WSP09638

• File Number: 8027
• Description: Section D General Correspondence - Federal Agencies ‎(Alpha, not Basin Related)‎
• Date: 12/6/2002
• Author: USDA Forest Service
• Title: RMP - Proposed Rules - Federal Register - Part III - 36 CFR Part 219 - National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning: Proposed Rules
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

lJ I) 1112 8

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No, 235/Friday, December 6, 2002/Proposed Rules

72783

organizations, and private landowners
in planning, and paragraph (a){3)
incorporates the provisions of ~ 219.15
of the 2000 rule, which address
engaging federally recognized Tribes in
planning.
The 2000 rule at S 219.12[b) requires
Forest Service participation with others
in efforts to cooperatively develop
landscape goals. Although the
cooperative development of landscape
goals may be of value in some planning
efforts, this specific activity should not
be a requirement because it will not
always be useful and may often be
unachievable with participating groups.
The proposed rule does not refer to
collaboratively developed landscape
goals: rather, at S 219.12(b), the
proposed rule clarifies that the
Responsible Official should consider
participating in existing groups to
address resource management issues
within the community. The agency also
feels that the list of objectives for
collaboration in the 2000 rule are nol
necessary as they are more
appropriately defined under existing
law or through the collaboration process
itself.
In contrast to the 2000 Rule at
9219.18, this proposed section on
collaboration. cooperation. and
consultation does not include a
provision for requiring advisory
committees. That provision requires that
each national forest or grassland have
access to an advisory committee. Having
considered employee concerns over this
provision, the agl?-ncy now considers
this provision to be inadvisable. There
are many valid methods for effectivelv
engaging the public, An advisory .
committee may be the most effective
method in some circumstances, the least
effective in olhers.
Each Forest. Grassland, or Prairie
Supervisor currently has the option of
requesting establishment of an advisory
committee under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) and
implementing regulations issued by the
General Service Administration (GSAJ.
The 2000 rule requires that each Forest
or Grassland Supervisor have access to
an advisory committee with knowledge
of local conditions and issues. Whil~ the
rule does not require each planning unit
to have its own committee. many
believe that the tocal conditions and
issues requirement effectively require a
separate commHtee for mosl planning
units.
The costs of establishing and
administering F ACA committees is high
in terms of Federal employee time and
salaries 10 charter the committees,
manage the nomination and selection
process. and to set up meetings. There

are also meeting facility costs as well as
costs for reimbursement of committee
members for their transportation, meals.
and lodging. While these costs may well
be justified to address issues for some
planning units. they might be an unwise
use of funds on other units. Also. the
process for establishing committees can
be a tong one. The Act and
implementing GSA regulations require
substantial administrative work
including drafting charters, nominating
members. checking nominees'
backgrounds, giving Federal Register
notice, considering public input, and
giving notice of the committee members
selected. By law, committees must be re-
chartered every two years.
Requiring most units to undertake the
expenditure of time and funds for
establishing and re-establishing FACA
committees imposes a significant
continuing administrative
responsibility. lnstead of mandating a
"one-size-fits-all" national approach to
public input, the agency believes that it
is better to provide Responsible Officials
flexibility to design public involvement
strategies to best meet the local needs
the most cost effective way.
In summary, the proposed rule
reduces the amount of process-related
descriptions of the public involvement
processes. The agency's intention is to
continue and support vigorous and
active public interaction and
involvement without mandating which
process would most effectively support
this interaction. Consequently. this
proposed rule drops the non-substantive
portions of the 2000 rule. such as
detailed examples of how people.
groups. and organizations can
contribute to the planning effort.
Proposed section 219.13-
SustainabiJity. This proposed section
contains direction for how the specific
social. economic. and ecological
components of sustainability are to be
applied. This section of the proposed
rule replaces S 219.19 through S 219.21
of the 2000 rule. This proposed rule
emphasizes the interconnection
between the ecological. social. and
economic components of sustainability
and requires consideration of each in
the planning process.
However, the proposed rule departs
from the 2000 rule on several important
points. Suslainability under this
proposed rule is viewed as a single
objective with interdependent social.
economic. and ecological components.
In contrast to the 2000 rule, this concept
ofsustaillability is linked more closely
to the MUSY A in that economic and.
social components are treated as
interdependent with ecological aspects
of sustain ability. rather than as

secondary considerations. This change
in emphasis is not intended 10
downplay the importance of ecological
sustainability or of maintaining the
health and productivity of the land.
The proposed rule also affirms the
commitment of the Forest Service to
meet the NFMA requirement that plans
provide for the diversity of plant and
animal communities and tree species
and retains the joint focus of the 2000
rule by considering and evaluating both
ecosystem diversity and species
diversity. in order to reach plan
decisions that provide for diversity
within the multiple use objectives of the
plan.
The proposed rule addresses social
and economic sllstainability at
~219.13(a}. Even though social and
economic issues are different they are
discussed together because both social
and economic components of
sustainability address the well-being of
communities that are dependent on the
National Forests. There are elements of
analysis that have implications for both
economic and social sustainability. For
example. demographics (such as
population. age, income, employment,
home ownership, school, growth) have
implications for both economic and
social sustainability. Conversely. there
are other elements of social and
economic analysis that are clearly
distinct. For example. a social analysis
might help identify Native American
llse of medicinal plants to ensure the
agency considers how these plants may
be protected. A social analysis might
also help identify what local people
particularly value about National Forest
System lands. An economic analysis
might identify the interconnectedness
between goods and services produced
from NFS lands and the economy in
surrounding communities in terms of
employment and income: for example.
the wcreation lIse of NFS lands and
service industries. To assess social and
economic suslainability. the Forest
Service proposes to require the
Responsible Official to: (1) Identify
values that interested and affected
persons want to see sustained; (2)
consider how human activities and
social and economic conditions i'lnd
trends affect NFS lands; (3) identify the
benefits NFS lands provide; and (4)
examine how land management
decisions affect social and economic
conditions.
The Forest Service understands that
sustainable social and economic
systems are very complex and that
programmatic planning decisions form
only a part of the environment in which
these systems operate. The agency
acknowledges that it cannot assure