PUBLIC SUBMISSION - Content Analysis Group, LLC

FRD – 1132
PUBLIC SUBMISSION
Docket: FS-2011-0002
USFS Land Management Planning Proposed Rule
As of: May 19, 2011
Received: May 16, 2011
Status: Draft
Tracking No. 80cdc8c9
Comments Due: May 16, 2011
Submission Type: Web
Comment On: FS-2011-0002-0001
National Forest System Land Management Planning
Document: FS-2011-0002-DRAFT-2124
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-02989
Submitter Information
Name: OSCAR SIMPSON
Address:
3320 12 TH ST NW
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, 87107
Email: oscarsimpson3@yahoo.com
Phone: 505-345-0117
Fax: NA
Submitter's Representative: OSCAR SIMPSON
Organization: SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS
See attached file(s)
General Comment
Attachments

FRD – 1132
FS-2011-0002-DRAFT-2124.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2011-02989
May 16, 2011
Harris Sherman, USDA Undersecretary of Agriculture for NRE
Forest Service Planning DEIS
c/o Bear West Company
132 E 500 S
Bountiful, UT 84010
http://www.govcomments.com/
http://www.regulations.gov
Attn: 36 CFR 219, National Forest System Land Management Planning, Proposed
Rule, Federal Register, Volume 76, No. 30, pages 8480-8528, February 14, 2011.
Dear Mr. Sherman,
The following groups (New Mexico Sportsmen, New Mexico’s Coalition of
Sportsmen, The San Juan Quality Water’s Coalition, The Backcountry Hunters & Angles,
NM Chapter, The Back Country Horsemen of New Mexico – the Middle Rio Grande &
Lower Rio Grande Chapters) appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on the
Proposed Planning Rule, DEIS, Appendices and other associated documents. Our
comments are directed to the Federal Register Notice, the National Forest System Land
Management Planning, the Proposed Rule, the Federal Register - Volume 76, No. 30,
pages 8480-8528 and aforementioned materials.
Sportsmen and equestrian trail riders who use stock in Forest Service lands have a
long tradition of involvement and interest in land management planning for the National
Forest System (NFS). Many or our members live in and around the National Forests and
Grasslands, deriving tremendous benefits from their water, recreational opportunities,
scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, and other backcountry or wildland resources and values.
We strongly support the management vision for the National Forests and Grasslands
articulated by Secretary Vilsack, which focuses on ecological restoration, climate change
resilience, and watershed protection. We were pleased that the Forest Service embraced
this vision in its purpose and need statement, stating that a “new planning rule is needed
to ensure that all plans will be responsive to issues such as the challenges of climate
change; the need for forest restoration and conservation, watershed protection, and
wildlife conservation; and the sustainable use of public lands to support vibrant

FRD – 1132
communities.” DEIS, p. 7. Beyond echoing Secretary Vilsack’s vision, the purpose and
need statement reflects the Forest Service’s “core management objective” of restoring
watersheds and forest health, as well as similar Department of Agriculture and Forest
Service priorities laid out in the Strategic Plans for 2010-2015. DEIS, p. 80-82. While
we believe the proposed rule language is a good first step toward realizing these
restoration and conservation objectives, the final planning rule must go further in
order to ensure that it will achieve the watershed protection, wildlife conservation, and
restoration goals the Department and Forest Service have articulated.
We look forward to continued participation in the rulemaking process to develop a
rule that is consistent with Secretary Vilsack’s vision and charts a scientifically sound
and environmentally sustainable management future for the National Forests and
Grasslands.
Sincerely;
Oscar Simpson on behalf of the following groups:
New Mexico Sportsmen – Oscar Simpson, President
New Mexico’s Coalition of Sportsmen – Oscar Simpson, Chair
Back Country Hunters & Anglers, NM Chapter – Oscar Simpson, Chair
The San Juan Quality Waters Coalition – Laddie Milles, Chair
The Back Country Horsemen of New Mexico, Middle Rio Grande Chapter –
Oscar Simpson, Legislative Representative
The Back Country Horsemen of New Mexico, Lower Rio Grande Chapter –
Pat Buls, President
3320 12 TH ST NW,
Albuquerque, NM 87107
Executive Summary

FRD – 1132
We strongly supports USDA Secretary Vilsack’s management vision to restore and
protect the ecological integrity of the National Forest System, and we are pleased that the
Forest Service has proposed a forward-looking planning rule that sets goals to fulfill that
vision. While we believe the proposed rule language has positive features, the final
planning rule must go further in order to ensure that it will achieve the climate change
resilience, watershed protection, wildlife conservation, ecological restoration, sustainable
recreation, and economic sustainability goals of this Administration and the Forest
Service.
Following is a brief summary of our comments on each of the major issues that we
evaluated in the Forest Service’s proposed rule and DEIS. The summary highlights key
recommendations, while the detailed comments include additional and specific
recommended improvements.
Agency Discretion, Accountability, and Collaboration – We believe that the proposed
rule gives too much discretion to local national forest and grassland supervisors to
establish environmental sideboards for management activities; for example, agency
managers would only need to “take into account” the best available science. The
meaning of vague terms like “must include plan components to…” needs to be clarified,
and reliance on agency handbook directives must be minimized. The rule should ensure
that collaborative processes are realistic for members of the public as well as Forest
Service personnel.
Recommendations:
Require that forest plans conform to the best available science.
Encourage collaborative activities that help to hold down Forest Service planning
costs.
NEPA – We are concerned that the Forest Service’s draft programmatic environmental
impact statement (DEIS) for the planning rule does not adequately disclose the
environmental impacts of the proposed rule and alternatives that are considered in the
DEIS. Alternative D and the 2000 planning rule contain several positive features that
would substantially improve the proposed rule.
Recommendations:
The analysis of environmental effects in the EIS should be revised to be more
straightforward in its description of effects and its comparison of alternatives.
The alternatives considered in the EIS should be expanded to include the forest
planning rule that was adopted in 2000.
Elements of Plans and Planning – The draft rule does not explicitly require the
establishment of management areas, a bedrock element of most land planning processes.
The draft rule lacks clarity on the agency’s ability to designate special areas through the

FRD – 1132
land management planning process, an element in prior planning rules that has served the
public and the Forest Service well.
Recommendations:
Make management areas a required plan component.
Clarify that the agency should consider areas with remarkable qualities for special
designation as part of the forest and grassland planning process.
Restoration and Resiliency – Due to the uncertainties associated with adaptive
management in the era of climate change, managers will have to try different approaches
in different places – some with an emphasis on restoration of historical conditions, some
focusing on transformative activities seeking to maintain ecosystem values and services,
and some places, including but not limited to wilderness areas, that are reserved and
monitored to observe change.
Recommendations:
Plans should adopt climate change adaptation strategies that allocate lands to
reserve, restoration, and transformation categories.
Watersheds allocated to these categories should be connected across climaterelevant
environmental gradients of elevation and latitude to facilitate movement
and range shifts in response to climate change.
Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities – The draft rule contains some key
elements of a credible wildlife conservation strategy; however, it also has several
shortcomings, such as giving too much discretion to local forest and grassland
supervisors to determine which species of conservation concern will be covered by the
rule’s requirement to maintain viability. A coarse filter/fine filter approach can be a
scientifically sound strategy to conserve species, but the rule needs to regularly monitor
and assess certain focal species to ensure that coarse filter strategies are working as
intended.
Recommendations:
Assign regional foresters the lead responsibility to select the species of
conservation concern, which forest and grassland supervisors can supplement
with local species of concern.
Require that focal species be monitored and assessed to verify effectiveness of
plans’ coarse filter strategies.
Wilderness and Roadless Areas – The draft rule provides a process for identifying
potential wilderness areas, but it does not give clear guidance to ensure that roadless
areas are properly inventoried, evaluated, and protected. Nor does it provide adequate
direction to protect recommended wilderness areas from motorized recreation and other
incompatible uses.
Recommendations:

FRD – 1132
Roadless areas must be thoroughly inventoried, fairly evaluated for their
wilderness qualities, and provided management direction that complements
protection of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Require management of recommended wilderness areas to conform to the
Wilderness Act pending Congressional action.
Timber Requirements – The timber requirements provisions are especially troubling,
because they tend to undermine all of the ecological sustainability, species conservation,
and restoration objectives of the planning rule. Especially problematic is the default
assumption that all forest lands are suitable for timber production unless specifically
determined otherwise. Another major problem is the rule’s nearly-universal allowance of
timber harvest, even on unsuitable timber lands.
Recommendations:
Eliminate the default assumption that forest lands are suitable for timber
production. Planners should be allowed to identify forest lands as suitable for a
range of resource management purposes besides timber production.
Restrict the use of timber harvesting on unsuitable timber lands. Specify different
forest management techniques that may be used for active restoration on
unsuitable lands.
Water – The draft rule recognizes the importance of intact and healthy watersheds,
riparian areas, and public drinking water supplies by providing strong direction to
maintain, protect, and restore these aquatic resources. However, we are concerned that
the rule avoids setting a minimum default width for riparian areas or providing any
specific protection for either riparian areas or priority watersheds.
Recommendations:
Require that plans provide – at a minimum – a protected interim riparian area
width of 100 feet on each side of streams.
Require plans to maintain, protect and restore priority watersheds.
Roads – We are disappointed that the draft rule provides no specific requirements related
to management of the Forest Service’s enormous road system. While new road
construction has declined markedly, the national forests and grasslands contain far too
many unneeded and unmaintained roads that are a legacy of past resource extraction.
Recommendations:
The draft rule should require forest and grassland plans to reduce the number and
density of roads and motorized trails based on ecological needs and fiscal
constraints and consistent with the identified minimum necessary road system.
The agency should evaluate the impacts of roads on wildlife displacement and
habitat fragmentation in the EIS and include management direction in the
planning rule to reduce those impacts.

FRD – 1132
Fire – We are pleased that the draft rule recognizes the importance of wildland fire and
pursuing opportunities to restore fire-adapted ecosystems. However, greater specificity is
needed for developing plans that reduce fuels to within the range of natural variability,
restore fire regimes, and manage effects from these activities.
Recommendations:
Require plans to include management area-specific standards and guidelines for
fire management.
Encourage the use of minimum impact fire suppression tactics for designated
wilderness, where appropriate.
Climate Change – TWS commends the Forest Service for proposing a planning rule that
for the first time attempts to take climate change into account in an explicit and forthright
manner. However, the draft rule does not require immediate action to deal with climate
change, an issue which poses an immense and unprecedented threat to forest, grassland
and watershed ecosystems. In addition, the draft rule does not require plans to safeguard
the extremely important and valuable carbon resource that is absorbed and stored in the
national forests, especially in the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest.
Recommendations:
Require every national forest and grassland to undertake a Climate Change
Assessment within one year after the final planning rule is adopted.
Require plans to protect old-growth forests and other exceptionally high carbonstoring
areas.
Economics - The draft rule provides positive direction regarding economic sustainability
and broadens the traditional concept of multiple-use to include ecosystem services.
However, the rule lacks substantive requirements for science-based economic analysis.
Recommendations:
Require plans to include an analysis of impacts on ecosystem services and other
non-market values.
Require robust economic assessments which fully account for the important role that
often overlooked sectors of rural economies (such as tourism, recreation, hunting &
fishing, and the role of natural amenities) play in ensuring a sustainable and
diversified economy for rural communities.
Recreation - The draft rule acknowledges the many important and distinctive roles that
national forest and grassland recreation plays in American society. According to the
Forest Service, recreation produces approximately 240,000 full- and part-time jobs, more
than five times more jobs than timber and grazing combined. However, the draft rule
lacks substantive or meaningful guidance on sustainable recreation. It fails to ensure that
plans focus on creating high-quality recreation outcomes, or that the basic planning
elements required to ensure sustainable recreation will be included in plans. It also fails

FRD – 1132
to adequately facilitate equitable access to our national forests and grasslands by diverse
populations.
Recommendations:
Better define sustainable recreation and require plans to focus on providing highquality
sustainable recreation outcomes, not just opportunities, and addressing the
access needs of an increasingly diverse population.
Require plans to minimize environmental damage and user conflicts by zoning
recreation use-types through land allocations and suitability determinations.
Grazing – Excessive livestock grazing, especially in arid portions of the West, has
contributed to poor or declining ecological conditions in many riparian areas. Yet, the
draft rule does not provide clear direction to limit harmful livestock grazing where that is
necessary to restore important riparian values.
Recommendations:
The planning rule should require forest and grassland plans to determine lands
that are not suitable for livestock grazing.
Identify and monitor allotments that are in poor or declining condition and in need
of restoration.
Eliminate livestock grazing in allotments that are in poor or declining condition
especially allotments in critical, priority or municipal water sheds.
Monitoring
We are pleased to see the Forest Service take a fresh look at monitoring in the proposed
Rule. The agency’s past performance on monitoring and evaluation has for the most part
been unsuccessful, with little to show for the dollars spent. The unit and broader-scale
approaches could serve to get the agency on track. However, there are a number of elements
that must be changed or incorporated in order for this strategy to work. We believe the
Forest Service’s ability to engage in more adaptive management will depend on it.
NFMA Requirements
The NFMA requires,
“(g)…the Secretary shall…promulgate regulations, under the principles of the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960,…the regulations shall include, but not be
limited to-
3) Specifying guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve the goals of
the Program which-

FRD – 1132
(C) Insure research on and (based on continuous monitoring and assessment in the
field) evaluation of the effects of each management system to the end that it will not
produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land”
16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C), emphasis added.
The Forest Service claims to have included this requirement directly in the proposed Rule
at § 219.12(a)(5)(viii). But they have not used a direct quote and the difference is telling.
Draft Sec. 219.12(a)(5)(viii) reads:
“(5) Each unit monitoring program must contain one or more monitoring questions or
indicators addressing each of the following:…
(viii) The effects of management systems to determine that they do not
substantially and permanently impair the productivity of the land (16 U.S.C.
1604(g)(3)(C)).”
The Forest Service has dropped the word “each” from the NFMA requirement when they
transferred it to the proposed Rule. First of all, this could be interpreted to allow monitoring
programs to ignore some management systems, which would not result in compliance with
the NFMA. Secondly, in order to comply with the statute the agency makes the assumption
that one or more monitoring questions or indicators will be sufficient to result in the
“continuous monitoring and assessment in the field” to ensure that each management system
“will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land”. We
believe something more robust than “one or more monitoring questions or indicators” will be
needed to ensure this. The agency’s ability to meet this requirement is further impaired by
other sections of the proposed Rule, which we discuss below.
Proposed Rule Inadequacies
Project and Activity Monitoring
The proposed Rule contains a section that we believe undermines the agency’s emphasis
on monitoring. Draft Sec. 219.12(a)(7) reads,

FRD – 1132
“(7) This section does not apply to projects or activities; project and activity
monitoring may be used to gather information, but monitoring is not a prerequisite for
carrying out a project or activity.”
We believe this section should be struck from the final Rule because it undermines the
agency’s desired focus on restoration and adaptive management. First of all, we are
concerned that agency staff will interpret this direction as no longer requiring any project and
activity monitoring. If this section does not apply to project and activity monitoring, which
section of the regulations does? With tight budgets, and in the absence of direction to require
or otherwise encourage activity and project level monitoring, we believe Forest Service staff
will use this direction to essentially drop such monitoring. But without this third level of
monitoring (unit level and broader scale making up the other two levels), we do not
understand how the agency will know what the results of its actions (i.e. management
systems) are, how to differentiate the results of Forest Service actions from other actions and
no action, and how to adapt management to achieve more successful outcomes.
The absence of project level monitoring would undermine the option we propose for land
management in our Restoration and Resiliency section: zoning NFS lands to accomplish
different approaches in different places, some with an emphasis on restoration, some on
transformative activities aimed at increasing resilience, and some places simply left alone to
observe. These three management options encompass many of the climate adaptation
strategies that have been described in the literature and bear further consideration. But
without some level of project level monitoring, this approach would be worthless: the Forest
Service would never be able to understand the different effects between the three zones and
how their actions in two of the zones affected the outcomes.
We are not proposing that monitoring be required for all projects, though that is certainly
an option. The Department of the Army regulations require that monitoring funds be in hand
before Department managers can implement any project. This approach could certainly be
applied to the Forest Service. We are also perplexed as to how the Forest Service could meet
its obligation to ensure that each management system will not produce substantial and
permanent impairment of the productivity of the land without some degree of project and
activity monitoring. This must be explained.
Recommendation: Draft Sec. 219.12(a)(7) should be removed from the final Rule. Some
level of project and activity monitoring must be required. The Forest Service should expand
its approach to a three-level approach and create a § 219.12(e) to define the appropriate level
of project and activity monitoring required.
Financial and Technical Capabilities

FRD – 1132
The Forest Service cites the limits of its “financial and technical capabilities” throughout
certain sections of the proposed Rule, including § 219.12. We recognize that there are limits
to what the agency can do and afford. But it is our understanding of Forest Service budget
procedures that there is nothing stopping agency managers from using applicable funds from
a particular budget line item to assess the effects of their actions under that line item, e.g.
monitoring the effects of a timber sale using timber product funds, much as sale
administration is a form of monitoring a timber sale; or using recreation funds to monitor the
effects of trail use.
In addition, as we recommend elsewhere in these comments, non-agency organizations
and individuals can assist in these types of activities, thereby potentially defraying some
agency costs. Indeed, monitoring activities are one area where the agency can “share in
management” without abrogating its decision-making authority. The Rule itself pushes this
approach in § 219.12(c)(5)(i): “…unit monitoring programs and broader-scale strategies must
be designed to take into account: (i) Existing national and regional inventory, monitoring and
research programs of the Agency, … and of other governmental and non-governmental
parties” (emphasis added).
Alternative E and Other Recommended Changes
Monitoring Elements of Alternative E
We believe the Forest Service should include the additional monitoring requirements in
Alternative E in the final Rule. The provisions of Alternative E would result in much
stronger monitoring programs which are critical to the achievement of Forest Service
restoration and adaptive management objectives. The added sections from Alternative E
would require:
Monitoring questions or indicators to determine the status of various elements, including
the status and trends of:
o Focal species (Alt E 219.12(a)(5)(iii))
o Vegetation diversity (id. at ix)
o Invasive species (id. at x)
o Goods and services (id. at xii)
Evaluation of the public safety and environmental impacts of a unit’s road and trail
system (id. at xiii)
Emerging risks and current uncertainties associate with climatic changes (id. at xiv).
Perhaps most important, Alternative E would require that unit monitoring plans state
what would trigger the need for further action on each item being monitored:

FRD – 1132
“Each monitoring question and its associated indicator will also be
accompanied by a description of one or more signal points which are to be used
by the responsible official to determine the need to take action(s) appropriate to
the situation.”
Alt E 219.12(a)(9)
Alternative E would also require a review at least once every 10 years of a
monitoring program’s efficiency and effectiveness. Alt E 219.12(e).
Recommendation: The final Rule should adopt the monitoring provisions of Alternative
E.
Public Comment on the Biennial Evaluation
Finally, we believe a public comment period should be added to the requirement to
produce a biennial evaluation. § 219.12(d). This would not have to occur under the
requirements of NEPA, but could be provided much as the Forest Service provides
opportunity to comment on changes to its Directives System. The agency is encouraging
the participation of a number of other government and non-governmental organizations
and individuals in its monitoring approach. While we assume that the agency will
consult with these parties to make sure that existing information is taken into account, a
comment period would provide the public a chance to provide feedback on any missing
data and the need for change, and support agency efforts to increase collaboration.
Objection Process - The draft rule includes a pre-decisional objection process in which
citizens may request changes to a forest or grassland plan before it is finalized. While
intended to make the planning process operate more quickly and smoothly, the proposed
objection process includes several problematic features that place unreasonable burdens on
concerned citizens.
Recommendations:
Drop the requirement that a person can only raise an issue in an objection to a final
plan if that person raised the same issue in “previously submitted substantive formal
comments” on the proposed plan.
Increase the amount of time for filing objections from 30 days to 90 days.
1.
2.
3.
4.

FRD – 1132
I. Agency Discretion, Accountability, and Collaboration
5.
We believe the Forest Service has written a proposed Rule which affords the agency too
much discretion and flexibility. Consequently, the Rule would likely result in inconsistent
application around the country, failure to meet agency goals, and lack of public recourse to
hold the agency accountable. The Forest Service purports to have created a planning rule
which shifts agency focus to restoration and resiliency in response to stressors, including
climate change; elevates the role of science in land management; and invites the public to a
more central role via increased participation through collaboration. All of these separate
elements are meant to shift the focus of the agency to address the most pressing issues and
concerns in the 21 st Century. While we applaud many of these intended shifts and believe
there are many aspects to the proposed planning rule that could have this effect, we question
the ability of the proposed Rule to deliver on its promise.
Our concerns center on:
Understanding agency intent and its effect on accountability;
The lack of clear standards in the Rule and the ability, or not, of internal agency
direction to ensure consistency and accountability;
The roles of science and collaboration in these processes;
Planning costs and collaboration.
We discuss each of these concerns below.
A. Agency Intent and Accountability
The Forest Service appears to be walking a fine line between intending that the Rule will
result in fundamental changes in the way the agency faces the challenges of the 21 st Century
and not quite wanting to be held accountable if its proposed changes aren’t implemented or
successful. While we can appreciate the agency’s desire to give land managers discretion
and flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and new information, we believe the agency
has taken these too far in the proposed Rule. Furthermore, we do not believe that the
intended meaning of several key provisions of the proposed Rule is sufficiently spelled out
to ensure that the Rule’s goals are accomplished through unit-level plan decisions.
The use of mandatory language is essential to ensure that regulatory goals are carried out
by agency officials and land managers. The proposed Rule does include a number of
instances of the use of the words “shall” and “must”, which we were pleased to see. Where
these words are followed by explicit direction, they provide a good step in ensuring
accountability and consistency. Rule language such as “Plans must comply with all
applicable laws and regulations…” [§219.1(g)]; “The responsible official shall honor the
government-to-government relationship between federally recognized Indian Tribes and the
Federal government.” [§219.4(a)(5)]; and “The responsible official shall develop a unit

FRD – 1132
monitoring program for the plan area, and include it in the plan.” [§219.12(a)(1)] (emphasis
added), all provide clear direction that should result in some degree of agency consistency
and accountability.
Agency intent becomes less clear when “shall” and “must” are followed by modifiers
that make it less certain what is being required. Two sets of modifiers in particular bear
discussion and clarification from the Forest Service: 1) “consider” and “take into account”;
and 2) “must include plan components to…” Each is discussed below.
6. “Consider” and “Take Into Account”
The proposed Rule’s provisions are replete with the words “consider” or “take into
account,” which modify the words “must” and “shall”:
“The responsible official shall take into account the best available scientific information
throughout the planning process . . . . The responsible official shall document this
consideration.” [§219.3] (emphasis added). See also §219.14 (requiring “discussion of
how the best available science was taken into account and applied in the planning
process (§ 219.3)).
“In developing a proposed new plan or proposed plan revision, the responsible official
shall: (ii) Identify the presence and consider the importance of various physical,
biological, social, and cultural resources . . . [and] (iii) Consider conditions and trends
and stressors, with respect to the requirements for plan components…” [§219.7(c)(2)(ii)-
(iii)] (emphasis added)
“When developing plan components for integrated resource management…, the
responsible official shall consider: (1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage
resources, ecosystem services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features,
grazing and rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreational values and settings,
riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails,
vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources…(9) Potential impacts
of climate and other system drivers, stressors and disturbance regimes…”
[§219.10(a)(1)-(9)] (emphasis added)
The affirmative requirement of “must” and “shall” becomes muddied when modified by
“consider” and “take into account”. What is meant by “consider” and “take into account”?
What level of effort is required to “take (something) into account”? What level of effort,
documentation, analysis or reasoning satisfies the requirements of the Rule? While the
requirement for documentation is a good step forward, it does not ensure that plans conform
to best available science. How can or will the agency ensure consistency in the application
of these requirements?

FRD – 1132
The meaning of these two phrases is little defined by the courts. However, while the
case law is sparse, it is also instructive. None of the cases we found interpreting the
meaning of “consider” or “take into account” required more than mere contemplation when
a statute, rule, or regulation required an entity to “consider” or “take into account” certain
information or factors. Below is a series of quotes from cases that have examined one or
both of these phrases; they all indicate that one need not actually follow or be bound by the
information one considers.
“On its face, the phrase ‘take into account’ means consider, contemplate,
study, and weigh.” WEBSTER’S INT’L DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE (3rd ed. 1976) (defining the phrase ‘take into account’ to be
synonymous with ‘take into consideration,’ and in turn, defining ‘consider’ to
be synonymous with ‘contemplate,’ ‘study,’ and ‘weigh’).” Okinawa
Dugong v. Gates, 543 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
“This instruction to ‘consider’ such information as is ‘relevant’ can hardly be
read as a strict dictate. ‘Consider’ means ‘examine’ or ‘inspect.’ ‘Relevant,’
as all lawyers know, is not a firmly fixed term, but involves subjective
judgments.” Miles & Co. v. Brown, 910 F.Supp. 1138, 1156 (E.D. Va. 1995).
“[T]o ‘consider’ means to investigate, analyze and ultimately to ‘give careful
thought to the relevant information in the context of deciding whether or not
to proceed with the optional exclusion analysis.’” Wyo. State Snowmobile
Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 741 F.Supp.2d 1245, 1266 (D. Wyo.
2010).
“To ‘consider’ means to ‘reflect on,’ ‘think about,’ ‘deliberate,’ ‘ponder’ or
‘study.’ WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED
483 (1993). It does not mean to ‘adhere to,’ ‘be bound by’ or ‘follow.’ . . .
Without much difficulty, the Congress could have amended 3553(b) to
require adherence to policy statements. It did not; accordingly, we are left
with a statute that plainly requires a district court to apply guidelines (where
they exist) but merely consider (i.e., ‘reflect on,’ ‘think about,’ ‘deliberate,’
‘ponder’ or ‘study’) policy statements.” U.S. v. Bruce, 285 F.3d 69, 73-74
(D.C. Cir. 2002).
“‘Consider,’ which simply means ‘to take into account,’ clearly invokes a
broader spectrum of thought than the phrase ‘relied upon,’ which requires
dependence on the information.” Karn v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 168 F.R.D.
633, 635 (N.D. Ind. 1996) (citing WEBSTER’S NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY
DICTIONARY at 301, 993 (1984)).

FRD – 1132
“It is whether he considered the information; i.e., whether he reviewed,
reflected upon, read and/or used the information in connection with the
formulation of his opinions, even if he ultimately rejected the information.”
Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, 2009 WL 1578937, at *7 (N.D. Okla. 2009).
Given the highly discretionary nature of these terms, as well as the fact that the
placement of these phrases in the rule makes the content of future forest plans highly
uncertain, we question how the Forest Service expects to “ensure that all plans will be
responsive to issues such as the challenges of climate change; the need for forest restoration
and conservation, watershed protection, and wildlife conservation; and the sustainable sue of
public lands to support vibrant communities” when the rule literally only requires forest
planners to consider these goals. DEIS, pg. 7 (emphasis added).
The Forest Service clearly understands the difference between “considering” or “taking
into account” information and “utilizing” or “basing” it decisions on that information. With
regard to the role of the “best available science” in planning, the preamble makes clear that
the phrase “take into account” was used to ensure that the best available science should
“inform, but not dictate decisions.” FR, p. 8485. Further, in the more environmentally
protective Alternative D, which was designed to provide “additional protections for
watersheds and an alternative approach to diversity of plant and animal communities,” the
rule would require the agency to rely on certain information in making its decisions. DEIS,
App. F-1. For instance, Alternative D would require the agency to “utilize” the best
available science in preparing climate change and focal species vulnerability assessments.
DEIS, p. App. F-8 to F-9 (§ 219.6). It would also require Riparian Conservation Areas to be
established “based on” and road and trail crossings to be designed “using” the best available
science. DEIS, p. App F-11 (§219.8(a)(3)); see also DEIS, p. F-13, F-23, F-29 (requiring
focal species selection, viable population determinations, and certain management decisions
to be “based on” the best available science). Clearly, the agency appreciates that these more
prescriptive phrases would result in more environmentally justifiable decisions, as well as a
higher level of consistency and accountability in forest plans. As such, the agency should
employ these phrases throughout the rule in order to ensure it meets the purpose and need of
the rule.
We’ve seen how the word “consider” is used by the field level of the agency over the
years. There has been a great deal of inconsistency, with the most cursory review of a topic
meaning the topic had been “considered” more the norm than the exception.
Recommendation: The Forest Service should remove these two phrases from the Rule and
replace them with more prescriptive terminology.
7. “Must Include Plan Components To…”

FRD – 1132
A second phrase which appears throughout the language of the proposed Rule is “must
include plan components to…” As with the phrases above, this phrase modifies the
language that follows it. What is unclear is the meaning and intent of this modification.
Some examples will help to explain our concerns:
The plan must include plan components to maintain the diversity of plant and animal
communities…[§219.9] (emphasis added)
The plan must include plan components to maintain, protect, or restore riparian areas.
[§219.8(a)(3)] (emphasis added)
The plan must include plan components to maintain or restore the structure, function,
composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
and watersheds in the plan area, taking into account:… [§219.8(a)(1)] (emphasis added
to both types of modifying phrases)
What is not clear is whether a plan must simply contain plan components to meet the
requirement of the Rule or whether the agency is making a binding commitment to do what
follows the phrase “must include plan components to”. We provide an example to illustrate
our point: a plan could have a sentence within a desired condition statement that says “all
riparian areas within the desired condition area (be it a watershed, management area, or
some other area designator) are maintained, protected or restored”. This kind of general
statement is common to desired condition statements since they traditionally describe a
long-term future state the agency would like to achieve. The plan could also contain
guidelines that speak to conditions or actions that would maintain, protect or restore these
riparian areas.
The Rule states that, “The plan must include plan components to maintain, protect, or
restore riparian areas.” The requirements, strictly read, of this rule language would be met
in this example because the plan would have a desired condition statement and guidelines –
it would include plan components. The Rule doesn’t stipulate that all plan components must
be included. In fact, the preamble to the rule specifically states, “Every plan would contain
at least one of each of the required five plan components—these are the central parts of a
plan. . . . While all plans must contain the required five plan components (desired
conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, suitability of areas, and may contain goals), not
every issue or resource contained in a plan would require all five plan components.” FR, p.
8488-89. Thus, there is no requirement that these plan components include standards, which
are much more binding on agency action than either desired conditions or guidelines are.
Guidelines are just that – guidelines, and are not particularly binding on agency action
because they can be deviated from if their intent is met. The fact that guidelines don’t impel
the action following the phrase “must include plan components to” is immaterial as the Rule
is now written.

FRD – 1132
Desired conditions frame the kinds of projects that are proposed to implement the plan.
Selected sections of a desired condition statement often form the purpose and need for a
project under NEPA. But desired condition statements are not binding either, in the sense
that 1) a forest could choose to focus on other aspects of the desired condition statement and
2) there is no time frame or action forcing element to a desired condition. 1 In the first case
they are usually of such length and broad scale vision that they create a smorgasbord of
potential avenues for a Forest to choose from when deciding which types of projects to
propose and implement. National forest and grassland staff could simply choose to focus on
other parts of a desired condition statement, ignoring for whatever reason, the desired
condition of maintaining, protecting or restoring riparian areas when choosing projects to
implement the plan. In the second case, desired condition statements are usually framed as
long-term visions for an area, some elements of which may constitute the current condition,
but other elements of which might be attained decades or more into the future, or perhaps
never at all, though the agency may choose to strive in that direction. Under a strict reading
of the proposed regulatory language, the unit would have met their burden under the Rule:
i.e., the plan included plan components.
This is troubling for a number of reasons. We know that certain members of the Forest
Service WO Rule Planning Team said in one of the National Roundtables that the agency’s
intent was to do whatever followed the phrase “must include plan components to” in the
proposed Rule. If this is truly the agency’s intent, nowhere in the proposed Rule is this
intent communicated. (If it is not the agency’s intent, we believe that should be made clear.)
If this Rule were to last as long as the 1982 Rule has lasted, it will be subject to the
interpretations of many successive Forest Service line officers and staff. It doesn’t seem that
the agency leadership’s intent has been conveyed in this Rule, which will make it difficult
for this intent to carry down to the field level, let alone last through successive planning
cycles.
B. Agency Accountability: Discretion, Consistency and Decision-making
We believe the Rule must result in a set of plans nationally that are consistent in their
approach, process and decisions made. While a certain amount of flexibility is to be
implementation. Further, this consistency should result in agency accountability across
the national forest system (NFS). But too many of the specific details for Rule
implementation that would ensure consistency and accountability are left out of the Rule
itself.
1 While the Forest Service expresses its intent to make the “aspirational components” of a plan (e.g., objectives,
desired conditions) more “meaningful,” the bottom line is that the agency still does not believe the consistency
requirement at draft section 219.15 can be interpreted to require achievement of desired conditions. FR p. 8501
(explaining the agency’s longheld position that a project’s consistency with a forest plan can only be determined
with respect to standards and guidelines).

FRD – 1132
1. Lack of Planning Rule Standards
There are two aspects of the role of standards that need to be discussed. The first is the
probable lack of standards that will appear in the plans created as a result of the new Rule,
and the second is the lack of meaningful standards in the Rule itself. This latter aspect is
likely to result in too much guidance being placed in the Forest Service Handbook, which is
problematic in and of itself and discussed in further detail below.
First of all, we are concerned by the DEIS’s treatment of the agency’s decision to no
longer generally require standards in forest and grassland plans. The preamble suggests that
each forest and grassland plan, as a whole, will contain “at least one” of each of the types of
plan components and that not every issue or resource addressed in a plan need require
standards or any other type of plan component. FR, p. 8488-89. Unlike the 1982 planning
rule, which generally required plans to “establish management standards and guidelines,”
including the “establishment of quantitative and qualitative standards and guidelines for land
and resource planning and management” (§ 219.1(b)(12)), the proposed rule explicitly
suggests including a standard or guideline (as opposed to using the more general “plan
components” terminology) in exactly one instance. See Draft Sec. 219.11(d)(5)
(“Exceptions, set out in 16 U.S.C. 1604(m), are permitted only if consistent with the land
management plan. If such exceptions are anticipated, the responsible official should include
those exceptions in the land management plan as standards or guidelines.”). The Forest
Service has provided no rational basis for the wholesale discretion afforded land managers
regarding whether to include standards and guidelines, which deviates sharply from both
past forest planning practice and the 1982 rule itself. Neither has the agency disclosed the
likely on-the-ground effects of this departure in the discussion of alternatives.
Secondly, the Rule lacks standards that would ensure some degree of consistency in the
plans that are created. In the interest of flexibility and the individual niche that each unit
might fulfill, the agency has failed to provide clear standards that set a defined bar for
compliance with the Rule. For example, direction on how the suitability of uses analysis is
to be conducted is missing from the proposed Rule, as is direction on how potential system
drivers and stressors, such as climate change, are to be taken into account to provide for
ecological sustainability. This leaves specific direction to the Forest Service Handbook and
Manual, which creates another set of problems in ensuring consistency and accountability.
2. FSH and FSM Direction
Having left a great deal of the specific details on how the Rule would be implemented out of
the regulations themselves, the agency seems intent on placing those details in the Forest
Service Handbook (FSH) in various chapters in FSH 1909.12. Draft Sec. 219.1(d). But the

FRD – 1132
Forest Service has long held, and at least one Circuit court has agreed 2 , that the Forest
Service
Directives System (consisting of the FSH and Forest Service Manual (FSM)) are not
legally binding on the agency. This calls into question just how binding the elements of the
Rule would be, and whether consistency and accountability would occur.
The Forest Service further discloses agency intent on how it will or will not adhere to the
FSH and FSM in the execution of the Planning Rule in the DEIS. This disclosure is telling.
“In implementing plans for a unit, responsible officials must ensure that project and activity
proposals comply, not only with laws and regulations, but also Agency policy. Agency
policy is specified [in] manuals in the Forest Service Directive System…” (DEIS, pg 50,
emphasis added). First of all, note that this passage in the DEIS is about projects and
activities that implement a plan, not about creating, amending or revising a plan. Secondly,
note that it is about the FSM, and not the Directives System as a whole, which also contains
the FSH, which is the portion of the Directives System that would contain language for
implementing the Rule (the chapters in FSH 1909.12).
The DEIS continues, “The Forest Service Manual (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.
Just as regulations must follow laws, Agency policy must follow laws and regulations.
Compliance with Agency policy is a constant among all of the alternatives.” (DEIS, pg 50)
Note again, that this passage is about the FSM and not the FSH. Secondly, while “agency
policy must follow laws and regulations”, the Forest Service is not actually saying anything
about whether they have to follow agency policy. Finally, while the Forest Service says that
“compliance with Agency policy is a constant among all of the alternatives”, they decidedly
do not mean that compliance with policy is required in all the alternatives. In fact, the
analysis of alternatives in the DEIS shows the opposite: that discretion, consistency and
accountability are all dependent on whether or not specific direction is contained in the
regulations. Discretion beyond specific regulatory direction is left entirely to the decision
maker with the agency acknowledging variable results as discussed below.
3. The Importance of Regulatory Direction
Each of the DEIS alternative analyses focuses on the extent to which the requirements
under each alternative would result in meeting the purpose and need for the new Rule, and
hence how much the Rule’s intent would be realized under each of the alternatives. The
agency essentially argues that without specific direction in the new Rule they cannot
guarantee that goals for the new planning rule can be met.
2 See, e.g., Western Radio Services Co., Inc. v. Espy 79 F.3d 896, 901 (9 th Cir. 1996).

FRD – 1132
An example illustrates this point. The Alternative Comparison for Diversity of Plant and
Animal Communities under Alternative C 3 states,
“There would be considerable discretion for addressing species diversity, fish and
wildlife habitat management, and monitoring in plans because there are no specific
requirements for addressing the diversity of plant and animal communities. How this
NFMA requirement is to be met would be relatively open to the discretion of the
responsible official. Plans developed and implemented under these provisions would
be expected to vary considerably in their approaches. Thus, the ability for plan areas
to provide the ecological conditions necessary to maintain the diversity of plant and
animal communities would be expected to vary across the NFS.
DEIS, p. 38-39. (emphasis added)
The agency acknowledges that without specific requirements in the Rule there would be
considerable discretion for the Responsible Official with attendant variability in plans and
variability in success at meeting important objectives of the Rule. This tie between specific
requirements in the Rule and agency discretion, consistency and effectiveness applies
whether one is discussing Alternative C, Alternative A or any of the other alternatives. The
Forest Service would argue that Alternative A is better at ensuring consistency and
effectiveness than Alternatives B and C, but what is important here is the manner in which a
lack of consistency and effectiveness occur in the planning process. This is instructive in
understanding the extent to which Alternatives A, D and E would, or would not, result in
consistent and effective plans and decision-making.
For any requirements not sufficiently spelled out in the Rule, additional guidance would
be supplied in the FSH. However, the DEIS discloses that Forest Service directives and
policy actually lead to broader interpretations, more inconsistencies, more discretion and
potentially less effectiveness:
“Plans would rely primarily on Forest Service directives and policy for guidance on
how plans are to be developed or revised when it comes to providing diversity of
plant and animal communities. This could lead to broader interpretations of what
plans must contain and to inconsistencies from one unit to another as to how species
diversity is to be maintained within a plan area. Planning would allow more
discretion to the responsible official with respect to collaborating and
coordinating…This might lead to inconsistent use of this information…and could
lead to less effective approaches to the conservation of all species…Overall, plans
3 Alternative C consists of provisions to meet the Purpose and Need along with the minimum requirements of
NFMA.

FRD – 1132
would allow for considerable variability in approaches…, which could lead to
greater uncertainty regarding species viability on all NFS lands.”
DEIS, p. 39. (emphasis added)
The agency proposes to rely (to greater or lesser extent depending on the alternative) on
FSH language 4 for specific direction on how to carry out the Rule. If this only leads to
broader interpretations, less consistency and less effectiveness, then it seems that the
alternatives which provide the most specific direction in the Rule itself will be the best at
ensuring consistency and effectiveness. Further, it appears that by the agency’s own
admission, more direction in the Rule leads to better outcomes than less. Throughout the
analysis of effects, it is clear that the agency believes that unless specific regulatory
language is provided, i.e. unless agency decision makers are expressly told via regulation
that they must do something, then they have and likely will exercise broad discretion to the
detriment of agency consistency and effectiveness.
The DEIS contains a number of examples of this agency viewpoint. This example is
instructive,
“Some recently revised plans incorporate concepts, if not actual requirements of the
proposed rule even though not required. Under Alternative B, this trend is expected
to continue albeit voluntarily. Consequently, there would be no assurance that plans
would exhibit content beyond that which is required in the current rule procedures or
that there would be consistency across NFS units.”
DEIS, p. 43 (emphasis added).
This is from the DEIS discussion of Alternative B, the 1982 rule which has been used by
every NFS plan ever created or revised. Since many of the concepts discussed here, and
now proposed in the new rule, have appeared in the Forest Service directives system as
interim directives and amendments and/or in other internal agency direction, it would appear
that the Forest Service considers this agency direction to be a voluntary matter. Further, it
would seem to become mandatory only if it appears in regulation. But the proposed Rule is
replete with instances of broad language which will require more detailed direction in the
FSH, which then reintroduces the inconsistency and ineffectiveness the agency claims to
want to avoid. We would also note that the ways in which the agency considers the 1982
Rule to result in inconsistencies and ineffectiveness are not adequately disclosed and
analyzed in the DEIS.
4 Specifically in the various chapters of FSH 1909.12.

