|
<br />"~
<br />
<br />U iJllll (;
<br />
<br />Federal Register/Vol. 67, No, 235/Friday, December 6, 2002/Proposed Rules
<br />
<br />72771
<br />
<br />the planning process and published the
<br />results in a summary report, "Synthesis
<br />of the Critique of Land Management
<br />Planning" (1990). The critique
<br />concluded that the ,~gency spent too
<br />much time on planning; that planning
<br />costs too much: and. therefore. that the
<br />Forest Service needed a more efficient
<br />planning process. These findings are
<br />still considered valid and are a prime
<br />consdleration in t)18 development of this
<br />propo~ed rule.
<br />Subsequently, the Forest Service
<br />published an Advance Notice of
<br />Proposed Ru!emakillg (56 FR 6508; Feb.
<br />15,1991) regarding possible revisions to
<br />the 1982 rule. A proposed rule was
<br />published in 1995 (60 FR 18886);
<br />however. the Secretary elected nol to
<br />proceed with that proposaL
<br />In response to suggestions from
<br />persons who commented on the 1995
<br />proposed rule, the Secretary convened a
<br />13-membm Committee of Scientists
<br />(Committee or CaS) in late 1 997 to
<br />evaluate the Forest Service's planning
<br />process and recommend changes, In
<br />1998, the COS held meetings across the
<br />country to invite public participation in
<br />their discussions. The Commitlee's
<br />findings were issued in a final report.
<br />"Sustaining the People's Lands" (March
<br />1999). A proposed rule based on the
<br />COS report was published on October 5,
<br />"1999 (64 FR 54074), and a final rule was
<br />adopted on NOVelllLtlr 9, 2000 (55 fR
<br />67514),
<br />
<br />The 2000 Planning Rule
<br />
<br />In response to many of the findings in
<br />the 1990 Critique of Land Management
<br />Planning and the 1999 cas report, the
<br />Forest Service attempted to prepare a
<br />planning rule that would provide a
<br />more efficient planning process. The
<br />2000 planning rule (also referred to as
<br />the 2000 rule) changed the Forest
<br />Service planning process by: (1)
<br />Establishing ecological, social, Jnd
<br />economic sustainabilily as lhe overoll
<br />stewardship goal for managing Ule
<br />National Forest System: (2) identifying
<br />maintenance and restoration of
<br />ecological sustainabilify as the first
<br />priority for management of National
<br />Forest System lands; (3) requiring
<br />collaboration with the general public,
<br />interested organizations, Tribal. State
<br />and local governments, and Federal
<br />agencies in all phases of the planning
<br />process; (4) expanding monitoring Jnd
<br />evaluation requirements: (5) specifying
<br />the use of scientists and establishing
<br />detailed requiremenls for the
<br />application of science in the planning
<br />process: and (5) providing a dynamic
<br />planning framework for solving
<br />problems and addressing issues at the
<br />appropriate scale. The 2000 rule applies
<br />
<br />not only to plan amendments and
<br />revisions, but also to project-level
<br />planning and decisionmaking.
<br />The general goals of the 2000 ru Ie arf!
<br />laudable. A major improvement
<br />achieved in that rtJle is the emphasis on
<br />sustainability, which assists the Forest
<br />Service in providing for multiple uses
<br />over time. The 2000 rule also promotes
<br />efficiency in that it eliminates zero.
<br />based plan revisions as recommended in
<br />the 1990 critique, and it removes some
<br />analytical requirements of the 1982 rule,
<br />such as the requirements for developing
<br />benchmarks. which are no longer
<br />considered helpfuL The 2000 rule o\so
<br />emphasizes public involvement more
<br />than the 1982 rule. The 2000 rule gives
<br />explicit direction on the use of science
<br />in the planning process, while the 1982
<br />rule relied on knowledge shared
<br />through an interdisciplinary team
<br />approach without procedural
<br />requirements for the use of science. The
<br />2000 rule replaces the post-decisional
<br />administrative appeal process for
<br />challenging plans with a pre-decisional
<br />objection process. The 2000 rule also
<br />delegates the authority for plan
<br />decisions to the Forest. Grassland, or
<br />Prairie Supervisor, rather than to the
<br />Regional Forester. The 2000 rule also
<br />recognize!> the plan as a dynamic
<br />document.
