception is consistent with sustainable use and 
ecological considerations.
    Response: Exceptions to the size limits as described in FSM 
1921.12a and 1921.12e are subject to environmental analysis and 
documentation as required by the NFMA and must comply with the long-
term sustainability desired conditions and objectives established in 
that unit's land management plan.
Catastrophic Events
    Comment: The Forest Service should amend its handbook's provisions 
for restoration of areas deforested by catastrophic events to include 
reasonable assurances of adequate restocking.
    Response: The policy direction on reforestation in FSH 1909.12, 
chapter 60 of the interim directives has been removed as it is 
redundant to FSM 2470. The agency policy on reforestation has not 
changed and is founded in the NFMA, section 3(d)(1) that states, ``It 
is the policy of the Congress that all forested lands in the NFS be 
maintained in appropriate forest cover * * * in accordance with land 
management plans.'' Land management plans may address the degree to 
which reforestation is required after catastrophic events.
Volume Trends
    Comment: The Forest Service should display volume trends using 
Forest Inventory and Analysis data.
    Response: Changes were made to the exhibits in FSH 1909.12, section 
65.6 to better display volume trends.
Averages
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide more direction on when 
using an average would be more desirable than using field-developed 
inventory information.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 63.4 has been 
reorganized to address this topic. This section provides direction on 
calculating conversions for saw timber, small roundwood, and biomass.
Forest Plan Amendment
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide direction in section 63 
of its handbook on when a plan amendment would be required or reference 
applicable sections of the FSM.
    Response: Direction on plan amendments is found in FSM 1921.3 and 
FSH 1909.12, chapter 20. The Responsible Official must determine 
whether changed conditions or other issues require a plan amendment.
Evaluation Reports
    Comment: The Forest Service should direct planners to cite the 
report, ``The Scientific Basis for Silvicultural and Management 
Decisions in the NFS (Forest Service General Technical Report (GTR) WO-
55),'' rather than requiring evaluation reports.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 60 has been 
reorganized so that this topic is now discussed in section 65.4. Forest 
Service GTR WO-55 is useful as a general reference but is not detailed 
enough for use at the plan level.
Long Term Sustained Yield
Definition of Long Term Sustained Yield (LTSY)
    Comment: The Forest Service should not use lands not suited for 
timber production for calculating the Long Term Sustained Yield 
Capacity (LTSYC) because it will be difficult to estimate timber 
harvests for objectives other than timber production. Harvests for 
other objectives will cause them to be sporadic and uneven. The LTSY 
and Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) are calculated from different 
land bases, allowing excessive harvesting on lands suitable for timber 
production.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 60 has been 
modified to clearly define lands generally suited for timber production 
and ``other lands'' where harvests may occur for other objectives. The 
chapter has also been changed to require that the LTSY and TSPQ be 
calculated separately for those two classes of lands. Calculating the 
LTSY from lands generally suited for timber production is the same as 
the calculation used under the 1982 planning rule. The practice of 
calculating the LTSY on unsuitable lands is new. The Forest Service 
agrees it will be more difficult to make reliable estimates of the 
LTSYC and TSPQ from lands where timber harvest is a by-product of 
reaching other goals. The Forest Service believes these difficulties 
can be addressed when experience is obtained. Added guidance to the 
field may be needed later to show the results of that experience.
Harvesting Below the LTSYC
    Comment: The Forest Service violates NFMA because they do not 
require a decade-end reconciliation of harvest with sustained yield 
limits. There are no cases where harvesting above the calculated LTSYC 
would be consistent with multiple-use objectives. More detailed 
direction is needed to spell out the few circumstances under which a 
departure is permitted because the language guiding the Responsible 
Official in considering departures is too weak. The amount of timber 
harvest permitted is artificially inflated by allowing departures and 
by calculating LTSYC from all lands where timber harvest can occur. The 
directives allow departures to continue indefinitely, making the LTSY 
limit meaningless.
    Response: The term ``departure'' used in relation to the Long Term 
Sustained Yield Capacity (LTSYC) has been replaced with the more 
descriptive phrase ``planned harvest exceeding the LTSYC''. Specific 
direction addressing planned harvests that exceed the LTSYC is now 
found in FSH 1909.12, section 63.5. Planned harvests that exceed the 
LTSYC are permitted by 16 U.S.C. 1611. This statute does not require a 
decade-end reconciliation of harvest with the sustained yield limit. 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 63.4 requires the Responsible 
Official to meet specific criteria, take into account all the parts of 
sustainability, and involve the public when considering a planned 
harvest that exceeds the LTSYC. Harvests exceeding the LTSYC are 
reconciled during revision of the plan.
    In response to public comment, the directives have been modified so 
that the relation between the TSPQ and the LTSYC must be considered 
separately on lands suitable for timber production and ``other lands'' 
where harvests may occur. This separate assessment should address 
concerns that harvest levels will be artificially inflated.
    Restoration activities being undertaken now and in the near future 
are examples where short-term timber harvest levels may exceed the 
LTSYC.