FRD – 1132
Another example points to the need for more explicit requirements in the final Rule
itself. The points from this DEIS passage -- “There would be considerable discretion for
addressing species diversity, fish and wildlife habitat management, and monitoring in plans
because there are no specific requirements for addressing the diversity of plant and animal
communities. How this NFMA requirement is to be met would be relatively open to the
discretion of the responsible official”, (DEIS, p. 38-39, emphasis added) -- would apply
equally well to the requirement to determine lands unsuitable for timber production. In the
proposed Rule the agency has merely repeated NFMA timber suitability requirements (and
expanded those requirements, illegally we believe, as we discuss in greater detail in the
Timber Requirements section below). Since the Rule provides no further direction than the
statute itself, how the NFMA requirements would be met would be left to FSH direction.
But this then would lead to the broad interpretations, inconsistency and ineffectiveness that
use of FSH direction is more likely to result in, as the agency itself argues.
Recommendation: The final Rule must include more specific requirements and standards to
realize the intent of the Rule, and not leave such direction to the FSH and FSM, which by
the agency’s own admission is open to line officer discretion and interpretation.
4. Consistency Between Site-Specific Projects and the Planning Rule
The proposed rule includes a new provision that would require site-specific projects and
activities to be consistent with the forest plan, but not the planning rule itself. Draft Sec.
219.2(c) states, “Except as provided in the plan consistency requirements in § 219.15, none
of the requirements of this part apply to projects or activities.” We see no reason for this
significant departure from the current system, which requires projects and activities to be
consistent with both the relevant forest plan and the 1982 planning rule. We note, too, that
the 2000 rule confirmed that it guided “the selection and implementation of site-specific
actions.” 36 C.F.R. § 219.1(a). The DEIS does not explain the likely effects of this sharp
departure from present practice, particularly in light of the fact that courts have held that
site-specific projects must conform to NFMA regulations. See, e.g., Inland Empire Public
Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 760 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996) (applying 1982 rule
provisions to site-specific timber sale). The agency should thus eliminate section 219.2(c)
from the final rule.
The Forest Service compounds the problem by stating that once the new planning rule is
in effect, any projects completed under existing forest plans need only be consistent with the
plan and not the 1982 rule. FR, p. 8503. Draft Sec. 219.17(c) states: “This part supersedes
any prior planning regulation. For units with plans developed, amended, or revised using
the provisions of a prior planning regulation, no obligations remain from any prior planning
regulation, except those that are specifically included in the plan.” This provision flies in
the face of case law that requires quite the opposite, and it is an inappropriate and unjustified
divergence from longstanding requirements. See, e.g., Inland Empire Public Lands Council
v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 760 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996); Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth,

FRD – 1132
372 F.3d 1219, 1225 (10th Cir. 2004); Sierra Club v. Martin, 168 F.3d 1, 6 (11th Cir. 1999);
Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 1498873, at *13 (10 th Cir.
2011); Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 180 F.Supp.2d 1273, 1279-80 (D. N.M.
2001); Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Zieroth, 190 F.Supp.2d 1265, 1270 n. 1 (D. Utah 2002). The
rule unconvincingly states that the proposed provision “is needed for clarity so that all NFS
units understand they are subject to the new planning rule for plan development, plan
amendment, and plan revision, while still requiring NFS units to follow the plan provisions
of their current plans.” FR, p. 8503. However, if this is really the purpose of the provision,
as opposed to a desire to no longer be liable for ongoing and future projects that are
inconsistent with the 1982 planning rule, other provisions in the rule cover that concern.
Specifically, subparagraph (b) of the same section addresses that issue, stating that all plan
development, revisions, and amendments (starting after the 3-year transition period in which
amendments may be made under either the ’82 or new planning rule) must conform to the
requirements of the new planning rule. Draft Sec. 219.17(b)(2)-(3).
Recommendation: The Forest Service should eliminate Draft Sections 219.2(c) and
219.17(c) from the final rule, reverting to current practice under the 1982 rule and existing
case law.
C. The Role of Science
We very much appreciate the inclusion of a separate section (§219.3) on the role of
science in planning. However, as pointed out above, the agency’s intent for the use of
science is both unclear and, where it has been communicated, troubling. (The role of
science is also discussed in a number of issue specific areas elsewhere in our comments.)
Peer reviewed, up-to-date science should provide the sideboards to ensuring ecological
sustainability (and contribute to social and economic sustainability). Decisions should
conform to science; science should not merely be one of many possible aspects to consider.

FRD – 1132
A slide presented by the Forest Service during its explanation of the proposed Planning
Rule at the National Roundtable on March, 10, 2011, is instructive. 5
Figure 1: Forest Service “Science Informs Planning” slide
5 Slide from the Forest Service presentation at the National Roundtable on March 10, 2011; available on the
Collaboration and Public Involvement page at the Forest Service Planning Rule Home at:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gjAwhwtDDw9_AI
8zPwhQoY6IeDdGCqCPOBqwDLG-
AAjgb6fh75uan6BdnZaY6OiooA1tkqlQ!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfMjAwMDAwMDBBODBPSEh
WTjBNMDAwMDAwMDA!/?ss=119987&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=&navid=091000000000000&pn
avid=null&position=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&ttype=main&pname=Planning%20Rule%20Home

FRD – 1132
As the slide indicates, the Forest Service considers science on an equal footing with
public input and the decision maker’s own experience, which may be based on nothing more
than gut feeling. This is problematic as are a number of elements of this section of the
proposed Rule. First is the fact that the decision maker (i.e. the responsible official) is also
the person to “determine what information is the most accurate, reliable, and relevant to a
particular decision or action” (§ 219.3). If past agency behavior is any indication, too many
times this has resulted in decisions that science is completely irrelevant to an agency
decision and hence discarded entirely. While the preamble asserts (FR, p. 8485) that the
responsible official does not have “unfettered discretion” in making this determination, there
doesn’t appear to be any direction specifying appropriate sideboards and instructions to keep
this determination from being unfettered. Mere requirements for documentation do not
suffice. This must be corrected in the final Rule.
Secondly, as discussed above in the context of FSH direction, the standard for how one
identifies, appropriately interprets and applies the social, economic and ecological sciences
as § 219.3(b) requires will likely be left to the FSH, thereby introducing a degree of
inconsistency, variability and ineffectiveness into the process of how science is used by the
agency. Finally, the proposed Rule does not actually require that the responsible official
disclose how science informed or was used in making a decision, but rather “how scientific
findings or conclusions informed or were used to develop plan components and other
content in the plan.” § 219.3(c) (emphasis added). This in effect removes science one step
from the decision-making process and from providing the kinds of sideboards that ensure
sustainability. This must be changed in the final Rule.
Recommendation: Science must play a more pivotal role in agency decision-making.
Agency decisions should conform to science. At a minimum, § 219.3(c) should read
“…how scientific findings or conclusions informed or were used to make plan decision(s).”
D. Collaboration and Public Involvement
We appreciate the amount of public involvement and the collaborative effort the agency
has used in creating this proposed Planning Rule. And we note too, the collaborative efforts
taking place around the country on forest and grassland plans currently being revised under
the 1982 rule, as well as site-specific projects. Many NFS units seem to be embracing the
agency’s efforts to make collaboration and increased public involvement a mainstay of how
the Forest Service does business in the 21 st Century.
However, we caution the agency on a number of fronts. First of all, the direction in §
219.4 provides a great deal of latitude to NFS units in how and even whether they provide
consistent opportunities for public participation. Section 219.4(a) reads, “The responsible
official shall engage the public -- … using collaborative processes where feasible and
appropriate. When developing opportunities for public participation, the responsible official
shall take into account…the cost, time and available staffing” (emphasis added). Unless

FRD – 1132
more specific direction is included in the final Rule eliminating or limiting these loopholes,
we believe decision makers are likely to default to less, rather than more, collaborative
efforts. This will be especially true for those Forest Service staff most uncomfortable with
public involvement and collaboration, precisely the units that should be engaged in
collaboration. We’ve already seen a large number of Forest Service units move to an “open
house” model 6 of public involvement, which while easier for agency staff for a number of
reasons, can be deeply unsatisfying for the public.
Second, the draft rule does not appear to recognize the limitations of cost, time, and
available staffing of entities other than the Forest Service who may wish to engage in the
planning process. For example, many small, non-profit groups in rural areas rely entirely on
volunteers who may be unable to participate in a time-intensive collaborative process,
especially during regular work hours. Even relatively large organizations with professional
staff such as The Wilderness Society would be hard-pressed to participate in multiple forest
planning collaborative processes if they were occurring simultaneously in the same region.
Well done collaboration does have a cost in both time and money. If the agency is
serious about embracing collaboration and changing agency culture in this regard, training
will be needed for Forest Service staff as well as the public at large engaged in these efforts.
Professional, neutral party facilitation will also be needed in many places. The Forest
Service cannot hope to succeed if it sends a few agency staff to a couple of days of training,
and expects them to teach their colleagues and the public, as well as facilitate as though they
are a neutral party.
Finally, collaboration is no substitute for compliance with NEPA and other applicable
statutes, or for the role of science. It can be tempting to think of collaboration as a “shiny
new toy” that will solve all conflicts over resource use. While well run collaborative efforts
can serve to significantly lessen conflict and point the way to solutions, collaboration does
not mean that agency legal obligations have changed or that “collaboration” can be
substituted for the public’s right to participation and comment under NEPA. In the same
vein, collaboration and any kind of consensus reached thereof does not change the need to
consider science and the role of scientific fact in providing sideboards and potential limits to
agency decision-making and land management.
Recommendation: The planning rule should make it clear that the Forest Service must take
into account the limitations of cost, time, and available staffing of all entities interested in
the land management planning process in designing collaborative or other public
participation processes.
6 The “open house” model is characterized by a meeting in which there are stations (usually centered around maps)
through which the public can move in order to talk to Forest Service staff; there is no effort by the agency to address
the crowd as a whole or provide a presentation for all; questions are answered individually; and any comments
solicited are done so by the public filling out a form and handing it in for later agency review.

FRD – 1132
E. Planning Costs and Collaboration
Affordability is a legitimate and important issue for the Forest Service to consider in
developing the planning rule. The Obama Administration has announced a five-year hiring
freeze for federal agencies including the Forest Service, and overall Congressional
appropriations seem likely to decline for at least the next two years. The Administration’s
Integrated Resource Restoration budget proposal could provide added funding for planningrelated
activities such as climate change vulnerability assessments and watershed action
plans. Nevertheless, given all the concern about the size of the federal deficit, the Forest
Service should be looking for ways to share more of its planning and management costs.
We urge the Forest Service to give more consideration to the potential cost-savings that
could result from increased collaboration throughout the planning process. The DEIS
acknowledges the potential for some cost-savings; however, it does not reveal how, or how
much of, those costs will be saved. For example, in its evaluation of Alternative A, the
DEIS recognizes the “potential to offset or reduce Agency monitoring costs as a result of
collaboration during monitoring program development and monitoring itself” (DEIS, p.
162). Similarly, regarding Alternative D, the DEIS states, “Successful coordination could
also provide increased opportunities to distribute and share monitoring and assessment
costs” (DEIS, p. 169).
Increased collaboration does present opportunities for some of the costs of planning and
monitoring to be shared by stakeholders, but it cannot be taken for granted that existing
costs will simply be assumed by those stakeholders. Indeed, the increased attention to
monitoring in the Proposed Rule reflects an increased demand for monitoring from
stakeholders participating in collaborative processes. Given this increased attention, and the
generally poor track record of monitoring at the Forest Service, it is likely that monitoring
costs will go up as a result of implementing the Proposed Rule, even with increased
stakeholder support. The DEIS should explain how collaboration will lead to cost savings
and document savings expected from each alternative.
In addition to failing to describe the mechanisms and magnitudes of cost savings, the
DEIS does a generally poor job of describing the process of collaboration. While the
Federal Register notice repeatedly emphasizes the intention to establish a collaborative
planning process, the proposed rule focuses almost exclusively on public participation
requirements. When it comes to determining who actually does the planning work (and
incurs the planning costs), the proposed rule places virtually the entire work load on the
Forest Service planning staffs. The two subsections that constitute the Planning Framework
section (219.5) are telling in this regard: the first subsection describes the three-phase
planning process – i.e. what has to be done in planning-- in considerable detail, while the
second subsection describes who will do the planning work in just one sentence. Subsection

FRD – 1132
219.5(b) states: “The responsible official shall establish an interdisciplinary team or teams to
prepare assessments; new plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions; and unit monitoring.”
The proposed rule’s complete reliance on Forest Service interdisciplinary teams fails to
recognize the significant benefits of collaborative planning and implementation. Various
stakeholders bring diverse and useful skills and resources to the forest planning table. For
example, numerous conservation organizations have numerous ecologists, economists, land
use planners, and landscape analysts with technical expertise and practical experience in
forest planning. Many organizations working collaboratively with the Forest Service and
other partners to develop and implement landscape-scale restoration plans pursuant to the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program in Montana, Idaho, and elsewhere.
When stakeholders feel a common interest in the success of a planning process, they are
often willing to devote time and resources to the accomplishment of analyses and other
aspects of planning. If these efforts are well coordinated and supported by all participants in
the collaboration, they may result in work-load relief to the Forest Service that may translate
into savings.
An important caveat in our encouragement of greater sharing of planning work-loads is
that the Forest Service must retain full decision-making authority. It is the responsibility of
the Forest Service to evaluate alternatives and determine the appropriate course of action for
the national forests and grasslands. Selection of alternatives that derive from collaboration
should result in plans that enjoy broader public support, but it is important to acknowledge
that collaboration does not result in decisions; decision-making rests with the Forest Service
and must adhere to the law. In that regard, we support the proposed rule’s direction that the
responsible official must not “conform management to meet non-Forest Service objectives
or policies” (§ 219.4(b)(3)).
Recommendation: The planning rule should encourage the Forest Service to share planning
work (and expenses) with qualified stakeholders as part of collaborative planning.
5.
II. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
6.
A. The Federal Register Notice and DEIS Do Not Explain Why Previous NFMA
Rulemakings Have Been Found Legally Inadequate and What the Agency Is Doing to
Avoid Repeating Past Mistakes
The Forest Service has explored several ways of complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the three times that it has attempted to revise the forest
planning rule at 36 CFR 219 during the past twelve years. Each time, the courts have found
the agency to be in violation of NEPA.

FRD – 1132
First, for the 2000 planning rule under the Clinton Administration, the USDA Forest
Service did not include any environmental impact analysis of the proposed rule, choosing
instead to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI) after the close of the public comment period. See Citizens for Better Forestry I,
slip op., p. 12370. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this approach on the grounds
that “Citizens were deprived of the opportunity to comment on the USDA’s EA and FONSI
at all points in the rulemaking process. This deprivation violated their rights under the
regulations implementing NEPA.” Id. at 12374-75.
Second, for the 2005 planning rule under the Bush Administration, the Forest Service
did not prepare either an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an EA, arguing instead
that the planning rule should be “categorically excluded” from NEPA’s requirements to
document the environmental effects of its actions. U.S. District Court Judge Hamilton
rejected the Forest Service’s arguments, ruling that reliance on a categorical exclusion to
revise the planning rule violated NEPA. Citizens for Better Forestry II. 7
Third, in 2007 the Forest Service re-published the 2005 planning rule along with a draft
EIS and sought public comment. 72 FR 48,514. However, the EIS reflected the Forest
Service’s view that the planning rule would have no direct or indirect impact on the
environment. Consequently, Judge Wilken found that the EIS did not comply with NEPA
because it did not evaluate the environmental impacts of the planning rule. Citizens for
Better Forestry III.
A common thread in all of these court decisions is that the Forest Service has stubbornly
refused to document or even acknowledge the environmental impacts of the forest planning
rule. As Judge Wilken pointed out in her ruling: “The EIS repetitively insists – as the
USDA … has insisted since Citizens I – that the Rule will have no effect on the environment
because it merely sets out the process for developing and revising [forest plans] and is
removed from any foreseeable action that might affect the environment. This position was
rejected in Citizens I and Citizens II, and the Court adheres to the reasoning set out in those
decisions.” Id. at p. 21.
The Federal Register notice for the planning rule makes only passing reference to the
court decisions about the previous planning rules. 76 FR 8482. The FR notice is equally
uninformative about the agency’s approach toward evaluating environmental impacts,
simply noting that the agency “has prepared a draft programmatic EIS to analyze possible
environmental effects of the proposed rule, present several alternatives to the proposed rule,
and disclosed the potential environmental impacts of those alternatives.” 76 FR 8511.
7 The Wilderness Society was a co-plaintiff (along with Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, and Vermont Natural
Resources Council and represented by Earthjustice) in the litigation challenging the Bush Administration’s 2005 and
2008 forest planning rules.

FRD – 1132
Similarly, the DEIS contains only two brief mentions of the court cases: once in the
Planning Rule History section (p. 6) where the DEIS explains that the federal district court
in CBF III had invalidated the 2008 Rule because “the EIS did not adequately disclose the
effects of the rule,” and a second time later in the DEIS (p. 52) where the decision in CBF II
is discussed in one sentence. However, the DEIS contains no information or analysis about
the underlying issues regarding the agency’s past or current approaches toward evaluation of
the planning rule’s environmental impacts.
Therefore, the public is left to wonder and speculate about why the Forest Service’s
previous EIS was found to be legally inadequate and what steps the agency is taking to
correct the legal errors and ensure that the new EIS will comply with NEPA. It is important
for the public to know that the Forest Service understands what legal mistakes it has made in
the past forest plan rulemakings and that the agency intends to learn from past experience
and to make the necessary changes to avoid repeating those mistakes.
Recommendation: The FR notice and EIS for the planning rule should more thoroughly
explain why the courts found the EIS for the 2008 rule to be legally inadequate and what
steps the Forest Service is taking to ensure that past mistakes will not be repeated in the
current rulemaking.
B. NEPA Requirements for the EIS
The case law that has developed through court decisions about the previous planning
rules provides important insight into what the Forest Service needs to do in order to comply
with NEPA in the current planning rule. As discussed above, the fatal flaw in the Forest
Service past rulemaking efforts has been its insistence that the planning rule “will have no
effect on the environment because it merely sets out the process for developing and revising
[forest plans] and is removed from any foreseeable action that might affect the
environment.” Citizens for Better Forestry III, slip op., p. 21. Thus, it is critically important
that the Forest Service explicitly distance itself from the agency’s previous and legally
untenable position regarding the impact of the forest planning rule.
The DEIS very briefly discusses the relevant case law, including Citizens for Better
Forestry II, in two sentences of the section on Staged Decision-making and Environmental
Analysis on p. 52, but it never mentions the other two CBF cases. In order to articulate a
legally credible policy regarding environmental effects of the planning rule, the Forest
Service should look more carefully to guidance contained in all three Citizens for Better
Forestry cases.
In CBF III – which is the most recent and directly applicable court decision – the district
court focused primarily on the impacts of eliminating or modifying standards in the 1982
and 2000 planning rules that applied to all forest plans and site-specific plans – specifically,
the “species viability” requirement. The court stated, “Although the EIS discusses the

FRD – 1132
differences between the various standards, it fails to acknowledge the effect of eliminating
the viability requirement.” Citizens for Better Forestry III, p. 21 (emphasis in original).
Noting that the EIS cited “practical difficulty” of compliance as the reason for eliminating
the viability rule, the court stated, “It is disingenuous for the USDA now to maintain that it
has no idea what might happen if it is no longer required to comply with the [viability]
requirement.” Id., p. 22. The court went on to say:
“At the very least, the EIS must discuss instances where the USDA has found the
viability requirement to be difficult to implement and analyze the impact of no
longer having to ensure species viability in those instances. The same is true with
the rest of the EIS chapter entitled ‘Affected Environment and Environmental
Consequences.’ The EIS discusses the differences between the identified alternatives
and explains why the USDA prefers Alternative M, but it does not actually discuss
the environmental consequences of eliminating the specific protections that are
provided in previous plan development rules.” Id. (emphasis added).
As discussed briefly in the DEIS (p. 52), further guidance is contained in Citizens for
Better Forestry II, where the district court stated, “In recognizing programmatic EISs, the
Ninth Circuit has held that “[a]n EIS for a programmatic plan … must provide ‘sufficient
detail to foster informed decision-making’, but that ‘site-specific impacts need not be fully
evaluated until a critical decision has been made to act on site development,’” quoting the
Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F. 3d 789, 800 (9 th
Cir. 2003) and Northern Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Lujan, 961 F. 2d 886 (9 th Cir. 1992)). CBF II,
p. 37. The district court further stated, “The court agrees with [USDA] defendants that
evaluating the environmental effects of programmatic actions is difficult. However, as
discussed above, such evaluation appears to be envisioned by NEPA and by Ninth Circuit
case law.” Id., p. 42. The court also stated, “There is nevertheless a dearth of case law
applying NEPA analysis to broad, nationwide actions such as that presented by this case.”
Id. These excerpts indicate that the Forest Service should recognize that the NEPA
evaluation will be difficult to complete and that the Citizens for Better Forestry cases
represent the leading court precedent on this issue nationally.
In addition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Citizens for Better Forestry I
– while focused on related issues of standing and ripeness – provides importance lessons
relevant to the planning rule EIS. For example, the Ninth Circuit stated, “The 2000 Plan
Development Rule in fact does not result in any direct environmental effects. Its
environmental impact is indirect: because the Rule controls the development of LRMPs and
site-specific plans, it is through these that it poses an actual, physical effect on the
environment in national forests and grasslands.” The Ninth Circuit decision also suggests –
as does the district court -- that the EIS should give particular attention to the effects of
altering the species viability standard, since it applies directly to site-specific plans and
therefore is only one step removed from direct impacts. CBF I, p. 12384.

FRD – 1132
Recommendation: The EIS should expand the discussion of relevant case law regarding
NEPA compliance and the legal standards for programmatic EISs of this type.
C. The DEIS Obfuscates the Environmental Effects of Alternatives
In addition to the Ninth Circuit case law on prior attempts to amend the NFMA planning
rule in compliance with NEPA, the CEQ NEPA regulations and other existing case law
provide the required framework for analysis, as well as measures for its adequacy. The
fundamental purpose of preparing an EIS is to ensure that the agency and the public are fully
aware of the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action before the agency decides
how to proceed. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989).
NEPA mandates that federal agencies take a “hard look at a decision’s environmental
consequences.” California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 1982). Specifically, a
DEIS must assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed
action, performing an analysis commensurate with the scale of the action at issue. See, e.g.,
id.; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.2 (b), 1508.8. The EIS must “contain a reasonably thorough
discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences.”
California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 1982). “General statements about
‘possible’ effects and ‘some risk’ do not constitute a ‘hard look’ absent a justification
regarding why more definitive information could not be provided.” Neighbors of Cuddy Mt.
v. United States Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir. 1998). “An EIS for a
programmatic plan . . . must provide sufficient detail to foster informed decision-making.”
Citizens for Better Forestry II, 481 F.Supp.2d 1059, 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (internal
citations omitted). An agency may not merely identify differences between alternatives and
why it prefers one alternative over another, but must actually discuss the environmental
consequences of the alternatives. Citizens for Better Forestry III, p. 22 (holding
programmatic EIS for 2008 NFMA planning rule was inadequate, in part, because it did “not
actually discuss the environmental consequences of eliminating the specific protections that
are provided in previous plan development rules”).
To its credit, the Forest Service no longer appears to be taking the legally untenable
position that the planning rule (and forest plans in general) has no environmental effects.
For example, the DEIS states:
“[P]lanning rule provisions for specific land management plan guidance will
influence a responsible official’s discretion when approving a land
management plan and subsequent site-specific management activities…The
scope of the effects analysis is focused on the activities related to
development, revision, amendment, and maintenance of land management
plans and includes anticipated resource or process outcomes across NFS
lands as plans developed under the various alternatives are implemented
through project decisions. Potential programmatic effects include those

FRD – 1132
associated with any changes in agency planning processes and plan content
developed under current direction.”
DEIS, pg. 54 (emphasis added).
However, the DEIS still falls far short of taking the “hard look” at the environmental
impacts of the proposed rule and alternatives that is required by NEPA.
In the DEIS, the agency goes to some length to downplay its responsibility for
evaluating the environmental consequences of the proposed rule and alternatives. See
generally DEIS, p. 49-55. For instance, the Forest Service states, “Adoption of a planning
rule is only the first step in a series of decisions before any action is taken that directly
affects the environment.” DEIS, p. 51. The DEIS goes on to say, “The depth and detail of
impact analysis is necessarily broad and general because a planning rule is two steps
removed from site-specific projects and activities…Where there is a sufficient cause-effect
relationship, the effects analysis of a planning rule might extend to general discussions of
potential effects of plan implementation on the human environment.” DEIS, p. 52. Overall,
the DEIS reflects the agency’s continuing inability to accept that its planning rule has
foreseeable environmental consequences, and the analysis and disclosure of the various
alternatives’ effects on the human environment is quite shallow and, oftentimes, seems
biased in favor of the proposed rule (Alternative A). The DEIS repeatedly evaluates
alternatives in terms of whether future forest plans would be more or less “variable” or
“consistent” in the way that they address various issues, like road management and climate
change (see e.g. DEIS, p. 94, 132), rather than in terms of whether the rule alternatives
would have positive or negative environmental impacts or the extent to which they would
create more or less environmental risk to wildlife viability and other resource concerns.
Furthermore, when assessing the effects of alternatives on certain resources, the agency
spends a great deal of time comparing alternatives against each other, as opposed to
disclosing what the likely effects in future plans and, in turn, on the ground will be if a
particular alternative were chosen. A particular deficiency is the failure to take a hard look
at what the effects of eliminating specific, protective provisions of the 1982 and 2000 rules
from the proposed planning rule will be.
In order to comply with NEPA and withstand potential court challenges, it is critically
important that the Forest Service recognize the error of its past position regarding the
environmental impacts of the planning rule. Instead of continuing to insist that the planning
rule is entirely about process and has no or few reasonably foreseeable environmental
effects, the agency should acknowledge in the Federal Register notice and EIS
accompanying the final rule that the planning rule plays an important role in shaping Forest
Service management plans and activities and thus has important indirect environmental
impacts. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b) (defining indirect effects). It must also explain the
environmental effects that elimination of specific, substantive provisions of the 1982 and
2000 planning rules will have. See, e.g., Citizens for Better Forestry I, 341 F.3d 961, 972-

FRD – 1132
75 (9th Cir. 2003). At various points in these comments, we highlight sections of the DEIS
where the analysis is lacking.
D. The DEIS Fails to Consider a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
The Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations describe the alternatives
section as the “heart” of the EIS, requiring that an EIS’s alternatives section “[r]igorously
explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were
eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been
eliminated.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. NEPA regulations provide that an EIS must include “the
alternative of no action,” as well as a “hard look” at “all reasonable alternatives.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 4332(c); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a), (d). “An agency must look at every reasonable
alternative, with the range dictated by the nature and scope of the proposed action.” Nw.
Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117 F.3d 1520, 1538 (9th Cir. 1997). In
examining the reasonableness of an EIS’s alternatives and elimination of alternatives from
analysis, a court first looks to whether the “Purpose and Need” was reasonable, and then
whether the alternatives considered were reasonable in light of that goal. Surfrider Found.
v. Dalton, 989 F.Supp. 1309, 1327 (S.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d per curium, 196 F.3d 1057 (9th
Cir. 1999). Regarding alternatives rejected for full evaluation, a court asks “whether the
summary rejection of these [alternatives] was unreasonable, such that the [EIS] failed to
consider a reasonable range of alternatives.” Id. at 1327–28. “An unreasonable failure to
consider a viable alternative renders an alternatives analysis inadequate.” Id. In addition,
the Forest Service Handbook guides agency staff to “develop…alternatives fully and
impartially… [and to] ensure that the range of alternatives does not prematurely foreclose
options that might protect, restore, and enhance the environment.” Forest Service
Handbook 1909.15 § 14. NEPA also requires that agencies “present complete and accurate
information to decision-makers and to the public to allow an informed comparison of the
alternatives considered in the EIS.” Natural Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 F.3d
797, 813 (9th Cir. 2005).
The Forest Service failed in this mandate by not considering in detail an alternative that
would implement the 2000 planning rule. In our scoping comments, we requested that the
Forest Service consider the 2000 planning rule as one of the alternatives. TWS Scoping
Comments, p. 64, 83. However, the agency eliminated this alternative from detailed study,
stating that that rule’s “provisions do not meet the purpose and need for action. Specifically,
the 2000 rule is not within the Agency’s capability to implement on all NFS units.” DEIS,
p. 27. While we appreciate that the agency determined the 2000 rule would be difficult and
expensive to implement, (DEIS, p. 29), many provisions of the rule, which the agency failed
to consider in detail in this process, would be no more difficult to implement than provisions
of the 1982 rule or the proposed planning rule itself. For example, as discussed in greater
detail below, § 219.27 of the 2000 planning rule was much clearer about the agency’s
obligations regarding special designations than the proposed planning rule. Special
designations made during forest planning are an enduring agency practice that should

FRD – 1132
continue in the future, and they are neither difficult nor expensive to complete. The failure
to include an alternative that discusses special designations and other provisions found only
in the 2000 rule is a violation of NEPA, which the agency could have avoided merely by
studying the 2000 planning rule as an alternative.
Moreover, we believe the failure to include the 2000 planning rule in the No Action
Alternative makes the baseline against which the agency compared the action alternatives
inaccurate. The agency explains that it did not feel the need to include the 2000 planning
rule in the No Action Alternative because NFS units have been exercising their option under
the 2000 planning rule’s transition provisions to use the provisions of the 1982 rule in
ongoing plan revisions. DEIS, p. 54. While this may be the case, the reality is that units can
choose the 2000 planning rule in forest plan revisions until the agency completes this
rulemaking and units must consider the “best available science” when implementing or
amending a plan, 36 C.F.R. § 219.35(a)), calling into the question the completeness and
accuracy of the No Action Alternative.
7.
8.
III. Consultation Requirements
Federal Register notice for the proposed Rule does not address the agency’s obligations
for consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA). These requirements do not appear in the Regulatory
Certifications section or anywhere else in the proposed Rule. Not only should they have
been addressed and consultation undertaken, but both efforts should have taken place in a
timeframe to inform the creation of the proposed Rule and DEIS. In addition, because
consultation has not been completed, and to our knowledge may not have even been started
in the case of the NHPA, the public has been denied the right to meaningful comment under
NEPA. The public is being asked to comment now on a planning rule which may be quite
different at the conclusion of consultation.
Consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), every federal agency “shall, in
consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agency … is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any endangered species or threatened species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The obligation
to “insure” against a likelihood of jeopardy or adverse modification requires the agencies to
give the benefit of the doubt to endangered species and to place the burden of risk and
uncertainty on the proposed action. See Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d 1376, 1386 (9 th Cir.
1987).

FRD – 1132
Section 7 establishes an interagency consultation process to assist federal agencies in
complying with their duty to ensure against jeopardy to listed species or destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency must initiate consultation with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
under Section 7 whenever it takes an action that “may affect” a listed species. See 50 C.F.R.
§ 402.14(a). Regulations implementing section 7 broadly define the scope of agency actions
subject to consultation. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (definition of action).
The proposed planning rule “may affect” threatened and endangered species and their
designated critical habitat. In Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 632
F. Supp.2d 968, 982 (N.D. Cal. 2009), the district court held that the Forest Service violated
the ESA when it did not consult on its 2008 revision to the NFMA planning regulations.
See also California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 575 F.3d 999, 1019 (9 th Cir.
2009) (holding that Forest Service’s repeal of nationwide rule protecting roadless areas may
affect federally listed species and their critical habitats and subject to ESA §7(a)(2)
requirements).
Not only must the Forest Service consult with the FWS and NMFS on its proposed
planning rule, but it must be prepared to amend its proposed rule to respond to any concerns
raised by the federal biological agencies.
Consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
The Forest Service must also undertake consultation under the NHPA. “Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Council (the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.” 36 C.F.R. 800.1(a) (emphasis added). An undertaking is defined as “a
project, activity or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect
jurisdiction of a Federal agency…” 36 C.F.R. 800.16(y). The proposed Rule is clearly an
undertaking and as such, consultation under Section 106 is required.
In addition to failing to consult in the creation of the proposed Rule, the Forest Service
has failed to address the consultation requirements for the creation, amendment or revision
of a land management plan. In the case of Section 106 compliance, this issue came up after
the promulgation of the 2005 Planning Rule. In a December 15, 2006 letter to Regional
Foresters, Directors and Forest Supervisors, Gloria Manning acting for Joel Holtrop, Deputy
Chief for National Forest System issued the following direction:

FRD – 1132
“Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the potential effects
that their decisions (undertakings) may have on historic properties (significant
cultural resources). The definition of undertaking (36 CFR 800.16(y)) essentially
encompasses all agency decision-making processes including the approval of land
management plans under the 2005 planning rule.
To satisfy the section 106 compliance requirement, the Responsible Agency Official
must consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer(s), appropriate Tribes
and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer(s), and, if necessary, Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation.”
We believe the only difference here is in the date of the planning rule. The Forest
Service should be more proactive in this planning Rule creation and provide explicit land
management planning consultation direction in the regulations themselves to avoid any
future confusion.
IV.
Elements of Plans and Planning
The Forest Service has taken a different approach to land management plans, their
contents and rules for plan amendment in the proposed Rule. The agency has expanded
upon the concept of plan components first introduced with the Southern California Forest
Plans 8 before the introduction of the 2005 planning rule. We believe that while some of
these changes are benign, other elements are troubling and would lead to increased
controversy in the development, implementation and amendment of land management plans.
Our concerns are detailed below.
E. Decisions Made by Land Management Plans
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development of
management direction for each National Forest through land and resource management
plans. As explained by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “These plans operate like zoning
ordinances, defining broadly the uses allowed in various forest regions, setting goals and
limits on various uses (from logging to road construction), but do not directly compel
specific actions, such as cutting of trees in a particular area or construction of a specific
road.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 341 F.2d 961, 966 (9 th Cir. 2003).
Direction is guided by the six primary decisions made in a Land Management Plan,
which are:
8 The four southern California National Forests are the Los Padres NF, the Angeles NF, the San Bernardino NF and
the Cleveland NF.

FRD – 1132
Forest-wide goals and objectives
Forest-wide standards and guidelines
Management area delineations and associated prescriptions
Identification of lands not suited for timber production
Monitoring and evaluation techniques
Recommendation for official designation of Wilderness
The Forest Service seems to have shifted from requiring these six decisions be made to
dividing them up and categorizing them as plan components, other plan content, or elements
to (potentially) be identified in a plan. In the case of management areas, the Rule doesn’t
really address their disposition and whether any decision needs to be made. Each of these
changes has implications for how land management plans would be constructed, how they
would be amended and how effectively they would or would not guide land management.
We discuss these implications below.
F. Plan Components and Other Required Plan Content
The Forest Service has re-categorized the six decisions above. Some of these are now
defined as plan components. Plan components include: 1) desired conditions; 2) objectives;
3) standards; 4) guidelines; 5) suitability of lands; and an optional plan component: goals. §
219.7(d)(1)(i-v) and § 219.7(d)(2). These plan components encompass three of the six
decisions: goals and objectives, standards and guidelines and timber suitability. The agency
has also created a new category called “other content in the plan”. § 219.7(e)(1)(i-iv). This
required content includes: 1) identifying watersheds that are a priority for maintenance or
restoration; 2) describing the unit’s distinctive roles and contributions; 3) the monitoring
program; and 4) proposed and possible actions that may occur during the life of the plan
(focused on the timber sale program). “Other content” addresses the monitoring decision.
Draft Sec. 219.7(c)(2)(i-ix) addresses reviews and identifications the responsible official
must make. Among these is the identification of potential wilderness areas and whether to
recommend designation. § 219.7(c)(2)(iv). This addresses the wilderness recommendation
decision above.
The only decision not explicitly addressed in the proposed Rule is management area
delineations and associated prescriptions. This is a critical missing element which we
believe must be a plan component and must be addressed in the Final Rule and EIS. We
discuss this in more detail below, first turning to the lack of explicit requirement for
management area designation, then the value of zoning and land allocation and finally to the
analysis of alternatives and their effects under NEPA.
G. Management Areas and Prescriptions
9. Lack of Explicit Requirements

FRD – 1132
The NFMA can be read as not explicitly requiring the delineation of management areas
and associated prescriptions. However, the Forest Service required them in the 1982 Rule
and every land management plan ever created includes them. Unfortunately, they are all but
missing from the proposed Rule. They are not included as plan components, other required
content or even optional content in a plan. See § 219.7(d)-(e). Mention is made of them in
one place in the proposed rule. “Plan components may apply to the entire plan area, to
specific management or geographic areas, or to other areas as identified in the plan.” §
219.7(d) (emphasis added). No other mention of management areas or prescriptions is made
so it is unclear whether the agency intends to encourage, allow or ban the use of
management areas. This must be clarified in the final Rule.
10. The Value of Zoning and Management Area Designations
We believe management areas and prescriptions serve a vital and valuable role in land
management planning and should be a required plan component. First of all, they have been
used in every forest and grassland plan the agency has created and approved. When they
haven’t been used 9 , as in the draft Cimarron and Comanche National grassland (CCNG)
Plans prepared under the 2005 and 2008 Planning Rules, the plans became unbelievably
confusing. The agency substituted the use of management areas for a combination of
ecosystem types and special areas. When it was discovered that there were too many
ecosystem types to keep track of, the CCNG combined them into groupings that resulted in a
number of ecosystem and resource values being left unprotected (e.g. grazing allowed in
streams and riparian areas; ORV use allowed on historic trails, etc.). The Grassland was left
without an effective way to track what uses were allowed where and conversely what wasn’t
allowed.
Land management planning is sufficiently complex already without making it more
difficult because managers must cross-reference numerous documents, plans, maps, statutes,
allowed uses, etc. in order to plan management activities. Management areas serve to
collate restrictions and opportunities under desired conditions in large land blocks to make
management simpler and easier to convey to agency staff as well as the interested public.
The delineation of standards and guidelines by management area provide an effective
method for targeting specific standards and guidelines to specific geographic areas, rather
than having to rely on generic standards and guidelines in a more one-size-fits-all approach.
In addition, the designation of management areas, i.e. where the lines are drawn on the
map, is one of the most contentious decisions made in a land management plan. It is one of
the hottest topics in plan creation, revision and amendment, and one of the thorniest issues a
9 While there were a few forest and grassland plans in progress under the 2005 and 2008 planning rules, the
Cimarron and Comanche National Grassland Plan was the furthest along in the country. Two draft plans were
created (one for each rule) and two objection periods were initiated but never completed before the courts
overturned each rule. No other plan progressed to the objection stage under these Rules.

FRD – 1132
collaborative planning effort will tangle with. But that doesn’t mean the concept should be
jettisoned or that the public will be happy that it is gone. On the contrary, management
areas provide one of the most effective ways to make complex concepts and decisions
simple: “these uses are allowed here and these are not”. Without management areas, the
public’s ability to understand the complexities of land management in order to participate
fully in collaborative efforts will be diminished. This is troubling, especially since
efficiency and effectiveness and transparency and collaboration are two of the issues driving
the purpose and need for the proposed Rule, as we discuss further below.
Recommendation: Management areas should be a required plan component under §
219.7(d)(1).
11. Failure to Disclose Significance of Effects under NEPA
The Forest Service has chosen to require management areas and prescriptions in
every land management plan ever created or revised. They are a requirement under
the 1982 Rule. The 1982 rule at 36 CFR 219.11(c) states, “The forest plan shall
contain the following: …(c) Multiple-use prescriptions and associated standards and
guidelines for each management area…” (emphasis added). As such, the DEIS
should have analyzed the effects of no longer requiring management area delineation
and associated prescriptions. The 1982 Rule is encompassed in Alternative B, the no
action alternative, making it even more critical that this important difference between
the alternatives be analyzed and disclosed. This is especially pertinent since the
issues driving the creation and range of alternatives include efficiency and
effectiveness; transparency and collaboration; multiple uses; and coordination and
cooperation, all of which rely on the agency being able to effectively disclose which
uses are allowed where. Management areas and prescriptions have always served
this role and their explicit absence in the proposed rule and a number of the
alternatives is likely to significantly affect the agency’s ability to disclose (to the
general public, special use permit holders, contractors, etc.), track and ensure that
various uses occur only where they are allowed. As such, the DEIS has failed to take
the required “hard look” at effects when analyzing the alternatives and failed to
disclose their significance. This failure to comply with the requirements of NEPA
must be corrected.
H. Special Areas
Given the special, and often unique, resources found on national forests and grasslands,
units should be encouraged to designate special areas that recognize and provide protection
for such resources through the forest planning process. Since land management planning
began, the Forest Service has designated a variety of types of special areas to provide
specialized management direction and protection. These designations have ensured that
places with remarkable and unique characteristics such as rare habitats, physiographic or

FRD – 1132
geologic features, cultural artifacts and paleontological resources, and places with valued
functions such as important research areas and learning areas are recognized, adequately
protected, and appropriately managed so that they can remain part of our public land legacy.
In the future, these types of designations may prove even more necessary. For example, as
the effects of climate change become manifest, particular areas may require specialized
management to protect species, safeguard refugia, or enable specific natural processes.
Likewise, as national forests are valued increasingly for research and outdoor learning and
experiences, particular areas may require specialized management to enable these functions.
However, the language of the proposed rule could be interpreted as no longer providing
Forest Service units the discretion to make such designations in the future. Consequently,
this aspect of the rule requires clarification, so that the agency can continue to exercise its
longstanding and frequently employed authority to designate special areas. Without such
authority, it is not clear that the Forest Service under the proposed rule would have tools
with the necessary precision and detail to appropriately protect and manage these places
with unique and remarkable characteristics.
While previous rules varied in the degree to which they provided express authority to
designate special areas in forest plans, the proposed rule’s language improperly,
erroneously, and perhaps inadvertently calls into question the Forest Service’s authority to
designate special areas during forest planning. In order to better explain the differences
between the proposed rule and past rules, we will briefly highlight the basis for special area
designation authority in each of the previous planning rules or planning rule attempts.
12. The 1982 Rule
In the 1982 rule, the Forest Service provided the following authority related to two types
of special designations, leaving the rule ambiguous as to the agency’s discretion regarding
additional types of special designations:
Sec. 219.25 Research natural areas.
Forest planning shall provide for the establishment of Research Natural
Areas (RNA's). Planning shall make provision for the identification of
examples of important forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic, and
geologic types that have special or unique characteristics of scientific interest
and importance and that are needed to complete the national network of
RNA's. Biotic, aquatic, and geologic types needed for the network shall be
identified using a list provided by the Chief of the Forest Service. Authority
to establish RNA's is delegated to the Chief at 7 CFR 2.60(a) and 36 CFR
251.23. Recommendations for establishment of areas shall be made to the
Chief through the planning process.
Sec. 219.19 Fish and wildlife resource.

FRD – 1132
…
(7) Habitat determined to be critical for threatened and endangered species
shall be identified, and measures shall be prescribed to prevent the
destruction or adverse modification of such habitat. Objectives shall be
determined for threatened and endangered species that shall provide for,
where possible, their removal from listing as threatened and endangered
species through appropriate conservation measures, including the designation
of special areas to meet the protection and management needs of such
species.
Over the past three decades of forest planning, the agency went beyond establishing just
the two types of areas discussed in the 1982 rule by designating dozens of other types of
special areas in its forest plans. There was no limiting language in the 1982 rule that would
or could preclude the agency from making these additional designations in forest planning.
13. The 2000 Rule
The 2000 planning rule language was more explicit about the agency’s authority to
administratively designate special areas through forest planning.
§ 219.27 Special designations.
The Forest Service may recommend special designations to higher
authorities or, to the extent permitted by law, adopt special designations
through plan amendment or revision. Special designations are areas within
the National
Forest System that are identified for their unique or special characteristics
and include the following:
(a) Congressionally designated areas.
Congressionally designated areas may include, but are not limited to,
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, national trails, scenic areas,
recreation areas, and monuments. These nationally significant areas
must be managed as required by Congress and may have specific
requirements for their management.
(b) Wilderness area reviews.
Unless federal statute directs otherwise, all undeveloped areas that are
of sufficient size as to make practicable their preservation and use in
an unimpaired condition must be evaluated for recommended
wilderness designation during the plan revision process. These areas
may be evaluated at other times as determined by the responsible
official.
(c) Administratively designated areas.