<br />Despite the positive aspects of the
<br />2000 rule, however, the number of very
<br />detailed analytical requiremenls. the
<br />lack of clarity regarding many of the
<br />requirements, the lack of flexibility, and
<br />the lack of recognition of the limits of
<br />agency budgets and personnel led to a
<br />reconsidoration of this rule.
<br />Subsp.quenl Reviews orthe 2000
<br />Planning Rule
<br />After adoption of the 2000 rule, the
<br />Secretary received a number of
<br />comments from individuals, groups, and
<br />organizations expressing concerns
<br />regarding the implementation of the
<br />2000 rule, In addition, lawsuits
<br />challenging promulgation of the rule
<br />were brought by a coalition of 12
<br />environmental groups from 7 states and
<br />by a coalition of industry groups
<br />(Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA,
<br />No, C-Ol:'-0728-BZ-(N,D, "calif.. filed
<br />February 16, 2001)) and {American
<br />Forest and Paper Ass'n v. Veneman, No.
<br />01-CV-00871 (TPJl (D,D.C., filed April
<br />23,2001)). As a result of these lawsuits
<br />ond concerns raised in comments to the
<br />Secretary, the Department initiated a
<br />review of the 2000 rule focusing on its
<br />"implementability." The "NFMA
<br />Planning Rule Review." completed in
<br />April 2001, concluded that many of the
<br />concerns regarding implementability of
<br />
<br />the rule were serious and required
<br />immediate attention.
<br />In addition, the Forest Service
<br />developed a business analysis model of
<br />the 2000 nile and conducted a
<br />workshop with field-level planners to
<br />determine the implementability of the
<br />2000 rule based on this business model.
<br />The business model reflected business
<br />activities directly applied from the 2000
<br />rule and provided the basis for a
<br />systematic evahwtion of the rule for
<br />implementability.
<br />The business model identified the
<br />following nine major categories of
<br />planning activilies and associated
<br />sections of the 2000 rule:
<br />(1) Collaboration (primarily 99219,12
<br />through 219,18);
<br />[2) Best Science/Science Consistency
<br />(primarily 99 219,22 through 219.25
<br />with consideration of relative text in
<br />99219,11 and 219,20);
<br />(3) Recommendations (primarily
<br />99219,3 through 219,9 with
<br />consideration of relative text in
<br />99219,19,219,20,219.21,219,26, and
<br />219,27);
<br />(4) Sustainability (primarily 99 219,19
<br />through 219.21 with consideration of
<br />relative text in ~219."11);
<br />(5) Developing/Revising Plan
<br />Decisions (primarily ~~ 219.6 through
<br />219,9 and 2"19.11 with consideration of
<br />relAtive text in ~9 21 9.20, 219.26,
<br />219,28, and 219.29);
<br />(5) Write Plan Documentation
<br />(primarily 99219.11 and 219,30):
<br />(7) Maintain the Plan (primarily
<br />9219,31):
<br />(8) Objections and Appeals lprimarily
<br />9219.32); and
<br />(9) Miscellaneous (public
<br />notifications and selected NEPA
<br />activities),
<br />Within the context of the nine
<br />categories defined, the facilitated
<br />workshop centered on answering two
<br />questions: (1) Are the business
<br />requirements clear\y understood: \2)
<br />What is the agency's perceived ability to
<br />execute the requirements?
<br />An important consideration in this
<br />business model analvsis was that it was
<br />conducted by planni-ng practitioners
<br />who have current field-level experience.
<br />They are the agency experts in a variety
<br />of resource areas, including assessing
<br />what can reasonably be accomplished,
<br />considering existing knowledge and
<br />information, the issues relevant to
<br />planning areas, and local staffing and
<br />funding situations.
<br />This review and analysis found the
<br />following:
<br />(1) The 2000 rule has both definitions
<br />and analylical requirements that are
<br />very complex, unclear, and, therefore,
<br />subject to inconsistent implementation
<br />
|