[[Page 5147]]

Many areas have stand densities that are much higher than historical 
levels creating greater fire risk. Timber harvest treatments may be 
used on these lands to reduce fuels and reach a desired stand density. 
Future fuel reduction treatments on these lands may be a combination of 
small harvests and controlled burns, making the long-term harvest 
levels lower than short-term harvest levels.
Wilderness and Roadless Areas
Wilderness Recommendations
    Comment: The Forest Service should recommend all roadless areas to 
Congress for permanent protection through wilderness designation.
    Response: The agency will do an evaluation of inventoried roadless 
areas for possible recommendation for wilderness designation during 
revision of a land management plan. The outcome of that evaluation will 
determine which areas are administratively recommended for wilderness 
designation by Congress.
Public Support
    Comment: The Forest Service must consider that the public has 
expressed overwhelming support for roadless area conservation when 
determining how the roadless areas will be managed.
    Response: Responsible Officials will consider all appropriate 
public input when revising land management plans. It is appropriate for 
the Responsible Official to develop plan components; such as, desired 
conditions, to protect roadless character for lands not recommended for 
wilderness.
Contiguous Roadless Areas
    Comment: The Forest Service should inventory all roadless areas 
contiguous to existing wilderness as one area because that was the will 
of Congress.
    Response: It would not be appropriate to combine many separated 
roadless and undeveloped areas and consider them as one area when 
determining their suitability for the inventory of potential 
wilderness. Each area is potentially unique and must demonstrate 
characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness.
Protection of Roadless Areas
    Comment: The Forest Service should use the protective safeguards 
and exceptions in the roadless rule as the baseline for protecting 
roadless areas.
    Response: The Roadless Areas Conservation Rule was withdrawn and 
replaced by the State Petitioning rule on May 13, 2005. The directives 
for plan revision and amendment are directed toward the inventory and 
evaluation of roadless areas rather than their protection. 
Consideration of wilderness suitability is inherent in land management 
planning. Unless otherwise provided by law, all roadless, undeveloped 
areas that satisfy the definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) 
of the Wilderness Act of 1964 are evaluated and considered for 
recommendation as potential wilderness areas during plan development or 
revision. Management of those inventoried roadless areas is subject to 
the land management planning process, which includes collaboration with 
and involvement by all interested parties.
RARE I and II
    Comment: The Forest Service should explain the current status of 
the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) I and II studies.
    Response: In 1972, the agency undertook an inventory and evaluation 
of all undeveloped areas in the NFS that could be considered for 
possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System 
(NWPS). This first roadless area review and evaluation, later called 
RARE I, concluded in October of 1973 with the selection of 274 
wilderness study areas containing 12.3 million acres. These selections 
were made from an inventory of 1,449 areas containing 56 million acres. 
The reviews of these study areas were to be completed in the planning 
process.
    In 1977, concerns were expressed that the planning process might be 
too slow for completing timely reviews for the 274 study areas. There 
were also concerns that some areas might have been overlooked and that 
RARE I did not adequately inventory the national grasslands or the 
eastern national forests. In response to these concerns, the Secretary 
started RARE II. RARE II was finished in January of 1979 and identified 
2,919 areas containing just over 62 million acres; recommended that 15 
million acres be added to the NWPS, 36 million acres be allocated to 
non-wilderness uses, and about 11 million acres be placed into a 
further planning category.
    In June of 1979, the state of California began a lawsuit 
challenging the RARE II decision to designate inventoried roadless 
areas in the state as non-wilderness. The U.S. District Court and the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the RARE II Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) did not comply with the 
requirements of NEPA.
    Following the Ninth Circuit's decision in 1982, the planning 
regulations were revised in 1983 to require evaluating inventoried 
roadless areas for wilderness potential in land management planning. 
The planning regulation allowed the agency to maintain discretion over 
developing inventoried roadless areas after a land management plan was 
finished. Subsequent court decisions supported the concept that non-
wilderness multiple-use management prescriptions assigned to 
inventoried roadless areas in land management plans are permissive 
rather than a mandate or commitment to development because the ``no 
action'' alternative still exists for these areas. Environmental 
analysis and NEPA documents, for site-specific project proposals in 
inventoried roadless areas assigned to non-wilderness management 
prescriptions, must look at whether to develop, not just how to 
develop.
Areas Previously Released by Congress
    Comment: The directives should clearly note in FSM 1923 that areas 
released from wilderness consideration by Congress in past wilderness 
bills will not be included as potential wilderness areas.
    Response: In the 1982 planning regulations, as amended, and the 
current 2005 planning regulations, there is a requirement to consider 
and evaluate, unless otherwise provided by law, all NFS lands 
possessing wilderness characteristics for recommendation as potential 
wilderness areas during the development or revision of a land 
management plan (36 CFR 219.7(a)(5)(ii). The policy statement in FSM 
1923 reiterates this requirement: ``Unless otherwise provided by law, 
all roadless, undeveloped areas that satisfy the definition of 
wilderness found in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 shall be 
evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential wilderness 
areas during plan development or revision.'' Although wording varies to 
some degree in the various wilderness bills, this wording usually 
considers these areas being subject to wilderness reviews during the 
plan revision process.
Roadless Rule
    Comment: The Forest Service should restore the roadless rule.
    Response: On July 14, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Wyoming found the roadless rule to be unlawful and ordered 
that the rule ``be permanently enjoined.'' On May 13, 2005, USDA 
promulgated a new rule at 36 CFR part 294 entitled ``State Petitions 
for Inventoried Roadless Area Management.'' This new rule establishes a 
petitioning process that will provide Governors with an opportunity to 
seek establishment of or adjustment to