FRD – 1132
Administratively designated areas may include, but are not limited to,
critical watersheds, research natural areas, national monuments,
geological areas, inventoried roadless areas, unroaded areas,
motorized and non-motorized recreation areas, botanical areas, and
scenic byways.
Although all existing forest and grassland plans and land management plan revisions,
including the special area designations made within them, have been completed under the
1982 rule, we believe the unambiguous language of the 2000 rule was an improvement over
the 1982 rule and more reflective of current agency practice. Moreover, existing agency
guidance is more reminiscent of the 2000 rule’s provision than the 1982 rule’s treatment of
special areas. See, e.g., FSM 2372.2 (“Designation. Include an analysis of the need and
desirability for special areas in the forest plan . . . . If a decision in the forest plan
recommends designation, include management direction in the plan or in an amendment to
the plan later. Except for those areas approved by the Secretary, approval by the Regional
Forester of the forest plan constitutes designation of the area.”).
14. The 2005 and 2008 Rules
Both the 2005 and 2008 rules, though thrown out in court, contained very similar
explicit authority. We point to this language in order to demonstrate a long history of rule
language describing the agency’s authority to designate special areas. As explained above,
we do not condone the attempt in the 2005 and 2008 rules to jettison the use of management
areas or zoning in forest and grassland plans, and we believe the failure to require
management areas is a failing of the proposed rule. That said, in the 2005 and 2008 rules,
special areas were required plan components:
§ 219.7 Developing, amending, or revising a plan.
(a) General planning requirements.
(2) Plan components. Plan components may apply to all or part of the
plan area. A plan should include the following components:
…
(v) Special areas. Special areas are areas within the National
Forest System designated because of their unique or special
characteristics. Special areas such as botanical areas or
significant caves may be designated, by the Responsible
Official in approving a plan, plan amendment, or plan
revision. Such designations are not final decisions approving
projects and activities. The plan may also recognize special
areas designated by statute or through a separate
administrative process in accordance with NEPA requirements
(§ 219.4) and other applicable laws.

FRD – 1132
15. Special Area Examples
We believe the specific language regarding the agency’s authority to designate special
areas in each of the previous planning rules reflected the agency’s longstanding practice and
explained a key outcome of forest and grassland planning. Land management plans
currently establish a host of types of special area designations, which allow the agency to
provide more specialized management and protection for areas with unique or special
characteristics. For example, in a random sampling of more recent forest and grassland
plans (both in draft form and completed), we found a variety of special areas that were
administratively designated through the land management planning process, including
zoological and botanical areas, individual species protection areas, historic areas, geographic
areas, non-motorized recreation areas, and others. The table below contains examples of the
special area designations found in the five forest plans we examined.
National
Forest
Coronado 10
(Arizona)
Beaverhead-
Deerlodge 11
(Montana)
Alleghany 12
(Pennsylvania)
Monongahela 13
(West
Virginia)
Year of
Plan
2010
(in
draft)
Special Area
South Fork of
Cave Creek
Zoological and
Botanical Area
Wet Canyon
Talussnail Area
Mount Graham
Red Squirrel
Refugium
2009 West Fork Butte
Special Interest
Area
2007 Buckaloons
Historic Area
Management Purpose
Protect a diverse assemblage of
migratory and year-round wildlife
(including raptors), as well as the rare
riparian setting that attracts these
species (p. 62-63)
Protect Wet Canyon talussnail’s
optimal habitat and the watershed that
surrounds it (p. 88)
Protect red squirrel’s spruce-fir habitat
and some of its more recently
recognized mixed conifer habitat (p.
88)
Protect rare plants and grasslands (p.
35-36)
Preserve, maintain, and interpret
significant archaeological resources,
including at least 15 prehistoric and
historic sites (p. 29)
2006 Fannie Bennett
Hemlock Grove
Botanical Area 14 Preserve virgin forest (p. 47, 61)
10 http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/planrevision/documents/DraftForestPlan/Coronado_WorkingDraftForestPlan_March2010-Black&WhiteMaps.pdf
11 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5052768.pdf
12 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5044088.pdf

FRD – 1132
Arapaho-
Roosevelt 15
(Colorado)
Blue Rock
Geological Area
Spruce Mountain
and Brushy
Mountain Grouse
Management
Areas
1998 James Peak
Special Interest
Area 16
Maintain high scenic quality, rare plant
species, and cliff and talus habitats (p.
47, 63)
Create and maintain habitat suitable for
ruffed grouse (p. 49, 66)
Protect and enhance undeveloped
character of the area while providing
for public education and compatible
non-motorized recreational
opportunities (p. 350-352)
The special area designations are important aspects of these plans that have enhanced
protection of important forest and grassland resources and the public’s understanding and
enjoyment of the national forests and grasslands. Future land management plan revisions
should result in as many or more types of special areas designated for specialized
management.
16. The Proposed Rule and Special Areas
The proposed rule’s treatment of special area designation is markedly different from any
of the previous rules or attempts at rules, and we are very concerned that the draft language
jeopardizes the agency’s authority to continue designating special areas. The proposed rule
states:
Draft § 219.10 MULTIPLE USES.
In meeting the requirements of §§ 219.8 and 219.9, and within Forest Service
authority, the capability of the plan area and the fiscal capability of the unit,
the plan must provide for multiple uses, including ecosystem services,
outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, as follows:
. . .
(b) Requirements for plan components for a new plan or plan revision. (1)
The plan components for a new plan or plan revision must provide for:
. . .
13 http://www.wvhighlands.org/mnf_fp/Land_and_Resource_Management_Plan.pdf
14 This is one of 16 Botanical Areas administratively designated through the Monongahela Forest Plan.
15 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_057941.pdf
16 This is one of a few special designations emphasizing non-motorized recreation. The Arapaho-Roosevelt’s Forest
Plan also contains a host of special designations to protect wildlife, archaeological sites, and other forest resources.

FRD – 1132
(vi) Protection and appropriate management of other designated or
recommended areas that exist in the plan area, including research
natural areas.
Draft § 219.19 DEFINITIONS.
Designated areas. Areas or features within a planning unit with specific
management direction that are normally established through a process
separate from the land management planning process. Designations may be
made by statute or by an administrative process of the Federal executive
branch. The Forest Service Directive System contains policy for recognition
and establishment of designations. Designated areas include experimental
forests, national heritage areas, national monuments, national recreational
areas, national scenic trails, research natural areas, scenic byways, wild and
scenic rivers, wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas.
All previous rules were clear (or at least ambiguous, as in the case of the 1982 rule) that
the Forest Service had the authority to administratively designate special areas through the
land management planning process. However, in the proposed rule, the agency seems to
have limited its discretion. The proposed rule no longer contains any mention of “special
areas,” and the draft definition of “designated areas” does not incorporate the concept.
While the proposed rule indicates that a forest plan must contain plan components for the
“protection and appropriate management of other designated or recommended areas that
exist in the plan area,” the definition of “designated areas” could be narrowly read to
exclude special areas (such as botanical areas) from its ambit. 17 In particular, we are
troubled by the narrow, exclusive list of example “designated areas” provided in the
definition, which is comprised solely of designations that require congressional action or a
separate administrative process, as opposed to the types of special area designations that
have been created solely through land management planning processes. Further, the
“designated areas” definition’s suggestion that these are “[a]reas or features within a
planning unit with specific management direction that are normally established through a
process separate from the land management planning process” exacerbates our concern
about the exclusive list of examples provided in the definition. Draft Sec. 219.19 (emphasis
added).
Draft Sec. 219.19 also seems to address only the management of already designated
areas, with no section in the rule that explicitly discusses the agency’s ability to
administratively designate areas through the forest or grassland plan. These are major
departures from each of the previous rules, which all contemplated designation of special
areas through the land management planning process.
17 Strangely, the rule provides no definition of “recommended” areas. The agency should explain what it means by
this phrase.

FRD – 1132
We are unable to understand the agency’s decision to deviate from its historic practice of
designating special areas through land management planning. The DEIS does not say a
word about the major change in rule language, nor does it disclose the possible effects of the
decision to depart from the language of either the 1982 or 2000 planning rules, as it must.
When we asked about the issue at the Lakewood, Colorado roundtable on March 21, 2011,
the Forest Service staff said the planning rule drafting team did not intentionally try to
reduce Forest Service discretion in this regard, believing the proposed rule is similar to the
1982 rule’s treatment of special areas. Even though the Forest Service explained its
intention was not to limit the agency’s discretion in the new rule, it worries us that the rule
language is not as clear as past rules have been regarding the agency’s authority (see
language in 2000, 2005, and 2008 planning rules). By the same token, we find it disquieting
that the proposed rule is not nearly so ambiguous about the agency’s authority as the 1982
rule; as described above, the draft “designated area” definition seems to constrain the
agency’s authority to designate special areas through LMP revision in a way that no other
rule before has. It would be a terrible turn of events if a court did not interpret the new rule
quite so broadly as the Forest Service presenters at the roundtable did. As such, we provide
a number of suggestions below that would clarify the agency’s authority to designate special
areas in the land management planning process, as opposed to in some other administrative
process.
As we said in our scoping comments, “[w]e believe that a similar provision [to the 2000
rule’s section 219.27 on special designations] should be included in the new planning rule
and that the Forest Service should solicit nominations for special designations early in the
planning process, as the Bureau of Land Management does for its Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern.” In The Wilderness Societies (TWS) Scoping comments, p. 64, 83
(stating DEIS should include the 2000 planning rule as an alternative). As stated earlier in
these comments, we believe the agency’s decision not to consider the 2000 planning rule in
the No Action Alternative, or at least as another alternative in the range, is a NEPA
violation. Because the 2000 rule was not considered and because the proposed rule does not
satisfactorily address our concerns without the changes suggested in these comments, we are
unable to recommend an alternative for the agency to select on special area designations.
We still believe that using the 2000 rule’s language is the most logical way in which to
encourage administrative special designations and to ensure the agency’s ability to continue
this practice. We also believe a nomination process would help the public understand and
participate in special area designation decisions. For example, through the BLM’s
nomination process, the public has proposed areas of critical environmental concern
(ACECs) including backcountry hunting and fishing areas, important recreation and scenic
areas, and species-specific wildlife corridors in order to provide connectivity in the face of

FRD – 1132
climate change. 18 Given the proposed rule’s focus on more fully engaging the public, we
think the rule should explicitly explain the agency’s authority to make special area
designations in the rule, as well as provide a nomination process. We believe these
additions would fit within the framework and intent of the rule.
However, if the agency chooses not to revert to the explicit and unambiguous direction
of the 2000 rule or add the nomination process, the Forest Service could make a few tweaks
to the proposed rule language to make its authority to designate special areas clearer. The
first, and simplest, revision would be to merely change the definition of “designated areas”
and adjust the language at Draft Sec. 219.7 as follows:
Draft § 219.19 DEFINITIONS.
Designated areas. Areas or features within a planning unit with specific
management direction that are normally established through a process
separate from the land management planning process. Designations may be
made by statute or by an administrative process of the Federal executive
branch, including through approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan
revision. The Forest Service Directive System contains policy for
recognition and establishment of designations. Designated areas include, but
are not limited to, experimental forests, national heritage areas, national
monuments, national recreational areas, national scenic trails, research
natural areas, scenic byways, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness areas, and
wilderness study areas, critical and priority watersheds, old growth forest
reserves, inventoried roadless areas, unroaded areas, special recreation
areas, wildlife corridors, significant caves, botanical areas, and other
areas of special interest for their ecological, paleontological,
archaeological, zoological, geological, scenic, historical, or other
resources.
§ 219.7 NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT OR PLAN REVISION.
…
(c) Process for plan development or revision.
…
(2) In developing a proposed new plan or proposed plan revision, the
responsible official shall:
18 BLM Manual 1613, .41 provides for public nomination of potential ACEC’s: “The public has an opportunity to
submit nominations or recommendations for areas to be considered for ACEC designation. Such recommendations
are actively solicited at the beginning of a planning effort. However, nominations may be made at any time and
must receive a preliminary evaluation to determine if they meet the relevance and importance criteria and, therefore,
warrant further consideration in the planning process. The public should be advised that nominations should be
accompanied by descriptive materials, maps, and evidence of the relevance and importance of the resources or
hazards in order to facilitate a timely evaluation.”

FRD – 1132
(ii) Identify the presence and consider the importance of
various physical, biological, social, and cultural resources on
the unit, with respect to the requirements for plan components
of §§ 219.8 through 219.11, and consider whether to
recommend any areas for designation.
…
(d) Plan components. . . .
(1) Required plan components. Every plan must include the
following plan components:
(vi) Designated Areas. Designated areas are areas within
the National Forest System designated during land
management planning because of their unique or special
characteristics. The plan may also recognize areas
designated by statute or through a separate administrative
process in accordance with NEPA requirements (§ 219.4)
and other applicable laws.
An alternative solution would be to add a definition of “special areas” to Draft
Sec. 219.19 and add references to the phrase at Draft Sections 219.7 and 219.10, as
follows:
Draft § 219.19 DEFINITIONS.
Special areas. Areas within a planning unit identified for their unique or
special characteristics with specific management direction established in
the land management planning process. Special areas may include, but
are not limited to, critical and priority watersheds, old growth forest
reserves, inventoried roadless areas, unroaded areas, special recreation
areas, wildlife corridors, significant caves, botanical areas, and other
areas of special interest for their ecological, paleontological,
archaeological, zoological, geological, scenic, historical, or other
resources.
§ 219.7 NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT OR PLAN REVISION.
…
(c) Process for plan development or revision.
…
(2) In developing a proposed new plan or proposed plan revision, the
responsible official shall:
(vi) Identify areas with unique or special natural, cultural,
or recreational characteristics that should be managed as
special areas. [Note: This would be a new sub-section (vi).]
…
(d) Plan components. . . .

FRD – 1132
(1) Required plan components. Every plan must include the
following plan components:
(vi) Special Areas. Special areas are areas within the
National Forest System designated during land
management planning because of their unique or special
characteristics. Special areas such as botanical areas or
significant caves may be designated, by the Responsible
Official in approving a plan, plan amendment, or plan
revision. The plan may also recognize as special areas,
areas designated by statute or through a separate
administrative process in accordance with NEPA
requirements (§ 219.4) and other applicable laws.
Draft § 219.10 MULTIPLE USES.
In meeting the requirements of §§ 219.8 and 219.9, and within Forest Service
authority, the capability of the plan area and the fiscal capability of the unit,
the plan must provide for multiple uses, including ecosystem services,
outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, as follows:
. . .
(b) Requirements for plan components for a new plan or plan revision. (1)
The plan components for a new plan or plan revision must provide for:
. . .
(vi) Protection and appropriate management of other designated or
recommended areas and special areas that exist in the plan area,
including research natural areas.
Recommendation: In the final rule, the agency should include the language from the 2000
rule’s section 219.27 and establish a public nomination process for special area designations.
As a second choice, the agency should make either of the sets of specific changes to the
proposed draft rule language, as described above.
I. Plan Amendments and Administrative Corrections
The manner in which the Rule breaks a land management plan into parts: plan
components, other (required) content and optional content, is a problem when addressing the
need for amendments. The Rule makes a distinction between these parts and any
requirement for amendment and administrative correction that falls short of current
requirements. This is problematic for a number of reasons including public trust in the
collaborative process and legal compliance under NEPA.
The proposed Rule stipulates, “A plan amendment is required for the addition,
modification, or removal of one or more plan components or a change in how one or more
plan components apply to all or part of the plan area.” § 219.13(a). Under this proposed

FRD – 1132
language, a change to a management area boundary, should a forest or grassland choose to
use that identifier, would not necessarily trigger the need for a plan amendment. The
proposed Rule goes on to state, “Administrative changes. An administrative change is any
change to a plan that is not a plan amendment or plan revision. Administrative changes
include corrections of clerical errors to any part of the plan, including plan components;
changes to other content in the plan other than plan components; …” § 219.13(c). This
language makes it even more unclear when an amendment versus an administrative change
is needed.
One would hope that the requirement for amendment consistent with NEPA procedures
(in § 219.13(b)(3)) would make it less likely that land managers would choose an
administrative correction over an amendment but recent experience gives us pause. The
Monongahela National Forest recently proposed to move a management area boundary (and
hence management area acreage) from a more restrictive management area designation into
a less restrictive one allowing road construction and timber production using an
administrative correction for the reason that they had simply forgotten that they wanted it so
during the plan revision process a few years previous. They gave notice of their intent to do
this and did not include any environmental analysis of the effects of doing so. Having
participated in that revision process we remember all the discussion that took place over
where each line was drawn. These kinds of actions do nothing to engender public trust in
the agency; all the more problematic when the Forest Service wants to foster a collaborative
environment. The proposed Rule should be clarified to make administrative changes less of
the default position they now appear to be.
One other provision of the administrative changes section needs modification. The
proposed Rule stipulates that administrative changes may be made following notice under §
219.16(c)(5). What is unclear is whether “notice” is simply notification, or the start of an
opportunity for public involvement. This must be clarified.
J. Required Plan Maps
There could be one advantage to the agency’s efforts to separate land management plans
into pieces subject to different rules for amendment. In the past, the Forest Service has
argued that they wouldn’t place maps and other materials that might change in a forest or
grassland plan, because when those materials were out of date and needed replacing, an
amendment would be required. We have generally not agreed that this was a significant
barrier, but the changes proposed in the Rule and changes in technology are such that there
could no longer be any barrier.
The proposed Rule posits that administrative corrections can be made for “any change to
a plan that is not a plan amendment or plan revision. Administrative changes include
corrections of clerical errors to any part of the plan, including plan components; changes to
other content in the plan other than plan components; …” § 219.13(c). As we detail above,

FRD – 1132
we believe that management areas should be required plan components and shown on maps
in the land management plan. However, there are other map-based pieces of information
which we believe should be required in forest and grassland plans as applicable with the
proviso that these may be changed with an administrative correction as appropriate and
posted online to keep a land management plan up-to-date. Access to these maps would help
land managers keep better track of important pieces of information that affect and are
affected by project activities, as well as keep the public better informed as the agency
engages in more collaborative efforts.
The following maps should be required in forest and grassland plans as applicable:
Inventoried Roadless Areas, newly inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas
Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers and river segments
The current road system on the individual unit, including Maintenance Class 2-5 roads
The minimum road system
Fire Regime Maps (where applicable)
K. Documentation of Plans
Generally, we think the “Decision Documents and Planning Records” provisions at §
219.14 are praiseworthy, in that they will require the Forest Service to responsibly handle
documents and enable easy public access to them. In particular, we appreciate the
requirement at § 219.14(b)(1) that the responsible official make assessment reports, plan
decision documents, the proposed plan, plan revision, or plan amendment, public notices
and environmental documents associated with a plan, the monitoring program and
monitoring evaluation reports, and the plan itself “readily accessible to the public by posting
them online and through other means.” When the Forest Service keeps such documents
online, it makes the public’s ability to access them and participate in decision processes
much easier. We appreciate the agency’s recognition of that fact both in the proposed rule
and, increasingly, in agency practice.
Although the proposed rule is a good start, we think it could go further to ensure
transparency, encourage timely and meaningful public participation, and aid collaboration in
planning and decision-making processes. Specifically, the rule should make clear that the
documents listed at § 219.14(b)(1) should remain online throughout the life of the forest
plan. Further, to the extent possible, we believe that all such documents should be provided
in a searchable format. Finally, the “documents that support analytical conclusions made
and alternatives considered throughout the planning process” should also be posted online,
instead of merely being available to the public “at the office where the plan, plan revision, or
amendment was developed,” as the proposed rule currently suggests. § 219.14(b)(2). It can
be unduly burdensome for members of the public who want to participate in planning
processes and understand the underlying basis for agency choices to travel to the office in
which such documents are kept. So too, the agency should acknowledge that these are

FRD – 1132
national forests and grasslands belonging to all Americans. Those interested in a particular
NFS unit enough to want to participate in planning activities may live far away. This should
not present a barrier to participation in this day and age.
In the case of access to the planning record, the public has often been forced to submit
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the entire record. FOIA requests should
not be required to obtain the planning record at all; however, because the proposed rule
establishes a very short 30-day objection period, having to resort to the FOIA to obtain
elements of the planning record that support analytical conclusions made and alternatives
considered is especially inappropriate. The agency can rectify this problem by requiring that
such documents be made available online.
L. Public Notice
We appreciate the Forest Service’s clear explanation of the public notifications required
at various points of the planning process, but we think some of the delivery methods should
be reconsidered or expanded upon. Regarding § 219.16(a)(1), we think requiring formal
public notification when the agency is beginning to prepare an assessment for a plan, plan
revision, or plan amendment is a good idea, so that the public can engage at the earliest
possible time in the planning process. In addition, the proposed rule’s requirement that “[a]t
a minimum, all public notifications required by this part must be posted online” is also an
important requirement (§ 219.16(c)), but the agency should also require that all such notices
be placed on a uniform page for each national forest and grassland. The Forest Service
should consider creating a national webpage for notice announcements from across the
country, which each national forest and grassland would be required to use, much as the
Schedules of Proposed Action (SOPAs) are now uniformly accessible from one web page.
Beyond online notification, the agency should also make use of any email lists of interested
persons that it maintains in providing notification to the public, as many other government
agencies do.
The rule indicates that the responsible official should use “contemporary” tools to
provide notice to the public. Draft Sec. 219.16(c). We believe that the Federal Register is
an appropriate and contemporary tool for providing notice at each of the times described in
proposed sections 219.16(a) and (c). However, the rule only requires notice in the Federal
Register when the responsible official is the Chief, the Under Secretary, or the Secretary;
when the notification is for a new plan or plan revision; and when the plan, plan revision or
plan amendment applies to two or more units. § 219.16(c)(1)-(2), (4). When notice is for a
plan amendment, the proposed rule says that notice in the Federal Register will only occur if
NEPA so requires; other plan amendments need only be published in the newspaper(s) of
record. § 219.16(c)(3). We believe that Federal Register notice of plan amendments should
be mandatory, regardless of whether the individual amendment requires an EIS or merely an
EA. Publication in the newspaper of record is hardly a “contemporary” tool, as evidenced
by the dwindling number of daily newspapers published across the country and increasingly

FRD – 1132
frequent changes to the newspaper(s) of record for national forests and grasslands due to
local newspapers’ shutting their doors or publishing only weekly. Thus, the Federal
Register should be used to notify the public of all plan amendments.
We are also troubled by the decision to allow the responsible official to provide
notification in any way she “deems appropriate” for “notice of administrative changes
[including, at least under the rule as proposed, changes to priority watersheds, riparian area
widths, and management areas because these do not necessarily need to be plan
components], changes to the monitoring program, plan amendment assessments, or other
documented need for amendment, monitoring reports, or other notices not listed in
paragraph (a) of this section.” § 219.16(c)(5). Although § 219.16(c) establishes that all
public notifications must be posted online “at a minimum,” it would be helpful to the public
if the agency would also publish the notifications for the events listed in § 219.16(c)(5) in
the Federal Register or create listservs to push these notifications out to the interested public.
V. Restoration and Resiliency
17.
Ecological restoration has been an important part of national forest management for at
least two decades, despite the absence of restoration in the 1982 regulation. As Secretary
Vilsack notes (DEIS, inside cover):
“The Forest Service planning process provides an important venue to integrate forest
restoration, climate resilience, watershed protection, wildlife conservation, the need
for vibrant local economies, and the collaboration necessary to manage our national
forests. Our best opportunity to accomplish this is in the developing of a new forest
planning rule for our national forests.”
To reflect the importance of ecological restoration to national forest management, the
Purpose and Need for Action section of the EIS (DEIS, p. 7) identifies the “need for a
planning rule that protects, reconnects, and restores national forests and grasslands for the
benefit of human communities and natural resources” as its primary purpose.
In the definition section (FR, p. 8524), the Proposed Rule defines restoration as:
“The process of assisting the recovery of resilience and the capacity of a system to
adapt to change if the environment where the system exists has been degraded,
damaged, or destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on reestablishing ecosystem
functions by modifying or managing the composition, structure, arrangement, and
processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable, and
resilient under current and future conditions.”

FRD – 1132
It further defines restoration as an aspect of conservation, which is defined (FR, p. 8523)
as “The protection, preservation, management, or restoration of natural environments and
ecological communities.” Sections 219.8 and 219.9 describe the planning requirements
necessary to sustain the composition, structure, and processes of those “natural” ecosystems.
By explicitly focusing on the reestablishment of the function of natural ecosystems, the
Proposed Rule makes clear that restoration is intended to drive ecosystems in the direction
of historical composition, structure, and processes. By establishing a distinct meaning for
restoration as a means of conserving “natural environments and ecological communities,”
the Proposed Rule meets the challenge Cole and Yung (2010) and Hobbs et al. (2010) made
to be clear about the meaning of “natural.” While the Rule should make this meaning still
clearer, this definition is a significant improvement on that in Chapter 2020 of the Forest
Service Manual, which focuses only on “establishing” the conditions to make ecosystems
“sustainable, resilient, and healthy.” Both definitions refer to “recovery of resilience,”
indicating that a “damaged, degraded, or destroyed” ecosystem is one that has lost resilience
relative to historical conditions, but the new definition makes it clear that recovery of
resilience is to be through reestablishing historical ecosystem function.
M. Restoration and Resilience to Climate Change
The association of restoration with historical conditions helps clarify its meaning, but it
opens restoration to a common criticism: that the future will be so unlike the past that
historical conditions are either irrelevant to the future or set the system up for catastrophic
change. Stephenson et al. (2010) argue that instead of managing for historical conditions,
managers should seek “resilient” systems that resist a fundamental loss of character. This
kind of thinking is reflected in the Proposed Rule’s definition of restoration, in which the
objective is described as “assisting the recovery of resilience,” or “the capacity of a system
to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially
the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks.” The intent behind managing for
resilience is to manage for something other than historical conditions, a point emphasized on
page 8509 of the Federal Register notice:
“Refocusing the use of the term ‘‘restoration’’ to focus on recovery of resiliency and
ecosystem functions (instead of historical reference points) offers greater flexibility
to develop plan components (e.g., desired conditions) that provide more feasible and
adaptable direction for addressing damaged ecosystems.”
The problem is that once the historical range of variability has been abandoned as a
management goal, it is unclear what the desired future conditions should be.
In an effort to define an alternative, non-historical target of management, the Proposed
Rule describes a set of elements to emphasize when managing for resilience. Sections 219.8
and 219.9 present a “coarse filter” of ecosystem conservation combined with a “fine filter”
of species conservation. The valued elements of the coarse filter are the “structure, function,

FRD – 1132
composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and
watersheds,” especially aquatic elements (lakes, streams, etc.), terrestrial habitat types,
public water supplies, soils and soil productivity, and riparian areas. The fine filter includes
providing habitat to 1) contribute to the recovery of listed species, 2) conserve candidate
species, and 3) “contribute to the extent practicable to maintaining a viable population” of
other species of conservation concern.
Here, the definition of “health(y)” offered in the Proposed Rule is very helpful to
understanding the intent of Sections 219.8 and 219.9. Unlike outmoded, historical
definitions of health(y) that focused on the health of individual trees and the elimination of
pests, this modern definition stresses the “completeness or wholeness of the composition,
structure, and function of native ecosystems.” In other words, healthy forests are those that
retain the full complement of native species, structures, and processes of historical
ecosystems. As described on page 8492 of the FR, maintaining sustainability and diversity
is to be achieved by “[m]aintaining or restoring the ecological conditions similar to those
under which native species have evolved.” Thus, the Proposed Rule, while arguing for a
non-historical desired future condition, also successfully makes the case for historical
conditions as the target of management. The Rule establishes a need for managing for both
historical condition and novel conditions simultaneously. The only way these multiple
objectives can be achieved is to establish multiple zones, with some of the forest managed
for historical conditions, some for novel conditions, and some held in reserve as a control
and alternative to intentional management.
N. Using Management Areas for Adaptive Management
The notion of addressing the uncertainty associated with climate change by trying
different approaches in different places follows the recommendations of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007), “A portfolio of adaptation and
mitigation measures can diminish the risks associated with climate change.” Similarly,
Millar et al. (2007) conclude, “Managing in the face of uncertainty will require a portfolio of
approaches, including short-term and long-term strategies, that focus on enhancing
ecosystem resistance and resilience…as climates and environments continue to shift.” This
portfolio can be accomplished by zoning the forest to accomplish different approaches in
different places, some with an emphasis on restoration, some on transformative activities
aimed at increasing resilience, and some places we simply leave alone and observe. These
three management options encompass many of the climate adaptation strategies that have
been described in the literature. Strategies of reserve establishment, protection of old
growth and corridors, and monitoring are time-tested, successful conservation strategies that
align well with the option to accept change. Reestablishing fire and flood regimes and
reconnecting flood plains are familiar restoration actions, whereas more aggressive
activities, such as assisted migration and the establishment of “neo-native forests,” (Millar et
al. 2007) represent novel conditions created to enhance resilience. The need for a portfolio

FRD – 1132
derives from the fact that we just don’t know which of these options will best serve
adaptation. We are going to have to try them all.
The new Planning Rule can be improved to facilitate the adoption of this new approach
by explicitly requiring the designation of management zones dedicated to these three
purposes. By connecting watersheds across climate-relevant environmental gradients of
elevation and latitude within reserve, restoration, and transformation categories, planners
can create conditions to facilitate movement and range shifts in response to climate change.
Plans should start by connecting congressionally designated wilderness, which often occurs
at the highest elevations of planning areas, with lower-elevation watersheds through the
designation of research natural areas and other management areas where change is to be
observed without manipulation. Such reserves are not guaranteed to sustain all valued
elements and services of ecosystems, but they have a remarkable record of success in
protecting the integrity of ecosystems from a host of stressors (Landres 2010). Reserves
should be part of any strategy to sustain ecosystems in the face of climate change.
Similarly, parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, and other land classes that are managed
to preserve valued elements of historical ecosystems should be connected, to the maximum
extent feasible, across gradients of elevation and latitude by allocating watersheds of the
national forests and grasslands to a similar purpose. Such allocation of a “restoration zone”
would make explicit which parts of any planning unit would be dedicated to restoration of
historical conditions. This zone would be dedicated to testing the premise that “maintaining
or restoring the ecological condition similar to those under which native species have
evolved therefore offers the best assurance against losses of biological diversity” (FR, p.
8492).
The “transformation zone” would constitute the remainder of the planning unit, also set
up to maximally connect across environmental gradients. Here, the desired condition would
be less constrained to achieve historical conditions, allowing the testing of new approaches
to achieving resilience in the face of climate change. In all three of these land classes, the
requirements for sustainability and diversity described in Sections 219.8 and 219.9 would
apply; only the means of achieving them would be different.
The purpose of allocating land to these three approaches is to explicitly address the
uncertainty that attends climate change. Planning under the Proposed Rule assumes that
managers know what needs to be done to achieve sustainability and diversity, but in fact, it
is not currently clear what the best approach to sustainability should be in the face of climate
change. It may be that “[a]ccepting that the future will be different from both the past and
the present forces us to manage forests in new ways” (Millar et al. 2007). However, others
have argued that the pressure of climate change should lead to designating additional
reserves and managing the landscape to enhance migration and dispersal (Dawson et al.
2011). Between these two alternatives lies restoration, the effort to obey Leopold’s stillrelevant
“first rule of intelligent tinkering:” to keep all the parts. In the final analysis,

FRD – 1132
climate change will operate on the diversity that exists in the future. Therefore, it is
important to try a “portfolio of approaches” that will allow some areas to be managed
creatively and deliberately to promote certain ecosystem services and values, some to be
managed to conserve as much of our natural heritage as possible, and the rest to be left to
function without human interference, to monitor and learn from – and to serve as an
alternative management strategy, in case we’re wrong elsewhere.
O. Recommendations
The Planning Rule should be modified according to the following recommendations:
Clarify that restoration is concerned with the reestablishment of the composition, structure,
or processes of ecosystems in the direction of their historical range of variability.
Management that intentionally takes ecosystems in a direction away from their historical
conditions is not restoration.
18.
19.
VI.
Require the designation of management areas to 1) maintain the resilience of ecosystem
services and values, 2) restore the composition, structure, and processes of historical
ecosystems, and 3) protect untrammeled landscapes to strengthen the role of reserves in
climate adaptation.
Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities
P. Introduction
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 directs the agency to promulgate
regulations that establish the process for developing and revising land management plans
and for specifying guidelines and standards that “provide for diversity of plant and animal
communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet
overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives of a land
management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate, to the degree
practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that
existing in the region controlled by the plan.” 19 During the 35 years since the NFMA was
enacted, the threats to biological diversity have changed markedly. Old-growth logging and
road building have diminished, while the impacts of climate change and motorized
recreation have grown. Yet, the NFMA’s plant and animal diversity mandate remains as
scientifically relevant, legally important, and ethically compelling as ever.
The agency has struggled over the years with how exactly to interpret and satisfy the
mandate to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. The 1982 planning rule
19 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(b)

FRD – 1132
states that “fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of
existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.” 20 A viable
population is defined as “one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of
reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning
area.” 21 The 1982 rule further requires that “habitat must be provided to support, at least, a
minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so
that individuals can interact with others in the planning area.” 22
The 1982 rule also established a requirement to identify and monitor “management
indicator species” that “shall be selected because their population changes are believed to
indicate the effects of management activities,” 23 such as state and federal endangered and
threatened species, species with special habitat needs that may be affected by management
programs, game species, and species whose population changes indicate the effects of
management activities on other species or water quality. 24
The ultimate goal of the 1982 rule was to “preserve and enhance the diversity of plant
and animal communities, including endemic and desirable naturalized plant and animal
species, so that it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a natural forest.” 25
In several attempts to revise the forest planning rule, the agency has made major changes
to the diversity regulation in the 1982 rule, some of which would have had harmful
consequences for the protection and enhancement of species diversity. In our scoping
comments we recommended keeping many of the requirements of the 1982 rule with some
modifications to the management indicator species concept and changes to extend its scope.
While we support several components of the preferred alternative (Alternative A), we
believe that the regulations need to be improved with some important changes to the
language of the proposed rule.
Q. Components of the Preferred Alternative We Support
20. Containing a Requirement to Maintain Viable Populations of Species
The “viability” requirement under the 1982 rule is one of the most important legal
safeguards of national forest wildlife habitat and is widely regarded as the single most
important environmental standard in the NFMA regulations. The concept of population
viability is at the core of sound wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Without
20 36 CFR 219.19 [1982]
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 36 CFR 219.19(a)(1) [1982]
24 Ibid.
25 36 CFR 219.27(g) [1982]

FRD – 1132
it, extirpation or extinction of native species could result. We are pleased to see that the
preferred alternative contains a viability requirement; however, as discussed below, we have
concerns about the way in which the draft rule has changed the 1982 rule and applied the
requirement solely to species of conservation concern in the plan area.
21. Extension of Viability Requirements to All Plants and Animals
The National Forest Management Act requires the agency to provide for the diversity of
all plant and animal communities, not merely for vertebrate species and trees. Because
invertebrates, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation make up a large proportion of the diversity
of a given ecosystem and perform numerous crucial ecosystem functions, we applaud the
agency’s decision to broaden the scope of the viability provisions to address imperiled plants
and invertebrates, as well as vertebrates, within the plan area.
22. Use of Mandatory and Legally Enforceable Language
We also commend the use of legally enforceable language in Section 219.9. Because
replacing mandatory language (e.g., “must”) with discretionary language (e.g., “should”)
would have made maintaining plant and animal diversity extraordinarily difficult to achieve,
we support the strong language in the preferred alternative.
23. Replacing the “Management Indicator Species” Concept With “Focal Species”
In our scoping comments we recommended that the new rule change the criteria under
which species are selected to be assessed and monitored to achieve the goal of maintaining
or enhancing plant and animal diversity (and improving habitat for those species) in the
planning area. In the past, management indicator species were often chosen because they
are strongly associated with a particular habitat type and, therefore, were assumed to be
indicators of the effects of management decisions on a broad suite of species in that habitat.
Often, however, management indicator species were not reliable indicators of how other
species would respond to management actions. Many land management plans included
common game species like deer and turkey in their MIS lists, providing little meaningful
information about species diversity or ecosystem integrity. We support the concept of
monitoring focal species as a means of assessing the effectiveness of forest and grassland
plans to conserve biological diversity.
24. Use of the Two-Tiered “Coarse-Filter/Fine-Filter” Approach
This approach is a well-developed concept in the scientific literature. It has the
advantage of being efficient because it attempts—through the coarse filter—to maintain or
restore ecological conditions that would ensure the long-term viability of the vast majority
of plant and animal species in the plan area. The coarse-filter approach has the added
advantage of maintaining or restoring ecosystem structure, function, composition, and

FRD – 1132
connectivity—components that are integral for healthy and resilient forests and, ultimately,
are at the root of plant and animal diversity, because these are the conditions under which
species evolved. Some species will, however, fall through the cracks with this approach.
The fine filter should be able to identify those species which are most at risk from stressors
in the plan area and establish a process to assess viability and monitor population trends. In
the coarse-filter/fine-filter approach, the agency has expressed well the link between
ecosystem sustainability and species diversity.
25. Strong Protections For Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species
We support the requirement to contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered
species listed under the Endangered Species Act. We are especially pleased to see that the
agency has used its policy discretion to take proactive measures to reduce risks to candidate
species. We believe that a higher level of protection for candidate species is necessary given
the enormous backlog of warranted ESA listings that have been precluded due to insufficient
funding.
26. Incorporation of Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation in Species Viability
Definition
We applaud the inclusion of resilience and adaptation in the definition of viable
population, since climate change is becoming an increasingly serious threat to the survival
of many species in the national forest system. This is a forward-looking regulatory feature
which will help to ensure that planners factor climate change and other stressors into their
design of plan components to maintain species viability. However, we are opposed to
dropping the requirement to maintain well-distributed populations, which is essential to
long-term species viability. Resiliency and distribution are complementary—not mutually
exclusive—planning concepts and objectives; we recommend that they both be incorporated
into the definition of viable population.
R. Recommended Improvements to the Preferred Alternative
We recommend incorporating components of Alternatives A, B, and D to create a
stronger, more scientifically-valid, and efficient rule for achieving sustainability and
maintaining a diversity of plant and animal communities.
27. Explicitly State That the Plan Components Must Provide For the Maintenance
of Viable Populations, Wherever Possible, Of All Plant and Animal Species
The NFMA requires that forest and grassland plans provide for diversity of all plant and
animal communities. The preferred alternative, however, only requires that the plans

FRD – 1132
provide for the maintenance of ecological conditions to maintain viable populations of
species of conservation concern.
While we understand that viability assessments and monitoring of all plant and animal
species in the plan area is impossible, the planning rule can and should require that plan
components provide ecological conditions for maintaining viable populations of all species
where the land is inherently capable of doing so. We recommend that the planning rule be
revised to incorporate Alternative D’s requirement to provide for viability of all species.
28. Clarify the Purposes of “Focal Species” and “Species of Conservation Concern”
It is important to make the distinction that “focal species” are to be selected, monitored,
and assessed for the purpose of verifying the effectiveness of the “coarse filter” strategy of
plans to provide for species diversity. “Species of conservation concern,” on the other hand,
are chosen to provide fine-filter protection of imperiled plants and animals through projectlevel
biological analysis. They are complementary approaches to achieve the ultimate goal
of maintaining viable populations of all native species. We are disappointed that the
preferred alternative does not include mandatory monitoring of plant and animal species to
provide a coarse-filter assessment of ecological conditions that provide for species diversity.
The rule should include mandatory language for assessing species’ viability, monitoring
population trends, and determining relationships to habitat changes.
29. Provide a Mechanism to Protect Newly-Recognized Imperiled Species
We are concerned that, even with the fine-filter/coarse-filter approach, some species
could fall through the cracks and be extirpated. Focal species cannot serve as completely
reliable proxies for the viability of all other species. That is one reason why it is important
for the regulations to require the agency to provide for the maintenance of viability of all
plant and animal species in case it is discovered that a species that is not on the
“conservation concern” list is at risk.
Where new information becomes available that shows a species to be at risk, the rule
should require the agency to address the viability of that species immediately. This
requirement provides one additional safeguard without burdening the agency with
performing viability assessments or monitoring programs for an unrealistic number of
species in the plan area.
30. Provide More Specificity for How “Species of Conservation Concern” Will Be
Identified
While we agree that the Forest Service Directives should contain the details concerning
the selection of species of conservation concern (such as describing databases like
NatureServe), we recommend language in the regulation that at least gives broad direction to

FRD – 1132
inform choosing species of conservation concern. The definition of “species of conservation
concern” in § 219.19 is helpful, but more clarity and direction would be achieved if the rule
gave examples as provided in the edits below. This level of detail is consistent with the
clarifying language on management indicator species in the 1982 rule.
31. Designate the Regional Forester as the Primary Decision-Maker to Determine
“Species of Conservation Concern” and Allow the Forest Supervisor to Add
Species That Are Of Concern Locally
The planning rule should require the Forest Service to establish a scientifically rigorous,
systematic, and consistent approach to identify species of conservation concern. During the
March 10 Forest Service national planning rule forum, agency planning team member Chris
Iverson described a two-part regional/local process for selecting species of conservation
concern that we believe makes good sense. Unfortunately, the draft rule gives no hint of
that process; instead it appears to give complete authority to the local forest supervisors,
which we do not consider appropriate. To ensure consistency of method and promote
efficiency, the regional forester should determine the list of species of conservation concern
that are imperiled across the Region and would automatically be included in all forest and
grassland plans where those species exist. Forest supervisors may add species of concern
based on, for example, the potential for local management activities to affect populations or
local population trends of species that are not at risk elsewhere in the region. Having
regional foresters select species of concern is consistent with the current practice of the
Region choosing Forest Service “sensitive species.”
32. Maintain the Requirement for “Well Distributed” Populations, With
Adjustments, and Improve Other Definitions
We agree that the 1982 viability standard at times proved to be problematic because it
requires species to be “well distributed in the planning area” regardless of suitable habitat.
We recommend retaining the “well distributed” requirement with the addition of the
qualifier that it be “throughout suitable habitat” as written in our edits to the definition of
“viable population” below.
We also recommend that the definition of viability in § 219.19 be amended to include a
“high likelihood” standard over a specified time period, similar to the definition in
Alternative D. According to the Committee of Scientists report, “any statement about the
likelihood that a species will be viable under a management strategy should explicitly
incorporate probability and time.” 26
26 COS Chapter 3, p. 38

FRD – 1132
We also propose a minor change to the definition of “species of conservation concern”
from “significant” to “substantial” so as not to imply that the concern is necessarily
statistically significant.
33. Re-Word the Section on Ecosystem Diversity
As currently written, the section on ecosystem diversity requires, if read literally, that the
plan maintain or restore the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of only
healthy and resilient ecosystems. We assume that this section means to convey that in order
to ensure health and resilience, the plan must include plan components to maintain or restore
the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
and watersheds in the plan area. Please clarify if this is not the case.
What follows are edits to the Preferred Alternative. Many of the suggested changes can
be found in some form in Alternatives B and D.
S. Recommended Changes to the Preferred Alternative (Alt. A)
34. § 219.9 Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities
Within Forest Service authority and consistent with the inherent capability of the
plan area, the plan must include plan components to maintain the diversity of plant
and animal communities, as follows:
(a) Ecosystem Diversity. The plan must include plan components to maintain or restore the
structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area to a healthy and resilient condition,
consistent with § 219.8(a), to maintain the diversity of native species.
(1) For the purposes of assessing ecosystem conditions as they relate to plant
and animal diversity, the regional forester shall select focal species for which
viability assessments and population surveys must be conducted and for
which relationships to habitat changes must be determined. Forest
supervisors may add focal species that are locally appropriate.
(b) Species Conservation. The plan components must provide for the maintenance or
restoration of ecological conditions in the plan area to:
(1) Contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species;
(2) Conserve candidate species;
(3) Maintain viable populations of native plant and animal species of conservation
concern that are present within the plan area.
(i) The regional forester shall identify all species of conservation concern
in the region and state the reasons for their selection—for example,

FRD – 1132
because they are at risk, declining, rare, low-density, endemic, state
listed as threatened or endangered, sensitive to human disturbance, or
species with special habitat needs. Forest supervisors may add species
of conservation concern that are at risk locally. The plan must include,
for all species of conservation concern, standards and guidelines to
maintain viable populations of those species.
(ii)
(iii)
Biologists from State fish and wildlife agencies and other Federal
agencies shall be consulted in order to coordinate for the purposes of
maintaining and recovering viability of federally listed threatened and
endangered species, candidate species, and species of conservation
concern, including monitoring and assessing opportunities for
reintroduction of extirpated species.
Where it is beyond the authority of the Forest Service or the inherent
capability of the plan area to do so, the plan components must provide
for the maintenance or restoration of ecological conditions to contribute
to the extent practicable to maintaining a viable population of a species
within its range. When developing such plan components, the
responsible official shall coordinate to the extent practicable with other
Federal, State, tribal, and private land managers having management
authority over lands where the population exists.
(c) Diversity of tree and other plant species. The plan must include plan components to
preserve, where appropriate, and to the degree practicable, the diversity of native tree
and other native plant species similar to that existing in the plan area, as required by
NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(g(3)(B)).
35. § 219.19 Definitions
Species of conservation concern. Species other than federally listed threatened or
endangered species or candidate species, for which best available scientific information the
responsible official has determined that there is evidence demonstrating indicates
substantial significant concern about its capability to exist over the long term viability in the
plan area.
Viable population. A population of a species that continues to has a high likelihood, based
on the best available scientific information, of persisting well distributed throughout
suitable habitat in the plan area for a period of at least 50 years into the future over the long
term with sufficient distribution to and being resilient and adaptable to stressors and likely
future environments.

FRD – 1132
Focal species. A small practicable number of species selected, based on the best available
scientific information, for assessment and monitoring whose status is likely to be responsive
to changes in ecological conditions and effects of management (including, but not limited to,
federally threatened and endangered species, candidate species, and species of conservation
concern). Monitoring the status of local species is one of many ways to gauge progress
toward achieving desired conditions in the plan.
36.
37.
VII. Wilderness and Roadless Areas
38.
As discussed below, The Wilderness Society believes that the planning rule must be
strengthened by requiring forest and grassland plans to (1) accurately inventory roadless
areas (including both Inventoried Roadless Areas and unroaded areas) and fairly evaluate
them for potential wilderness designation; (2) require management of recommended
wilderness areas consistent with the Wilderness Act pending Congressional action; and (3)
provide management direction for roadless areas that complements protection provided in
the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
T. Roadless Area Inventory and Evaluation of Wilderness Potential
The Forest Service has a legal duty to inventory and evaluate roadless areas for potential
wilderness designation in the forest planning process. Under the NFMA, forest plans must
“provide for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber, watershed, wildlife,
and fish…” (16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(A), emphasis added). Courts have interpreted this
requirement as a statutory mandate to consider existing and potential wilderness areas
during the forest planning process. California v. Bergland, 483 F.Supp. 465, 478 (E.D. Cal.
1980), aff’d sub nom. California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9 th Cir. 1982). In numerous statespecific
wilderness laws passed during the 1980s following the RARE II process, Congress
specifically required the Forest Service to re-evaluate roadless areas for potential wilderness
designation when forest and grassland plans are revised. Thus, when these plans are revised,
the Forest Service must inventory and evaluate all roadless areas and, based on
consideration of best available science and informed public input, decide which areas to
recommend for Congressional wilderness designation.
We have serious concerns about the wilderness/roadless inventory and evaluation
process in the proposed rule. The proposed rule requires the Forest Service to “identify
potential wilderness areas and consider whether to recommend any such areas for wilderness
designation” whenever it revises land management plans (§ 219.7(c)(2)(iv)). The draft rule
defines “potential wilderness areas” as areas that “satisfy the definition of wilderness found
in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act,” and it specifically references the inventory criteria
contained in the Forest Service’s Wilderness Evaluation Handbook (see § 219.19, definition
of “potential wilderness”).

FRD – 1132
While we appreciate that the draft rule requires an evaluation of the wilderness potential
of certain wild lands, we are concerned that the proposed language will result in elimination
of many roadless areas from the inventory and evaluation process. First, the use and
definition of the novel term “potential wilderness areas” suggests that the Forest Service will
only inventory and evaluate a subset of roadless areas that, in the opinion of agency
planners, meet all elements of the Wilderness Act’s definition, 27 such as having “outstanding
opportunities for solitude.” Second, referring to the current Wilderness Evaluation
Handbook’s inventory criteria is problematic because the Handbook contains inappropriate
inventory and evaluation criteria that could be used to unfairly disqualify roadless areas for
wilderness consideration.
39. Roadless Areas vs. Potential Wilderness Areas
We are concerned that the proposed planning rule utilizes the term “potential wilderness
areas.” As background, in addition to the roadless area inventory and wilderness evaluation
process outlined in the 1982 Rule, more detailed criteria were set forth in the FSH, 1909.12,
Chapter 7, on wilderness evaluation. That chapter was in effect for several decades until
2007, when, as part of its overhaul of the NFMA regulations, the Bush Administration
replaced it with drastically revised criteria in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70. The 2005/2008
Bush rules and Chapter 70 replaced the decades-old, well-understood term “roadless areas”
with the confusing, limiting term “potential wilderness areas.” Chapter 70 also narrowed the
criteria for such areas, particularly in the East, and perpetuated misinterpretations of the
Wilderness Act and misunderstandings about which lands can be inventoried or
recommended. 28
The Chapter 70 change in terms caused serious confusion, given the Forest Service’s
extensive recognition and study of roadless areas and the public’s high level of interest in
27 Section 2(c) of the The Wilderness Act states: “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own
works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined
to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint
of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make
practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or
other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”
28 Although generally much better than Chapter 70, the prior Chapter 7 also contained some inappropriate factors
that should be reviewed and corrected, such as consideration of “sights and sounds” occurring outside of roadless
areas. See, e.g., Ch.7.11b(4) (Eastern inventory criteria) and Ch.7.21(5) (evaluation criteria). In addition to
reinstating the 1982 regulations for wilderness evaluation, the Forest Service should correct these problems with the
inventory and evaluation criteria by reviewing, revising, and reinstating Chapter 7.

FRD – 1132
roadless areas and their protection. The term “potential wilderness areas” also implied a
sole focus on whether to recommend wilderness designation, wrongly implying that these
areas have no independent status or value if not so recommended. Further, the change
prevented the agency from inventorying additional roadless areas (a necessary step as
discussed above) and, instead, created two classes of roadless areas – pre-2007 “inventoried
roadless areas” and post-2007 “potential wilderness areas.”
Use of the term “potential wilderness areas” in the planning rule is also problematic
legally because Congress has begun to use the same term in wilderness legislation, but with
a very different meaning. For example, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of
2009 establishes the “Roaring River Potential Wilderness Area” in the Mount Hood
National Forest. That area consists of 900 acres that will be added to the Roaring River
Wilderness Area once the Forest Service determines that conditions in the area are
compatible with the Wilderness Act. Congress has also considered designating “potential
wilderness areas” elsewhere such as the Copper Salmon area in the Siuslaw National Forest.
Recommendation: The final rule should return to the well-understood “roadless area” term
instead of “potential wilderness.”
40. Improved Roads vs. Forest Roads
We are also concerned about the draft rule’s referencing of the current Wilderness
Evaluation Handbook because of the very problematic way in which the current handbook
defines a “road” for the purposes of inventorying roadless areas. The vast majority of
roadless areas were originally inventoried on the basis of Forest Service Handbook guidance
specifying that roadless areas could not contain “improved roads maintained for travel by
standard passenger-type vehicles.” In the 2007 re-write of the Wilderness Evaluation
Handbook, the Forest Service replaced the traditional “improved roads” criterion with a
requirement that potential wilderness areas could not contain “forest roads (36 CFR 212.1)
or other permanently authorized roads” (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 71.1; see also 2007 Digest ).
The term “forest roads” is defined broadly in 36 CFR 212.1 to mean “a road …wholly or
partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forest System that the Forest Service
determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National
Forest System and the use and development of its resources.”
The effect of switching from “improved roads” to all “forest roads” will likely be to
eliminate many roadless areas from the inventory of lands under consideration for
wilderness recommendation. For example, in the Eastern national forests Congress and the
Forest Service have recognized that national forest system lands were purchased from
private ownership, where most of them were subject to some human activity, but that these
lands have high recuperative abilities. Accordingly, the Forest Service’s criteria for Eastern
roadless areas allowed a very limited amount of existing road – no more than ½ mile of
“improved road” for each 1,000 acres. FSH 1909.12, Ch. 7.11b. However, the 2007

FRD – 1132
revision of the Wilderness Evaluation Handbook changed this to count all system roads
towards the road density, regardless of actual condition or use. FSH 1909.12, Ch.71.12(5).
This very high bar will prevent the identification and protection of many outstanding,
essentially undeveloped areas, although they are on par with already inventoried roadless
areas and even with areas designated as wilderness.
Recommendation: The planning rule should not reference the Wilderness Evaluation
Handbook and instead should specify use of the traditional “improved road” inventory
criterion. The definition of “improved roads” should draw from and expand on the
traditional Chapter 7 definition. See FSH 1909.12, Ch.7.11(3). “Improved roads” should be
defined as Forest Service system roads which are (a) maintained for travel by standard
passenger-type vehicles, i.e. cars, (b) open to public passenger car travel, and (c) actually
passable by cars, based on conditions “on the ground.”
41. Sights, Sounds, and Solitude
We are also concerned that the proposed rule will perpetuate and reinforce an all-toopervasive
practice in the Forest Service of disqualifying roadless areas from wilderness
consideration and recommendation based on inappropriate criteria of external “sights and
sounds” and insufficient opportunities for solitude. This has been a longstanding problem
that was rooted in earlier versions of the Wilderness Evaluation Handbook such as in
Ch.7.11b(4) (Eastern inventory criteria) and Ch.7.21(5) (evaluation criteria).
Congress has directed the Forest Service not to consider sights and sounds, and Congress
does not itself consider them when designating wilderness. There is no mention of “sights
and sounds” in the Wilderness Act. Although the Act defines wilderness, in part, as “an area
of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence,” 16 U.S.C. §
1131(c), the legislative history of the Act and subsequent statements made in the
Congressional record by legislators involved in the Act’s passage show that Congress did
not intend agencies to consider sights and sounds from outside areas when deciding whether
to recommend them for designation. 29 Although Congress has made it clear that the “sights
and sounds” criteria should not be used, the Forest Service has continued to use it to this
day. It is time the agency put a stop to it. The new rule or revised directives should prohibit
the consideration of sights and sounds from outside areas.
Another misinterpretation of The Wilderness Act which should be addressed concerns
the Forest Service’s interpretation and application of the word “solitude” in the definition of
wilderness in the Act. The Act defines wilderness, in part, as areas which have “outstanding
opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” 16 U.S.C. §
1131(c)(2) (emphasis added). The Forest Service, however, has focused primarily on
29 See generally Doug Scott, Campaign for American Wilderness, Solitude, ‘Sights & Sounds’ and The Wilderness
Act: What Can Qualify for Designation as Wilderness? at 10-14 (April 2003).

FRD – 1132
whether candidate areas provided “solitude,” without considering recreation and other
wilderness values. In the Southern Appalachians, the agency then compounded this error by
trying to quantify opportunities for solitude using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
(ROS), deeming a 2,500-acre semi-primitive core, as defined by ROS, necessary to provide
solitude. Planners imposed this core as a requirement at the inventory stage and considered
its size and shape at the evaluation stage. Yet the ROS was not developed for this purpose,
was not part of the Chapter 7 directives on the roadless inventory and evaluations, and is not
used by Congress to evaluate proposed Wilderness areas.
The use of the ROS has led to a number of problems with roadless inventories and
evaluations in the Southern Appalachians. For example, boundaries of semi-primitive areas
as defined by ROS are pulled back ½ mile from roads, although it has never been
demonstrated that a ½ mile pullback from roads is necessary to provide solitude in the
Southern Appalachian mountains, where areas of the national forest often are secluded by
thick deciduous forests, rugged topography, and deeply incised drainages. This pullback
frequently minimized the size of roadless areas or caused them to be excluded from the
inventory altogether due to agency claims that they were now too small, irregularly shaped,
or had unmanageable boundaries.
Recommendation: The final rule should include guidance regarding the wilderness review
process to clarify that the use of external “sights and sounds” is not appropriate, that ROS
semi-primitive cores should play no role in the inventory or evaluation process, that solitude
and other subjective qualities are not considerations at the inventory stage, and that all
wilderness values should receive equal attention at the evaluation stage.
42. 1982 Rule
As a general matter, we support continued use of the roadless area/wilderness review
and evaluation process that was established by the 1982 planning rule. The issue of which
roadless areas qualify for and should be designated as wilderness has always been of great
interest to the public, and we see no reason to adopt changes that would inappropriately limit
the public’s ability to weigh in on the issue. However, we do think that the 1982 rule’s
provisions can be improved to ensure that the roadless area/wilderness evaluation process
helps to achieve the planning rule’s sustainability goals.
Recommendation: We recommend that the roadless area evaluation provisions of the 1982
Rule at 36 CFR § 219.17 should generally be incorporated into the new rule, with the
following few clarifications or improvements:
Two-step process – The new rule should make clear that the roadless area inventories
and evaluations are a two-step process: first, an identification and inventory of
roadless areas and, second, an evaluation of those roadless areas for wilderness
recommendation.

FRD – 1132
Identifying additional roadless areas – The new rule should make it clear that
planners are required to survey for, identify, and inventory any essentially roadless
areas that have not yet been inventoried.
Under the 1982 Rule and its directives, roadless inventories were conducted for plan
revisions. Although plagued by serious problems, some relatively recent inventories, such
as those in the Southern Appalachians, identified additional roadless areas beyond the
RARE II inventory or inventories for prior forest plans. These roadless areas always have
existed “on the ground” but now the Forest Service and the public have better information
(such as GIS data) with which to identify them. However, many other existing roadless
areas have not been inventoried – either because mistakes were made in previous roadless
inventories, lands have been acquired that have roadless characteristics since the last
roadless inventory, or roads have been actively or passively reclaimed back into the
landscape. Almost all inventories performed thus far in the Southern Appalachians, for
example, contained multiple legal flaws, biases, and factual errors which minimized or
excluded many areas. 30 It is essential to complete proper, comprehensive roadless
inventories before the remaining uninventoried areas are permanently lost to road-building
and other development.
In addition to the issues evaluated under the 1982 Rule (36 CFR 219.17(a)(2)),
evaluations under the new rule should consider: the values and benefits of wilderness
designation; the values and benefits foregone by not designating the area as wilderness; the
need and demand for additional wilderness designations; the area’s contribution to the
National Wilderness Preservation System, at the local, forest and regional scale, as well as at
the national scale. Furthermore, consistent with the Forest Service’s emphasis on ecological
restoration, the 2011 planning rule should require evaluation of the wilderness restoration
potential of roadless areas with old roads and other evidence of past management and nonwilderness
uses, rather than simply disqualifying such areas from wilderness consideration.
Additionally, the new rule must require that evaluations include site-specific analysis of the
environmental effects on the roadless area of not recommending the area for wilderness
designation, mitigation measures to avoid or minimize the loss of wilderness characteristics
in the area, and an adequate range of alternatives for wilderness recommendation, as
required by NEPA. See California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 763-69 (9th Cir. 1982).
U. Management of Recommended Wilderness
A required element of forest planning is the evaluation of roadless lands to identify areas
that qualify and should be recommended for wilderness designation. These lands include
some of the most pristine, wild, and natural places beyond those already designated as
30 Many of these problems were documented by former USFS Deputy Chief Jim Furnish in his report Eastern
Roadless Areas Under Threat: How the U.S. Forest Service Minimizes Roadless Areas With Biased Procedures, A
Report by the Heritage Forests Campaign, available at www.ourforests.org/fact/furnish_report.pdf (2004).

FRD – 1132
Wilderness in the National Forest System. By definition, they meet the criteria for
Wilderness as set forth in the Wilderness Act – i.e., generally appear to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable;
have outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;
have at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its
preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and may also contain ecological,
geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. 31
In managing areas recommended for Wilderness, the Forest Service currently relies on
policy articulated in the Forest Service Manual, which directs that forest management does
not result in the reduction of wilderness potential or compromise wilderness values. We
contend that this current policy is not adequate to prevent degradation of wilderness values
and character, and is leading to reduced potential for future designation. A major reason for
this is that forest managers are allowing wilderness incompatible uses, specifically
motorized and mechanized travel. We present evidence of the policy’s failure in the
following subsections.
The planning rule is the appropriate place to provide clear direction regarding the
management of recommended wilderness areas. These last remaining unprotected places
are part of this nation’s wilderness legacy, and, as such, merit effective regulatory
protection. The final planning rule should contain language that ensures the protection of
the wilderness character and values of areas recommended for wilderness designation,
including explicitly disallowing wilderness incompatible uses, including but not limited to
motorized and mechanized travel.
Current policy is failing to adequately protect wilderness character and values because it
allows wilderness incompatible uses.
The 1982 planning rule did not include direction on how to manage areas recommended
for wilderness designation. Instead, the Forest Service has relied on policy established in
the Forest Service Manual that says:
“Any inventoried roadless area recommended for wilderness or designated
wilderness study is not available for any use or activity that may reduce the
wilderness potential of the area. Activities currently permitted may continue
pending designation, if the activities do not compromise the wilderness values of the
area.” 32
This policy has failed to prevent impairment of wilderness values and character, and has,
counter to its intention, resulted in a reduction in potential for designation. This failure is
31 16 U.S.C. §1131(c)
32 FSM 1923.03.

FRD – 1132
well-documented in a report recently published by The Idaho Conservation League (ICL)
entitled, “In Need of Protection.” The authors document the on-the-ground conditions
resulting from the application of two different approaches to managing recommended
wilderness: Forest Service Region 1, which includes the national forests in northern Idaho,
generally disallows motorized travel in areas recommended for wilderness, and Region 4,
which includes the national forests in southern Idaho, generally allows motorized travel.
The report concludes that wilderness character is being degraded considerably more in
Region 4 forests than in Region 1 forests from motorized use, and calls for a national
management policy that disallows wilderness incompatible uses in recommended wilderness
areas. The report is included in Appendix B of these comments.
The Forest Service’s own observations on the Clearwater National Forest affirm the
conclusions found in the ICL report. Staff on the Clearwater National Forest recently
reevaluated the wilderness character of areas recommended for wilderness in 1978 and
found that the wilderness character of half of the areas was degraded in the intervening
years, simply by the continued and expanded use of motorized and mechanized vehicles. 33
The wilderness characteristics of numerous Forest Service agency-recommended wilderness
areas are no doubt suffering similar declines, which the agency itself acknowledges. 34
Region One notes that:
“In some areas, uses have changed or certain types of use have increased
significantly, possibly degrading wilderness characteristics. In most cases, use has
not been monitored closely enough, if at all, to make a call on how use has changed
over the years.”
Our observations and experience also affirm the findings in the ICL report. In numerous
places, we have observed that continued and expanding motorized and mechanized vehicle
use compromises wilderness character and values by the means discussed below.
43. Diminishing Opportunities for Solitude
As vehicle use increases and vehicle technologies evolve, opportunities for solitude
decline. Stronger vehicles are able to push farther and farther into undeveloped areas. A
greater number of vehicles makes it more difficult for those seeking solitude to find it, as the
noise, smell, and presence of machines is hugely disrupting.
The Clearwater National Forest in Idaho recently observed in its draft travel
management plan:
33 Clearwater National Forest, Travel Planning Draft Environmental Impact Statement. p. 3-81-82.
34 Consistency in Land and Resource Management Plans, USDA FS Region One, 8/25/2008

FRD – 1132
“As motorized technology continues to be developed levels of access into remote,
back-country locations will rise and with this increased use will come additional
noise and disturbance which adversely affects attributes of wilderness character.” 35
In a letter submitted to Chief Tidwell in March 2010 on the issue of recommended
wilderness area management, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Federation of Fly Fishers,
Izaak Walton League of America, National Wildlife Federation, and Trout Unlimited echo
this concern:
“An increase in mechanized and motorized use would degrade not only the
backcountry experience, but also big game habitat security and water quality.
Sportsmen can not afford to lose more of our prized primitive hunting and fishing
areas.
In recent decades, the number of off-highway vehicles has skyrocketed on our
national forests. Likewise, the power of these machines and their ability to conquer
rugged terrain has also grown exponentially. Conversely, the amount of wild, quiet
and undisturbed habitat available to the everyday hunter/angler has declined as a
direct result. The scientific record is clear: when habitat suffers, the opportunity to
hunt and fish declines as well.”
We have attached this letter in Appendix B.
44. Degrading an Area’s Naturalness and Undeveloped Character
Motorized and mechanized vehicles cause an array of impacts on natural systems.
Motorized vehicles, which make loud noises, stress wildlife by startling species and
impacting opportunities for roosting, foraging, and nesting. They directly damage habitat by
fragmenting it and serving as a vector for invasive species that alter habitat composition,
structure, and function. Motorized vehicles degrade water quality by causing increased
sedimentation and erosion, and through direct and indirect deposits of pollutants. Each of
these impacts degrades an area’s naturalness. These impacts are well documented in a
petition that was submitted by Wildlands CPR, The Wilderness Society, and over 100
additional organizations in 1999 requesting improved management of off-road vehicles. 36
The petition is attached in Appendix B.
Routes maintained for motorized and mechanized vehicles often require more expansive
maintenance than those maintained for foot and horse travel. Brush clearing utilizing
motorized equipment, and hardened water crossings are but a few of the impacts often
35 Clearwater National Forest, Travel Planning Draft Environmental Impact Statement, p. 3-83.
36 Petition to Enhance and Expand Regulations Governing the Administration of Recreational Off-Road Use on
National Forests. Submitted by Wildlands CPR, The Wilderness Society, et al. December 1999.

FRD – 1132
associated with motorized and mechanized vehicle routes. These modifications diminish an
area’s undeveloped character and instead show forms of human presence and use. For an
example, see Appendix B for a photograph of a user-created route in the recommended
South Kalmiopsis Wilderness addition in the Rogue River-Sisikiyou National Forest in
Oregon. The Forest Service is proposing to designate this user-created route as a motorized
trail in the forest’s current travel planning process. Also attached in Appendix B are several
photographs of damaging user-created routes in the Borah Peak Recommended Wilderness
Area on the Salmon-Challis National Forest where the forest recently designated nine of
these user-created routes as motorized trails. Lastly, we have attached an aerial photograph
of an officially sanctioned snowmobile area taken over the Great Burn Recommended
Wilderness Area in the Clearwater National Forest located on the Montana-Idaho border.
While dirtbikes, ATVs, and other ORVs for summer use can degrade an area’s naturalness
and undeveloped character, snowmobiles and other over-snow machines can as well. These
photographs of ATV and dirtbike routes unequivocally document diminished undeveloped
character and naturalness in recommended wilderness areas.
45. Diminishing Opportunities for Primitive Recreation
Opportunities for hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, horseback riding, and cross-country
skiing are diminished by the presence of motorized and mechanized vehicles. Vehicles can
scare wildlife, leading to degraded hunting opportunities. Trail conflicts between
motorized/mechanized vehicles and hikers, horseback riders, and skiers degrade the
primitive recreation experience. Engine noise stemming from motorized vehicles
propagates widely across the landscape, which can disrupt and even spoil the primitive,
backcountry experience sought by many non-motorized users.
Primitive recreation has been defined as “travel by nonmotorized and nonmechanical
means (such as horse, foot, canoe) that reinforce the connection to our ancestors and our
American heritage.” 37 As the agency notes in its wilderness character monitoring protocol,
“the use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport affects the opportunity for visitors
to experience natural quiet and primitive recreation…” 38 The agency’s own guidance for
maximizing opportunities for primitive recreation emphasize “Minimizing the sounds and
sights of motorized equipment and mechanical transport.” 39 Further, Executive Order 11644
and the Travel Management Rule of 2005 require the Forest Service to minimize userconflicts
(36 C.F.R. § 212.55(b)).
In the White Clouds Recommended Wilderness Area on the Sawtooth National Forest in
Idaho, designation of motorized trails has led to conflict between recreational users.
37 Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: A National Framework; USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-151; April, 2005; at 17.
38 Id.
39 Id. at 18.

FRD – 1132
Attached in Appendix B are photographs of a dead-end motorcycle trail leading to illegal
use of a connected non-motorized trail, a trailhead registry in the Sawtooth National
Recreation Area that shows just one example of a disgruntled recreationist because
dirtbikers were not following the rules in the backcountry, and several photographs of ORVrelated
damage. This series of photographs all document several separate examples of userconflict
in just one recommended wilderness area. In fact, Sawtooth Forest staff found that
“[i]llegal off-trail use by motorized vehicles in some areas has resulted in landscape
scarring, impacts on other users, impacts to vegetation, flow channeling, and increased
erosion.” (Sawtooth LRMP, Page III-106). Forest staff also found that “[m]otorized access
to campsites affects user experience due to increased noise, impacts to vegetation, erosion,
flow channeling, and soil compaction, and the overall loss of visual quality.” (Sawtooth NF
LRMP, Page III-130). Even after acknowledging that designated motorized trails in the
backcountry strains the Forest Service’s enforcement capabilities and facilitates the
unauthorized creation of user-created routes and the illegal use of ORVs on non-motorized
trails, the Forest Service still has not adequately managed the White Clouds Area to prevent
recreation conflict.
46. Developing a Constituency for Continued Motorized Access
Allowing motorized and mechanized vehicle use in recommended wilderness develops a
constituency for the continuation of that use. This constituency becomes stronger and with a
greater sense of entitlement the longer the use is allowed. This creates unnecessary conflicts
which agency staff must spend time trying to manage, lessening the time available for other
important work. It also contradicts agency direction to minimize conflicts, specifically:
“In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in designating National
Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System lands, the responsible
official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing:
…(3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses
of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands.” 40
In addition, the establishment of a motorized or mechanized constituency can also result
in outright reduction of the wilderness potential of an area by creating or heightening
political barriers to designation. For instance, the mere presence of the use has resulted in
areas no longer being seriously considered for designation, in itself a de facto reduction.
This phenomenon was articulated by the Clearwater National Forest:
“The increase in vehicle capability, numbers, and local use, puts areas of
recommended wilderness at far greater risk of degradation and loss of wilderness
character than they were when the Forest Plan was written. In addition, other areas
40 36 CFR 212.55(b)

FRD – 1132
recommended for wilderness have not received serious consideration for designation
once motorized use has become established.” 41
A recent example of this was the proposed additions to the Hoover Wilderness in
California. Despite a long-standing recommendation for wilderness designation, the Forest
Service continued to allow winter motorized recreation throughout much of the area. As a
result, Congress designated only a portion of the area for wilderness, while designating
another portion a winter recreation area, which is primarily for motorized vehicle use. 42 The
agency’s management of its recommended wilderness directly undermined its own
recommendations and reduced the potential for wilderness designation. Attached in
Appendix B is a 2006 photograph of the Hoover Wilderness Addition on the Bridgeport
Ranger District back when it was originally proposed for addition but later left out of the
Wilderness bill that eventually passed Congress. Rather, those portions where the Forest
Service allowed snowmobile use inside recommended wilderness were designated as a
winter recreation area, which is intended for use primarily for winter motorized vehicle
recreation. The agency’s management of its recommended wilderness directly reduced the
potential for wilderness designation.
47. Current Policy Direction is Leading to Inconsistency and Confusion
There is a lack of consistency among regions regarding how the current Manual
direction is being interpreted and implemented, leading to broad differences and internal
contradictions in management approaches. As Region 1 has noted, some recommended
wilderness areas are “managed by more than one unit and the units have different
management approaches, particularly for motorized recreation. This results in public
confusion and can result in encroachments of illegal activities on to the adjacent forest.” 43
The Idaho Conservation League in its aforementioned report provides evidence to support
this statement. Specifically, the authors document the differences in on-the-ground
management and conditions resulting from different approaches to managing recommended
wilderness in various Idaho forests; wilderness character is more at risk in forests where
motorized use is allowed in recommended wilderness areas.
In 2009, we researched the management approaches for recommended wilderness areas
by Forest Service region. We discovered that about one half of the regions have issued
internal instructions to their forests regarding the management of recommended wilderness,
much of which conflicts. At least one region has provided instruction to eliminate
motorized or mechanized use. Another has provided instruction not to eliminate such use.
A summary of the regional approaches is included in Appendix B.
41 Clearwater NF Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pages 3-83 and 84.
42 See PL 111-11, section 1806.
43 Consistency in Land and Resource Management Plans, U.S.F.S. Region One, 8/25/2008.

FRD – 1132
48. The DEIS Does Not Include an Adequate Range of Alternatives Relative to the
Management of Recommended Wilderness Areas
Alternatives A, C, D, and E proscribe identical treatment for the management of
recommended wilderness areas. All include plan direction that says:
“The plan components for a new plan or plan revision must provide for…Protection
of wilderness areas as well as the protection of recommended wilderness areas to
protect the ecologic and social values and character for which they might be added to
the National Wilderness System.”
Alternative B, the No Action alternative, does not address the issue, which in practice
means that the Forest Service Manual provides the guiding direction. The Forest Service
Manual, as noted above, provides similar direction to that in Alternatives A, C, D, and E.
No alternative offers stronger protection for the mangement of recommended wilderness,
namely language that disallows non-wilderness uses and thereby assures protection of
wilderness characters and values, and non-impairment of potential designation. Hence, the
range of alternatives is not adequate and needs to be corrected.
49. The DEIS Fails to Take a Hard Look at the Potential Impacts to Wilderness
Character and Values
The DEIS does not provide any information about recommended wilderness areas in the
Affected Environment section, and does not provide an analysis of the impacts to these areas
under each alternative. The DEIS does describe the benefits of wilderness areas, stating:
“Wilderness areas are expected to continue to provide stable watershed conditions
and high quality aquatic and hydrologic services. Currently on NFS lands there are
439 wilderness areas totaling 36.2 million acres. Over the past 10 years, there was
an 8 percent increase in number of wilderness areas (36) and a 2 percent increase in
area (927,575 acres) on NFS land. Ecological processes in wilderness areas are
driven by natural disturbance regimes, under which ecosystems retain resilience.
Under all alternatives, wilderness areas would continue to serve as anchor points for
sustained flow of ecosystem services, including clean water and high quality aquatic
and terrestrial habitats.”
DEIS, pg. 81
Despite recognizing the benefits of wilderness, the DEIS then fails to analyze the
impacts of current and proposed management on the wilderness character and values of
areas recommended for wilderness designation.

FRD – 1132
50. The Proposed Rule Language is Not Adequate to Assure Non-Degradation of
Wilderness Character and Values in Recommended Wilderness Areas
The proposed rule addresses the management of recommended wilderness areas in §
219.10(b)(1)(iv):
“The plan components for a new plan or plan revision must provide for…Protection
of wilderness areas as well as the protection of recommended wilderness areas to
protect the ecologic and social values and character for which they might be added to
the National Wilderness System.”
76 FR at 8519.
In explaining this provision, the agency notes in the preamble that:
“Some members of the public wanted the rule to include additional restrictions on
uses within recommended wilderness areas and for eligible or suitable wild and
scenic rivers. The Agency believes the requirement in the proposed rule meets the
Agency’s intent to ensure, in the case of recommended wilderness, that the types and
levels of use allowed would maintain wilderness character and would not preclude
future designation as wilderness.”
74 FR at 8496.
We support the inclusion of the requirements at 219.10(b)(1)(iv) to protect wilderness
values and character, however we are deeply concerned, despite the agency’s statement in
the preamble otherwise, that the language is not strong enough to prevent the degradation of
wilderness values and character and a reduction in the potential for designation. First, the
language does not explicitly disallow non-compatible uses from recommended areas, even
though there is clear evidence that these uses are in fact compromising wilderness character
and values, and reducing the potential for designation. Second, there is no rational reason to
conclude that the variety of interpretations and lack of clarity that occurs under the current
policy and that, as we have demonstrated, leads to reduced potential for designation will not
continue to occur under the proposed language. Therefore, in order to ensure adequate
protection of wilderness character and values, the Forest Service must explicitly disallow
wilderness incompatible uses, including but not limited to motorized and mechanized travel,
in recommended wilderness areas.
51. Recommended Changes to Proposed Rule Language Relative to the
Management of Recommended Wilderness Areas
Based on the evidence presented above, we believe that additional clarity is needed to
ensure that the wilderness character and values of recommended wilderness are not

FRD – 1132
degraded, and the potential for designation is not reduced. We ask that the rule be modified
to establish a uniform approach that makes clear that recommended wilderness areas are to
be managed solely for wilderness compatible uses and that land management plans must
disallow both summer and winter motorized and mechanized vehicles in recommended
wilderness.
Recommendation: Include the following underlined language to the proposed rule:
§ 219.10 Multiple uses.
In meeting the requirements of §§ 219.8 and 219.9, and within Forest Service
authority, the capability of the plan area and the fiscal capability of the unit, the plan
must provide for multiple uses, including ecosystem services, outdoor recreation,
range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness as follows….
(b) Requirements for plan components for a new plan or plan revision. (1) The plan
components for a new plan or plan revision must provide for…Protection of
wilderness areas as well as the protection of recommended wilderness areas to
protect the ecologic and social values and character for which they might be added to
the National Wilderness System. The plan shall include a standard that disallows
wilderness incompatible uses such as motorized and mechanized vehicle riding...”
In conclusion, clarification on managing recommended wilderness such that uses not
compatible with wilderness are disallowed is essential to preserving the wilderness character
of recommended wilderness areas, preventing the degradation of wilderness character,
ensuring consistency among forests and regions, and minimizing public confusion.
V. Recognition and Management of Roadless Areas
Aside from requiring evaluation of potential wilderness, the draft rule is entirely silent
about the issue of roadless area management. In fact, the term “roadless area” is entirely
absent from the draft rule. Similarly, the DEIS mentions roadless areas only twice in the
main text, relegating the topic to an appendix of the DEIS that summarizes the legal status of
the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as of February 2, 2011 but provides no indication
whether or how the Forest Service will address roadless area management in the forest
planning process (DEIS, App. I).
In the Overview of the National Forest System, the DEIS notes that the Forest Service
has “identified approximately 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas through
various reviews, land management planning, and other large-scale assessments” (DEIS, p.
2). An accompanying pie chart indicates that roadless areas comprise 31 percent of all lands
in the National Forest System.

FRD – 1132
The DEIS makes no further mention of roadless areas until near the end of the document
in the Cumulative Effects section. There, the DEIS simply states that the Forest Service has
considered the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, as well as related policies such as the
Idaho Roadless Rule and Colorado Roadless Petition, and has concluded that the planning
rule and the roadless policies have “independent effects” and therefore are not cumulative.
The DEIS adds that all the planning rule alternatives “would give the responsible official
discretion to select management direction for inventoried roadless areas and would not
affect the ability to comply with constraints of any existing or future roadless rule or statute”
(DEIS, pg. 193).
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule provides a critically important baseline of
protection for the 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas, specifically prohibiting
road construction and logging with certain exceptions. However, road construction and
logging are certainly not the only environmental threats and management issues facing
roadless areas. The Roadless Rule appropriately focused on road building and logging
because – from a national perspective -- they posed the greatest threats to roadless area
values. But other, more localized uses and extractive activities, such as hard rock mining
and motorized recreation by off-road vehicles, also need to be evaluated and regulated
through forest planning in order to protect roadless area values and characteristics.
The Forest Planning Rule should specifically recognize the existence and importance of
roadless areas and provide overall management direction for them that complements the
specific protection provided by the Roadless Rule. Accordingly, the Planning Rule should
complement the Roadless Rule by specifying in Sec. 219.11(a)(1)(iii) that roadless areas are
categorically not suited for timber production. In addition, the Rule should provide general
direction for roadless area management by adding roadless areas to the list of “ecosystem
elements” in Sec. 219.8(a)(2) for which plans must include plan components to maintain,
protect, or restore.
Presently the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is in effect nationwide, except in
the state of Idaho, see California ex rel. Lockyer v. USDA, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009),
and the Obama Administration is defending the rule in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Until the Rule is firmly established, the planning rule should require planners to consider
roadless areas not recommended for wilderness designation for management prescriptions
that protect their roadless status and characteristics.
52. Unroaded Areas
We recommend that the new planning rule basically retain the provisions of the 2000
planning rule requiring the Forest Service to identify, evaluate, and protect “unroaded
areas.” The 2000 rule includes the following direction in 36 CFR Sec. 219.8(b)(8):

FRD – 1132
“Identify and evaluate inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas based on the
information, analyses, and requirements in § 219.20(a) and § 219.21(a). During the
plan revision process or at other times as deemed appropriate, the responsible official
must determine which inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas warrant
additional protection and the level of protection to be afforded.”
The 2000 rule defines “unroaded area” as “any area, without the presence of a classified
road, of a size and configuration sufficient to protect the inherent characteristics associated
with its roadless condition. Unroaded areas do not overlap with inventoried roadless areas”
(36 CFR 219.36).
We believe that the new planning rule should provide a similar level of attention and
protection to unroaded areas, but the provisions of the 2000 rule should be strengthened in
several respects. First, we recommend that unroaded areas should be defined as “any area
greater than 1,000 acres without the presence of an improved road, with a configuration
sufficient to protect the inherent characteristics associated with its roadless character.”
Second, the planning rule should require that all unroaded areas, as well as other roadless
areas, must be evaluated for potential wilderness designation. Evaluating the wilderness
potential of roadless areas smaller than 5,000 acres is consistent with the Wilderness Act,
which defines a wilderness area as having “at least five thousand acres of land or is of
sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.”
(16 USC 1132(c) (emphasis added). Third, rather than giving the local forest and grassland
supervisor complete discretion to determine whether and how to protect unroaded areas, the
new planning rule should specifically require forest plans to “maintain, protect, or restore”
unroaded areas as a key ecosystem element under § 219.8(a)(2) and to designate them as not
suited for timber production under § 219.11(a)(1)(iii).
Recommendations:
In § 219.7(c)(2)(iv), replace the term “potential wilderness” with “roadless areas.”
In Sustainability § 219.8(a)(2), add “(vi) roadless areas” to the list of ecosystem elements
which the forest plan would be required to maintain, protect, or restore.
In Timber Requirements § 219.11(a)(1)(iii), add “including roadless areas” to the category
of lands in which timber production would not be compatible with the achievement of
desired conditions and objectives (and therefore would be classified as not suited for timber
production).
In Definitions § 219.19, define “roadless areas” as (1) all 58.5 million acres of Inventoried
Roadless Areas that were identified in the final EIS for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule
and (2) all unroaded areas that are identified through the forest planning process or other
administrative process with public involvement.

FRD – 1132
Modify the definition of “unroaded areas” in 36 CFR 219.36 to include all lands in addition
to Inventoried Roadless Areas that contain at least 1,000 contiguous acres of land without
improved roads maintained for standard passenger vehicle use, except that in eastern
national forests there may be up to ½ mile of such roads per 1,000 acres.
VIII. Timber Requirements
53.
The timber requirements outlined in Section 219.11 are perhaps the most divergent and
critically flawed components to the proposed planning rule. There has been a tremendous
accumulation of scientific evidence over the last couple decades illustrating that many
species and ecosystem services are supported by later stages of forest succession. Given
Section 219.3 (Role of Science in Planning), the need to manage for multiple uses and
ecosystem services, and the modern focus on ecological sustainability and restoration, the
draft planning rule should clearly raise the threshold for allowance of timber harvest and
focus management on restoration and conservation. Unfortunately, Section 219.11 allows
for greater timber production and harvest on all lands and does a poor job of incorporating
modern ecosystem management principles.
In crafting the draft rule, the Agency’s goal was “to create a planning framework that
would guide management of National Forest System (NFS) lands so they are ecologically
sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability” 44 . The three-legged stool
of ecological, social, and economic sustainability is an admirable goal for the agency, but
must be predicated on a hierarchical order. That is, ecological sustainability is a prerequisite
for social and economic sustainability and the agency must explicitly recognize this and
manage accordingly. In places, this hierarchical order is recognized in the draft planning
rule: “The overriding objective of the Forest Service's forest management program is to
ensure that the National Forest System is managed in an ecologically sustainable manner”
(DEIS, pg. 146). In other places, the draft rule suggests that ecological sustainability is in
conflict with existing mandates 45 . Unfortunately, the timber requirements section of the
draft planning rule does not embrace this hierarchical approach and needlessly promotes
timber harvest as a ubiquitous management tool that will help achieve ecological, social, and
economic sustainability. This ill-advised approach gives guidance for agency managers that
44 U.S. Forest Service Summary of the Proposed Planning Rule, Feb. 10 th , 2011, p.1.
45 Citing the NFMA Planning Rule Review’s finding (DEIS, p. 27) that having economic and social sustainability as
a secondary focus to ecological sustainability would contravene multiple use and sustained yield principles is
inaccurate. Ecological sustainability is not in conflict with multiple uses and sustained yield; it is inherent to these
goals.