[[Page 5148]]

management requirements for NFS inventoried roadless areas in their 
states. This opportunity for submitting state petitions is available 
until November 13, 2006. If a petition is accepted by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, the Forest Service will work cooperatively with the state 
to propose a state-specific rule that will address the provisions of 
the petition. A proposed rule will be accompanied by the appropriate 
NEPA documentation and made available for public review and comment. 
Following evaluation and consideration of all public comments, the 
Secretary can then promulgate the state-specific rule for the 
management of inventoried roadless areas in that state.
Protect Roadless Areas
    Comment: The Forest Service should protect roadless areas.
    Response: Evaluating inventoried roadless areas for their 
wilderness potential, and the management of inventoried roadless areas 
not recommended for wilderness, takes place in the land management 
planning process that includes collaboration with and involvement of 
interested parties. Also, the United States Department of Agriculture 
promulgated the state petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area 
Management Rule on May 13, 2005, that established a petition process 
that provides Governors with an opportunity to seek establishment of or 
adjustment to land management requirements for NFS inventoried roadless 
areas in their states through a state-specific rulemaking.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Review of Potential Rivers
    Comment: The Forest Service should require a review of potential 
wild and scenic rivers during all forest plan revisions.
    Response: The final directives retain revisiting a wild and scenic 
river evaluation as changed circumstances warrant. Previously, a 
systematic inventory conducted to find eligible rivers or a 
comprehensive administrative unit-wide suitability study must have been 
documented in the planning record.
Evaluation Factors
    Comment: The Forest Service should stress certain topics in the 
Forest Service directives' Wild and Scenic Rivers section including 
consideration of adjacent wetlands and estuaries/coastal zones, current 
condition of riparian and adjacent forest, catastrophic events, 
invasive species, the role of active management (vs. restrictions) to 
help maintain or enhance designations, and compatibility with other 
unique land allocations.
    Response: The final directives retain a detailed discussion of 
factors to consider in evaluating the suitability of an eligible river 
for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National 
System) in FSH 1909.12, section 82.41. These factors include the 
potential uses of land and water that would be enhanced, foreclosed, or 
curtailed by designation. Consideration of current conditions, 
including other land allocations, is also a part of eligibility as 
described in FSH 1909.12, sections 82.14 and 82.14a.
Hydrology
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider unique or exemplary 
hydrology as a primary criterion for Wild and Scenic River designation.
    Response: The final directives retain hydrology as an example of 
``other similar values'' for which a river may be found eligible (FSH 
1909.12, sec. 82.14a, para.7).
Native Species
    Comment: The Forest Service should stress natural/native species, 
habitat diversity, and avoiding the spread of invasive species in Wild 
and Scenic River areas.
    Response: The final directives retain emphasis on resident/
anadromous fish populations, indigenous wildlife species, and various 
aspects of associated habitat, including diversity, in determining 
whether such values are ``outstandingly remarkable'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 
82.14a, paras. 4 and 5). Botany may also be evaluated as an 
``outstandingly remarkable'' value; including emphasis on native 
species/plant communities and habitat diversity.
Corridor Widths
    Comment: The Forest Service should justify the one-quarter mile 
boundary. It seems arbitrary, especially when the role of topography is 
not acknowledged. Also, there is no mention of key wetlands, oxbows, 
estuaries, and so on, as part of study area.
    Response: For a legislatively mandated study, Congress established 
in section 4(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act a boundary of one-
quarter mile from the ordinary high water mark on each side of the 
river. The final directives retain a minimum boundary of one-quarter 
mile with the added guidance that such a boundary ``may include 
adjacent areas needed to protect the resources or facilitate management 
of the river area'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 81.3).
River System or Basin Integrity
    Comment: While holistic, watershed-based management strategy seems 
appropriate, a vague and undefined suitability factor like ``the 
contribution to river system or basin integrity'' provides little or no 
understanding and focus for decisions.
    Response: The final directives retain ``contribution to river 
system or basin integrity'' as one of the factors that may be used to 
evaluate the suitability of an eligible river for the National Forest 
System. Input from organizations and individuals familiar with specific 
river resources should be sought to define factors like the 
contribution to river system or basin integrity.
Benefits From Designation
    Comment: The Forest Service should explain whether the wild and 
scenic river evaluation required in the Forest Service directives would 
include a disclosure of positive outcomes expected from specific 
management components of wild and scenic designation.
    Response: The final directives retain direction from section 4(a) 
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; for example, to address the 
reasonably potential uses of the land and water that would be enhanced, 
foreclosed, or curtailed with designation. Such analysis would include 
the positive benefits to land and water from designation. The final 
directives retain providing ``guidelines as integral parts of the 
alternative'' (FSH 1909.12, sec. 83.24).
Vegetation Management and Roads
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider that while limiting 
access roads and tree/vegetation cutting in areas eligible for wild and 
scenic river status may be suitable for that designation, it may also 
significantly increase the risk of losing key values that contributed 
to the designation.
    Response: The final directives retain the ability to use a range of 
vegetation management and timber harvest practices in scenic and 
recreational river corridors provided these practices protect, restore, 
or enhance the river environment. Cutting of trees and other vegetation 
is not permitted in wild river corridors except ``when needed * * * 
protect the environment, including wildfire suppression.''
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Projects
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide more specific guidance 
in the Forest Service directives Wild and Scenic Rivers section in 
regard to authorized and prohibited fish and wildlife habitat 
management projects.

[[Page 5149]]

    Response: The final directives retain existing guidance for 
evaluating wildlife and fish projects in addition to the requirement to 
evaluate any part of such project that has potential to affect the 
river's free-flowing character as a water resources project.
Projects To Control Non-Native Species
    Comment: Evaluating fish and wildlife habitat management projects, 
such as impoundments intended to prevent non-native or invasive species 
from migrating upstream as water resources projects may prevent or 
preclude activities needed to protect or restore native species.
    Response: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has a three-fold purpose: 
protecting and enhancing a river's free-flowing character, its water 
quality, and its ``outstandingly remarkable'' values. Free-flowing is 
defined broadly in the act as ``flowing in natural condition without 
impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping or other modification 
of the waterway.'' The final directives retain guidance to evaluate any 
part of a wildlife or fish project that has potential to affect a 
river's free-flowing character as water resources projects, consistent 
with the act. This requirement is not an automatic prohibition of in-
stream wildlife or fish projects.
Condition Classes
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider revising the Forest 
Service directives on wild and scenic river evaluation to add a 
requirement to assess and disclose the current anticipated ``condition 
classes'' of the riparian and adjacent forest to such major influences 
as wildfires, insects, and diseases.
    Response: The final directives retain a detailed discussion of 
factors to consider in evaluating the suitability of an eligible river 
for inclusion in the National Forest System in FSH 1909.12, section 
82.41. These factors include the potential uses of land and water that 
would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed by designation.
Environmental and Heritage Preservation
Environmental Protection
    Comment: The Forest Service should protect our environment for the 
benefit of future generations, protect animal and plant species, 
protect water resources, prevent global warming, protect from oil and 
logging interests, protect the air supply including visibility, and 
provide recreational opportunities.
    Response: The Forest Service is mandated by many statutes to 
protect and manage the NFS for multiple-use values. The Forest Service 
directives allow all these important environmental issues to be 
considered during the forest planning process as the Responsible 
Official deems appropriate.
    Comment: The Forest Service should start thinking in terms of 
habitat restoration and high rise dwellings to alleviate the pressure 
on wildlife.
    Response: Habitat restoration is certainly a management option that 
can be considered during the forest planning process. High rise 
dwellings are not in the scope of Forest Service directives.
    Comment: The Forest Service should support developing alternative 
sources of power and building materials.
    Response: These issues are outside the scope of the Forest Service 
directives. The Forest Service and United States Department of 
Agriculture did evaluate the potential for renewable energy development 
on NFS lands. The technical report titled, Assessing the Potential for 
Renewable Energy on National Forest System Lands, written by R. 
Karsteadt, D. Dahle, D. Heimiller and T. Nealon can be viewed at http://www.osti.gov/bridge or paper copies are available for sale from the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 865-576-8401, 
FAX 865-576-5728 or e-mail mail to: [email protected].
    Comment: The Forest Service should protect heritage resources 
because the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires it.
    Response: The comment is correct and the Forest Service is legally 
mandated to protect heritage resources on NFS lands by the National 
Historic Preservation Act and a host of other statutes and Executive 
orders.
Resource Extraction
    Comment: The Forest Service should stop oil and gas extraction and 
tree harvesting on NFS Lands. Others think that the Forest Service 
should maintain an even balance between resource extraction and 
protection of wild areas. One respondent stated that all historical 
improvements should be disclosed along with their cost and who paid for 
them. Some respondents believed that industries are being allowed to 
profit from the national forests at a cost that will be borne by future 
generations.
    Response: The Forest Service directives guide planning for the 
management of the NFS. The many legal authorities governing the Forest 
Service's management of NFS lands require it to consider resource 
extraction and timber harvesting among the multiple uses to which those 
lands are subject.
Mineral Extraction Activities
    Comment: The Forest Service should not allow the economic benefits 
of mineral extraction activities to outweigh environmental concerns.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 13.13d is in 
accord with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). 
Under FLPMA, multiple-use includes Federal energy and mineral resources 
underlying NFS lands. Exploration and production of those resources is 
considered one of the ``principle or major uses'' under FLPMA which, 
under section 202(e)(1) of that act, are to be given special 
consideration in the planning process.
Fire Management
    Comment: The Forest Service should thin and maintain the forest 
floor to properly manage fires to reduce the risk of catastrophic 
fires. Other respondents claim that thinning to reduce fuels will not 
promote public safety.
    Response: The Forest Service directives offer no specific guidance 
on management activities that should or should not be used to address 
catastrophic fires. However, the planning rule and the directives 
require that management activities be monitored for their effectiveness 
in reaching the objectives and desired conditions stated in the plan.
Transportation
    Comment: The Forest Service should designate ``no motor vehicle'' 
areas and reclaim existing roads. Others think the Forest Service 
should stop subsidizing construction of roads for logging, mining, and 
energy interests. One respondent commented that the directives should 
contain a provision for ``no new road of any kind.''
    Response: The Forest Service disagrees that the directives should 
contain explicit direction on road management. The directives are 
intended to provide guidance on planning. This guidance directs the 
Responsible Official to consider some of the issues raised by the 
respondents when developing desired conditions, objectives, and 
guidelines for transportation.
Water Resources Management
Water Quality Data
    Comment: The Forest Service should be cautious when using water 
quality limited stream data generated by the