FRD – 1132
is anachronistic and in direct conflict with the goal of promoting “healthy, resilient, diverse
and productive national forests and grasslands.”
Developing rules that limit overall ecological degradation from timber extraction and
that are in line with the NFMA, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA), and other
legal requirements is necessary and was more straight forward in 1982. Almost three
decades later, our understanding of the importance of restoring and maintaining natural
structure, function, and processes has progressed substantially. While it is a challenging
task to blend this modern knowledge with aging legal requirements, the agency must do a
better job than offered with the proposed planning rule.
The NFMA has timber requirements that must be included in a planning rule.
Specifically, a fundamental timber requirement from the NFMA is the identification of lands
not suitable for timber production (16 U.S.C. 1604 (k)). Other timber requirements from the
NFMA are more prescriptive in nature, restricting where and how timber harvest can be
conducted. While the draft planning rule includes the listed NFMA timber requirements, it
has incorrectly expanded and interpreted these base requirements by: 1) falsely stating that
the NFMA requires the identification of lands suitable for timber production (the NFMA
only requires identification of land not suited for timber production); 2) stating that all lands
not identified as not suitable are therefore suitable; and 3) stating that all lands identified as
not suitable are available for timber harvest for other purposes.
The following sections provide information on why these new interpretations of the
NFMA timber requirements are extremely problematic, along with recommendations for
crafting a stronger planning rule that includes the NFMA requirements but also incorporates
ecological sustainability and modern management information. Additionally, we address a
number of areas where the draft planning rule should incorporate much stronger
sustainability guidelines. Finally, we have discussed this topic at some length with agency
staff and include as Appendix A, our letter of October 1, 2010 to the Chief of the Forest
Service.
W. Legal Issues with Timber Requirements Incorporated in the Draft Rule
Some of the problems with the proposed rule’s section on timber suitability stem from
faulty interpretation of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and would needlessly
conflict with the planning rule’s overall emphasis on ecological restoration and
sustainability. Failure to correct these problems would likely result in excessively large
amounts of national forest lands being classified as suitable for timber production and would
shift the overall focus of the planning rule from forest restoration to timber production.

FRD – 1132
54. Identification of Unsuitable Timberlands Is Required, Not Optional, Under
NFMA
The draft rule plainly violates Section 6(k) of the NFMA by suggesting that the
identification of lands as not suited for timber production is optional. The draft rule states
that forest plans “may” determine that certain lands are not suitable for timber production
(Draft Sec. 219.11(a)(1)). However, Section 6(k) of NFMA states that forest plans “shall”
identify lands which are not suited for timber production (16 USC 1604(k)). This provision
is also inconsistent with a prior section of the draft rule which correctly states that “every
plan must identify those lands not suitable for timber production” (Draft Sec. 219.7(d)(1)(v))
(emphasis added).
Recommendation: § 219.11(a)(1) Clarify that the identification of lands that are not suited
for timber production is mandatory, not optional, by changing the word “may” to “shall” or
“must” in the first sentence of this section.
55. Default Assumption That Forest Lands Are Suitable for Timber Production Is
Inconsistent with NFMA
A major flaw of the draft rule is its categorical statement that “All lands not identified in
the plan as not suitable for timber production are suited for timber production” (Section
219.11(a)(2)). In other words, the draft rule creates a default assumption that all national
forest system lands are suitable for timber production unless they are determined unsuitable.
Similarly, the DEIS states in at least two places (pgs. 20 and 32) that the NFMA requires the
identification of lands suitable for timber production. However, Section 6(k) of the NFMA
only requires plans to identify lands that are “not suited for timber production” (16 U.S.C.
1604(k)); it does not require or assume that all other lands must be considered suitable for
timber production.
Congress addressed the suitability issue in two parts of the NFMA in addition to Section
6(k). In both instances, Congress chose to focus the forest planning process more broadly
on “suitability for resource management,” rather than specifically on timber production. In
Section 6(g)(2)(A), the Act states, “The regulations shall include, but not be limited to …
specifying guidelines which … require the identification of the suitability of lands for
resource management” (16 USC 1604(g)(2)(A), emphasis added). Similarly, Section
6(e)(2) requires that forest plans “determine forest management systems, harvesting levels,
and procedures in the light of all of the uses set forth in subsection (c)(1), the definition of
the terms of ‘multiple use’ and ‘sustained yield’ as provided in the Multiple Use – Sustained
Yield Act of 1960, and the availability of lands and their suitability for resource
management” (16 USC 1604(e)(2), emphasis added). Nowhere does the Act require or

FRD – 1132
imply that the Forest Service must consider all lands as suitable for timber production unless
they are specifically identified as unsuitable.
In fact, the legislative history of NFMA indicates that Congress purposely chose to use
the more general term “resource management,” rather than the more specific “timber
production” in crafting the requirement for suitability determinations. The Senate version of
the NFMA specifically required that the forest planning regulations must “provide that the
allowable harvests on National Forest System lands shall be based only on lands available
and suitable for timber production….” (S. 3091, Sec. 5(d)(6)(H)(ii), emphasis added). 46
However, during the conference committee, Congress decided not to include this provision
of the Senate bill, opting instead for the House bill’s broader “resource management”
language that was enacted as Section 6(e)(2) of the NFMA, quoted above. 47
Furthermore, the draft rule’s erroneous assumption in Section 219.11(a)(2) is
inconsistent with other provisions of the draft rule. In particular, the section of the draft rule
on suitability correctly states, “Suitability does not need to be determined for every multiple
use or activity, but every plan must identify those lands not suitable for timber production”
(§ 219.7(d)(1)(v)). The planning rule need not – and should not – impose a requirement to
designate lands as suitable for timber production.
Recommendation: Eliminate the assumption that “all lands not identified in the plan as not
suitable for timber production are suited for timber production.” Instead, include language
clarifying that lands not identified in the plan as not suitable for timber production may be
identified as suitable for various forms of resource management, including but not limited to
timber production.
56. Inappropriate Interpretation of the MUSYA and the NFMA: “Without
Impairment of the Productivity of the Land”
The draft rule has reinterpreted both the NFMA and the MUSYA in ways that: 1)
undermine aspects of both statutes; 2) would result in lands that should be identified as
unsuitable not being so identified; and 3) would result in harvest (and other resource
management activities) taking place on all lands that could, and likely would, result in
impairment of the productivity of the land. In this and the next section we explain why we
believe this to be the case.
46 Reprinted in U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Compilation of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Committee Print, p. 506, 96 th Cong., 1 st Sess., August 20, 1979
(hereinafter cited as RPA Compilation).
47 See S. Rep. 94-1335 (NFMA conference committee report), p. 27, reprinted in RPA Compilation, p. 755
(explaining that some provisions of the Senate bill were adopted, but not subsection (H)).

FRD – 1132
The distinction between suitable and unsuitable lands (or to be more technically correct
– between unsuitable and not-unsuitable lands) is there for a reason, and blurring those lines
could very well lead to the same kinds of problems that necessitated the NFMA in the first
place. The MUSYA requires that there not be “impairment of the productivity of the land”:
“Multiple use” means: The management of all the various renewable surface
resources of the national forests… ; and harmonious and coordinated management of
the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of
the land…”
MUSYA, 16 U.S.C 531, Sec. 4(a) (emphasis added)
“’Sustained yield of the several products and services’ means the achievement and
maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the
various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the
productivity of the land.”
MUSYA, 16 U.S.C 531, Sec. 4(b) (emphasis added)
However, the phrase “without impairment of the productivity of the land” has been
modified in the proposed planning rule. In identifying lands not suitable for timber
production, the Forest Service provides a set of factors, any one of which shall result in the
land being identified as not suitable for timber production:
“(iv) The technology is not currently available for conducting timber harvest without
causing irreversible damage to soil, slope, or other watershed conditions or
substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land.”
§ 219.11(a)(1)(iv) (emphasis added)
The words ‘substantial’ and ‘permanent’ have been added to the plain language of the
statute, modifying MUSYA intent to create both 1) a lower bar for sustained yield, i.e.
sustained yield is possible as long as there is not substantial and permanent impairment, not
just any impairment; and 2) a higher bar for the determination that land is unsuitable, i.e.
land is only unsuitable if the impairment is substantial and permanent. These additions go
beyond the language of the MUSYA.
The phrase “substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land” does
appear in statute, but the Forest Service has lifted it out of context and applied it in the
proposed Rule. Section 6(g)(3)(c) of the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C)) specifies:

FRD – 1132
“(g)…the Secretary shall…promulgate regulations, under the principles of the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960,…the regulations shall include, but not be
limited to-
3) specifying guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve the goals
of the Program which-
(C) insure research on and (based on continuous monitoring and assessment in the
field) evaluation of the effects of each management system to the end that it will not
produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land”
(emphasis added)
This section of the statute is not a factor in whether land is unsuitable or how much
impairment (substantial and permanent) would be necessary to determine that land is
unsuitable. It clearly is meant to ensure that plans include guidelines to make sure that the
agency conducts research and evaluation based on continuous field monitoring and
assessment to determine the effects of management systems, e.g. harvest techniques, to
insure that they will not substantially and permanently impair the productivity of the land.
The NFMA sets a higher bar for research, including monitoring and assessment, as to what
constitutes impairment. The MUSYA sets a lower, more protective bar for the application
of the mix of multiple uses and the sustained yield of products and services.
The Forest Service has correctly applied the NFMA statute language in the monitoring
section of the Rule at 219.12(a)(5)(viii). As NFMA does not amend the MUSYA, and in
fact NFMA regulations are to be promulgated under the principles of the MUSYA, the
agency should apply the less restrictive language of the MUSYA in the requirements for
identification of unsuitable lands.
Recommendation: Section 219.11(a)(1)(iv) should be revised to read “(iv) The technology
is not currently available for conducting timber harvest without causing irreversible damage
to soil, slope, or other watershed conditions or impairment of the productivity of the land.”
57. Inappropriate Interpretation of the MUSYA and the NFMA: Timber Harvest
Exceptions Must Not be Increased on Unsuitable Lands
The draft planning rule undermines the NFMA by significantly increasing the
allowances for “timber harvest” on lands identified as not suitable for timber production.
The NFMA is specific in making exceptions for timber harvest on unsuitable lands. Only
“salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect other multiple-use values” are allowed (16

FRD – 1132
U.S.C. 1604(k)). However, Section 219.11(b)(2) of the draft rule increases the allowances
for timber harvest on unsuitable lands “to assist in achieving or maintaining one or more
applicable desired conditions or objectives of the plan.” This is highly problematic, as it
changes the NFMA allowance from “protect other multiple-use values” to simply
implementing the Forest Plan, as achieving or maintaining desired conditions and objectives
is one of the core functions of a plan. This in effect moots the intent of the NFMA by
erasing the practical differences between harvest and production. To cite one example,
economic development goals are often primary objectives of land management plans. Under
this language, harvest to supply local mills would be allowed in areas unsuitable for timber
production.
MUSYA requires that the Forest Service must be able to show that it is not impairing the
productivity of the land. Defining the unsuitable lands, removing them from the timber base
and then using calculations of long-term sustained yield (LTSY) to define the limits past
which the land would be impaired (for timber purposes, with limited departures allowed and
including impacts on other resource values) is how this is achieved under the current rule.
Under the proposed Rule, it is unclear how the Forest Service would meet the requirements
of § 219.11(d)(4) to “Limit the quantity of timber that can be removed annually in perpetuity
on a sustained yield basis and provide for departure from this limit, as provided by NFMA.”,
because the agency has done nothing more than repeat the language of the statute.
It seems nonsensical that the Forest Service would model sustained yield and departures
for unsuitable lands, but as harvest of these lands would likely increase substantially given
what the agency has proposed, we are mystified as to how the Forest Service can do this and
not in most respects treat unsuitable lands as though they are not. Regardless, the agency
has not included requirements in the proposed Rule to ensure that there will not be
impairment of the productivity of the land on the unsuitable base. This must be corrected.
Further, the agency does not seem to be moving in a direction that will facilitate
compliance with the MUSYA for harvest on unsuitable lands. The proposed Rule language
at 219.11 only includes the minimum requirements of the NFMA, which does nothing to
address this matter. The Forest Service has proposed in Section 219.11(d)(4) that more
detailed requirements will appear in the FSH, but as we discuss earlier in this letter, the
Forest Service itself discloses that the FSH is not legally binding. And if the recent past is
any indication, we are likely to see the Forest Service once again proposing a new definition
for LTSY, as they did in the version of FSH 1909.12, Chapter 60, prepared for the 2005
Planning Rule. That definition substantially changed the meaning of LTSY. The Forest
Service added the word capacity and defined long-term sustained-yield capacity as the
highest uniform wood yield that may be sustained under specified management intensities
consistent with the plan after stands have reached the plan’s desired conditions. FSH

FRD – 1132
1909.12 Ch 60.5 (emphasis added). This definition along with the language in the proposed
rule in Section 219.11(b)(2) would essentially allow unconstrained harvest on almost all
lands to implement the plan, regardless of impairment of the productivity of the land,
essentially mooting the NFMA and the MUSYA.
These issues must be resolved if the Forest Service is to address the many challenges
that await as it moves to a restoration focus. The amount of timber sold from each national
forest, whether on unsuitable or suitable lands, is generally limited “to the quantity of timber
that can be removed annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis,” with allowance for
departures in order to meet “overall multiple use objectives” (16 U.S.C. 1611). Large scale
restoration of western forests would involve substantial biomass removal, over a period of
one or two entries but these biomass removals would likely be greater than annual sustainedyields
calculated for each national forest. While the NFMA allows for departures from the
sustained yield in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, large scale treatments on
unsuitable lands were not envisioned at the time of NFMA.
Furthermore, “the allowable sale quantity is the volume of timber that may be sold from
lands identified as suitable for timber production” (DEIS, p. 149). Since ecological and
social treatments (non-economic treatments such as hazard tree removal or fuels reduction)
on unsuitable lands have not been applied to the ASQ and may significantly depart from
calculated sustained yields, the draft planning rule language is insufficient and lacking
guidance on the most pressing issues in 2011 and beyond.
Ecological restoration treatments are appropriate for some lands designated as unsuitable
for timber production, as well as for many lands slated for timber production. However,
today’s broad scale restoration needs and climate change effects, particularly on our Western
forests, were not contemplated by authors of the NFMA. Rather than clarifying, draft
section 219.11(b)(2) creates more vagueness for land managers.
Recommendation: Remove the exception in draft section 219.11(b)(2) for timber harvest
“to assist in achieving or maintaining one or more applicable desired conditions or
objectives of the plan.”
As discussed below, we also recommend sweeping changes to address ecological
restoration needs on unsuitable lands---new terminology and metrics are needed for
byproduct utilization of wood that may stem from non-economic forest treatments.
X. Managing for Restoration under the MUSYA and NFMA – the Case of Alternative J
As pointed out above, we are concerned that the draft rule and DEIS are infected with
inappropriate interpretations of the MUSYA and the NFMA, to the detriment of the rule’s
restoration goals. For example, the concept behind Alternative J and its focus on restoration

FRD – 1132
appear to provide the most relevant and up-to-date guidance for forest planning in terms of
timber requirements. However, Alternative J was “considered but eliminated from detailed
study because it does not meet the purpose and need to meet the requirements under the
NFMA and meet obligations under MUSYA” (DEIS, pg. 32). The rationale for this decision
is telling:
“The MUSYA directs the Secretary of Agriculture ―to develop and administer the
renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use and sustained
yield of the several products and services obtained therefrom.ǁ The Act defines
sustained yield of the several products and services as, ―the achievement and
maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the
various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the
productivity of the land.ǁ The Act includes timber as one of the renewable surface
resources subject to the multiple use and sustained yield mandate. For a rule to
restrict timber harvest on all NFS units for the sole purpose of achieving restoration
would be contrary to the letter and intent of MUSYA” (DEIS, pg. 32).
While we do not advocate the “all-restoration” approach of Alternative J, we are
disappointed that the proposed rule and DEIS refuse to explore more creative ways to
effectively integrate restoration into the suitability component of the forest planning process.
We believe that the Forest Service should seriously consider changes that would make the
timber provisions of the planning rule more consistent with the rule’s overall emphasis on
ecological restoration and ecosystem services. For example, the numerous ecosystem
services, as defined in the draft rule, are also renewable resources. In fact, while the
MUSYA recognizes timber as a multiple use, it also accords equivalent attention to
recreation, watersheds, wildlife, and fish. Yet, we see no mandate for the identification of
lands suitable for restoration, recreation, or fish production in the draft rule. Furthermore, as
compared to 1960, we now have a much greater understanding of the degrading impacts on
virtually all other resources caused by timber production. Science has amply illustrated that
timber production does impair the productivity of the land---impairment the MUSYA was
designed to preclude. Conversely, restoration of watersheds increases the productivity of all
other resources while also helping to achieve economic and social sustainability.
In providing more reason why Alternative J was eliminated from detailed study, the draft
planning rule states:
“Furthermore, NFMA‘s requirement to identify lands suitable for timber
production, and to review and reclassify lands to return lands to timber production
when appropriate, indicates clear congressional intent to produce timber from

FRD – 1132
NFS lands that are suitable for that purpose, whether such lands are in need of
restoration or not” (DEIS, pg. 32, emphasis added).
In fact, as explained above, the NFMA has no requirement to identify lands suitable for
timber production. Furthermore, citing the forest management intent of Congress in the
NFMA in 1976 (or 1960, as above) for a planning rule in 2011 is analogous to planning a
national defense strategy today based on the Cold War.
The agency is relying upon statutory language from 1960 and 1976 that has been
incorrectly interpreted, and in some cases does not exist. Inclusion of such justifications in
the draft rule will needlessly keep timber production and timber harvest front and center in
national forest planning and management while pushing restoration into the background.
Given the vast increase in our knowledge of the impairment of productivity caused by
timber production and timber harvest, the current scarcity of un-impaired national forest
lands, and the vast benefits provided by ecological restoration to all other ecosystem
services, a new planning rule must provide stronger guidance to conserve and restore
national forest system lands. The timber provisions of the current draft represent a
regression in the state of sustainable public lands management.
While we certainly agree that the planning rule must adhere to the MUSYA, the NFMA,
and other legal requirements, we strongly disagree that these laws require the Forest Service
to elevate timber production over restoration management, as the draft rule does in Section
219.11. A planning rule is needed that provides balance to the use of “all renewable surface
resources” as required by the MUSYA. Similarly, a planning rule should ensure that plans
“require the identification of the suitability of lands for resource management,” as required
by the NFMA (16 USC 1604(g)(2)(A), emphasis added).
The acknowledgement of and focus on ecological restoration in terms of the timber
requirements in Alternative J are a good starting point for a new planning rule. However,
there is no need to “restrict timber harvest on all NFS units for the sole purpose of achieving
restoration” (DEIS, pg. 32). A modified alternative that identified and prioritized NFS lands
in need of restoration and conservation and delineated lands unsuitable for timber
production would place management focus on ecological sustainability while still allowing
for small scale timber production. As restoration is an overarching goal of the Forest
Service, plans should identify lands suitable for ecological restoration, in addition to
identifying lands not suitable for timber production.
Recommendations: For the timber requirements in section 219.11 to be properly aligned
with the MUSYA and the NFMA, three areas of improvement are needed.

FRD – 1132
First, is the recognition of additional categories of lands unsuitable for timber production.
Lands of specially recognized conservation value and those in need of ecological restoration
that were not previously identified by existing “unsuitable” criteria need to be recognized as
unfit for timber production. In particular, the planning rule should require that lands with a
primary conservation objective – including roadless areas, late-successional reserves,
riparian reserves, priority and municipal watersheds, old-growth and many mature forests,
and forests with particularly high carbon storage -- are classified as not suitable for timber
production. Similarly, lands that are high priority for restoration should be removed from
the suitable timber base and identified as suitable for restoration treatments, which may
include vegetation management. The agency must ensure that plans are required to properly
identify these areas so that land managers do not inadvertently conduct inappropriate
activities in them (see our discussion of the need for management areas as plan components
above.)
Secondly, the planning rule must provide sidebars ensuring the appropriate application
of tree cutting and removal on lands designated as unsuitable for timber production. This
should only occur for ecological and social purposes, as intended by the NFMA.
Third, restoration needs on NFS lands are much greater than timber production needs
and increase the quality and quantity of virtually all other uses. As such, an identification
and prioritization of restoration opportunities should be a mandate for every land
management plan. These restoration needs should be addressed under “suitability of uses”
as a plan component. Given restoration’s positive effect on virtually all other “renewable
surface resources,” as opposed to being at the cost of all other resources like timber
production, shifting the timber requirements to a focus on restoration would appear to better
fit the intent of the MUSYA.
Y. Timber Harvest versus Cutting Trees for Non-Economic Purposes
The proposed planning rule makes allowances for “timber harvest” to implement the
forest plan on lands identified as not suitable for timber production. This is a major failure
to recognize and differentiate the new paradigm of ecosystem restoration and community
protection from the old paradigm of tree farming on national forest lands. Despite the
agency’s legal requirements to abide by the MUSYA and the NFMA---decades old language
crafted in a time that was substantially different----there are a number of ways to incorporate
older timber requirements into a modern paradigm. Section 219.11 of the draft planning
rule fails to adequately blend the old and the modern, and provides little, if any, actual
guidance to agency managers.
The Forest Service proposes to include language in the FSH to address the need for
direction. This is troubling as we pointed out above in that the agency believes it does not

FRD – 1132
have to follow its Directives System. The Forest Service previously provided direction for
the 2005 and 2008 planning rules in Chapter 60 of FSH 1909.12. That chapter was highly
problematic as we discuss below.
Chapter 60 introduced new terms and concepts not contemplated by or in compliance
with the NFMA that would have greatly increased agency discretion when determining
suitability and overall harvest levels. We believe it would have opened the door for greater
industrial logging activity on our already stressed NFS lands. These implementation
directions were a stark contrast to the guiding management principles of restoration,
protecting water quality, and resilience to climate change espoused by the department and
the agency and represented a step backwards in management evolution.
Proposed changes in Chapter 60 could have had large implications for the amount of
land available for timber harvest and, subsequently, the scale of adverse ecological impacts
resulting from timber harvest-dominated management. Most problematic was the proposal
of a new category of lands--- “lands generally available for timber harvest.” Designating a
new category of lands unsuitable for timber production, but acceptable for timber harvest
was unnecessary and potentially inconsistent with the NFMA. Other changes in Chapter 60
included no clear intent to regenerate and restock those lands “generally available for timber
harvest,” disregarding the NFMA’s reforestation requirement and reducing clarity for
management of some unsuitable lands; and an overly liberal change in the interpretation of
sustained-yield--- “long-term sustained-yield capacity.”
Recommendation: Overall, we strongly advise against providing direction only in the FSH,
and using the vague and legally unenforceable Chapter 60 direction. We recommend
providing clear requirements in the planning rule itself.
Timber production and timber harvest are management actions with a primary purpose
of economic development. Thinning of trees for ecological purposes (e.g., ecological
restoration) or social purposes (e.g., protection of other resources or fuels reduction
programs) do not have economic development as their primary purpose. Likewise, thinning
trees for ecological and social purposes are conducted in fundamentally different manners
(e.g. variable density thinning versus even-spaced thinning or clearcutting), where trees
selected to be removed are identified by their ecological or social functions, not by their
economic importance.
This is not to say that cutting trees for ecological or social purposes should not be
conducted as efficiently as possible. Project costs involving the removal of woody biomass
should be offset by byproduct utilization efforts if it is determined that such biomass should
be removed for ecological or social purposes---as determined by the confluence of best

FRD – 1132
available science and regional collaborative analysis. But, confusing agency managers by
suggesting timber harvest is acceptable virtually everywhere within national forest lands is
bound to decrease the effectiveness of restoration and protection of other resources, while
also decreasing the effectiveness of actual economic development projects.
Recommendations: The new planning rule should eliminate the use of “timber harvest” on
unsuitable lands and should provide a new vernacular appropriate for a management
paradigm focused on ecological restoration and resilience. Since “timber harvest” is the
means to “timber production” and is often the primary project purpose on suitable lands, we
recommend that action involving structural manipulation on unsuitable lands be termed for
its specific purpose (e.g. “thinning treatment”, “cutting”, “cutting and removal”, “salvage”).
Furthermore, the term “timber harvest” indicates societal utilization of such wood; indeed,
the draft rule defines “timber harvest” as “the removal of trees for wood fiber use and
other multiple-use purposes” (Draft Sec. 219.19, emphasis added). Thinning projects with
the primary intent of forest health improvement may or may not involve the byproduct
utilization of cut trees, as decomposition or burning on site may be appropriate in certain
cases. Delineating separate terminology for structural treatments on unsuitable lands will
allow for greater understanding of management intent.
Timber production and timber harvest are commercial activities (i.e., harvest would not
occur if it were not profitable for harvesters). In order for these activities to take place, there
is an expectation that economic benefits exceed costs. On the other hand, cutting trees for
ecological and social purposes (non-economic purposes) are services provided by the agency
where ecological and social benefits exceed the costs. This delineation must be explicit in
the new planning rule.
Z. Determination of Lands Unsuitable for Timber Production: Required Economic
Analysis and a Restoration Focus
Section 6(k) of the NFMA gives the Forest Service broad authority to identify lands as
unsuitable for timber production. The Act directs the agency to identify unsuitable timber
lands “considering physical, economic, and other pertinent factors to the extent feasible, as
determined by the Secretary….” The proposed rule merely repeats the NFMA requirement
for consideration of these factors, and does nothing to further clarify how these requirements
should be met.
The Rule should include a requirement for explicit disclosure of a variety of costs and
benefits of agency actions in order to more accurately compare plan alternatives and
components, including elements critical to determining timber suitability. In addition, the
Forest Service utilizes a variety of treatment methods in order to meet vegetative objectives.
Direct cost information must be provided in order to compare the benefits of these methods.

FRD – 1132
The proposed Integrated Resource Restoration fund code indicates that the agency wants
to combine funds in order to create integrated project sets and identify and utilize the best
tools to reach resource objectives. The management framework to reach these objectives
and desired conditions at the plan level should include an analysis comparing the costs and
benefits of utilizing these various tools in relation to each other. Analysis at the forest plan
stage should compare the costs and benefits of mechanical treatment with the cost of fire
(prescribed burning, wildland fire use, etc.) and other non-mechanical treatment. Costs and
benefits should be displayed quantitatively where possible in the forest plan EIS. Such an
analysis would give agency staff and the public a sense of the financial and other costs of
each treatment tool. It would also help to identify management areas where particular
treatment tool use would predominate and standards and guidelines for tool use in order to
reach specific management objectives.
Recommendations: We recommend the following language:
219.11 Treatment Tool Analysis
(a)(2) (replacing the currently proposed 2) In order to identify and use the
treatment tool that will best achieve resource objectives in light of financial and
other considerations the following plan level analysis and disclosure is required.
i. The analysis to support each land management plan shall include:a comparison
of the direct costs and benefits of timber harvest (including road building costs),
fire use and other mechanical and non-mechanical treatment tools common to
the unit. Such costs shall at a minimum be expressed as a financial unit cost per
acre of treatment.
ii. These costs shall be displayed (at a minimum) in table form in the
environmental impact statement so that the public may compare relative costs
and benefits of treatment tools across alternatives and plan components.
iii. While least cost should not be the deciding factor in tool use, rationale for not
using the least cost tool should be provided in the analysis with particular focus
on ecosystem types, community location, etc.
iv. The analysis described in (i) above shall be used to inform management area
designation, unit objectives, standards and guidelines, and desired conditions.
AA. Determination of Lands Unsuitable for Timber Production: Raising the
Threshold
We believe that the draft planning rule does not provide clear direction to ensure that the
determination of unsuitable lands is consistent with the rule’s basic conservation and
restoration focus. In particular, the planning rule should require that lands with a primary
conservation objective – including roadless areas, late-successional reserves, riparian

FRD – 1132
reserves, priority and municipal watersheds, and old-growth and many mature forests -- are
classified as not suitable for timber production. Similarly, lands that are high priority for
restoration – such as low-elevation ponderosa pine forests and other relatively dry plant
associations in the intermountain West– should be removed from the suitable base in order
to emphasize the point that these forests are to be managed first and foremost to restore their
ecological integrity, not to produce commercial timber.
The draft rule takes a first, tentative step towards eliminating lands with primary
conservation and restoration objectives from the suitable timber base. Specifically, the draft
rule requires that lands must be identified as not suitable for timber production if “timber
production would not be compatible with the achievement of desired conditions and
objectives established by the plan for those lands” (Sec. 219.11(a)(1)(iii). However, this
language is not clear and specific enough to ensure that forest plans will consistently
identify lands that are high priority for conservation or restoration from the suitable timber
base. In fact, the 1982 regulations included similar language requiring planners to identify
lands as unsuitable for timber production if “[b]ased upon a consideration of multiple-use
objectives for the alternative, the land is proposed for resource uses that preclude timber
production, such as wilderness.” 36 CFR 219.14(c)(1). Nevertheless, the forest plans that
were written pursuant to the 1982 regulations classified millions of acres of Inventoried
Roadless Areas and old-growth forests as suitable for timber production. Those timber
production-oriented plans generated intense public opposition and controversy that
culminated years later with adoption of national or regional policies such as the Roadless
Area Conservation Rule and the Northwest Forest Plan which overrode the local forest
plans. Therefore, it essential that the new planning rule make it crystal clear that timber
production is not compatible with management of lands that have a primary conservation or
restoration focus -- including but not limited to roadless areas, old-growth forests, priority
and municipal watersheds, and riparian areas -- must be classified as unsuitable for timber
production.
Recommendation: Revise Sec. 219.11(a)(1)(iii) to specify that lands identified as
unsuitable for timber production must include roadless areas, old growth forests, priority and
municipal watersheds, and riparian areas, as well as other lands with primary conservation
and restoration objectives.
58. Identifying Low Productivity, High Cost Lands
National forests have long used site index rankings as proxies for lands that are not
commercial forest lands and areas where timber production would result in irreversible
damage. While these have been useful, more detailed assessments are now available. In
light of the precautionary principle, the need to manage for resilience in the face of climate
change, shrinking agency budgets, and the need to focus agency resources and objectives,

FRD – 1132
the Forest Service must increase its efforts to identify both low productivity and, in later
steps in the process, “high cost to manage” lands. These lands should then be determined
unsuitable.
On the low productivity front, National Forests have developed plant association guides
that identify site index, which can easily and inexpensively be cross-walked to an estimate
of productivity in cubic feet per acre per year. Some forests also list empirical values in
cubic feet for a typical stand at some age, usually 100 (see for example Hemstrom, M.,
Emmingham, W., Halverson N., Logan S., Topik C., “Plant Association and Management
Guide for the Pacific Fir Zone” USDA, PNW Region, Portland 1982). In addition, national
forest system units have spatially mapped most of these plant associations or in some cases
mapped an aggregate known as a plant association grouping (PAG).
As to “high cost to manage” lands, the Planning Rule should require an assessment, as
part of the Analysis of the Management Situation, of the conditions that occurred over the
last plan period that made lands particularly costly to manage. An overlay of the mapped
plant associations with slope maps, maps of road failures, maps of uncharacteristic fires, and
other high cost effects of timber management, have in the past pointed out that features such
as dry sites, steep ground, and thin soils correlated very strongly with certain plant
associations. These plant associations have a disproportionately high cost to manage for
timber emphasis.
At a minimum, the agency should cross-walk the plant associations with the lowest
capability to produce timber and the plant associations with the highest costs for timber
management. Where the two overlap, those plant associations should be removed from the
suitable base. Additionally, areas where new roads (including temporary roads) need to be
built would fall into this high cost category. Taking low yield, high cost-to-manage plant
associations out of the suitable base will allow the agency to focus its efforts. We expect
that over time, agency assessments of both the high cost to manage areas and the plant
assessment groups correlated with low productivity will improve such that the Forest
Service can raise the bar to eliminate more and more marginal lands and focus on the areas
that will respond most effectively to treatment.
59. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Various administration efforts are underway to account for, report and ultimately reduce
government greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To date, land management agencies have
been granted an extension for compliance. But those extensions will end at some point in
the not too distant future. Already, the Forest Service must soon report an inventory of its
direct and indirect emissions under Executive Order 13514. Once the CEQ GHG
Accounting and Reporting Workgroup develops a methodology for monitoring of terrestrial

FRD – 1132
sequestration and emissions from federal lands, the Forest Service’s responsibilities to both
report and reduce emissions will likely rise. CEQ is also likely to release final guidance on
addressing climate change under NEPA soon; here too the land management agencies have a
temporary extension on compliance, but this will not last forever and will ultimately affect
the analysis necessary in the environmental impact statements prepared for each revised
plan.
We urge the agency to be proactive in thinking now about how these reporting and
reduction requirements could or will impact the planning rule and specifically the
determination of timber suitability. The planning rule itself may not be complete before
these requirements appear and it is likely many of the first plans to be revised under the new
Rule will have to incorporate compliance with these requirements. The role of high carbon
storing areas in sequestering carbon and whether timber production should be allowed (and
the lands therefore determined to be unsuitable) is but one question for the agency to
consider, as is the way in which constraints on harvest might be formulated to account for
emissions accounting and reduction targets. Many other critical questions affecting the
timber suitability determination and the role of timber harvest and production overall will
become apparent as the agency begins to examine the issue.
60. Economic Considerations: Costs and Benefits
When analyzing economic considerations under NFMA, planners should be guided by
regulations that provide specific direction to ensure that timber will only be produced on
lands where direct revenues will exceed direct costs. Too many plan revisions list
questionable items as direct benefits or revenues accruing to the timber program and/or mix
up the requirement to analyze costs and benefits when determining the suitable base and the
requirement to consider and disclose the net public benefit (NPB) of each of the plan
alternatives. Revenues of the timber program are not the same as the net public benefit of
having and managing a national forest. The bottom line is that direct costs means directs
costs, direct benefits should be expressed as gross receipts to the government (either
stumpage receipts or payment-in-kind) and lands that are not cost-efficient should fall out of
the solution and be designated unsuitable.
Similar to language in the 1982 Rule (see 36 CFR 219.14 (b)(2)), the new planning rule
should specify that the direct costs of timber production include such anticipated mitigation
measures as the elimination of non-native weeds using pre-project surveys, pre-treatment,
follow-up treatment, and other work designed to prevent spread of weeds from timber sales
work, sediment control and post-project monitoring. Direct costs should include collection
for brush disposal and costs for subsequent treatment of plantations and other high-risk fuel
complexes created by logging, as well as the cost for building, maintaining and removing

FRD – 1132
timber roads. The full suite of costs must be analyzed such that the direct costs of timber
production are disclosed.
Another element of the 1982 regulations that should be carried over to the new rule is
the language at 36 CFR 219.14(b)(3). The costs and returns of managing the existing timber
inventory must be included in the financial analysis to determine the suitable timber base.
The costs of aspects such as regular stand exam and timber stand improvement, so critical to
managing the existing timber inventory, are often overlooked in the analysis and soon fall
behind schedule for on-the-ground accomplishment. Incorporating them up-front in the
determination may reduce the suitable base, but will identify a land base the agency is more
likely going to be able to manage given financial and other constraints.
61. Salvage
Salvage sales are a unique case of logging on unsuitable lands. While the NFMA
permits salvage sales on unsuitable lands, it does not dictate that they be done for economic
reasons. There has been a tremendous amount of recent research concerning the ecological
appropriateness and impacts of salvaging timber after wildfires, insect and fungus episodes,
windthrow, and other natural disturbances. Given a focus on restoration and resilience,
management of public forests must include greater accommodation of natural disturbance
regimes and should ensure that all timber salvage sales on unsuitable lands must have noncommercial
purposes. Salvage should not be simply an opportunity to produce more timber.
BB. Recommended Management Requirements for Timber Production Lands
For NFS lands that are available for timber production after the above mentioned
analysis is conducted, we recommend greater incorporation of ecological forestry techniques
including silvicultural practices that mimic natural processes, greater collaborative and
participatory management, and managing for a wider suite of ecosystem services from
suitable lands. A new management paradigm focused on restoration, maintenance of water
quality, and resilience in the face of climate change would necessarily manage for multiple
ecosystem services on all lands, and particularly those lands designated for degrading
extractive uses.
Fire and efforts to suppress it have played a large role in the current conditions of the
suitable land base. Timber production itself on these lands has also played a major role in
changing fire regimes and conditions. The cost of fire suppression has resulted in other
important agency work being dropped or delayed. Specific language in the planning rule
could help to identify ecologically appropriate and cost-effective methods for dealing with
fire (both wildland and prescribed), such as defining appropriate fuel profiles in the suitable

FRD – 1132
base. These fuel profiles may dictate certain treatment methods, some of which may cause
lands to be uneconomical for timber production, and hence unsuitable.
CC.
Timber Requirements Summary
Generally, there is a need for greater acknowledgement of two incompatible and
competing management strategies on NFS lands---timber production and ecological
restoration. Now is the time for greater clarity and distinction in the language guiding forest
management. If the agency is to implement a new paradigm based on restoration, guiding
regulations should enforce and encourage a two-fold process of not only increasing
restoration activities, but concurrently decreasing future degradation caused by extractive
uses. For timber production, this means substantially reducing the overall suitable timber
base on our national forests and incorporating greater ecological forestry techniques on
lands that are slated for timber production. For restoration and resilience, guiding
regulations should require that plan components ensure that any cutting of trees on
unsuitable lands has the primary goal of ecological improvement, backed by the best
available science.
Timber requirements are one of the core sets of directions provided by the NFMA,
restricting timber production to economically and environmentally appropriate areas.
Decades after the NFMA and 1982 regulations, updates to the planning rule concerning
timber suitability and harvest are sorely needed. A number of issues impacting Forest
Service management have risen or have been magnified in recent years including climate
change, conservation of roadless areas and old-growth forests, restoration efforts, and
increased pressure on NFS lands. These developments, along with a proposed new agency
vision, necessitate the delineation and alignment of program goals, budgets, and planning
regulations. We submit these concepts and language with the intent of encouraging the
agency to incorporate them into the final rule.
For more details on these approaches and how to incorporate them into the planning rule,
please see Appendix A containing TWS’s comments on timber requirements and the
planning rule, submitted in October, 2010. Fully addressing these issues will allow for a
planning rule that is aligned with the new vision for management of our public forests and is
adherent to the MUSYA, the NFMA and other guiding laws.
62.
63.
IX. Water
64.
The Wilderness Society has commended Secretary Vilsack’s visionary leadership in
shaping national forest policy, including his direction to manage forest lands “first and

FRD – 1132
foremost to protect our water resources.” 48 Clearly, water is a vitally important resource on
national forests and grasslands. NFS lands provide water to 1 in 5 Americans and over
3,400 communities. Eighteen percent of our nation’s total water supply originates on NFS
lands, with more than half of the water for the western U. S. provided by these lands.
National forest and grassland streams, lakes, and riparian areas also provide important
aquatic habitat for many species, including fish and amphibians.
National forest and grassland watersheds, however, are not in the healthiest condition, as
documented in the DEIS. For example, 25 percent of sixth-field watersheds with significant
NFS lands are rated in poor condition, and only 30 percent are rated in good condition
(DEIS, p. 81). Moreover, not all riparian areas on national forests and grasslands are in
good condition. For example, in the west, the percentage in good condition ranges “from
more than 50 percent in more humid sections to less than 30 percent in semiarid and arid
areas.” (DEIS, p. 87).
Undoubtedly, a key reason that so many watersheds and riparian areas are in poor or
only fair condition is the inadequate safeguards provided by past and current Forest Service
management plans. Indeed, the DEIS acknowledges that even recently revised forest plans
provide inconsistent and inadequate protection for all of the key water resources. “A review
of recently revised plans demonstrates that the guidance included for watershed condition
varies widely.” DEIS, p. 82. “Plans recently revised under the 1982 rule procedures are
quite variable in the guidance they provide for riparian area management.” DEIS, p. 88.
“Recently revised plans are quite variable in the guidance they include for water quality.”
DEIS, p. 89. Thus, it is imperative that the new planning rule provide specific direction and
safeguards in order to achieve Secretary Vilsack’s vision for protecting water resources,
including requirements that each forest and grassland plan include standards and guidelines
for watershed protection.
Overall, we are pleased that the draft rule recognizes the importance of intact and
healthy watersheds, riparian areas, public water supplies, and source water protection areas.
In particular, we applaud the draft rule’s requirement to “maintain, protect, or restore” lakes,
streams, wetlands, stream banks, and shorelines, as well as public water supplies, sole
source aquifers, source water protection areas, groundwater, and other bodies of water (§
219.8(a)(2)(i) and (iv)). However, as discussed below, we remain concerned that the draft
rule does not provide sufficient assurance that these vital water-related resources will
receive the level of protection that they require to assure sustainable water quality and
quantity. While we appreciate the agency’s desire to strike a “balance” between prescription
and flexibility (76 FR 8491), riparian protection is simply too important to not provide some
48 Remarks by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack in Seattle, WA, Aug. 14, 2009, p. 4,
http://www.fs.fed.us/video/tidwell/vilsack.pdf

FRD – 1132
prescriptive national standards in the rule. We recommend several changes in the rule that
will better protect aquatic resources, including certain elements of Alternative D.
The Wilderness Society has very serious concerns about the draft rule’s complete lack of
management direction regarding roads. Our comments about roads issues are contained in a
separate Roads section of this comment letter.
DD.
Priority Watersheds
We applaud the draft rule for requiring land management plans to identify watersheds
that are a priority for maintenance or restoration, but we are deeply concerned that the draft
rule fails to specify what criteria will be used to identify these Priority Watersheds and how
they should be managed. The purpose of identifying, protecting, and restoring Priority
Watersheds is very similar to the “key watersheds” component of the Northwest Forest
Plan’s aquatic conservation strategy, which has successfully guided Forest Service
watershed management in that region for nearly two decades. However, unlike the
Northwest Forest Plan, the proposed planning rule fails to provide clear minimum criteria
for the selection of key watersheds, rendering the concept in the proposed rule much less
meaningful than it could or should be. Unlike the Northwest Forest Plan’s Aquatic
Conservation Strategy, it also fails to impose constraints on habitat-degrading activities in
priority watersheds. See Northwest Forest Plan ROD at B-11, C-7, C-30 to C-38.
More recently, the Forest Service has adopted a six-step Watershed Condition
Framework (WCF) that is intended to guide the agency’s watershed management nationally.
Step 2 of the WCF involves identification of Priority Watersheds in all national forests,
followed by development of Watershed Action Plans for each Priority Watershed. As
described in the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework Implementation Guide
(2010), Step 2 provides generally vague direction for identifying priority watersheds,
although it does state on page 16 that “Forests are to identify an appropriate number of focus
watersheds for improvement that correspond to a reasonable and achievable program of
work over the next 5 years within current budget levels.” This suggests that priority
watersheds pursuant to the WCF are identified based on five year time frames and budgetary
realities, and not necessarily on ecological factors.
Carnefix and Frissell (2010) explain the scientific foundation for establishing criteria for
priority watersheds in forest planning. 49 They recommend that priority watersheds should be
those that 1) provide the highest-quality habitat for aquatic-associated or -dependent
(including terrestrial) species, 2) are well-distributed across the planning unit landscape, 3)
accommodate the needs of all native riparian/aquatic dependent species, and 4) together
49 See Carnefix and Frissell, 2010. Science for Watershed Protection in the Forest Service Planning Rule:
Supporting Scientific Literature and Rationale. Pacific Rivers Council, p. 16.