[[Page 5150]]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    Response: The Forest Service will use the best available data and 
use that data consistent with the requirements of the Data Quality Act 
(35 U.S.C. 3516).
Watershed Planning
    Comment: The Forest Service should carry out intermediate watershed 
planning.
    Response: The Department of Agriculture along with several other 
Departments and Agencies developed a Unified Federal Policy for a 
Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management (65 FR 
62566, Oct. 18, 2000). This policy requires that a science-based 
approach be used for watershed assessments. The information generated 
during the assessments will become part of the basis for identifying 
management opportunities and priorities and for developing alternatives 
to protect or restore watersheds. The Forest Service has developed a 
science-based approach and has documented the procedures (Ecosystem 
Analysis at the Watershed Scale, Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis 
Version 2.2, August 1995) available at the Northwest Forest Plan 
Information Center and Library (http://www.reo.gov/library). Currently, 
each national forest conducts at least one watershed assessment a year 
dependent on funding availability. Information from these assessments 
may be used in the comprehensive evaluation.
Water Rights
    Comment: The Forest Service should be more careful when addressing 
ownership of water rights.
    Response: The Responsible Official is directed to identify the 
method used to identify the unit's non-consumptive water needs, and the 
options available to support the states' water allocation process (FSH 
1909.12, sec. 13.11c).
Recreation Management
Trails
    Comment: The Forest Service should make trails open and accessible 
to the public. It would be reasonable to fund forests that are used 
rather than those that are closed to the public.
    Response: The Forest Service directives do not restrict trail use 
by the public.
Appalachian Trail
    Comment: The Forest Service should identify the Appalachian 
National Scenic Trail as a special management or geographic area under 
the Forest Service directives. This will help to define this as a 
special area with legislative designation and improve the chances for 
protection and consistent management across administrative boundaries.
    Response: Special areas such as the Congressionally-designated 
Appalachian National Scenic Trail are addressed under FSM 1921.02b, 
Special Area Designations. Forests are required to recognize that these 
areas are nationally important and that the plan provides appropriate 
guidance to protect, maintain, and enhance the values associated with 
these areas. Special areas will be described in the vision document as 
desired conditions. These desired conditions may be written for 
geographic conditions such as the Appalachian Trail that traverses 
several national forests in the East. The desired conditions describe 
the ecological, economic, and social attributes that characterize the 
outcome of land management and the Appalachian Trail.
    Comment: The Forest Service should determine the suitability of 
land for various resources, not just timber production because NFMA 
requires it. Suitability for recreational use of off-road vehicles is 
especially needed because off-road vehicle abuse damages the 
environment.
    Response: Off-road vehicle use is addressed separately in 36 CFR 
parts 212, 251, 261, and 295, Travel Management; Designated Routes and 
Areas for Motor Vehicle Use issued on November 9, 2005. Section 212.55 
specifically addresses Criteria for designation of roads, trails, and 
areas. Due to the complex nature of this management issue, such choices 
and evaluations are best made at the local level, with full involvement 
of Federal, tribal, state, and local governments, motorized and non-
motorized users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 
2005 planning rule. Forest Service directives for this rule have not 
been developed at this time.
Lands Management
Land Acquisition
    Comment: The Forest Service should put more emphasis on better 
management of existing lands rather than on land acquisition. The 
Federal government cannot afford to care for what it has let alone buy 
more. Jobs are cutout and these are jobs that are justified for forest 
management. This is either due to lack of funding or they are following 
projects such as the ``Wildlands Project'' where a primitive setting is 
desired. This ideology is not practical in the 21st century and will 
prove to be a loss of resources for future generations.
    Response: Land acquisition is an important program for conserving 
resources that might not be protected if not federally owned. The 
Forest Service directives do provide some general guidelines for 
considering land acquisitions during the planning process at FSH 
1909.12, section 13.13g. Land acquisition is considered a viable 
management option for the NFS and is authorized by several statutes. 
More detailed policy and guidelines can be found in FSM 5420, Land 
Purchases and Donations and FSH 5409.13, Land Acquisition Handbook.
Special Areas
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider designating special 
areas and clarify who has the authority to designate such areas 
including recreational, wildlife, scenic, paleontological, and other 
areas not listed at FSM 1921. The directives should clarify who has the 
authority to designate such areas not just botanical and geologic.
    Response: FSM 1921, exhibit 01 issued in interim directive 1920-
2005-2 has been moved to FSH 1909.12, section 11.15. The exhibit 
contains examples of some special areas that may be considered during 
the planning process. The exhibit is not a comprehensive list.

Content of Directives

    The following is an overview of what the directives contain related 
to land management planning.

Forest Service Manual (FSM)

FSM 1900--Planning--Chapter Zero Code

    In general, the zero code sections of the directive coding scheme 
are used to identify general instructions, such as authority, 
objectives, and policy that apply to all subsequent direction within 
the section where the zero code is set out. The final directive changes 
definitions and other changes to be consistent with the 2005 planning 
rule. The final directive establishes policy that analysis should be 
appropriate to the decision being made and the risks associated with 
that decision, and that planning should be done in a reasonable manner, 
at reasonable costs, and in a reasonable amount of time.

FSM Chapter 1920--Land Management Planning

FSM 1920.2--Objectives
    The final directive revises objectives to reflect the principles of 
the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)

[[Page 5151]]

and to update sustainability wording consistent with the 2005 planning 
rule.
FSM 1920.3--Policy
    The final directive adds that the responsible official must conduct 
sustainability evaluations within an area large enough to consider 
broad-scale factors and trends over large landscapes when plans are 
prepared or revised.
FSM 1920.4--Responsibility
    The final directive reserves the authority to the Chief to approve 
the schedule of plan revisions at FSM 1920.41.
FSM 1921--Land Management Planning Under the 2005 Planning Rule
    The final directive changes the caption from ``Regional Planning'' 
to ``Land Management Planning Under the 2005 planning rule.'' Forest 
Service Manual 1921.03 adds policy that project or activity decisions 
should not be included in plans. Forest Service Manual 1921.04 adds 
responsibilities for Regional Foresters and Forest Supervisors. Forest 
Service Manual 1921.1 includes direction on plan requirements and 
vegetation management requirements from the National Forest Management 
Act.
    Forest Service Manual 1921.12 adds a section on National Forest 
Management Act requirements. Forest Service Manual 1921.12a adds 
requirements for timber management in carrying out projects and 
activities. Forest Service Manual 1921.12b adds requirements for 
vegetation management guidance in land management plans. Forest Service 
Manual 1921.12c adds requirements for identifying lands not suitable 
for timber production with re-evaluation to occur every ten years. 
Forest Service Manual 1921.12d adds requirements for estimating long-
term sustained-yield capacity (LTSYC) and limitations on timber harvest 
on ``lands generally suitable for timber harvest'' to be equal to or 
less than the LTSYC. Also, adds exceptions to these limits of timber 
harvest and requirements for timber management projections. Forest 
Service Manual 1921.12e adds requirements for guidelines of maximum 
size limits for even-aged regeneration harvest. Forest Service Manual 
1921.12f adds requirements for culmination of mean annual increment 
(CMAI) of growth and even-aged regeneration harvest and clarifies when 
the CMAI concept does not apply. Forest Service Manual 1921.12g adds 
requirements for plan guidance on restocking.
    Forest Service Manual 1921.2 includes direction on plan 
evaluations. Forest Service Manual 1921.21 requires the Responsible 
Official to review evaluations and determine if changes are needed in 
plan components. Forest Service Manual 1921.3 describes the Responsible 
Official's discretion to determine the need for change in plan 
components and the need for a plan amendment or plan revision. Forest 
Service Manual 1921.4 describes plan implementation and FSM 1921.5 
describes plan monitoring. Forest Service Manual 1921.6 describes 
public participation and collaboration requirements.
    Forest Service Manual 1921.7 describes social and economic 
evaluation, civil rights and environmental justice compliance, 
ecological evaluation, ecosystem diversity, species diversity, and plan 
components for sustainability. The final directive establishes at FSM 
1921.73 that the rigor of analysis should be proportional to the level 
of risk to ecosystems and species. A key requirement at FSM 1921.77c 
states that for species-of-concern, the plan should provide for 
appropriate ecological conditions that are of appropriate quality, 
distribution, and abundance to allow species populations to be well 
distributed and interactive, within the bounds of the life history, 
distribution, and natural population fluctuations of the species within 
the capability of the landscape and consistent with multiple-use 
objectives.
    Forest Service Manual 1921.8 describes the role of science in 
planning, including uncertainty, review, and documentation. Forest 
Service Manual 1921.9 provides that an environmental management system 
(EMS) must be established for each National Forest System (NFS) unit 
developing, revising, and amending plans under 36 CFR 219.5 and 36 CFR 
219.14 and include the scope of the unit's activities, products, and 
services implementing the plan.
FSM 1922--Backcountry and Primitive Areas
    This section establishes a reserved code for backcountry and 
primitive areas for issuances of an interim directive or field 
supplementation.
FSM 1923--Wilderness Evaluation
    At FSM 1923, guidance is added on what areas should be subject to 
evaluation based on direction from the 1982 planning rule. 
Responsibilities are added for the forest, grassland, or prairie 
supervisor. Guidance is added on when a legislative environmental 
impact statement is required. Minor changes are made to text to agree 
with the 2005 planning rule.
FSM 1924--Wild and Scenic River Evaluation
    At FSM 1924, policy is added to complete legislatively mandated 
studies within a specified study period and to clarify conditions under 
which previous river studies may need to be revisited. A responsibility 
is added for the Regional Forester to prepare legislative proposals for 
river proposals and one was added for forest, grassland, or prairie 
supervisor to approve management direction for rivers found eligible or 
recommended for designation.
FSM 1925--Management of Inventoried Roadless Areas
    This section provides a cross-reference to another interim 
directive (id 1920-2004-1) on inventoried roadless areas, which became 
effective on July 16, 2004.
FSM 1926--Land Management Planning Using Planning Regulations in Effect 
Before November 9, 2000
    Previous direction on FSM 1922 has been moved to FSM 1926. There 
are editorial changes from the previous text at FSM 1922 to be 
consistent with the 2005 planning rule. The caption is changed from 
``Forest Planning'' to ``Land Management Planning Using Planning 
Regulations in Effect before November 9, 2000.''