FRD – 1132
make up a network that provides or restores biological and biophysical landscape
connectivity.
Recommendations: Consistent with Alternative D, we recommend identifying and
protecting a comprehensive network of key or priority watersheds well-distributed across the
planning unit to serve as strongholds for clean drinking water and aquatic-associated or -
dependent species (see Alternative D, § 219.8(a)(1)(v), DEIS, p. App F-10). Furthermore,
we recommend that Priority Watersheds be added to the list of aquatic ecosystem elements
which plans are required to “include plan components to maintain, protect, or restore” (§
219.8(a)(2)(i) or (iv)). The rule should be explicit that these plan components must include
standards and guidelines that will constrain habitat-degrading activities in priority
watersheds and upslope areas (particularly those prone to landslides), as well as limit the
cumulative effects of management actions across the watershed. The final rule should also
ensure that Priority Watersheds are classified as unsuitable for timber production (§
219.11(a)(1)). With respect to roads, the final planning rule should incorporate the proposal
in Alternative D that all plans “must include standards and guidelines for . . . [r]oad removal
and remediation in riparian conservation areas and key watersheds as the top restoration
priority” (DEIS, p. App F-12). As discussed in the Roads section of our comments, the
proposal to include standards and guidelines related to achieving the minimum necessary
road system will also help prioritize road removal and remediation work in priority
watersheds.
The final rule should also clarify the relationship between the forest planning process
and the WCF process with regard to identification of Priority Watersheds. Presumably, the
Forest Service intends to complete the identification of Priority Watersheds through the
WCF process for all national forests and grasslands within the next few years, long before
many forest plans would be revised under the new planning rule. However, as pointed out
above, the criteria for priority watershed selection in the WCF process is vague, designed for
a five year timeframe, and likely based more on budgetary constraints than on ecological
factors – criteria that should not drive the identification of priority watersheds for 15-year
land management plans designed in part to restore, maintain, and protect aquatic elements
and watersheds. Therefore, the Forest Service should clarify the relationship between the
WCF priority watersheds and those identified pursuant to the planning rule, one aspect of
which is that because they are identified for different reasons they most likely are not the
same watersheds.
EE.
Riparian Areas
Healthy riparian areas are integral to water quality and flow regimes. Riparian areas
provide a buffer between uplands and water bodies, filtering out as much as 80-99% of

FRD – 1132
sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and other pollutants 50 and attenuating surface flows. They also
maintain streambank and stream channel integrity, providing colder and cleaner water
downstream. Riparian buffers provide the best protection from pollutants that harm human
health and that make water treatment more costly by clogging drinking water intakes and
filling in reservoirs with sediment.
The draft rule requires plans to maintain, protect, or restore riparian areas, and it specifies
that plans must establish a default width for riparian areas (§ 219.8(a)(3)). Draft section
219.8(a)(3) indicates that default widths should be set for all “lakes, perennial or intermittent
streams, and open water wetlands.” The final rule should say “perennial and intermittent
streams” in order to avoid confusion as to whether some or all of these streams require default
widths. This is all a good start but simply does not go far enough to ensure adequate protection.
The fact that a significant fraction of riparian areas are in substandard condition despite the 1982
planning rule requirement to provide them “special attention” argues for stronger requirements in
this planning rule. See, e.g., DEIS, p. 87 (noting decline in quality of riparian and aquatic habitat
on forested lands between 1970 and 1990). Moreover, the agency’s recognition that recent forest
plans “are quite variable in the guidance they provide for riparian area management” supports the
need for more prescriptive national guidance in the rule (DEIS, p. 88, referencing both riparian
area width designations and management proscriptions within them).
Recommendations: We believe the agency should adopt the elements of Alternative D that
would set a minimum default width for riparian areas, as well as direction, including certain
proscriptions, on management activities allowed within them. Specifically, we recommend that
the final rule 1) establish a minimum default width of no less than 100 feet that can be adjusted
based on ecologically based, site-specific information gathered as part of the ecological analysis
of the watershed, and 2) limit activities that can occur within riparian areas to only those that
further their natural condition as provided for in DEIS Alternative D, § 219.8(a)(3).
With specific regard to roads in riparian areas, the DEIS describes the myriad impacts roads
have on watershed health and water quality when they are located in riparian areas. See, e.g.,
DEIS, p. 86. The final planning rule must include direction to prohibit road construction /
reconstruction in riparian areas unless necessary to achieve important objectives and goals as laid
out in the land management plan and focus decommissioning on unneeded or damaging roads
and trails in riparian areas. As recommended in our roads section, the final planning rule should
incorporate the additional direction on riparian areas and watershed standards and guidelines in
Alternative D, along with the recommendations made in that section.
We are concerned about a statement in the DEIS that broadly implies that logging in riparian
areas is ecologically beneficial, “On the other hand, strictly buffering riparian areas from all
50 Clark, G. M., D. K. Mueller, et al. (2000). "Nutrient concentrations and yields in undeveloped stream basins of the
United States." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(4): 849‐860.

FRD – 1132
management activity might not always lead to healthy, functioning riparian areas. While
restricting vegetation treatments such as timber cutting and prescribed burning in riparian areas
and adjacent buffers protects these areas in the short run, ecologists are beginning to question the
wisdom of this policy over the longer term” (p. 87, emphasis added). While we agree that some
riparian areas can benefit from active restoration of natural fire regimes through prescribed fire
and, where necessary, careful mechanical treatment of vegetation without road construction, we
do not believe that “timber cutting” is an appropriate management activity in riparian areas.
Recommendation: Sec. 219.11(a)(1)(iii): Specify in the rule that riparian areas must be
classified as not suitable for timber production.
FF.
Clean Water Act Compliance
The Forest Service does not have a particularly good track record for meeting water quality
standards, and many of the water quality violations stem from the agency’s mishandling of the
road system, including allowing it to grow to its current size. The DEIS admits that there are
2,624 impaired water bodies on the national forests and grasslands, and 18,363 river and stream
segments that contain at least 50 percent NFS lands. DEIS, p. 88. These segments are primarily
water quality limited for sediment, temperature, and habitat modification, which are all problems
exacerbated by roads. DEIS, p. 88. The National Level Assessment of Water Quality
Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best Management Practices 51 , a
2008 report commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency, confirms these numbers,
and it provides a comprehensive review of the effects of forest roads (federal, state, and private)
on water quality, explains historical use of BMPs, and highlights the need for monitoring of both
the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs. The agency should carefully review this report
as it considers what to include in the final planning rule regarding water quality and Clean Water
Act compliance because it suggests that, up to this point, the Forest Service and other land
managers have been ineffective in mitigating the effects of forest roads on water quality.
Federal agencies are required to comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), including water
quality standards. See 33 U.S.C. § 1323. The proposed planning rule and draft EIS
acknowledge that CWA compliance is mandatory. Draft Sec. 219.1(g); DEIS, p. 89. However,
the rule does not allow the agency to specifically reference its obligations under the CWA in
forest and grassland plans. Draft Sec. 219.2(b)(2). In addition, the Forest Service is attempting
to establish that site-specific projects need only be consistent with the LMP and not the planning
rule itself, and that in the interim, projects will no longer need to be consistent with the planning
rule under which the applicable, existing forest plan was created, including § 219.23 of the 1982
rule on CWA compliance. § 219.2(c), 219.15, 219.17(c). For requirements that need not be
referenced in the forest and grassland plan, we find such an arrangement highly problematic. If
the field staff need not refer to the NFMA planning rule when considering projects (because
51 Great Lakes Envtl. Ctr., National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and
Their Prevention by Best Management Practices 65 (2008).

FRD – 1132
projects need only be consistent with the plan itself), it is probable that staff could inadvertently
ignore their obligations under the Clean Water Act. Not only should inclusion of appropriate
standards and guidelines regarding CWA compliance in the LMPs not be prohibited, but such
plan components should actually be required.
Because land management plans are the mechanism by which the Forest Service establishes
and communicates its management goals and responsibilities to both the public and its managers,
it is important that the forest plans clearly articulate water-related statutory and regulatory
requirements as standards. To that end, the planning rule should require forest and grassland
plans to identify, list, and comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements (numeric
and qualitative), including but not limited to those established under the Clean Water Act. Such
requirements should be added to the proposed additions to 219.8(a) in Alternative D and
adopted. We recommend:
4) Watershed standards and guidelines. Each plan must include standards and guidelines
for- to ensure—
. . .
(iii) Maintenance and restoration of lakes, streams, wetlands, public water supplies,
source water protection areas, groundwater, other bodies of water, instream flows, and
thermal refugia, and protection of these resources from detrimental changes in quantity
(subject to existing rights) and quality, including temperature, blockages of water
courses, deposits of sediments. Such standards and guidelines must ensure compliance
with requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and all
substantive and procedural requirements of Federal, State, and local governmental bodies
with respect to the provision of public water systems and the disposal of waste water.
In fact, Section 219.23 of the 1982 Rule (Alternative B) had a nearly identical provision to
the bolded language above, requiring that forest plans comply with the CWA and other
applicable laws. The proposed rule completely jettisons such a provision. The DEIS suggests
that all of the alternatives will have the same effect with regard to watershed health. DEIS, p. 82.
However, in suggesting that the proposed alternative will have the same effects as the 1982 rule
on water quality, the agency would seem to be saying that water quality will continue to decline.
In addition, the agency fails to consider the effect of eliminating regulatory requirements in the
existing rule that currently govern land management plans and site-specific projects throughout
the National Forest System. For instance, the DEIS indicates that many forest and grassland
plans currently make reference to obligations to meet water quality standards, improve water
quality in 303(d)-listed streams, etc. DEIS, p. 82, 89. What will happen when forests are no
longer allowed, let alone required, to discuss Clean Water Act compliance in their forest plans?
This type of failure to disclose effects is a NEPA violation – indeed, it is one of the inadequacies
the courts identified with the agency’s previous planning rule attempts. 52
52 We’d also note that the Forest Service inappropriately suggests that the old CWA compliance language of the
1982 rule will be in the final rule if Alternative A is chosen because it cites to that section in its discussion of the

FRD – 1132
Beyond the aforementioned recommendations regarding substantive standards and guidelines
in land management plans, the final planning rule should also require monitoring for water
quality standard compliance and implementation and effectiveness of BMPs. As we said in our
scoping comments, forest and grassland plans must never assume that BMPs have been
implemented or that use of BMPs alone will lead to compliance with water quality standards or
achieve desired conditions. Indeed, over-reliance on ineffective BMPs has had disastrous
consequences for water quality and fish habitat in many watersheds, particularly where roads
were constructed (using BMPs) on unstable slopes or erosive soils. TWS Scoping Comments, p.
18-19. See also DEIS, p. 83.
Thus, the agency should monitor for not only BMP implementation, but also BMP
effectiveness in meeting water quality standards 53 . The agency should adopt the proposal in
Alternative E for Sec. 219.12(a)(5)(i), adding the following questions:
(i) The status of watershed conditions and watershed elements of § 219.8. How effective
are management actions in moving the National Forest/Grassland toward improving
watershed health? Are management actions achieving compliance with water quality
standards? Are best management practices being implemented and are they effective?
In addition, the monitoring plan should establish triggers that will ensure the agency changes
course should violations of water quality standards be detected by adopting the relevant elements
of Alternative E.
On a final note, the DEIS indicates that a “review of recently revised plans demonstrates that
the guidance included for watershed condition varies widely. . . . [Some] plans focus on meeting
water quality requirements for currently 303(d) listed water bodies or focus on mitigating
management activities to limit their effects on watersheds.” DEIS, p. 82. It also states,
“Recently revised plans are quite variable in the guidance they include for water quality. They
range from making reference to regional soil and water practices and design criteria and minimal
additional standards and guidelines to detailed standards and guidelines and management
direction for watersheds containing impaired water bodies, to compliance with TMDLs in
addition to having more specific standards and guidelines for protecting water quality. Some
plans specify criteria for managing for municipal water use and restoring watersheds to meet the
goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, and some specify the need to
maintain canopy cover to maintain appropriate water temperatures.” DEIS, p. 89. We want to be
clear that all National Forest units are required to meet water quality standards, including
bringing impaired water segments back into compliance with the CWA. It is not an optional
effects of Alternative A on water quality (DEIS, p. 93), whereas it does not do this with the explanation of the
effects on water quality for Alternatives C, D, or E.
53 Great Lakes Envtl. Ctr., National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and
Their Prevention by Best Management Practices 126-128 (2008) (discussing need for these monitoring questions).

FRD – 1132
management objective that just some of the plans need include. While requiring plan
components that will ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act should certainly be just one
aspect of a more comprehensive plan to maintain, protect, or restore watershed health, it is not a
discretionary one. In the final rule, the agency needs to direct each forest plan to include plan
components that will ensure each National Forest and Grassland will meet its obligations under
the Clean Water Act.
65.
66.
X. Roads
67.
The Wilderness Society is very disappointed that the draft planning rule provides no
direction regarding management of the Forest Service road system. As the DEIS indicates, the
agency has 375,205 miles of roads (DEIS, p. 82), which is enough roads to circle the earth at the
equator 15 times. The National Forests and Grasslands are overflowing with unneeded and
aging logging roads and other unnecessary roads that are a legacy of past resource extraction.
The outsized and crumbling road system causes a host of problems for aquatic species, drinking
water, and terrestrial wildlife. The road system also represents an enormous financial burden
that eats up limited forest budgets in stop-gap maintenance, and it frequently does not meet the
needs of forest visitors because resources are not available to maintain roads that lead to
important trailheads or other recreational facilities.
The DEIS acknowledges some of the many environmental problems attendant to such an
enormous and crumbling road system. See DEIS, p. 82-100. For instance, it notes that the road
system is largely responsible for degraded riparian areas, and in the West, the percentage of
riparian areas in good condition varies “from more than 50 percent in more humid sections to
less than 30 percent in semiarid and arid areas”. DEIS, p. 87 (emphasis added). In another
recent Forest Service document, the agency succinctly summarized some of the problems
associated with the road system:
“Expansive road networks, however, can impair water quality, aquatic habitats,
and aquatic species in a number of ways, often to a greater degree than any other
activities conducted in forested environments. Roads intercept surface and
subsurface flows, adding to the magnitude and flashiness of flood peaks and
accelerating recession of flows. Road networks can also lead to greater channel
incision, increased sedimentation, reduced water quality, and increased stream
habitat fragmentation. Modern road location, design, construction, maintenance,
and decommissioning practices can substantially mitigate these impacts, but most
forest roads were built using older methods and are not adequately maintained
owing to a lack of resources. In addition, many critical drainage components like
culverts, are nearing or have exceeded their life expectancy. These deteriorating
road conditions threaten our ability to manage forests and pose significant risks to
watersheds.”

FRD – 1132
USDA Forest Service, Water, Climate Change, and Forests: Watershed Stewardship for a
Changing Climate, PNW-GTR-812, June 2010, p. 72 (emphasis added), available at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr812.pdf.
Yet, as the Draft EIS admits, “Alternative A [i.e. the proposed rule] does not include specific
requirements related to managing the road system” (DEIS, p. 91). Given all the environmental
impacts associated with the road system and the agency’s intimate knowledge of these problems,
we are baffled by the proposed rule’s inattention to the roads issue. In order to be scientificallycredible
and effective, the final planning rule will need to address this deficiency. The planning
rule is the place to make and commit to strong measures that will ensure real gains in watershed
protection, wildlife conservation, and ecological restoration. Ignoring the road system in the
planning rule will only guarantee failure.
GG.
Rule Provisions Necessary to Address Effects from Roads and NEPA Deficiencies
While the DEIS readily admits the detrimental impacts of roads on watershed health, water
quality, wildlife, 54 and other resources, see DEIS, p. 79-100, the proposed rule’s requirements
related to the transportation system are incredibly limited and fail to address the pressing
problems associated with roads outlined in the environmental analysis. In fact, Alternative A
references the transportation system exactly twice, but requires forest planners to include no
direction about the road system in LMPs. Some of Alternative A’s provisions might lead to
LMPs that would, in some way, address the agency’s road system because the agency must
develop plan components to “maintain or restore” aquatic elements, terrestrial elements, public
water supplies and water quality, soils and soil productivity, and riparian areas, but such results
are far from certain. See § 219.8(a)(2)-(3), DEIS, p. 91. These provisions must be bolstered, and
the final planning rule should include explicit direction regarding how forest and grassland plans
will ensure the NFS road system will be managed in a manner that protects the environment and
achieves the restoration goals set out by the Secretary, not to mention the statement of purpose
and need. The proposals in Alternatives D and E, as well as the additional recommendations
described below, should be adopted in the final rule in order to ensure that LMPs will
consistently and appropriately manage, mitigate, and reduce the agency’s outsized road system.
In addition, we found several concerning NEPA deficiencies in the DEIS related to roads.
As mentioned, the Forest Service acknowledges the essential relationship between the road
system and watershed health in the DEIS. However, the environmental analysis includes some
misstatements, does not acknowledge certain important studies, fails to provide citations for
some controversial (and potentially unfounded) statements, and glosses over the effects of the
various alternatives on watersheds and wildlife. An overarching problem is that the DEIS
repeatedly evaluates alternatives in terms of whether future forest plans would be more or less
“variable” or “consistent” in the way that they address road management (see, e.g., DEIS, p. vii,
54 Actually, as noted below, the DEIS’s disclosure of the effects of the road system and road densities on wildlife is
rather sparse. It should be improved in the final EIS.

FRD – 1132
viii, 35, 36, 91, 94), rather than in terms of whether the rule alternatives would have positive or
negative environmental impacts or the extent to which they would create more or less
environmental risk to watershed health, wildlife viability, and other resource concerns. We
discuss additional NEPA concerns in more detail in the following sections.
HH.
Transportation-Related Provisions
As noted above, the proposed rule contains just two mentions of the transportation system.
First, at § 219.15(e), the Forest Service indicates that resource plans (e.g., Travel Management
Plans (TMPs)) completed prior to LMP approval must be evaluated for consistency with LMP
plan components and amended, if necessary. DEIS, p. App A-22. However, the proposed rule
negligently fails to provide a date by which these resource plans must be evaluated and amended.
Recommendation: The agency should establish a one-year deadline after adoption of an LMP
by which TMPs (and associated Motor Vehicle Use Maps) and other resource plans must be
made consistent with the new forest or grassland plan. The language of the final rule should read
(additions in bold):
(e) Consistency of resource plans within the planning unit with the land
management plan. . . . Resource plans developed prior to plan approval must be
evaluated for consistency with the plan and amended if necessary within one
year of the plan’s approval.
Second, at § 219.10 (multiple uses), the rule requires the agency to “consider . . .
[s]ustainable management of infrastructure, such as recreational facilities and transportation and
utility corridors” when developing plan components for integrated resource management. DEIS,
p. App A-13 (emphasis added). Frankly, it is difficult to understand what this provision even
means, and the preamble’s explanation of the multiple use section is equally uninformative.
Thus, we have not provided specific language recommendations. In the final rule, the agency
should more fully develop what is required by this provision, so that Forest Service staff can
consistently apply the provision and so that the public can understand what is required by this
provision. As it stands, merely “considering” sustainable management of transportation
corridors when developing plan components seems like an unduly discretionary and fairly
meaningless requirement. It certainly does not provide the direction and accountability the
agency needs to protect and restore watersheds and wildlife habitat from the detrimental impacts
of the road system, nor does it adequately address the need to provide for forest visitors a
network of well-maintained roads to important recreational and other resource facilities. The
agency must commit to mitigating the effects of and rightsizing the NFS road system in its
LMPs. The following sections recommend ways in which the agency can do that.
II. Minimum Road System & Road Decommissioning

FRD – 1132
The Forest Service promulgated the Roads Rule (or Subpart A of the 2005 Travel
Management Rule) in 2001. 36 C.F.R. § 212.5(b). As described in the DEIS,
“The intent of the travel management rule is to identify the minimum necessary
road system with an emphasis on reducing roads that have the greatest impact on
the environment. The rule specifies that the responsible official must identify the
minimum road system needed, and in making that determination the official must
incorporate a science-based roads analysis at the appropriate scale. . . .
Responsible officials are asked to give priority to decommissioning unneeded
roads that pose the greatest risk of environmental degradation.”
DEIS, p. 83.
While these requirements have existed for over a decade, implementation of the policy had
stalled until recently. In large part, this was because the Washington Office failed to require the
field to actually complete comprehensive (i.e., analyzing all roads as opposed to passenger
vehicle passable roads only) travel analysis, determine the minimum necessary road system, and
identify unneeded roads for decommissioning, or to provide direction to implement the
recommendations made in that process.
Recently, recognizing the significant adverse ecological and fiscal impacts the vast road
system continues to have, the Forest Service recommitted to this policy and issued direction that
requires the agency to right-size its road system. See Memo to Field Regarding Subpart A
(Attachment). By the end of 2015, each National Forest must complete a travel analysis process
(TAP) report, including a map of the minimum necessary road system and a list of unneeded
roads recommended for decommissioning. After that date, no Capital Improvement and
Maintenance (CMCM) funds may be expended on NFS roads (maintenance levels 1-5) that have
not been included in the report. Id.
In multiple Forest Service documents, the agency has indicated that forest and grassland
plans are the appropriate tool for implementing the findings and recommendations of travel
analysis. In the recent memo to the field, the Washington Office wrote:
“Once certified by the regional forester, units are directed to immediately use the
TAP reports to inform resource assessments, project and forest plan NEPA
decisions to achieve the TAP recommendations.”
Attachment at 3 (emphasis added).
Moreover, the preamble to the Roads Rule and the 2000 Roads Rule Environmental
Assessment (EA) themselves indicate that land management planning is the proper process in
which to incorporate travel analysis and establish direction to implement the minimum road

FRD – 1132
system and decommissioning priorities. In describing how the now-defunct 2000 NFMA
planning rule, 2001 Roadless Rule, and 2001 Roads Rule fit together, the agency said:
“Under the road management policy [i.e., “Roads Rule”], national forests and
grasslands must complete an analysis of their existing road system and then
incorporate the analysis into their land management planning process.”
66 Fed. Reg. 3,206, 3,209 (Jan. 12, 2001) (emphasis added).
The notice also stated that a “comprehensive road inventory and forest-scale roads analysis
[would be] completed and incorporated as appropriate into the forest plan.” Id. (emphasis
added). The EA was explicit about the need to apply travel analysis to forest and grassland
plans.
“Specifically, within two years of the effective date of the final road management
strategy, each Forest System unit must complete a forest-scale road analysis. The
findings of a forest-scale analysis may be applied either to the current forest plan
or at the time of a forest plan revision or amendment. Further, any future project,
ecosystem assessment, or forest plan amendment or revision must be informed by
a roads analysis process.”
Roads Rule EA at 4 (Attachment) (emphasis added).
In addition, the Federal Register notice for the Roads Rule indicated that the agency would
not incur additional costs associated with the analysis because the requirements of the Roads
Rule would supplant existing transportation analysis associated with forest planning: “This final
rule requires that the agency use a roads analysis [i.e. TAP report] prior to making decisions
about road construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning. The agency currently conducts
transportation analysis in association with forest planning, ecosystem assessments, and other
analyses. Thus, the agency does not expect an incremental increase of administrative costs due
to new administrative requirements under this final rule.” 66 Fed. Reg. 3,206, 3,215. This is
also true of the proposed planning rule because it does not contain a transportation analysis
component.
Similarly, a Forest Service technical guide developed to assist the agency with completing its
roads analysis (now called “travel analysis”) noted that “[r]oads analysis, focusing on existing
and future transportation systems, can contribute to implementing and revising forest plans.”
USDA Forest Service. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National
Forest Transportation System (FS-643) at 6 (1999), available at http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/
road_mgt/DOCSroad-analysis.shtml. Despite all this direction, the agency thus far has not
linked travel analysis, minimum road system implementation, and land management planning.

FRD – 1132
Given the host of environmental problems and the fiscal strains caused by the NFS road
system, the nation can ill-afford the right-sizing initiative to stall again. In order to finally realize
the intent of the 2001 Roads Rule and to codify the Forest Service’s recent roads rightsizing
initiative, the agency should, in the planning rule, specifically require forest and grassland plans
to incorporate the recommendations in the travel analysis report to ensure progress toward
achieving the minimum road system. Specifically, the final planning rule should direct land
management plans to require development of a strategy that would guide implementation of the
minimum road system and the recommendations made for decommissioning unneeded roads and
other mitigative actions in the travel analysis report. Further, each forest and grassland plan
should include objectives that specify what percentage of roads on the list of unneeded roads the
agency should endeavor to decommission each year.
In addition to these recommendations, if adopted, several provisions in Alternatives D and E
would either directly implement elements of the right-sizing initiative or, at least, help achieve
the goals of the initiative. Each of these provisions should be included in the final planning rule.
Alternative D proposes adding to § 219.8(a) the provisions indented below, which we support.
DEIS, p. App F-12. We believe these provisions will help the Forest Service accomplish the
goals of the right-sizing initiative, which, like this planning rule, is aimed at achieving ecological
restoration and watershed protection. We have also added a few suggestions in bold, which will
better guide land management plan development with respect to these goals.
(3) Riparian areas. Each plan must include standards and guidelines for—
. . .
(ii) Protection, maintenance, and restoration of Riparian Conservation areas, such
that—
(A) management activities within riparian conservation areas are primarily
for restoration.
(B) activities within riparian conservation areas that are not for restoration
such as construction of new facilities (for example boat landings, road and
trail crossings or campsites) must be designed using best available science
to minimize impacts to the ecological function of the area. Road and
motorized trail construction or reconstruction in riparian
conservation areas shall be prohibited unless necessary to meet
objectives established in the forest plan and shall be consistent with
the minimum necessary road system. Permitted road and motorized
trail construction or reconstruction must avoid stream crossings,
where possible.
4) Watershed standards and guidelines. Each plan must include standards and
guidelines for—
(i) Biological and biophysical connectivity of key watersheds across the
planning unit.

FRD – 1132
(ii) Road densities in key watersheds to achieve sediment reduction,
minimized alteration of surface and subsurface flows, and connectivity of
aquatic and riparian habitat.
(iii) Maintenance and restoration of lakes, streams, wetlands, public water
supplies, source water protection areas, groundwater, other bodies of
water, instream flows, and thermal refugia, and protection of these
resources from detrimental changes in quantity (subject to existing rights)
and quality, including temperature, blockages of water courses, deposits of
sediments
(iv) Protection, maintenance, and restoration of a natural range of
variability in sediment regime. Elements of the sediment regime include
the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and
transport.
(v) Sustaining soil productivity and preventing soil erosion and
sedimentation.
(vi) Road removal and remediation in riparian conservation areas and key
watersheds as the top restoration priority, which will be informed by the
list of unneeded roads recommended for decommissioning, as
required by 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) and (2).
(vii) Achieving a minimum necessary road systems as required by 36
CFR 212.5(b)(1) and (2).
(vii) Prohibiting new road construction or reconstruction unless both
necessary to meet objectives established in the land management plan
and consistent with the minimum necessary road system.
We note that the rightsizing initiative is a NFS-wide non-discretionary requirement.
Given that fact, we are uncertain why the DEIS suggests that more coordination efforts
will be required under Alternative D in establishing minimum road systems than under
Alternative A. DEIS, p. 191. Alternative D would provide the Forest Service greater
clarity in how the initiative relates to forest and grassland planning, but probably would
not require any greater level of coordination.
JJ. Assessments
As described above, we believe the Forest Service should adopt the additional requirements
outlined in Alternative D for the Assessment phase of forest and grassland planning in order to
best assess watershed health and wildlife needs. DEIS, p. App F-7 to F-9 (additions to Draft Sec.
219.7). For instance, the agency should add from Alternative D, the language at Sec. 219.7(6) 55
requiring a “watershed-scale assessment.” However, managers should not just use the
“information gathered . . . to refine default Conservation Area boundaries and develop
55 It appears that the agency mis-numbered its proposal in Alternative D because there is no Section 219.7(b)(5) in
the proposed rule in Alternative A.

FRD – 1132
monitoring programs,” but also to “develop restoration programs, including road
decommissioning prioritization.” DEIS, p. App F-8.
Beyond these changes to the proposed rule, the rule should also require consideration of the
agency’s own analyses of the transportation system at the assessment phase. Under the 2001
Roads Rule (36 C.F.R. § 212.5(b)) and the November memo from the Washington Office to the
field, each National Forest must complete a science-based Travel Analysis Process Report,
minimum road system determination, and list of unneeded roads for decommissioning by 2015.
The Forest Service should add this analysis to the list of documents to be considered in the
assessment phase in § 219.6(b)(2).
In addition, the final rule should require consideration of whether relevant Forest Service
information examined in the assessment phase, such as a travel analysis process report or
community wildfire protection plan, needs to be updated in order that they can effectively inform
the development of the land management plan. The final rule should require that assessments on
issues of fundamental relevance to land management plan development that are found to be outof-date
must be updated in the assessment phase. In other words, no assessment or the
documents on which it was based can stay fresh or accurate forever. For issues that are
fundamentally relevant, the Forest Service cannot rely on out-of-date information and must,
therefore, undertake an effort to update the information accordingly.
Hence, we recommend that § 219.6(b)(2) be revised to read (additions in bold):
(b) Content of assessments for plan development or revision. In the assessment(s)
for plan development or revision, the responsible official shall:
. . .
(2) Identify and consider relevant information contained in governmental or nongovernmental
assessments, plans, monitoring evaluation reports, and studies,
including relevant neighboring land management plans. Such documents may
include travel analysis process reports, State forest assessments and strategies,
the Resources Planning Act assessment, ecoregional assessments, nongovernmental
reports, State comprehensive outdoor recreation plans, community
wildfire protection plans, and State wildlife action plans. Determine whether
any such Forest Service documents need to be updated and complete revision
of that document during the assessment phase. Relevant private information
will be considered if voluntarily provided.
KK.
Monitoring
More detailed monitoring of watershed condition and other forest resources is needed than
provided for in Alternative A. The language of Alternative E at § 219.12(a)(5)(i) (DEIS, p. App
G-14), requiring monitoring questions or indicators to address all the watershed conditions and
elements listed in § 219.8, is desirable. Further, Alternative E’s proposed additional

FRD – 1132
requirements for § 219.12(a)(5) related to the transportation system would help the agency
evaluate its progress toward achieving a right-sized and sustainable transportation system.
Specifically, the agency should adopt the language from Alternative E (DEIS, p. App G-15 to G-
16), as well as the additional suggested language in bold:
5) Each unit monitoring program must contain one or more monitoring questions
or indicators addressing each of the following:
…
(xiii) public safety and environmental impacts of road and trail system on the NFS
unit, including appropriate access, needs of adjacent landowners, public demand,
and ecological and geological risks; and
(A) How many miles of the designated roads and trails are maintained to
standard?
(B) Where is unauthorized use occurring on or off the road and trail system?
(C) How many miles of unneeded roads have been decommissioned or
converted to another use (e.g., hiker/equestrian trail)?
(D) How effective are management actions in moving the National
Forest/Grassland toward achieving its identified minimum necessary road
system?
(E) Which motorized routes are causing considerable adverse effects to
environmental or cultural resources?
Importantly, the Forest Service should also adopt the provision from Alternative E that would
require unit monitoring plans to state what would trigger the need for further action on each item
being monitored:
“Each monitoring question and its associated indicator will also be accompanied by
a description of one or more signal points which are to be used by the responsible
official to determine the need to take action(s) appropriate to the situation.”
DEIS, p. App G-16 (proposed language for § 219.12(a)(9)).
In this way, the agency can ensure progress toward achieving its goals and objectives when
current management actions are ineffective, including with respect to right-sizing its road
system.
LL. Route Density
The proposed rule inappropriately excludes any requirement dealing with road or route
densities. Given the abundance of research on the effects of roads and motorized trails on
wildlife habitat, connectivity, water quality, sedimentation, and other factors, it is essential that
the agency require responsible officials to establish route density standards for all management

FRD – 1132
areas including but not limited to those of high ecological value such as priority watersheds,
riparian areas, and important wildife areas. Preferably the planning rule also would establish
maximum, science-based national route density standards. One effect would be to limit
excessive new road construction, but more importantly to focus management on road reduction
to restore ecosystem health and resilience. The final planning rule should also require plans to
establish standards and guidelines that would result in the agency reducing route density in
riparian areas and important wildlife habitat, reducing habitat fragmentation, and restoring
habitat connectivity.
In addition, we want to emphasize that such standards should be for route densities (i.e.,
roads and motorized trails), as opposed to road densities. As we stated in our scoping comments,
“The agency should adopt route density standards, that factor in both roads and motorized trails,
for each planning unit that are tiered to the viable watershed condition standard, meeting
watershed specific goals, and ensuring healthy wildlife populations.” TWS Scoping Comments,
p. 16-17. We recommend that the Forest Service include all motorized routes, whether classified
as a road or trail, in density standards and calculations, which reflects the underlying fact that it
is the impact of a route – and the impact caused by the route’s use by motorized vehicles – that is
important to resource protection and management, not whether it is classified as a “road” or
“trail.” In many cases, motorized trails cause as much or more damage than roads because they
were not necessarily built to any standard, given that many designated motorized trails came into
being as unauthorized, user-created trails. See, e.g., Great Lakes Envtl. Ctr., National Level
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best
Management Practices 20-22 (2008). Further, the planning rule should make clear that route
density calculations should not include acreage that does not permit motorized routes as a matter
of law (e.g. wilderness), which would artificially lower route density calculations.
The agency should adopt the following provision from Alternative D in the final rule’s §
219.8(a)(2), with the changes made in bold.
4) Watershed standards and guidelines. Each plan must include standards and
guidelines for—
(i) Biological and biophysical connectivity of key watersheds across the planning
unit.
(ii) Route (i.e., roads and motorized trails) densities in key watersheds and
other watersheds across the planning unit to achieve sediment reduction,
minimized alteration of surface and subsurface flows, and connectivity of aquatic,
and riparian, and terrestrial habitat, and reduced fragmentation of wildlife
habitat.
With respect to habitat fragmentation and terrestrial habitat connectivity, the agency
should also adopt a provision in Section 219.9 on “Diversity of Plant and Animal
Communities” that would require land management plans to contain standards and
guidelines regarding route densities based on the best available science.

FRD – 1132
We are unconvinced by the agency’s rationale that the final rule should not require
forest and grassland plans to establish route density standards merely because of mixed
ownership of roads in Eastern forests. DEIS, p. 31, 91. Surely, the agency is creative
enough to figure out a way to require each forest and grassland plan to include route
density standards, even if those density standards would not be the same for every
management area in every national forest.
MM. Inadequate Disclosure of Road Impacts in the DEIS
We are concerned that the agency failed to take a hard look at the effects of the road system,
including road density, on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Generally, there is a dearth of
information regarding the effects of roads on the success of a variety of terrestrial wildlife
species in the DEIS. It seems as though the proposed rule’s failure to include any meaningful
requirements that would reduce the effects of roads on wildlife may have resulted from this lack
of analysis. At this point, the agency really only discloses that, “Stressor sources are the agents
that generate the stresses [on biodiversity], such as a dam, poorly maintained roads, fire
suppression activities, forces contributing to forest fragmentation, or the introduction of a nonnative
invasive species.” DEIS, p. 62 (emphasis added), and p. 68 (noting that “physical barriers
such as roads” cause a loss of habitat connectivity).
This analysis is entirely inadequate, failing to explain the effects of roads on grizzly bears,
elk, wolverine, and a host of other species sensitive to roads and dependent on National Forests
and Grasslands for their survival. The agency should evaluate the impacts of roads on wildlife
displacement and stress (particularly of large vertebrates), habitat fragmentation, and habitat
connectivity in the final EIS and make changes to the rule that will address these effects. The
Forest Service should consult, among other studies and reports, sections of its report entitled
“Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information” on Habitat, Habitat Fragmentation,
Terrestrial Vertebrates, and others. Gucinski et al. 2001; see also Roads Rule EA, p. 61-65;
Holderegger, R. & Di Giulio M., 2010. The genetic effects of roads: A review of empirical
evidence. Basic and Applied Ecology 11: 522–531.
In addition, the DEIS attempts to obfuscate the relationship between dense road networks and
water quality and aquatic species success. At p. 84 of the DEIS, the Forest Service states:
“While there has been much study of the effects of roads on aquatic systems and
aquatic species, there is uncertainty in the literature regarding a direct cause-andeffect
relationship of road density to erosion. Gucinski et al. (2001) noted that
confounding variables are difficult to separate from road-related ones;
nevertheless, there are many benefits to aquatic systems from road deactivation,
including improved hydrologic processes, fish passage, headwater aquatic habitat,
and water quality (Allison et al. 2004). . . . Road density in and of itself is not
always an adequate proxy for impact on aquatic resources (Verry and Dolloff

FRD – 1132
2000) and when road density is associated with impacts to aquatic resources, it
tends to be the result of road density being used as an easily quantifiable indicator
of land use intensity (Lee et al.1998, Ripley et al. 2005).
. . .
The final rule for the determination of threatened status for bull trout (USDI Fish
and Wildlife Service 2010) states that ―Roads and other activities above the
ordinary high water mark or bankfull elevation of streams, and upstream in
watersheds can directly or indirectly impact bull trout habitat in streams. To
protect bull trout habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to evaluate
impacts on a site-specific basis and develop appropriate avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation measures during section 7 consultation on Federal actions. The
final bull trout rule requires best management practices and improved
maintenance of roads and drainage, but there is not a requirement for limiting
road densities, even in relation to habitat of threatened salmonid species.”
The DEIS seems to suggest that because there have been a couple studies that find a direct
cause-and-effect relationship between road density and erosion difficult to pin down, this means
that there is not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between road density and water quality or
even the health of aquatic species habitat. Apparently, we are to believe this because the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) decided to require additional best management practices (BMPs) for
roads and drainage for bull trout recovery, but not to limit road density. DEIS, p. 84, 98. First,
just because the FWS decided to choose one mitigation method over another does not mean that
the method not chosen would be ineffective in recovering bull trout, though it should be noted
that, in any case, many of the HCPs evaluated in that notice did require road decommissioning
and even road density reduction. See, e.g., 75 Fed. Reg. 63,898, 63,961 (Oct. 18, 2010)
Second, numerous studies discredit the implication that road density does not affect the
health of aquatic species habitat. In fact, many of the studies and reports the agency cites in the
DEIS make the connection between high road density and poor salmonid health, including the
FWS Federal Register notice cited. See also Great Lakes Envtl. Ctr., National Level Assessment
of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best
Management Practices 27, 53-55 (2008). In fact, the FWS FR notice states:
“Timber harvest and road building in or close to riparian areas can immediately
reduce stream shading and cover, channel stability, and large woody debris
recruitment and increase sedimentation and peak stream flows (Chamberlin et al.
1991, p. 180; Ripley et al. 2005, p. 2436). These activities can, in turn, lead to
increased stream temperatures, bank erosion, and decreased long-term stream
productivity. The effects of road construction and associated maintenance
account for a majority of sediment loads to streams in forested areas; in addition,
stream crossings also can impede fish passage (Shepard et al. 1984, p. 1;
Cederholm and Reid 1987, p. 392; Furniss et al. 1991, p. 301). Sedimentation
affects streams by reducing pool depth, altering substrate composition, reducing

FRD – 1132
interstitial space, and causing braiding of channels (Rieman and McIntyre 1993,
p. 6), which reduce carrying capacity. Sedimentation negatively affects bull trout
embryo survival and juvenile bull trout rearing densities (Shepard et al. 1984, p.
6; Pratt 1992, p. 6). An assessment of the interior Columbia Basin ecosystem
revealed that increasing road densities were associated with declines in four
nonanadromous salmonid species (bull trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout
(Oncorhyncus clarkii bouvieri), westslope cutthroat trout (O. c. lewisi), and
redband trout (O. mykiss spp.)) within the Columbia River basin, likely through a
variety of factors associated with roads. Bull trout were less likely to use highly
roaded basins for spawning and rearing and, if present in such areas, were likely
to be at lower population levels (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, p. 1183). These
activities can directly and immediately threaten the integrity of the essential
physical or biological features described in PCEs 1 through 6. Special
management considerations or protection that may be needed include the
implementation of best management practices specifically designed to reduce
these impacts in streams with bull trout, particularly in spawning and rearing
habitat. Such best management practices could require measures to ensure that
road stream crossings do not impede fish migration or occur in or near
spawning/rearing areas, or increase road surface drainage into streams.”
75 Fed. Reg. at 63, 934 (emphasis added).
We are not the only ones who have noted the inadequacies of and unsupported conclusions
reached in the Forest Service’s analysis of roads in the DEIS. At least two scientific reviewers in
the Resolve Science Review commented on the inaccuracies and inadequacies of the agency’s
analysis. Dr. Robert B. Jackson, Duke University, wrote:
“One area of the draft EIS that does not reflect current scientific understanding of
the peer-reviewed literature is the discussion of road building. On page 84, for
instance, the EIS reads, “there is uncertainty in the literature regarding a direct
cause-and-effect relationship of road density to erosion.” Other statements in the
paragraph and document (e.g., page 98 of the EIS) are presented in a similar vein.
While it is true that one can find examples in the literature where erosion is not
positively related to road density, on average there is a scientific (and intuitive)
relationship between more road building and maintenance linked to more
erosion, at least in habitats vulnerable to erosion. Thus this section could more
strongly reflect the benefits on average for road closings, erosion, and watershed
protection. Reducing the extent of road building and restoring some existing
roads should yield both economic and environmental benefits in many cases.”
Resolve Science Review at 17.