Forest Service Handbook (FSH)

FSH 1909.12--Land Management Planning Handbook

    The final directive to this handbook includes a change from a one-
digit chapter coding scheme to a two-digit coding scheme; for example, 
chapter 2 becomes chapter 20. The current direction in chapters 1, 2, 
3, 4, 5, and 6 is removed in its entirety and those chapters, with two-
digit coding, are revised to be consistent with the 2005 planning rule 
at 36 CFR part 219. Chapter 80 (formerly chapter 8) and the zero code 
chapter contain changes to assure consistency with the 2005 planning 
rule.

Chapter 10--Land Management Plan

    This chapter provides direction on what constitutes a plan and 
direction on consideration of individual resources. Section 11 
describes: (1) Desired conditions, (2) guidelines, (3) identification 
of areas generally suitable for various uses, (4) guidance for special 
conditions (5) objectives, (6) proposed and possible actions, (7) plan 
consistency, and (8) special areas and documentation. Section 12 
includes guidance on the monitoring questions,

[[Page 5152]]

performance measures. Section 13 includes guidance on consideration of 
various resources during the planning process, including air, water, 
fire, recreation, heritage resources, minerals, range, travel 
management, and land use.

Chapter 20--The Adaptive Planning Process

    This chapter provides guidance on the adaptive planning process and 
includes procedural steps for amending and revising plans. Section 24 
describes how to review and evaluate a plan and provides guidance on 
evaluation report content and format. Section 25 describes how to amend 
or revise a plan. Section 28 describes content for the approval 
document for plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision. 
Section 29 describes the application of plan direction to projects.

Chapter 30--Public Participation and Collaboration

    This chapter provides guidance on public participation and 
collaboration.

Chapter 40--Science and Sustainability

    This chapter provides guidance on science and sustainability. 
Section 41 provides direction on science reviews and discusses purposes 
of a review, levels of review, review strategy, and identification of 
reviewers. Section 42 describes social and economic sustainability and 
provides a framework for social and economic evaluation. Section 43 
describes ecological sustainability and describes how to analyze 
ecosystem diversity and species diversity.
Ecosystem Diversity and Analysis
    The steps in the ecosystem diversity analysis include:
    a. Selecting the appropriate scales;
    b. Identifying the characteristics of ecosystem diversity that will 
be the focus of the analysis;
    c. Developing information on the range of variation;
    d. Describing the current condition of the selected 
characteristics;
    e. Describing the current condition and trend of the selected 
characteristics of ecosystem diversity;
    f. Evaluating the status of ecosystem diversity;
    g. Describing risks to selected characteristics of ecosystem 
diversity; and
    h. Developing plan components for ecosystem diversity.
Species Diversity Analysis
    The steps in the species diversity analysis include:
    a. Establishing the ecosystem context for species;
    b. Identifying listed species, species-of-concern, and species-of-
interest;
    c. Screening species-of-concern and species-of-interest for further 
consideration in the planning process;
    d. Collecting information;
    e. Identifying species groups/surrogate species for analysis and 
management; and
    f. Developing additional plan components for species diversity if 
needed.
    Section 43.22b provides guidance to responsible officials in 
identifying species-of-concern and species-of-interest. For instance, 
it states that the responsible official may identify species with ranks 
of G-1 through G-3 on the NatureServe ranking system as species-of-
concern. Additionally, section 43.22c specifies how responsible 
officials may review species with the ranks of S-1, S-2, N1, or N2 on 
the NatureServe ranking system for potential species-of-interest. 
Species-of-interest may include hunted, fished, and other species 
identified cooperatively with state fish and wildlife agencies 
consistent with the Sikes Act.