FRD – 1132
Similarly, Dr. William S. Keeton, University of Vermont, noted the lack of discussion of
roads and their impacts, especially impacts beyond sedimentation. Resolve Science Review at
34, “More could be said about road impacts and the need for restoration. … Road crossings,
thermal barriers (caused by loss of riparian forest cover), and other impediments to fish passage
(e.g. aquatic ecosystem connectivity) would seem like a critical watershed restoration issues for
the document to evaluate, but I could find little discussion of these.”; at 35, “Others papers deal
directly with fragmentation and connectivity. Dispersed patch clear cutting and roads have been
the primary causes of fragmentation on the National Forest System, but these are not mentioned
explicitly.”; and at 38, addressing the effect of roads on timing and magnitude of flows and slope
failures and landslides, as well as need for road decommissioning.
The proposed rule fails to set standards for road densities or road removal, and with this
failure misses one of the largest negative impacts on watershed health. The Forest Service needs
to correct the analysis in its final EIS, and it should choose an alternative that clearly requires a
route density standard, as well as plan components that will result in reduced route densities in
key watersheds and wildlife habitat.
NN.
Direction re: Road Construction and Maintenance
Despite the fact that forest roads are universally recognized, including in the DEIS, as the
primary threat to watershed health, the proposed rule lacks direction for standards for road
maintenance or new road construction. The final rule should require a general set of minimum
standards and guidelines for road system management that each National Forest and Grassland
can adapt to its own needs. At the very least, the final planning rule should include the
requirements of 16 U.S.C. § 1608(b)-(c), which the 1982 Rule (Alternative B) codified at 36
C.F.R. § 219.27:
Sec. 219.27 Management Requirements.
The minimum specific management requirements to be met in accomplishing
goals and objectives for the National Forest System are set forth in this section.
These requirements guide the development, analysis, approval, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of forest plans.
(a) Resource protection. All management prescriptions shall—
…
(10) Ensure that any roads constructed through contracts, permits, or leases
are designed according to standards appropriate to the planned uses,
considering safety, cost of transportation, and effects upon lands and
resources;
(11) Provide that all roads are planned and designed to re-establish vegetative
cover on the disturbed area within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed
10 years after the termination of a contract, lease or permit, unless the road is

FRD – 1132
determined necessary as a permanent addition to the National Forest
Transportation System.
Similar to the agency’s failure to disclose the effects of eliminating the provision from the
1982 rule regarding Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act compliance (as described elsewhere in
these comments), the DEIS fails to take a hard look at the likely effects of purging §
219.27(a)(10)-(11) from the proposed rule. See DEIS, p. 91-92, 94, 99. Glossing over the
effects of the alternatives without specifically describing the reasonably foreseeable effects of no
longer having these provisions to guide land management planning and, in turn, site-specific
projects is a violation of NEPA. It is a particularly troubling violation in that analysis in the
DEIS itself fails to recognize these longstanding statutory requirements. For example, in the
timber section, the DEIS says “National forest timber sales can . . . create roads with attendant
recreation access.” DEIS, p. 147. This statement, similar to the agency’s history of roads
mismanagement, fails to recognize the agency’s statutory duty to ensure that temporary roads are
indeed temporary.
68.
69.
XI. Fire
70.
The Wilderness Society believes that the planning rule should provide more direction
regarding fire management. We strongly support the provision in the Sustainability section of
the proposed rule that would require plans to include plan components to maintain or restore
healthy and resilient ecosystems and watersheds that take into account “wildland fire and
opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems” (§ 219.8(a)(1)(iv)). However, the rule as
written does not establish parameters for site specific decisions about how to develop a forest or
grassland plan that reduces fuels to within the range of natural variability, restores fire regimes
and manages effects from these activities.
To its credit, the DEIS identifies major problems with how fire has been managed in the past.
While we have concerns about the accuracy and utility of the metric of Fire Regime Condition
Class used in the DEIS, the document acknowledges that millions of acres of national forest land
are in a condition in which fire may damage the resources that National Forests were established
to protect. In many of these places, expected fire behavior is such that keeping fires out of
inhabited areas may be impossible. Failure to plan has forced workers to try to deal with the
fuels problem while those very fuels are on fire. The essence of planning is to get work done
before an emergency develops. The planning rule should address this problem, not pass it on to
the individual Units and ultimately to the fire-fighting crews, the rural communities and of
course, the taxpayer.
Numerous policy documents addressing fire management on public lands encourage greater
integration of fire issues into land management planning. For example, the interagency
document Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy

FRD – 1132
(February, 2009) states, “Fire management planning will be intergovernmental in scope and
developed on a landscape scale.” The guidance document’s first three principles are:
1. Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity.
2. The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change
agent will be incorporated into the planning process. Federal agency land and
resource management plans set the objectives for the use and desired future
condition of the various public lands.
3. Fire Management Plans, programs, and activities support land and resource
management plans and their implementation.
This interagency document makes it clear that the Forest Service is expected to integrate fire
management direction into its land management plans.
OO.
How the Rule Should Address Fire Management
For all forest or grassland plans where the unit has a recognized fire regime, the planning rule
should require plans to include management area-specific standards and guidelines for fire
management. Considering that the Forest Service now spends roughly half of its budget on
wildland fire, fire management is clearly an important public issue that should be addressed by
specific standards and guidelines. Where they have been adopted and applied, required
standards and guidelines have turned into a major cost savings for fire management. Combined
with the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) process, they have already saved
millions of dollars and reduced firefighter exposure to hazardous working environments.
A brief description of how WFDSS has worked will illustrate why management area-specific
standards and guidelines are so important. The WFDSS system assists fire managers and
analysts in making strategic and tactical decisions for fire incidents. It has replaced the WFSA
(Wildland Fire Situation Analysis), Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP), and Long-Term
Implementation Plan (LTIP) processes with a single process that is easier to use, more intuitive,
linear, scalable, and progressively responsive to changing fire complexity. WFDSS integrates
the various applications used to manage incidents into a single system, which streamlines the
analysis and reporting processes. It supports effective wildland fire decisions consistent with
land management plans by pre-loading plan information, including standards and guidelines, for
use by incident managers.
This is critical to the thought process a fire manager uses in sizing up a fire. In the absence
of good resource information, most fire managers will follow the agency default approach, which
is full suppression. They will often modify that approach when given information indicating that
full suppression is not necessary or even harmful. It is important to note that WFDSS is just a

FRD – 1132
method. We are suggesting that the link between plans and the firefighters is the critical piece.
If fire managers know what is in the plan and why it is in there, they will use that knowledge.
With WFDSS, a fire manager now has Forest and Grassland Plan standards and guidelines right
on their laptop, at the fire.
PP. Examples of Wilderness Fire Standards
Some forest and grassland plans currently include standards and guidelines for western
Wilderness areas that encourage use of fire to achieve resource benefits. In California, for
example, the Klamath National Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines for the Trinity Alps
Wilderness state, “All lightning-started fires will be wildland fires managed for resource
benefits, unless the fire does not meet the goals and objectives (it then will be declared a
wildfire). Permit lightning-caused fires to play their ecological role, as nearly as possible, within
the wilderness.”
The Payette National Forest in Idaho is an especially impressive example of successful
integration of forest planning and fire management. The Payette’s recently revised Forest Plan
includes the following wilderness management direction:
“All lightning-started fires will be wildland fires managed for resource benefits,
unless the fire does not meet the goals and objectives (it then will be declared a
wildfire). Permit lightning-caused fires to play their ecological role, as nearly as
possible, within the wilderness.
Reduce to an acceptable level the risks and consequences of a wildland fire within or
escaping from the wilderness. Assessments of consequences will emphasize potential
impacts on residential intermixes, mixed or adjacent landowners, Endangered or
Threatened species, etc.
Permit planned ignitions or management-lighted prescribed fire. This will allow fire
to return in a more natural role so managers can select meteorological and fuel
situations for future prescribed natural fire. Wilderness fire policy permits the use of
management-lighted fires.
Suppression of wildland fire will use appropriate suppression response and the
Minimum Impact Suppression Techniques as outlined in the Forest-wide Fire and
Fuels Management Standards and Guidelines.”
Because these standards explicitly tell the fire manager that not doing full suppression is
acceptable, the manager is free to base their decision on fire behavior, resources at risk and other
specific factors. This information allows a manager on the ground to make decisions that benefit
the resource, save millions of dollars and reduce exposure of firefighters.

FRD – 1132
The Payette Forest Plan uses fire to achieve management goals in both wilderness and nonwilderness
land allocations. In fact, 80% of the Forest is available for “appropriate management
response” (giving managers choices other than full suppression) under the Forest Plan. In 2007
the Payette had roughly 100,000 acres in managed fire (wilderness) and 360,000 acres of fire in
general forested lands. They made the decision to monitor the wilderness fires providing
structure protection to private inholdings (point protection strategy) and occasionally herd these
fires, but did not use full suppression.
The Payette’s wilderness managed fires were managed for 90 days and cost approximately
$5 million. The Forest spent an additional $32 million managing large, non-wilderness fires that
burned another 360,000 acres. Much of that cost was because cautious national managers
insisted they take a NIMO team, multiple Type I Incident Management Teams and share the cost
of an Area Command Team with the Boise National Forest. The Boise had a similar fire
situation that year, but they elected to go with full suppression actions. They spent $67 million
and wound up with roughly the same acres burned.
Single year savings are impressive, but the long term effect of integrating fire management
with land management plan standards and guidelines is profound. For example, the Krassel
Ranger District of the Payette N.F. in 2006 had 80 wildfires over a short time period in the South
Fork Salmon River sub-basin. These fires were located within a small area and safety for
personnel was recognized as the top priority. Direction for managing these fires was to protect
inholdings while allowing the fires to burn together. The District had previously used prescribed
fire underburns in large areas of pine and mixed conifer in this sub-basin. These burns were
completed using NEPA Environmental Analysis and Forest Plan direction that recognized the
value of re-introducing fire to fire dependent ecosystems. The 2006 fires burned 46,000 acres in
this sub-basin. Where it had been under-burned (non-lethal fire) in previous years, it underburned
again. The fires moved 46,000 acres toward their range of natural variability and by
reducing surface and ladder fuels, caused a long term reduction in fire rate of spread, resistance
to control and severity. Fire occurrence went from 65 wildfires per year to 7 fires per year after
implementation of fire management based on Forest LMP standards and guidelines. We expect
the use of fire for resource benefit will continue to expand to land allocations other than
wilderness in the future.
The Forest Service should learn from these important successes and ensure that the lessons
are applied nationally through the Planning Rule. The EIS should evaluate the potential cost
savings, the increased margin of safety and the ecological benefits of this change.
QQ.
Expectations for Efficient Fire Management under Forest Plans
To summarize, Forest Plan Management Areas should have specific standards and guidelines
for fire management, because processes like WFDSS will use those standards to provide cheaper,
safer, more ecologically suitable fire management. We believe there are several ways these
standards could be applied.

FRD – 1132
Standards could be developed by management area/land allocation. As in the examples
above, Wilderness is an obvious choice for standards that call for modified suppression or for
simply monitoring fires. Timber emphasis land allocations could have standards that call for
full suppression in stands containing fire sensitive species and guidelines that emphasize
mechanical treatment of fuels.
Standards could be developed by risk to health and safety (see The Wilderness Society’s
letter to the Secretary, dated February 16, 2010 describing how the three zone approach could
be used).
Standards for fire management could be developed by fire regime. This has obvious
advantages for restoring ecosystem structure and function. For example, standards and
guidelines for frequent low severity regimes would encourage frequent burning. Standards for
high severity regimes would emphasis preparation for high severity fire, such as roadside fuel
treatment of evacuation routes, Strategically Placed Landscape Area Treatments (SPLAT’s)
and the like.
71. Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST)
MIST was developed by smokejumper and Fire Behavior Analyst Francis Mohr in the early
1980’s to counter some of the unnecessary destruction he had seen on fires. References to
Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) are found in a variety of fire management plans
and handbooks. The National Interagency Fire Center’s Red Book discusses MIST as an
approved tactic (AppU: www.nifc.govpoliciesred_book2003.pdf). Standards for Fire and
Aviation Operations 2002, Chapter 10, p. 14-16 discusses MIST as a tactic in any situation
where a light hand will get the job done. MIST is suggested as a tactic in such disparate places
as the Craters of the Moon National Monument
(http://www.nps.gov/archive/crmo/firemp/crmofmp_aj.html), the Mojave National Monument
(www.nps.gov/moja/parkmgmt/upload/B-Wilder.pdf), the Golden Gate National Recreation
Area Plan (Appendix G) and the Region 1 Fireline Handbook.
MIST should be the default approach for designated Wilderness unless human health and
safety are threatened by use of MIST on a particular incident. If MIST is not used, the reasons
for not using MIST should be documented in a WFDSS. As to using MIST in other land
allocations we could not express it better than the National Wildfire Coordinating Groups
Guidance found in a “Directive Attachment” on MIST:
“MIST is not intended to represent a separate or distinct classification of firefighting
tactics but rather a mind set - how to suppress a wildfire while minimizing the long-term
effects of the suppression action. MIST is the concept of using the minimum tool to
safely and effectively accomplish the task. MIST should be considered for application on
all fires in all types of land management.”

FRD – 1132
72. Maps
On national forests and grasslands with a recognized fire regime, detailed fire regime maps
should be developed and maintained for use in WFDSS and other decision making processes.
On those forests and grasslands, detailed Wildland Urban Interface Maps should be developed
and maintained for use in WFDSS and other decision making processes. As we discuss
elsewhere in these comments, these maps should be included in Forest and Grassland Plans.
73. Monitoring Fuels and Fire
At § 219.10(a)(9) the proposed rule tasks the responsible official with considering, “Potential
impacts of climate and other system drivers, stressors and disturbance regimes, such as Wildland
fire, invasive species, and human induced stressors, on the unit’s resources.” On units with a
recognized fire regime, this would imply that at a minimum, monitoring of vegetation and fuels
profiles must be established. This is especially important for forests on the West Coast, where
there is already evidence of changes in vegetation and fuels. Keeley, J.E. and C.J. Fotheringham.
2003. Impact of past, present, and future fire regimes on North American Mediterranean
shrublands, pp. 218-262. In T.T. Veblen, W.L. Baker, G. Montenegro, and T.W. Swetnam (eds),
Fire and Climatic Change in Temperate Ecosystems of the Western Americas. Springer, New
York. In addition, the Monitoring section of the rule at § 219.12(a)(5) should specifically require
monitoring of fuels, fire behavior, and other fire-related conditions.
RR.
Air and Smoke Management
Finally, it is important for the planning rule to address ways to minimize air quality impacts
of fire and resulting smoke. The proposed rule would require the local forest supervisors to
“coordinate land management planning with the equivalent and related planning efforts of
federally recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, and
State and local governments, to the extent practicable and appropriate” (§ 219.4(b)(1)). This “all
lands” approach should improve coordination between smoke management and fire
management. Coordination between smoke management authorities and the agency is vital for
effective restoration of fire to its natural role, while protecting human health.
74.
75.
XII. Climate Change
The Wilderness Society commends the Forest Service for proposing a planning Rule that for
the first time attempts to take climate change into account in an explicit and forthright manner.
Disruptions to land and ecosystems outside of the normal range of historic variability are
expected to become more frequent and more intense. The prospect of climate-driven increases in
invasive species, altered fire regimes, increased insect and disease outbreaks, increased

FRD – 1132
frequency and intensity of drought and storms, decreased snow cover, altered phenologies of
tightly linked species, and range shifts and the break-up of long-established plant and animal
communities all threaten the future productivity and diversity of ecosystems and the goods and
services we expect from our National Forests and Grasslands.
Climate change is a “super-stressor” – the stressor that makes all the other stressors worse.
The stress on forests from climate change has the potential to undo much of what the Forest
Service is hoping to accomplish regarding water, wildlife and timber. However, the Rule tends
not to treat climate change as an unprecedented source of stress. Rather it is one of a host of
sources of stress to be considered as plans are written. Nor does it adequately address the unique
role that our national forests already play in absorbing and storing global warming pollutants
and, therefore, the need to begin protecting our most vulnerable old-growth carbon sinks.
SS. Interim Climate Change Assessments
The rise of climate change means that the focus of planning must change from the scheduling
of outputs to the management of the risk to ecosystem sustainability from climate change. In this
regard, it is encouraging that the need to account for climate change is specifically acknowledged
in the Rule. The Rule incorporates concerns about the current and potential impacts of climate
disruption in § 219.5 (Planning Framework); § 219.8 (Sustainability); § 219.10 (Multiple Uses);
§ 219.12 (Monitoring) and § 219.19 (definition of “ecosystem services.”)
However, this issue has never before been dealt with explicitly in a planning context, which
means that current forest plans do not clearly account for the broad and powerful impacts of
climate change. A flood of climate-specific information has been generated by the scientific
community relative to forests and grasslands that should be accounted for immediately. Yet the
normal cycle of plan revisions means that this process will play out over a decade or more before
the Forest Service can say that the requirements of this proposed Rule have had their intended
effect. Moreover, the proposed Rule can be read – and therefore will probably be read – by
many NOT to require any change in operations on the ground as a result of considering climate
change. For example, Section 219.8(a)(1)(ii (Ecosystem Plan Components) requires the
inclusion of plan components that maintain forest function and connectivity “taking into account
… climate change.” Section 219.10(a)(Integrated Resource Management) provides that the
manager “shall consider”… potential impacts of climate”.
Thus, it is conceivable under this proposed Rule that many years may pass before some land
management plans are actually subject to climate change analysis within the context of a formal
revision or amendment process, and even then the consideration can be perfunctory without
consequence.
Recommendation: For these reasons, The Wilderness Society strongly supports the suggestion
of retired deputy chief of the Forest Service Jim Furnish that an interim process – a “Climate
Change Assessment” – be undertaken for every existing forest plan within one year.

FRD – 1132
These assessments, in combination with other agency climate change actions (e.g. the Forest
Service National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change and Performance Scorecard
(USDA Forest Service July 2010) should result in a commitment to either amend or revise the
existing plans accordingly. In some cases, a plan could be amended to articulate new desired
conditions and guidelines (219.7(d)(1)) as a stop-gap measure. Where more aggressive action is
needed, explicit new objectives and standards might be necessary to stop or reverse conditions
through restoration.
In any case, each national forest and grassland should contribute explicitly and quickly to an
overall agency response to climate change. The record established by this process and its results
should go far to cure the concern that climate change – a new super-stressor that threatens to
make all other stressors worse --may otherwise not be considered on a timely basis.
In the past, such assessments have been undertaken as a Review of New Information (RONI).
The Forest Supervisor of the Monongahela National Forest, for example, undertook a RONI in
2008-2009 in response to the publication of climate guidance by the Forest Service – The Forest
Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change (USDA Forest Service 2008.)
The intent of the RONI was “to provide a reasoned analysis of recent information on the
potential effects of climate change and carbon sequestration and their relevance to ongoing and
pending projects implementing the MNF Land and Resource Management Plan, or projects
implementing the plan.”
The significant recent accumulation of climate-related research as well as the urgency of the
potential threat from climate change to our National Forests deserves an immediate checkup, unit
by unit, similar to the Monongahela RONI. Just as the 2008 Framework documents triggered
that RONI, the issuance of the National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change
(http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/pdf/roadmap.pdf) deserves to be treated with equal
seriousness by every forest supervisor.
However, the “Interim Climate Assessments” recommended here would differ from a RONI
in that they would adhere to the requirements for public participation and engagement set forth in
§ 219.4 (Requirements for Public Participation), § 219.6(a)(1) (Assessments) “The responsible
official shall: (1) notify and encourage the public…to participate in the assessment process,” and
§ 219.16 (Public Notifications). In contrast, the Monongahela RONI excluded public
participation and was premised on the assumption that “climate change issues are most
appropriately addressed at the policy scale.” An Interim Climate Assessment done today under
the proposed Rule must include the public in the process and must not be constrained by
assuming that the individual forest plan cannot take meaningful action to address climate change.
Finally, such assessments should not make decisions outside the requirements of NEPA.
Finally, we note that DEIS Alternative D would include climate change vulnerability
assessments focused on watersheds. Water is a key service threatened by climate change, but is

FRD – 1132
not the only one. We recommend that watershed vulnerability be included in the interim climate
change assessments, but not exclude species vulnerability or the vulnerability of other ecosystem
services tied to healthy national forests and grasslands.
TT. Risk Management
The Wilderness Society has long urged that forest planning reflect the uncertainty that
accompanies climate change (see, eg, Aplet, Anderson and Wilmer, “Managing the Risk of
Climate Change to Wildlands in the Sierra Nevada”, http://wilderness.org/content/managingrisk-climate-change-wildlands-sierra-nevada.)
Climate change is forcing planning to shift from
the traditional approach of scheduling desired outputs (timber, forage, visitor days) to the
management of risk. Successful risk planning requires a commitment to assessing vulnerability,
exposure and uncertainty on a regular basis as new science tests previous assumptions.
Uncertainty about how climate change will affect a particular national forest system unit means
that planners should commit to a portfolio of approaches.
The proposed Rule certainly allows for such an approach. Language introducing the sectionby-section
explanation asserts that “[t]he proposed rule would create an adaptive framework…”
and the explanation for Section 219.1 says hopefully that “[t]he new requirements in the
proposed rule should increase agency and unit capacity for adapting management plans to new
and evolving information about risks, stressors, changing conditions, and management
effectiveness.” However, we are concerned that this new “adaptive management” paradigm is
not well integrated into the proposed Rule itself. It is not clear, for example, that vulnerability
assessments will be required. Potential problems with implementation are noted above.
Monitoring is a critical piece of risk management and Section 219.12(a)(5) includes monitoring
both for measureable changes related to climate change and for above-ground carbon storage.
But the Rule still lacks a clear recognition of the steps that are needed for successful risk
management and a requirement that managers adopt this new approach.
The Wilderness Society outlines an approach to risk management in the Restoration and
Resiliency section of these comments. Please refer to the recommendations in that section for
specific rule changes needed to incorporate effective risk management for climate uncertainty
into the planning process.
UU.
Protection of Carbon Stores
The Wilderness Society applauds the definition of “ecosystem services’ provided in this
proposed Rule Section 219.19. The definition includes, appropriately, “Regulating services,
such as long term storage of carbon” and “climate regulation.” Section 219.19 also includes a
definition of “Multiple use” to mean management for all the various renewable surface resources
of the National Forest System, including ecosystem services.

FRD – 1132
Further, we note that § 219.12 (Monitoring) requires monitoring that includes at least two
explicit climate indicators: “(5)(v) Measurable changes on the unit related to climate change and
other stressors on the unit”; and “(5)(vi) The carbon stored in above ground vegetation.”
While these provisions are the beginning of new management attention to carbon storage,
they still fail to convey the critical role that the Forest Service must play in meeting the challenge
of climate change. It is urgent that forest supervisors understand and appreciate the urgency of
providing increased attention to a core climate-related function of our National Forests and
Grasslands – storing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in plants, trees and soils for decades
and longer in some cases. The Wilderness Society fully appreciates that it would be unwise to
manage any forest solely “for carbon” – but we are asking that the Forest Service be much more
explicit about managing “with carbon,” so that healthy natural carbon sinks are not lost for lack
of recognizing this feature.
The United States is home to some of the most carbon-rich forests in the world. The average
carbon per acre on some of our public forests in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast Alaska
exceed that of the average tropical rainforest. The ten National Forests in the U.S. with the
highest carbon density-- Willamette, Olympic, Umpqua, Gifford Pinchot, Siuslaw, Mt. Hood,
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Siskiyou, Tongass, and Rogue River -- hold an average of approximately
500 metric tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) on each forested acre. Altogether, these
forests store approximately 9.8 billion metric tons CO2e on about 19 million acres. Some of this
carbon is stored in living trees and other vegetation, both above and below ground, some in
standing or down dead wood, and some in soil. The amount of CO2e stored in these forests can
be better understood by comparing it to the CO2 stored in all the fossil fuels that are burned in
the U.S. in a year – about 5.8 billion metric tons.
The old-growth and mature forests of the Pacific Northwest and Southeast Alaska are playing
an important role in long-term carbon sequestration. The moist late-successional forests west of
the Cascade Mountains hold more carbon per acre than nearly any other forest ecosystem on
earth. 56 In addition, they are able to retain and continue to increase their carbon stores for
centuries, due to their relatively long fire-return intervals. 57
Currently the vast majority of the remaining Pacific Northwest old-growth and mature forests
are on federal lands and most of them are legally protected through a variety of administrative
and legislative designations. These include Late Successional Reserves and Riparian Reserves
established by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994, as well as congressionally-designated
Wilderness Areas and National Parks. Approximately 80 percent of the Westside late-
56 Smithwick et al. 2002. Potential upper bounds of carbon stores in forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological
Applications 12, 1303-1317.
57 Luyssaert et al. 2008. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213-215.

FRD – 1132
successional forests are congressionally or administratively protected. 58 However, one million
acres of these carbon-rich and resilient late-successional forests are not formally protected and
therefore are potentially vulnerable to destructive logging.
The Forest Service has been taking important steps to meet the ecological and economic
needs of America through restoration rather than liquidation of old-growth forests. Yet the
future of many old-growth and mature forests in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest is still in
doubt. The Forest Service’s 2008 revised land management plan for the Tongass would allow
400,000 acres of productive old growth to be logged. The agency is currently deciding whether
to proceed with several large old-growth timber sales.
The Wilderness Society believes that forest plans should be required to protect the wealth of
forest carbon in our national forests in conjunction with other ecosystem services wherever that
protection promotes forest health. Carbon storage is a natural and national asset along with the
many other important services that healthy forests provide - from clean water to wildlife habitat.
VV.
Monitoring of Below Ground Carbon
Another deficiency regarding the treatment of carbon storage is the restriction of the
monitoring of carbon storage to above-ground vegetation alone. As noted above, carbon stored
on forested land is only partly found in the part of the above-ground living tree. Often as much
as two-thirds of the carbon stored is below ground in the roots, soil or in the forest litter and
deadwood. On native grasslands, nearly all the carbon is stored below ground, and these soil
carbon reserves can be significant.
Recommendation: The Wilderness Society believes the proposed Rule should require the
inventory and monitoring of carbon both above and below ground, how it changes over time, and
how its contribution to mitigating or adapting to climate change can be optimized consistent with
the health of the ecosystem.
In the United States our forests and natural ecosystems annually absorb the equivalent of
about 14 percent of annual carbon dioxide emissions. For years this land has been managed
without regard to its value as a carbon sink or its potential to become a carbon sink. Section
219.10 (Multiple Uses) and § 219.19 (Definitions) read together make clear the intent of this new
Rule that managing for “multiple-use” now includes a suite of services provided by healthy
forests, including the service of absorbing and holding carbon and thus mitigating the most
severe impacts of climate disruption. Monitoring or accounting for only the above-ground
carbon devalues this ecosystem dramatically.
58 Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic,
and social assessment. No. 1993-793-071. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., USA.

FRD – 1132
Resource constraints and technology mean that at any given time it may be much easier to
quantify stocks and carbon flux above ground, but it makes no sense to provide in this proposed
Rule that only above-ground carbon need be monitored. It is particularly important for the
Forest Service to properly account for and monitor the impact of fire on carbon. Recent studies
suggest that the impact of fire on emissions may be much less than assumed [Beverly et al].
Much carbon still remains after fire in the roots, soil, dead snags and charred wood of a
firescape. It is important that carbon be accounted for accurately.
As stated earlier in these comments, The Wilderness Society is not asking that our National
Forests be managed solely “for carbon” – but rather that where carbon stores are found to be
high, that the forest be managed “with carbon” in mind so that healthy natural carbon sinks are
not lost for lack of recognizing this feature.
WW. Emissions
Monitoring of above-ground carbon addresses only one aspect of National Forest
management that affects atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. National Forests should
also plan for and monitor their greenhouse gas emissions, including those from Forest Service
operations, visitor use, and fossil fuel extraction. The same management activities that affect
terrestrial carbon stocks often cause other direct and indirect emissions. Monitoring all
greenhouse gas effects of these activities in an integrated fashion will provide critical input to
on-going management decisions.
Recommendation: Federal government operations are already required, under Executive Order
(EO) 13514 (74 Federal Register 52117), to “measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions from direct and indirect activities”. Land Management Plans should specify how each
National Forest and Grassland will comply with this directive.
XX.
Timber Suitability
Under Section 219.11(a)(2) (Timber requirements based on the NFMA), “all lands not
identified in the plan as not suitable for timber production are suited for timber production.” 59
Thus, unless an area is identified as having certain factors that would exclude it from the timber
base, it is eligible for harvest. The list of factors that might exclude an area from the timber base
do not explicitly include the relatively rare remaining old-growth forests that retain high levels of
carbon, nor does it include areas that, if managed properly, would likely become high carbon
storage areas. Instead, this appears to be a possible basis for exclusion implied by Section
219.11(a)(1)(iii) “Timber production would not be compatible with the achievement of desired
conditions and objectives established by the plan for those lands.” As recommended in the
Timber Requirements section of these comments, The Wilderness Society believes that high
59 See our concerns with this section of the proposed Rule elsewhere in these comments.

FRD – 1132
carbon storage should be an explicit, not implied, basis for exclusion of an area from timber
harvest. Please refer to the Timber Requirements section for further discussion.
XIII. Economics
YY. Introduction
This revision of the planning regulations presents the Forest Service with an opportunity to
reform the traditionally narrow approach to analyzing economic impacts in land use planning.
The Wilderness Society is pleased that the agency has clearly signaled its intention to address a
broad set of social and environmental values through its use of the inclusive term ‘ecosystem
services’ to describe the values which National Forests and Grasslands provide. Furthermore, an
opportunity also exists to expand the economic analysis altogether to include economic values
beyond the narrow focus on local impacts.
In fact, now that the agency has proposed adoption of a “three-legged stool” model, with a
focus on social and economic sustainability together with the traditional focus on ecological
sustainability, the agency must reform and broaden its approach to social and economic analysis
in order to get this three-legged perspective right. The use and application of best available
science must apply equally to the economic and social sciences. This will also necessitate the
collection and use of accurate up-to-date data to understand how Forest Service expenditures and
actions influence or result in positive and/or negative social, economic and ecological impacts.
Further, it should help the public provide better informed feedback on the costs and benefits of
possible agency actions. We believe this approach should result in codifying better economic
and social analysis at both the land management plan (LMP) and site-specific levels.
TWS is pleased that the agency has acknowledged its limited role in affecting the social and
economic systems of local communities, and that ecological sustainability has been
acknowledged as an equal attribute for which the agency will manage National Forests and
Grasslands. However, the Proposed Rule has very little substantive content which addresses
economic analyses, which we feel is critical to ensure both ecological sustainability and social
and economic sustainability.
The Proposed Rule mentions “social and economic sustainability” frequently, including the
objective that “Plans will guide management of NFS lands so that they… contribute to social and
economic sustainability…” in Section 219.1. This phrase is repeated in various forms
throughout the Proposed Rule and DEIS, but without any of the substantive requirements for
science-based economic analyses which we requested in detailed scoping comments to the
agency in 2010.
Section 219.3 states that “The responsible officer will take into account the best available
scientific information…” however, merely taking into account is not sufficient. We outlined

FRD – 1132
very specific issues with how agency economic analyses have been done in the past, and very
specific solutions to address these issues in the Final Planning Rule. These include a request to
require LMP economic impact analyses be expanded beyond just counting jobs in extractive
industries, to include industries such as recreation which rely directly and indirectly on land
management actions, and to include more sectors of the local economies which rely only
indirectly on the amenities which are produced when NFS lands are managed for ecological
sustainability.
It should go without saying (but we’re glad the agency said it anyway) that public land
management plans should be based on the best available science. However, Section 219.3 is
completely devoid of even the vaguest implication that the best available science will be used to
make these important planning decisions. The section requires the responsible official to very
carefully document every step of the process of selection and assessing the scientific
information, but nowhere is there any discussion of actually applying this information to the
decision process. As mentioned in a previous section of this letter, the agency’s treatment of the
consideration of science as equal to that of public input and the decisionmaker’s experience
makes this lack of discussion all the more troubling.
We feel that in order to make the most of the opportunity for improvement that this revision
of the Planning Rules represents, the agency must include more explicit requirements about what
sort of information must be included, the methodologies to apply, as well as the extent and
content of the economic analyses upon which long-term plans for America’s public lands are
based. Furthermore, we provide considerable detail about how science (including economics)
should be applied.
76. What the Proposed Rule Says About Economics
Section 218.7 (d) Plan components (i) Desired conditions states, “A desired condition is a
description of specific social, economic [emphasis added], and/or ecological characteristics of
the plan area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which management of the land and resources
should be directed.” To include desired social and economic characteristics in the set of desired
conditions for land management implies more control of these conditions than the agency has
(per the agency’s own assessment in the section by section explanation of the Proposed Rule,
FR, p. 8491). It also implies a troubling continuation of agency policies that have led to over
harvest of commercial timber under a justification of community stability. While there may be
some social and economic conditions for which the agency would be an appropriate instrument,
we are concerned that these “desired conditions” may be used to continue practices which may
not be ecologically sustainable at the very least and may also lead to economically and socially
unsustainable outcomes as well (as we discuss below in more detail).
Per Section 219.8 (b) Social and economic sustainability, “The plan must include
components to guide the unit’s contribution to social and economic sustainability, taking into
account:

FRD – 1132
(1) Social, cultural, and economic conditions relevant to the area influenced by the plan and the
distinctive roles and contributions of the unit within the broader landscape;
(2) Sustainable recreation opportunities and uses;
(3) Multiple uses, including ecosystem services, that contribute to local, regional, and national
economies in a sustainable manner; and
(4) Cultural and historic resources and uses.”
We presented the agency with considerable input on the attributes of rural economies in our
scoping comments in 2010. The requirement above will not be met unless rigorous economic
analyses that include consideration of a much broader array of industrial sectors, non-economic
indicators and methods of analysis than that which have traditionally been used by the agency
are required. In the sections which follow we briefly reiterate these requested analyses and
further request that the Final Planning Rule contain more explicit requirements to include these
analyses in LMP NEPA analyses.
77. What the DEIS Says About Economics
Overall, the DEIS does not provide much substantive economic analysis of the impacts of the
Proposed Rule or Alternatives, with the exception of the Range section. Here, the Agency has
singled out one industry (the livestock industry) and one resource (range) for what is very
strange and inappropriate special treatment.
We find this statement in the DEIS particularly troubling in the context in which it is presented,
“While natural resources, such as rangelands, contribute to economic and social well-being, economic and
social conditions contribute to ecosystem sustainability.” (DEIS, pg. 144). We have been trying to
encourage the land management agencies to acknowledge this interdependence for years: to assert it only
within the context of livestock grazing ignores the bigger picture. This particular industry, by the
Agency’s own estimates, contributes the smallest portion (with the exception of “other forest products” to
the overall economic impacts)(DEIS, Appendix J-Economic Contributions).
Furthermore, any commercial activity, including livestock grazing, on NFS lands has the potential to
contribute to the deterioration of ecological sustainability and thus economic and social sustainability.
Grazing has been an activity that for decades contributed to considerable environmental degradation. The
DEIS claims, “Ranchers are expected to internalize the cost of conservation and occasionally choose
economic viability over their desire for more sustainable systems.” (DEIS, pg. 144). This assertion
ignores the fact that NFS lands are public lands. Of course ranchers must “internalize the cost of
conservation” if they are using public lands as an input in their industry. We would expect no less of any
industry using our NFS lands. The DEIS goes on to say, “Sustainable rangeland management on NFS

FRD – 1132
lands requires attention to potential economic influences facing grazing permittees.” (DEIS, pg. 144)
This special treatment of the livestock industry in the Proposed Rule is unacceptable.
The DEIS notes, “Resource issues on rangelands often result from multiple causative factors that vary
over time and space. Significant knowledge gaps exist, and will continue to exist due to the complex
nature of the problems.” (DEIS, pg. 144). Again, this is true of all activities on public lands and should
not be used to justify the continuation of what are often arguably unsustainable grazing practices on
public lands. The DEIS goes on, “There has been scientific debate for years concerning the
environmental impacts and sustainability of livestock grazing, particularly in the West.” The problem
with much of this research is that it begins by calling arid grasslands “rangelands” presuming that their
function is solely as a source of range (forage) and ignores their ecological importance for other values
including ecosystem services. This entire section is bizarre at best. Why is the livestock industry being
treated with such deference?
Recommendation: This section of the DEIS is inappropriate: we recommend that the agency revise this
section to treat range the same way that timber and recreation are treated within the DEIS and Proposed
Rule.
ZZ. Economic Definitions: Section 219.19
The planning rule must adhere to standard acceptable definitions of certain key terms, and
must refrain from using terms whose meaning is vague or which are not generally used by
economists. The planning rule must also refrain from applying improper definitions to terms.
In our scoping letter to the agency we requested that the planning rule must include credible,
standard economic definitions. We would like to commend the agency for removing references
to an egregious term, “cost efficiency” which had no economic meaning and which had been
applied to justify poor projects. However we feel that the Proposed Rule has also eliminated
some definitions which must be included in order to ensure that Forest Service LMP economic
analyses are complete and are based on standard and meaningful definitions. First, we will
discuss our concerns with the definitions included in the rule, followed by a discussion of key
economic terms which must be defined in the Final Planning Rule.
78. Ecosystem Services
The definition of ecosystem services incorporated in the draft rule is adapted from the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
“Ecosystem services. Benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including:
(1) Provisioning services, such as clean air and fresh water, as well as energy, fuel, forage, fiber,
and minerals;

FRD – 1132
(2) Regulating services, such as long term storage of carbon; climate regulation; water filtration,
purification, and storage; soil stabilization; flood control; and disease regulation;
(3) Supporting services, such as pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation, and nutrient cycling;
and
(4) Cultural services, such as educational, aesthetic, spiritual, and cultural heritage values, as well
as recreational experiences and tourism opportunities.”
This definition limits the scope of ecosystem services to those of direct human utility for
provisioning, regulating and cultural services, or indirect utility for supporting services. Some
would argue that incorporating non-use or non-human values is so broad as to make the term
meaningless. However, extensive economic research (cited in our previous scoping comments
during the rule-making process) documents that people place a high value on protection of
natural environments that they will never visit or draw direct benefit from. Not all ecosystem
elements, processes and functions can be tied directly to human use, though the
interconnectedness of ecological systems makes it likely that humans would ultimately suffer in
some way from the degradation of ecological support-systems. Like multiple use before it, an
ecosystem services framework that focuses too narrowly on direct human uses of National Forest
System resources could lead to neglect of basic protections for resources that deserve a place
under the sun despite our lack of understanding of the resulting human benefits.
79. Multiple Use
The definition of multiple use in the proposed rule reads:
“The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the NFS so they are
used in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people: Making the
most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over
areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in the use to
conform to changing needs and conditions; recognizing that some lands will be used for
less than all of the resources; and providing for harmonious and coordinated management
of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of
the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources,
and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the
greatest unit output, consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16
U.S.C. 528–531). Ecosystem services are included as part of all the various renewable
surface resources of the NFS.”
§ 219.19

FRD – 1132
The last sentence of this definition clearly expands on the multiple-use planning goal by
stating that National Forests must be managed for a broad array of values beyond traditional
direct uses. The reference to relative values, a direct quote from the Multiple-Use Sustained
Yield Act, begs for additional guidance to planners as to how resources should be valued and
how those values should guide the development of and choice among plan alternatives. See our
comments on Section 219.8, Sustainability for suggestions concerning valuation of services
provided by National Forests and Grasslands.
80. Important Economic Definitions Missing from the Proposed Rule
i. Efficiency, Economic and Other
While we are pleased to see that the Proposed Rule no longer includes the vague definition for
“maximizing net public benefits,” we fear that the agency has also dropped this as a goal, which is not
appropriate. The 1982 NFMA regulations required that the objective of forest planning was to maximize
“net public benefits” as a method of insuring consideration of economic and environmental aspects of
renewable resource management. The agency’s proposed elevation of social and economic sustainability
in the three-legged stool approach would seem to dictate that consideration of economic and
environmental aspects of renewable resource management are even more important now. The
maximization of net benefits is essentially the definition of economic efficiency (discussed in more detail
below), which requires that all facets (all costs and benefits) be evaluated using a standard metric
(dollars).
Economic efficiency is defined by economists as using resources in such a way that the net benefits
(that is the benefits derived less the costs incurred) are maximized. An economically efficient outcome is
one in which no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off, or one where more
output of one good or service cannot be obtained without decreasing the output of another good or
service. Economic efficiency can only be calculated by looking at both benefits and costs. The planning
rule must require that forest plans evaluate the economic efficiency of plan alternatives by estimating all
costs and all benefits. The way to examine efficiency is to estimate net benefits of plan alternatives.
Furthermore these estimates of net benefits must be based on a full accounting of all costs and benefits,
especially those which are non-market in nature.
We would also point out that efficiency is a term often applied to non-economic
processes, such as the consumption of energy. In these non-economic applications, efficiency is
still the maximization of output per input (miles per gallon, for example). Efficiency should be
precisely and explicitly defined and used correctly throughout the Final Planning Rule.
ii.
Estimating Present Net Value
Estimating net public benefits and the evaluation of economic efficiency require the
calculation of Present Net Value (PNV). The Final Planning Rule must require that estimates of

FRD – 1132
PNV for plan alternatives and projects include all costs and benefits. This means that any project
which may impact the delivery of or quality of ecosystem services must estimate the impact on
said services and include this impact in the calculation of PNV. Furthermore the Planning Rule
must require that the dollar cost of impacts on non-timber industries be estimated and included in
estimates of PNV.
Calculation of PNV requires the use of a discount rate to account for the time value of money
when either costs or benefits accrue in different time periods. This is a standard way in which
analysts can compare like values over time. Such analysis is straightforward when considering
choices with clearly monetized financial costs and benefits.
However, the use of a positive discount rate becomes problematic when, for example, a
project will result in a large benefit to one group in the near term (e.g. timber revenue), followed
by a large cost to another group in the long-term (eventual soil erosion and stream water quality
degradation born by downstream residents and water users). The use of a positive discount rate
will result in a PNV that will favor a project despite these eventual costs. The planning rule must
require that all such costs to all potential sufferers be considered. Furthermore, the use of a zero
or near zero discount rate should be applied to such irreversible public costs of projects.
iii.
Cost Effectiveness
There are limited situations where cost effectiveness may be an appropriate evaluation
criterion in planning and thus it is inherent for the agency to define this term, and require that the
use of cost effectiveness also adhere to certain standards.
Cost effectiveness means that a desired goal or objective is achieved for the least cost. This
may be an appropriate evaluation criterion when a project has been deemed desirable by all
parties and which has many non-quantifiable attributes. It is not an appropriate evaluation
criteria for projects or actions which produce marketable commodities. For this the Planning
Rule must require that plan alternatives be economically efficient.
As we discussed in our scoping letter, an excellent example where the application of a cost
effectiveness criterion is appropriate is the decommissioning of unnecessary forest roads. These
projects have well documented ecological benefits (Kerkvliet et al. 2010), but are not likely to
produce salable byproducts. They should however be undertaken and there may be many
differing techniques by which this could be accomplished. It is entirely appropriate for decisionmakers
to apply a cost effectiveness screen to determine the method by which such a project is
achieved. Of course, this screen must include all costs (market and non-market) and must not
rely on market costs alone.
AAA. Ecosystem Services

FRD – 1132
81. Multiple Uses and Ecosystem Services
We commend the Forest Service for clearly expanding the traditional “multiple use” mandate
to incorporate the broad range of ecosystem services that must be addressed by 21st century land
managers.
The Purpose and Applicability of the Proposed Rule, at 219.1, states that the Forest Service
manages the National Forest System, consistent with MUSYA, “to sustain the multiple uses,
including ecosystem services, of its renewable resources in perpetuity while maintaining the
long-term health and productivity of the land.”
Section 219.10, Multiple Uses also states, “In meeting the requirements of §§ 219.8 and
219.9, and within Forest Service authority, the capability of the plan area and the fiscal capability
of the unit, the plan must provide for multiple uses, including ecosystem services, outdoor
recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, as follows:…”
Summary information provided in the Federal Register notice explains that “Multiple use
management is well established in law, policy and the Agency mission. “Ecosystem services” is
a term that is used today to describe many consumptive and non-consumptive uses, as well as
traditional and non-traditional uses, that people associate with national forests. In the Proposed
Rule we use the phrase “multiple uses, including ecosystem services” in certain places to show
an association between the terms so both are recognized in the rule and within our statutory
authority as part of land management planning. The management of the multiple uses described
by the MUSYA of 1960 (outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish
purposes) has broader application in today’s context.” (FR, pg. 8484)
Since the ecosystem services concept will be new to many, National Forest planning provides
an opportunity for the Forest Service to educate the public about the concept, and we suggest
modifying the phrase “multiple uses, including ecosystem services” to more clearly indicate that
ecosystem services is the broader term and incorporates traditional multiple uses plus many other
important values that have traditionally been somewhat neglected. A clearer phrase might be
“multiple uses and other ecosystem services”.
Multiple use has traditionally referred to consumptive uses such as timber harvest, grazing,
mineral extraction, water use, hunting and fishing, and semi-consumptive recreation uses.
Ecosystem services include these direct uses plus a host of non-consumptive, indirect, or even
non-use values which serve those who may never directly visit a particular forest or may serve
no direct human purpose at all but rather support intrinsic values. Broadening the scope of plans
is important, but the phrase “multiple uses, including ecosystem services” and adding the phrase
“ecosystem services” to a list that includes specific examples of such services, may beget
confusion about the meaning of the concept. “Ecosystem services” is actually an inclusive term
that encompasses the specific uses mentioned.