Chapter 50--Objection Process

    This chapter provides guidance for the pre-decisional objection 
process, including guidance on: computation of periods, evidence of 
timely filing, lead objector, dismissal of objections, timeframes for 
resolving objections, response of reviewing officials, and maintaining 
records.

Chapter 60--Forest Vegetation Resource Planning

    This chapter adds guidance on timber and forest vegetation resource 
planning, including guidance on identifying lands generally suitable 
for timber production, suitability determinations at the project level, 
and long-term sustained-yield capacity.

Chapter 80--Wild and Scenic River Evaluation

    This chapter revises terminology, such as the term ``study report'' 
to ``study report/applicable NEPA document'' and updates terminology, 
such as, ``management prescriptions'' to ``management direction,'' and 
so forth. In addition, chapter 80 provides more explicit guidance for 
the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) study process that is consistent with 
a November 21, 1996, memorandum to Regional Foresters from the 
Directors, Ecosystem Management Coordination and Recreation, Heritage, 
and Wilderness Resources Staffs, Washington Office, with the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture-U.S. Department of the Interior Guidelines, 
and with the river study direction of other Federal agencies. These 
changes strengthen and reinforce the linkage of the river study process 
to land management planning.

Regulatory Certifications

Environmental Impact

    These final directives provide the detailed direction to agency 
employees necessary to carry out the provisions of the final 2005 
planning rule adopted at 36 CFR part 219 governing land management 
planning. Section 31.12 of FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 43208; Sept. 18, 1992,) 
excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact 
statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide 
administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.'' The 
agency's conclusion is that these final directives fall within this 
category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist as 
currently defined that require preparation of an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Regulatory Impact

    These directives have been reviewed under USDA procedures. The 
final directives would not have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor state or local 
governments. The directives would not interfere with an action taken or 
planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy issues. 
Finally, the directives would not alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients of such programs.
    Moreover, the directives have been considered in light of Executive 
Order 13272 regarding proper consideration of small entities and the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 
which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). No 
direct or indirect financial impact on small businesses or other 
entities has been identified. Therefore, it is hereby certified that 
these final directives will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities as defined by the act.

No Takings Implications

    These final directives have been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12360, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with

[[Page 5153]]

Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and it has been determined 
that they would not pose the risk of a taking of private property as 
they are limited to the establishment of administrative procedures.

Energy Effects

    These final directives have been analyzed under Executive Order 
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that they do not 
constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive 
order.

Civil Justice Reform

    These final directives have been reviewed under Executive Order 
12988, Civil Justice Reform. These final directives will direct the 
work of Forest Service employees and are not intended to preempt any 
state and local laws and regulations that might be in conflict or that 
would impede full implementation of these directives. The directives 
would not retroactively affect existing permits, contracts, or other 
instruments authorizing the occupancy and use of National Forest System 
lands and would not require the institution of administrative 
proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging their 
provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 
1995, the effects of these final directives on state, local, and tribal 
governments, and on the private sector have been assessed and do not 
compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any state, local, or 
tribal government, or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a 
statement under section 202 of the act is not required.

Federalism

    The agency has considered these final directives under the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has made 
a assessment that the final directives conform with the federalism 
principles set out in this Executive order; would not impose any 
significant compliance costs on the states; and would not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Moreover, 
these final directives address the land management planning process on 
national forests, grasslands, or other units of the National Forest 
System, which do not directly affect the states.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    These final directives do not have tribal implications as defined 
by Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments, and therefore, advance consultation with tribes is 
not required.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    These final directives do not contain any record keeping or 
reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as 
defined in 5 CFR part 1320 and, therefore, impose no paperwork burden 
on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and implementing 
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

Conclusion

    These final directives provide consistent interpretation of the 
2005 planning rule for line and staff officers, and interdisciplinary 
teams. As a consequence, the agency can fulfill its commitment to 
improve public involvement and decisionmaking associated 1 with 
developing, amending, or revising a land management plan. The Forest 
Service has developed these planning directives to set forth the legal 
authorities, objectives, policy, responsibilities, direction, and 
overall guidance needed by Forest Service line officers, agency 
employees, and others to use the 2005 planning rule.
    The full text of these manual and handbook references are available 
on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us.directives. Single paper 
copies are available upon request from the address and telephone 
numbers listed earlier in this notice as well as from the nearest 
regional office, the location of which are also available on the 
Washington Office headquarters homepage on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us.

    Dated: January 10, 2006.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief.
[FR Doc. 06-804 Filed 1-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-U