FRD – 1132
Section 219.10, Multiple Uses, (a) Integrated Resource Management contains an exhaustive
list of resources and services:
(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, fish and
wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat and habitat
connectivity, recreational values and settings, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and
subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant
resources;
(2) Renewable and nonrenewable energy and mineral resources;
(3) Sustainable management of infrastructure, such as recreational facilities and transportation
and utility corridors;
(4) Opportunities to coordinate with neighboring landowners to link open spaces and take into
account joint management objectives where feasible and appropriate;
(5) Habitat conditions, subject to the requirements of § 219.9, for wildlife, fish, and plants
commonly enjoyed and used by the public, such as species that are hunted, fished, trapped,
gathered, observed, or needed for subsistence;
(6) The landscape-scale context for management as identified in the assessment;
(7) Land ownership and access patterns relative to the plan area;
(8) Reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, social, and economic sustainability; and
(9) Potential impacts of climate and other system drivers, stressors and disturbance regimes, such
as wildland fire, invasive species, and human-induced stressors, on the unit’s resources (§
219.8).
Numbers 1, 2 and 5 of this list are resources or services provided by many National Forests,
while the other items represent means of providing services or planning criteria. The list in
number 1 is alphabetical and includes ecosystem services as an item rather than as an
overarching concept that incorporates the rest of the list. Listing energy resources (2) and habitat
for specific types of wildlife (5) separately from other ecosystem services implies that these
should receive greater attention or priority. It would be clearer to list all ecosystem services
under number 1, perhaps grouped by theme. For instance: environmental quality (air, water,
soil), ecosystem elements and processes (species, natural communities, habitat including
connectivity, geologic features, riparian areas, wilderness), non-consumptive human values
(spiritual, cultural, aesthetic, educational, scientific, recreation, existence values), and
consumptive/extractive resources (timber, forage/grazing, minerals, energy, hunting, fishing,
special forest products, subsistence resources). Another option would be to use the categories

FRD – 1132
listed under Ecosystem services in the Definitions section. However, preservation of species,
communities, habitats, geological features, and other natural features for their own sake without
reference to human usage would not find a place under the latter definition.
Numbers 8 and 9 are the crux of the planning process during times of change and risk,
exacerbated by the unprecedented uncertainty created by climate change. Two passages in the
DEIS describe specific “human-induced stressors” that affect supply and demand for ecosystem
services – population growth and climate change. Under Affected Environment and
Environmental Consequences, Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities, Assumptions and
Uncertainties pg. 3-104, the DEIS cites the Renewable Resources Planning Act Assessment
(USDA Forest Service 2007c) which predicts that “the changing U.S. population is expected to
demand increased ecosystem services coming from forest land and rangeland resources,
including fresh water, protection from drought and floods, carbon storage, recreation, and other
cultural benefits.” The same section of the DEIS, under Climate Change, Alternative A Effects
on pg. 3-129 states that “For social and economic conditions, it is expected that, through
monitoring and assessment, plans would more consistently be informed about potential shifts in
the location and timing of multiple uses and ecosystem services and that plan components would
be developed to respond to those changes.”
Not only location and timing, but magnitude of ecosystem services is likely to change as the
climate becomes less stable. Planners will need to determine whether increased demands are to
be met regardless of collateral damage, or whether National Forest managers must moderate and
manage demand to fit the natural capacity of the resources under management. For instance,
across much of the intermountain west and southwest, dwindling snowpack will reduce available
water flow, and attempting to maintain historic flows – let alone increase flows in response to
population growth - could seriously damage aquatic communities. Planners must be careful not
to promise what they cannot deliver, and accustomed ecosystem services flows may need to be
adjusted over time due to impaired capacity. A realistic assessment of carrying capacity under
future multiple stresses needs to be part of every NFS plan. Explicit recognition that NFS
managers may not be able to meet all demands for ecosystem services would be helpful.
82. Full Consideration of National Forests’ Special Role in Providing the Full Suite of
Ecosystem Services
Section 219.6, Assessments, requires that plans, “(3) Identify the distinctive roles and
contributions of the unit within the context of the broader landscape, considering the roles of the
unit in providing multiple uses, including ecosystem services, from the NFS lands to the local
area, region, and Nation. The unit’s distinctive roles and contributions within the broader
landscape are those for which the unit is best suited, considering the Agency mission, unique
capabilities, and the resources and management of other lands in the vicinity.”
Section 219.10 (a) Integrated resource management states that “When developing plan
components for integrated resource management, to the extent relevant to the plan area and the

FRD – 1132
public participation process and the requirements of §§ 219.7, 219.8, 219.9, and 219.11, the
responsible official shall consider:…”
Planning should be guided by the distinctive role of public lands in providing ecosystem
services, taking account of the services already provided by other ownerships within a landscape.
However, the planning process should require managers to take a fresh look at all the
possibilities, and not simply fall back on a traditional pattern of specialization that may no longer
reflect the unique and evolving role of public lands. The full range of ecosystem services should
be addressed in each plan, not just considered, with explanations provided as to why some are
not relevant or are abundantly supplied by surrounding lands. The phrase “to the extent
relevant” invites planners plagued by lack of time and resources to focus on narrow and familiar
resource objectives rather than plan for the full range of values in the context of a landscape that
has almost certainly seen massive changes since the last plan was formulated. Likewise the word
“consider” clearly invites Forest Service staff to eliminate less traditional ecosystem services
from the menu. The planning rule should require that all elements be addressed, not simply
considered, and that an explanation be provided for any elements excluded from the plan on the
grounds they are not relevant to the plan area.
83. Ecosystem Services Valuation Requirements
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA (PL 94-588) Sec. 6 (g)(3)(A)) directs the
Forest Service to consider the “economic and environmental aspects of various systems of
renewable resources management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection of
forest resources, to provide for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber,
watershed, wildlife and fish.” This analysis must include non-market economic analysis of
“protection of forest resources”.
Our National Forests and Grasslands produce more than just timber, livestock forage or oil
and gas. They also provide a host of ecosystem services. These ecosystem services, although
many of them are “non-market” in the sense that they are not regularly traded in formal markets,
are extremely important to the economic prosperity and stability of local and regional economies
(World Bank 2005). One of the primary purposes of the public lands system is the provision of
public goods such as of ecosystem services, the protection of unique landscapes, ecological
diversity, wildlife habitat, wilderness, cultural and archeological resources.
Ecosystem services include the following: production and regulation of water, formation and
retention of soil, regulation of climate, regulation of natural disturbances, mitigation of humancaused
disturbances, regulation of nutrients, degradation of pollution, provision of habitat,
production of edible plants and animals, pollination of wild and cultivated plants, biological
control of pests and disease, production of and storehouse for genetic information, production of
non-timber forest products, production of recreational resources, production of spiritual, cultural,
and historic resources, provision of natural control environments for scientific investigation,

FRD – 1132
provision of inputs for education (see Daily 1997, Degroot et al. 2002, Postel and Carpenter
1997, Myers 1997, ECONorthwest 2006).
The values of some ecosystem services are difficult to measure, but others have been
extensively studied by natural and social scientists and peer-reviewed estimates of their values
are readily available. More complete valuation of the myriad ecosystem services are being
accomplished in resource decisions throughout the world (Naidoo and Ricketts 2006, World
Bank 2005). There are also available numerous, well-established methodologies that the agency
could use to provide a more complete estimate of the ecosystem values provided by public land
managed by the Forest Service (see Freeman (2003) for a thorough discussion). Below are brief
discussions on existing research which provides values for several categories of ecosystem
services.
i. Old-Growth Forests and Wilderness
Recent research (Garber-Yonts et al. 2004) focused on old-growth forests in the Oregon
Coast Range estimates average annual household willingness to pay of $380 to increase the
percentage of old-growth forests from 5 percent to 35 percent of the age-class distribution
(Garber-Yonts et al. 2004). Other studies examine the existence value of wilderness and roadless
areas and find that they comprise a substantial fraction of timber values, in some cases even
exceeding timber values (Niemi et al. 1999, Haynes and Horne 1997).
ii.
Habitat for Endangered Species
Old growth forests protect habitat for endangered species (Corn and Bury 1989, Thomas and
Raphael 1993). Logging degrades the quality of aquatic environments in many cases and thus
degrades habitat for threatened and endangered species (Brosofske et al. 1997, Beechie et al.
2000). Protecting wildlife habitat produces economic values. Protecting the northern spotted
owl and its habitat is worth from $2.14 billion (Rubin, et al. 1991) to as much as $14.6 billion
(Bulte and Van Kooten (1999) annually to U.S. households. In a review of 20 studies of the
economic values Americans place on threatened and endangered species, Loomis and White
(1996) concluded “To date, for even the most expensive endangered species preservation effort
(e.g. the northern spotted owl) the costs per household fall well below the benefits per household
found in the literature (p. 197).” A study conducted by the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (Krug and Lankoande 2005) concluded that the probable per acre benefits of
protecting over 2,000 acres of northern spotted owl habitat were $43,000-$79,000, while the
probable costs ranged from $14,000-$29,000 (in 2006 dollars). Similarly, Perez-Garcia (2001)
found that the $9.1-$13.3 billion benefits of forest-practices rules to protect and enhance salmon
habitat exceed the $7.5-$8.5 billion costs of their implementation.
iii.
Water Quality and Quantity

FRD – 1132
Quality water in predictable quantities is one of the major ecosystem benefits provided by
intact forest ecosystems (Myers 1997, National Research Council 2000, Kiffney and Bull 2000,
Hulse et al. 2002). Economic research has established that Americans have strong preferences
for high quality water resources and are willing to pay large amounts to protect or restore them
(Wilson and Carpenter 1999, Carson and Mitchell 1993). Water quality degradation has been
shown to adversely impact the value of real estate throughout the country (Wilson and Carpenter
1999, Michael et al. 1996, Doss and Taff 1996) and people express their actual willingness to
pay for higher quality water in their travel and sporting expenditures (Cameron et al. 1996,
Bowker et al. 1996).
Conversely, numerous studies show that sedimentation increases in logged areas, especially
after clearcutting (Fredrickson et al 1973, Grant and Wolff 1991). Sediments impose real costs
in the form of decreased recreation opportunities and health, reduced soil fertility, additional
water treatment costs for municipalities and households (Ribaudo 1989, Pimental et al 1995,
Niemi et al. 1999). These estimated costs of sediment do not include the costs of increases in the
flow of flood water from forestland resulting from logging, especially clearcutting, and the
associated roads (Jones and Grant 2001, 1996).
iv.
Recreation
Old-growth forests, and their associated unroaded areas, high quality water and wildlife
provide important inputs to the outdoor recreation industry and the value of recreation is an
important component of the total value of services provided by public land (Haynes and Horne
1997, Englin and Mendelsohn 1991).
v. Climate Moderation and Carbon Sequestration
The important ecosystem service of carbon (C) sequestration in old-growth forests must be
considered in management activities. Consider first, the important role PNW forests have in the
concentration of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the earth’s atmosphere. Harmon et al. (1990) report
that:
“…conversion of old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest has been a
significant source of C in the atmosphere….Given the small area we are
considering, a mere 0.017% of the earth’s land surface, old-growth forest
conversion appears to account for a noteworthy 2% of the total C released
because of land use changes in the last 100 years” (pg. 701).
For example, the large proportional release compared to the small area is because of the
substantive ability of PNW old-growth forests to store C. Harmon et al. (1990) report that an
acre of 450 year-old old-growth forest containing Douglas fir and western hemlock contains
about 248 metric tons of C in branches, wood and bark, roots, coarse woody debris, and soils.

FRD – 1132
Conversion of such old-growth forests will result in the loss of approximately 205 metric tons of
C per hectare.
Markets for carbon savings in the United States are in their infancy. Nevertheless, carbon
savings, including carbon offsets from various projects such as wind energy and carbon
sequestration in forests, has a real, measurable economic value. For example, the CCX carbon
market reports sales of over 500,000 metric tons of carbon in September 2007 with prices in the
range of $3.00-$3.10 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, or about $11.40 per ton of carbon.
The Forest Service is advocating a strengthening of the role of forests in carbon
sequestration, hoping to double the contribution of public and private forests to offsetting U.S.
carbon emissions by 2020 (Hall 2007). The Forest Service recently signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the National Forest Foundation to establish a Carbon Capital Fund whereby
individuals could purchase carbon offsets and contribute to national forest projects that would
increase carbon sequestration (Friend of the Forest 2007). The advertised price per metric ton of
carbon is $6.00.
Recommendations: The Agency must recognize and incorporate provisions in the Planning
Rule for managing lands for the sustainable delivery of ecosystem services.
In order to do this, the Final Planning Rule must require that the agency assess overall
conditions, disclose them, and assess the changes under each alternative in a land management
plan. This assessment should include impacts to old-growth forests, endangered species habitat,
water quality and quantity, recreation, climate moderation and carbon sequestration.
The Final Planning Rule must also require that Forest Plan analysis assess and disclose the
value of ecosystem services produced on NFS lands. The Planning Rule must require that Forest
Plan alternatives include an analysis of the impacts of each alternative on the provision of
ecosystem services and other non-market values.
Furthermore, the Final Planning Rule must require that plan alternatives be designed to
minimize degradation of ecosystem services and other non-market values. It must not be
considered sufficient to simply note that such impacts have been analyzed. The analyses must
lead to the creation and selection of alternatives which address the important economic role of
ecosystem services.
BBB. Economic and Social Sustainability
Section 219.6(b)(3) requires identifying the distinctive role of the unit, which we applaud,
but this identification must go beyond analysis of a single industry sector, and must
quantitatively analyze both market and non-market qualities as we discuss below. We are
pleased to see the requirement for one or more monitoring questions or indicators addressing
“the progress toward fulfilling the unit’s distinctive roles and contributions to ecologic, social

FRD – 1132
and economic conditions of the local area, region and Nation” (§ 219.12(a)(5)(vii)). But given
the responsible official’s discretion to set the scope and scale of the unit’s monitoring program,
and lack of past social and economic monitoring by the agency, we are concerned that the
appropriate scientific rigor be applied to these questions.
Per Section 219.8 (b) Social and economic sustainability, “The plan must include
components to guide the unit’s contribution to social and economic sustainability, taking into
account:
(1) Social, cultural, and economic conditions relevant to the area influenced by the plan and the
distinctive roles and contributions of the unit within the broader landscape;
(2) Sustainable recreation opportunities and uses;
(3) Multiple uses, including ecosystem services, that contribute to local, regional, and national
economies in a sustainable manner; and
(4) Cultural and historic resources and uses.”
We are pleased to see that the agency will take a more holistic approach to assessing social
and economic conditions. As the economies of the rural communities linked to National Forests
and Grasslands diversify, the framework for making public land management decisions must
also evolve. Merely counting jobs in resource extraction is not a sufficient way to measure the
economic impact of public land management decisions. Most rural communities have
diversified economies that are no longer solely dependent on the export of fossil fuels or logs.
While we are pleased that the Proposed Rule frequently notes the importance of recreation in
local economies, as we noted in our scoping letter, the analysis should go even farther by
including the role that National Forests and Grasslands (including the recreation opportunities
they produce) play in attracting businesses, retirees, skilled workers and other economic activity
to nearby communities. Research indicates that the environmental amenities provided by public
lands are an important economic driver in rural communities 60 and this admittedly complex role
must be assessed in LMP NEPA analyses.
The Final Planning Rule should require that LMP NEPA analysis also address changing rural
demographics. Along with growth comes demographic change. As more people move from
urban areas to rural communities they bring with them expectations about how public lands
ought to be managed. Assessment of changing community values must be a part of LMP NEPA
analysis.
60 See for example, Rudzitis and Johansen 1989, Johnson and Rasker 1993 & 1995, Rasker 1994, Power 1996, Duffy-
Deno 1998, McGranahan 1999, Rudzitis 1999, Rasker et al. 2004, Holmes and Hecox 2004, full citations in the
references section.

FRD – 1132
During the scoping process the Agency asked, “How can the planning rule reflect the
interdependency of social, economic, and ecological systems in a way that supports sustainable
management of national forests and grasslands?” While we feel that a great step forward has
been made with the Agency’s acknowledgement of the limited role of the Forest Service in local
economies, the agency has overlooked an important role that Forest Service lands, along with
other public lands, does play in local economies.
By shifting the focus from the limited economic impact that extractive industries may have in
local areas, and concentrating instead on the less direct role that amenities from National Forests
and Grasslands plays in these economies, the Forest Service can produce plans that are more
likely to result in sustainable economic, social and ecological systems.
What is missing from the Proposed Rule are explicit requirements for the agency to develop
management plans for National Forests and Grasslands that consider the increasing importance
of industries and economic sectors that rely on these public lands, but not necessarily on the
extraction of natural resources. As we discussed earlier in these comments, it is not sufficient for
requirements to appear only in the Forest Service Directives System as the agency itself argues
these are not legally binding. Also, as noted in our scoping comments, much recent research has
concluded that the presence of protected public lands strengthen rural economies by meeting
growing needs for clean water, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities (Power 1996, Rasker
1994, Rasker et al. 2004, Rudzitis 1999, Rudzitis and Johansen 1989, Johnson and Rasker 1993 &
1995, Whitelaw et al. 2004).
84. Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Economic and Social Sustainability
Section 219.8, Sustainability, states that “Within Forest Service authority and consistent with
the inherent capability of the plan area, the plan must provide for social, economic, and
ecological sustainability, as follows:…
(b) Social and economic sustainability. The plan must include plan components to guide
the unit’s contribution to social and economic sustainability, taking into account:…
(3) Multiple uses, including ecosystem services, that contribute to local, regional,
and national economies in a sustainable manner; (emphasis added)
Multiple uses may in fact contribute to local, regional and national economies, but many
ecosystem services also support quality of life or other higher values without any apparent direct
effect on traditional economic measures like employment, income, or public sector tax revenues.
Sustaining and improving human welfare is the ultimate goal – economic activity (which
normally refers to activity mediated by an exchange of currency) is only one of many means to
that end. The Forest Service should consider substituting “well-being” for “economies”.

FRD – 1132
The Multiple Use definition at Section 210.19 refers to the role of resource values in plan
decisions, but the Proposed Rule provides little guidance to planners as to how to develop these
values or how to weigh them in plan decisions. There are both benefits and risks associated with
measuring and valuing the resources and services provided by the National Forests and
Grasslands. On the one hand, understanding equivalent monetary values for non-extractive uses
can build support for a rebalancing of priorities that supports broad public welfare. Public lands
play a special role in providing non-marketed goods and services and value estimates can help
the public understand the benefits they are receiving in return for their financial support. Such
measures can also help managers demonstrate that their decisions are maintaining or increasing
services over time. For this reason, the values of ecosystem services should also be presented in
each plan, quantified when possible and described qualitatively when quantification is not
practical. (See The Wilderness Society Planning Rule comments.)
However, not all resources have a direct human use, or are sufficiently familiar that the
general public appreciates their full value, so determining a monetary value may not be practical.
Because of the lack of full accounting for non-monetary services, even maximizing total
economic value is unrealistic as a plan goal. Plan decisions should not be based on maximum
dollar return or physical output.
85. Economic Indicators and Trends
The Final Planning Rule must require that the economic analyses performed for NFS plans
consider several non-traditional indicators for rural economies. These include the growing
importance of income from investments and retirement (non-labor income); increasing
employment in high technology, knowledge-based, and service industries; the important role that
recreation and tourism plays in providing jobs and income; and the rise of small businesses and
other entrepreneurial endeavors and the role that protected public lands play in rural economies.
These indicators correspond with the declining importance of extractive industries, the increase
in public awareness and appreciation of the environmental and recreation amenities of their
home counties, and the diversification of rural economies.
Non-labor income - Areas with high levels of natural amenities attract residents, including many
who rely on investment or retirement income. This has been shown to have a positive effect on
both income and employment in rural areas (Deller 1995, Duffy-Deno 1998, Nelson 1999,
McGranahan 1999, Rudzitis 1999, Shumway and Otterstrom 2001, Lorah and Southwick 2003).
The amenities on NFS lands are an important economic driver and this contribution to economic
and social sustainability must be accounted for in LMP NEPA analysis.
Knowledge-Based, Professional and Service Sector and Other Non-Recreation, and Non-
Extractive Businesses - Over the past quarter-century, the U.S. economy has shifted from
extractive and primary manufacturing industries to service oriented industries, including
occupations and industries that are classified as knowledge based (Henderson and Abraham

FRD – 1132
2004). Interrelated factors such as the education level of the workforce, infrastructure and natural
and human amenities contribute to the growth of these industries and NFS lands contribute to the
level of amenities (Johnson and Rasker 1993 and 1995, Whitelaw and Neimi 1989, Snepenger et
al 1995). This role must be assessed in LMP NEPA analyses.
Recreation & Tourism - Communities adjacent to NFS lands often rely on the recreation and
tourism industries that depend upon these lands. As the American population increases, demand
for outdoor recreation opportunities will inevitably increase. NFS lands can provide these
opportunities which in turn will contribute to economic and social sustainability. Studies on
participation and on the economic contribution support this (Outdoor Foundation, 2002 and 2010,
Alward et al. 2003). Wildlife recreation is especially important to rural communities (Pickton
and Sikorowski 2004, Henderson 2004, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Census Bureau
2006).
Entrepreneurs - Business owners create jobs and bring wealth to local communities. “Research
has found a strong correlation between entrepreneurship and long-term regional employment
growth” (Low 2004). As technology allows for greater freedom of location choice, many
businesses are attracted to areas high in recreation opportunities, scenic amenities and other
ecosystem services produced on NFS lands (Rasker and Glick 1994, Snepenger et al. 1995,
Johnson and Rasker 1995, Beyers and Lindahl 1996, Rasker and Hansen 2000, Low 2004,
Henderson and Abraham 2004).
The Role of Protected Public Lands - Technology has made it easier for more and more people to
be able to choose where they live and work. Many businesses are able to conduct national or
international commerce from any location they choose. Other entrepreneurs simply choose to
live in a particular place and build a business in response to local needs. Retirees and others who
collect non-labor income are not tied by a job to a specific location. All of these people seek an
attractive place to live. More and more, as development pressures increase, NFS lands become a
backdrop or setting which contributes to or even creates the amenities which contribute to a
community's economic growth. Research supports the assertion that protected public lands
contribute to rural economic health (Rudzitis and Johansen 1989, Freudenburg and Gramling
1994, Rudzitis and Johnson 2000, Deller et al. 2001, Rasker et al. 2004).
Forest Service researchers evaluating the effects of the Northwest Forest Plan on rural
communities went beyond traditional measures of community stability, such as the number of
forest-related jobs. Additional indicators they found useful derived from census data: employment
diversity, education levels, unemployment, poverty levels, income inequality, and travel time to
work (Maleki 2008).
The National Forest Management Act specifically requires extensive economic analysis:
NFMA (PL 94-588) Sec. 6 (g)(3)(A), requires that the Forest Service consider the “economic
and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource management, including the

FRD – 1132
related systems of silviculture and protection of forest resources, to provide for outdoor
recreation (including wilderness), range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish.” Thus,
“economics” is to be a part of the analysis and land suitability determinations for most all
resources according to NFMA. The Final Planning Rule must require analyses of all economic
aspects of plan alternatives, and furthermore, must not merely conduct the analysis, but must use
the results to arrive at defensible plan decisions.
Recommendations: While we commend the agency for the thorough analysis and acknowledgement
of the importance of recreation and tourism in local economies, the Final Planning Rule must
require that the economic assessments in LMP NEPA analyses fully account for the important role
that tourism, recreation, hunting and fishing play in ensuring a sustainable and diversified
economy for rural communities and for the role that the undeveloped portions of National
Forests and Grasslands play in producing opportunities for active quiet recreation.
The Final Planning Rule must require that LMP NEPA analyses include a complete assessment of an
area's economy which takes into account the growing role of entrepreneurial businesses, and considers the
impacts of each alternative on those businesses attracted by the environmental amenities provided by
National Forest System lands in those communities.
The Final Planning Rule must require that LMP NEPA analyses fully address the economic
importance to local communities of those portions of National Forests and Grasslands that are
protected from resource extraction and other development.
The Final Planning Rule must require that LMP NEPA analysis socio-economic assessment
consider the well-being of communities more broadly.
CCC. Full Cost Accounting
Neither the Proposed Rule nor the DEIS discuss the critical need to include the costs
associated with plan alternatives, especially those that are not readily apparent in the usual
economic impact analysis that is often done for LMP NEPA analysis. This is especially
important when alternatives include extractive industry activities, or restoration projects which
may result in impairment of the plan area lands to support the delivery of ecosystem services or
which will reduce the likelihood of ecological, economic and social sustainability.
86. Economic Costs of Timber Harvest and Restoration Projects on Non-Timber and
Other Resources
i. Non-Market Economic Costs

FRD – 1132
In order to estimate the net benefits (jobs, income, revenue) from timber harvest or
production from restoration projects, the associated costs (market and non-market) must be fully
accounted for in the analysis. The Final Planning Rule must require that Forest and Grassland
Plans include a full accounting of all costs (market and non-market) in the economic analysis. The
literature on non-market benefits is well established and must be used by the Forest Service to
estimate the potential value of the undeveloped lands which would be affected by restoration
projects, timber harvesting and other development proposed in Forest Plans. Krutilla (1967)
provides a seminal paper on the valuation of wilderness which lead the way for countless others
who have done research all providing compelling evidence that these lands are worth much more
in their protected state. Krieger (2001) and Loomis and Richardson (2000) provide overviews of
the academic literature on market and non-market use and non-use values of wildlands. See
Walsh et al. (1984), Bishop and Welsh (1992), Gowdy (1997), Cordell et al. (1998), Loomis and
Richardson (2001) and Payne et al (1992) for several more examples. Swanson and Loomis
(1996) discuss the importance of non-market values specifically for public lands. Peer reviewed
methods for quantifying both the non-market and market costs of changing environmental
quality have been developed by economists and are readily applicable to valuing the impacts on
non-market values that could occur under LMP alternatives. For a catalog of these methods see
Freeman (2003).
ii.
Socio-Economic Costs to Communities from Dependence on Resource Extraction
When an area is dependent upon only one or a few industries for most of its employment and
income, there are often negative social and economic consequences, mostly stemming from
fluctuations in the dominant industries (Limerick et al. 2002, Freudenburg and Gramling 1994).
Studies of rural poverty indicate that resource-dependent communities are often also those with
the highest levels and greatest extent of persistent poverty (Freudenburg 1992, Humphrey et al.
1993, Freudenburg and Gramling, 1994, Hoffman and Fortmann 1996, Black et al. 2000,
Fortmann et al 1989).
The agency has noted that economic stability is a desired outcome, however extractive
industry based economies are often inherently unstable due to the "boom and bust" nature of
commodity markets. Such instability will be detrimental to long-term social and economic
sustainability. The Forest Service must consider whether expanding the lands available for timber
harvest and actual harvest levels (especially without the intention to restock lands) will be beneficial
to rural communities in the long-run and must assess the potential long-term negative socioeconomic
impacts that are likely to be the result of policies that promote continued dependence on a
single industry in many rural communities.
The Forest Service is required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA (PL 94-588)
Sec. 6 (g)(3)(A)), to consider the “economic and environmental aspects of various systems of
renewable resource management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection of
forest resources, to provide for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range timber,

FRD – 1132
watershed, wildlife and fish.” This direction clearly requires that the agency assess and account
for non-market costs and benefits in evaluating plan alternatives. The Final Planning Rule must
reiterate this requirement and make explicit the need to do these analyses in LMP NEPA
analysis.
Recommendations: The Final Planning Rule must refrain from the assumption that extractive
industries, which represent an ever smaller portion of the total jobs and income in rural counties,
create “stability” and rather must acknowledge the decreasing relative importance of these industries
compared to expanding industries in the professional and service sectors and those which depend on
non-labor income.
The Final Planning Rule must require that LMP NEPA analyses consider the extent to which
restoration, timber harvest and other projects reduce local economic diversity and increase
economic dependence on extractive industries. Furthermore it is not sufficient for LMP NEPA
analysis to simply note these impacts or note that they were studied. The creation and selection
of alternatives must include options to minimize the costs to communities from increased
resource extraction.
The Final Planning Rule must require that LMP NEPA analyses include the net (rather than
gross) benefits of timber harvest, restoration and other projects on National Forests and
Grasslands. These analyses must include a full accounting of non-market costs of plan
alternatives.
87. Environmental Mitigation Costs and Agency Budgets and Staffing Levels
The Proposed Rule states that “Objectives should be based on reasonably foreseeable
budgets” (Section 218.7 (d) Plan components, (ii) Objectives). As we noted in our scoping
comments, the Forest Service has never considered the cost of mitigation in evaluating plan or
project alternatives, even though many projects and activities on national forests and grasslands
have consequences which clearly require mitigation or remediation. The Final Planning Rule
presents an opportunity to rectify this problem by requiring that LMP NEPA analyses address the
cost of mitigation and agency budgets and staffing levels when evaluating plan alternatives.
A recent report from the Government Accountability Office (2011) notes that the Agency is
still deficient in oversight of budgets (especially for the wildland fire program), has yet to
implement a viable strategic plan to ensure adequate staffing levels (noting the impending
retirement of large numbers of key staff), and has not adequately addressed deficiencies in
financial accountability.
Successful organizations can rarely afford to ignore budgets when developing long-term plans.
Without adequate funding, the mitigation plans and resource protection described in management

FRD – 1132
plans will not be attainable. Rather than presenting the maximum production potential of public
lands unconstrained by budgets, the agency must present the public with a more accurate picture of
what can actually be accomplished given expected appropriations and staffing levels.
The increased use of stewardship contracting and its role in the estimation of goods and
services to be provided under each alternative must also be addressed by the new rule.
Stewardship contracting is in effect a new revenue stream for the agency in that funds from
goods provided can be returned to the land management unit instead of going to the U.S.
Treasury. Stewardship contracting to date has primarily been of a “goods for services” nature.
The role that pricing levels for the goods obtained affects the amount of funds returned to the
unit and the amount of services that can be provided must be assessed and disclosed in the
planning process. Factors and trends that could affect these prices over the plan period must be
analyzed and disclosed in the plan documents. This will be especially important if agency efforts
to expand the use of this contracting authority succeed as the potential exists that many land
management activities formerly funded by Congressional appropriations will instead be funded
or accomplished under a “goods for services” scenario. If pricing estimates don’t meet
expectations, an even larger number of services (e.g. management activities likely focused on
watershed restoration) will not occur.
We are especially concerned with a potential lack of analysis of the costs to mitigate the
environmental consequences of each alternative. Ignoring budget constraints is completely
unrealistic and somewhat deceiving to the public, because the ability to achieve the levels of
resource protection and damage mitigation described in each alternative will depend on the
agency's budget. While the budget available to manage the planning area should be considered
constant across alternatives, the costs to implement each management alternative are not equal.
For example, an alternative resulting in resource damage will require more money to mitigate
this damage than a less damaging alternative. It makes no sense for taxpayers to subsidize a
more damaging and costly alternative when a less damaging, less costly alternative is available.
Unless costs and budgets are fully analyzed, there is simply no justification for any assumption
that funding will be sufficient to implement each alternative and that all resource damage will be
fully mitigated.
According to a Council of Environmental Quality memorandum on NEPA requirements
[cited in NEPA Compliance Manual, 2nd Edition (Freeman, et al. 1994)]:
[T]o ensure that environmental effects of a proposed action are fairly assessed, the
probability of the mitigation measure being implemented must also be discussed.
Thus the EIS and the Record of Decision should indicate the likelihood that such
measures will be adopted or enforced by the responsible agencies. (Section
1502.16(h), and 1505.2)
The “probability of mitigation measures being implemented” is directly related to how much
the mitigation will cost and how those costs relate to the expected budget available. The U.S.

FRD – 1132
General Accounting Office (1992) reviewed federal land management budgets and found that the
funding received by public land management agencies has been significantly less than the budgets
required to fully implement plans.
Of particular concern is the cost of enforcement of environmental protection and mitigation
requirements for natural resource extraction on National Forests and Grasslands. For example, the
Government Accountability Office (2005), assessed BLM’s record and found a lack of resources
for monitoring and enforcement of oil and gas development and attributed this lack to an
unbalanced emphasis on processing permits to drill. The lack of enforcement also places
additional costs on the agency and the public. Regarding oil and gas development on public
lands, the Western Organization of Resource Councils (2005) found that agency enforcement
staff levels have not kept pace with development, facilities are not inspected often enough,
environmental compliance inspectors spend too much time on other activities, agencies take too
few enforcement actions and citizen complaints are often ignored. Conditions are likely the
same on NFS lands.
Finally, the Agency must take into consideration the likely scenario of declining agency staff
and budgets. In addition to projecting the amount of goods and services likely to be provided
under each plan alternative, the Planning Rule should require a discussion of the range of goods
and services unlikely to be provided under each alternative commensurate with the level desired
by the public and identified during the collaborative process for each plan. “Managing the
public’s expectations” through full disclosure of the costs and limitations of agency actions
would go a long way toward removing much of the conflict that arises around national forest and
grassland management.
Recommendations: The Final Planning Rule must require that LMP NEPA analysis be based on
reasonable budget and staffing expectations, which must be clearly stated. As stewardship
contracting represents another revenue stream to the agency, the Rule must require that the
projected activities and revenues from stewardship contracting as well as the costs of activities
funded via this contracting tool must also be analyzed and disclosed for each plan alternative.
The Final Planning Rule must require that the LMP NEPA analyses include a fiscal analysis
of each alternative's implementation and mitigation costs.
The Final Planning Rule must require that LMP NEPA analysis of plan alternatives include a
realistic assessment of the costs of enforcement of all development and recreation activities and
that the likelihood of enforcement, mitigation and remediation measures being adequately
completed be included in the total cost assessment for each plan alternative.
The Final Planning Rule must require that the cost of inspections, enforcement and monitoring
be included in the LMP NEPA analysis.

FRD – 1132
88. Correctly Estimate Employment and Income Benefits from Restoration Projects
and Timber Harvest
The Final Planning Rule must require that LMP NEPA analyses augment the use of the
IMPLAN model to project jobs and income from proposed actions and plan alternatives. While
the IMPLAN model can be useful as a tool to assess the impacts of marginal changes, and to
develop static analyses of the regional economy, this model has several shortcomings and a poor
track record as a predictive tool (Haynes and Horne 1997). Furthermore the economic base
hypothesis on which the model is based is not reliable even for static analyses (Tiebout 1956,
Richardson 1985, Krikelas 1991 and 1992).
While IMPLAN may be useful for appraising the economic impacts of specific sectors
affected by a management plan, the model is insufficient for evaluating the overall economic
impacts for communities (Hoekstra et. al 1990, Office of Technology Assessment 1992). The
IMPLAN model is incapable of assessing the impact of increased extractive use of the National
Forests and Grasslands on other economic sectors. The economic data used to construct
IMPLAN do not provide comparable details for all resource-based sectors of the economy
(Office of Technology Assessment 1992). Data for the timber industry (as well as other
extractive industries) are classified as separate industries. Recreation, for example, is scattered
among a variety of industries generally classified in services and retail, with some in
transportation. Impacts to other industries which depend on the presence of protected public
lands cannot be modeled at all as IMPLAN is currently applied. IMPLAN models also do not
consider the impacts of many important variables that affect regional growth in rural
communities, such as amenities, high quality hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities,
open space, scenic beauty, clean air and clean water, a sense of community, and overall high
quality of life (Krikelas 1992, Rasker 1994, Power 1996).
Recommendations: The Final Planning Rule must require that LMP NEPA analyses not rely
solely on IMPLAN to estimate restoration jobs and income, but must also account for other
economic sectors, trends in income and employment, changes in technology and the impact that
restoration projects will have on other sectors.
The Final Planning Rule must require that LMP NEPA analyses include credible
assessments (again not relying solely on IMPLAN) of the impact on other sectors of the economy
(those described above and others) when extractive use of National Forests and Grasslands is
increased and cease making the assumption that resource extraction can be increased with no
impact on other non-extractive sectors.

FRD – 1132
89. Cost of the Rule: the CBA
The agency’s attempt to estimate the costs and benefits of the alternatives in the Proposed
Rule, 61 begins by stating:
“Because of the programmatic nature of the proposed action, the benefits derived
from land management plans developed, revised, or amended under the different
alternatives are not quantified. Instead, the benefits of the alternatives are
assessed qualitatively in the context of procedural or planning efficiency.
Efficiency is a function of (1) the time and resources used (costs) to complete and
maintain plans, and (2) the degree to which those plans are capable of providing
direction for resource monitoring, management, and use/access that sustains
multiple uses (including ecosystem services) in perpetuity and maintains longterm
health and productivity of the land for the benefit of human communities and
natural resources, giving due consideration to relative values of resources (i.e.,
meets the objectives of NFMA and the proposed rule).” (p. 3)
This failure to estimate the benefits renders this analysis almost meaningless. It is not
possible to do cost-benefit analysis unless both costs and benefits are estimated. Furthermore,
the disclaimer above goes on to apply an essentially meaningless definition of efficiency.
Efficiency is a function of costs and benefits. Unless benefits are measured, efficiency remains
unknown.
The Agency must make a credible estimate of the benefits of the Proposed Rule and
Alternatives. There are measurable benefits to certain aspects of the proposed rule
(comprehensive monitoring and ensuring the provision of ecosystem services are two examples)
which should be estimated in order to analyze the net benefits of the Proposed Rule and
Alternatives, especially compared with the baseline case. We also feel that, although estimated
agency costs would be higher, making prescriptive requirements explicit (per Alternative D), will
result in tangible benefits, which if these were measured would likely outweigh estimated costs.
Additional prescriptive requirements regarding monitoring in Alternative E may also result in
benefits which could outweigh costs.
In the absence of any estimate other than an overly optimistic, speculative belief that
“collaboration” will result in plans that are more (incorrectly defined) “efficient,” the analysis
presented in this section is merely a cost analysis and in no way shape or form can be called a
cost-benefit analysis.
We are also concerned that the Agency’s intention to shift so much effort away from analysis
and toward collaboration, while ultimately apparently cost-saving for the agency, will result in
61 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Proposed Rule (36 CFR 219)
for National Forest Land Management Planning. January 25, 2011. 71 p.

FRD – 1132
plans which may be unable to meet the requirements of MUSYA, NFMA or even of the stated
objectives of the Proposed Rule. Collaborative processes have the strong propensity to result in
“lowest common denominator” outcomes that may not protect important resources, especially
ecosystem services and other non-commodity values. On the other hand, comprehensive
analyses of the potential environmental consequences of plan alternatives will still be needed in
order to ensure that plans result in ecologically, socially and economically sustainable outcomes.
While an increased “perception” of the legitimacy of plans may result in fewer objections (or
litigation), it is also clearly uncertain that merely implementing collaborative processes will
result in plans that are in fact legitimate unless they are also grounded in thorough analysis,
based upon application of objective, state of the art scientific methods. And collaboration alone
will not necessarily result in more credible scientific information.
DDD. Conclusions
As noted above, the National Forest Management Act clearly directs the Forest Service to
conduct and apply economic analyses, stating that the Forest Service must consider the
“economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource management,
including the related systems of silviculture and protection of forest resources, to provide for
outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range timber, watershed, wildlife and fish.” (NFMA
(PL 94-588) Sec. 6 (g)(3)(A)).
The promulgation of the Final Planning Rule presents the agency with an opportunity to
ensure that National Forests and Grasslands are managed in a way that is ecologically
sustainable, which will, in turn, bring a greater degree of economic stability and economic
sustainability to local communities that reflects the realities of 21st Century rural economies.
These analyses are necessary to determine not only economic values for timber harvest and
suitability, but also the non-market values of wilderness, recreation, habitat for wildlife and
endangered species, water quality and quantity, climate regulation and carbon sequestration,
other rural economic sectors which depend on protected public lands, and the non-market value
of our national forests and grasslands to all Americans. These analyses must include the cost of
mitigation and remediation of these non-market resources and the Final Planning Rule must
require that plan alternative selection be made to maximize the benefits of public land
management for all Americans.
We expect the Final Planning Rule to address the suite of economic issues and requested
analyses described above.
Recommendation: The Final Planning Rule should explicitly require that these analyses be
conducted as part of LMP NEPA analyses, and furthermore that the Final Planning Rule must
require the consideration of the results of the analysis be used in selection the final alternatives in
all Land Management Plans.

FRD – 1132
XIV. Recreation
90.
We are pleased to see and strongly support the proposed rule’s focus on sustainable
recreation. As our country’s population grows and recreation demands grow along with it,
ensuring that recreation is sustainable will be a critical challenge for the Forest Service.
Recreation also has tremendous economic importance. According to the Forest Service,
recreation on the national forests and grasslands produces 224,000 full- and part-time jobs,
which is more than five times as many jobs as produced by timber and grazing put together
(DEIS App. J, p. J-3).
The proposed rule’s overall framework (assess, plan, monitor, revise) is consistent with the
adaptive management approaches required for sustainable recreation planning. However, more
explicit direction is needed in order to ensure the recreation outcomes the proposed rule
envisions.
EEE. Ensure That Recreation Planning Provides Quality Recreation Outcomes
It is well known that active outdoor recreation provides tremendous public benefits in terms
of public health, local economies, and more. 62 In fact, Executive Order 13266 requires that the
Secretary of Agriculture work to increase opportunities for physical activity because of its public
benefits. But what is less often cited is that recreation benefits decline as the quality of the
recreation experience declines. 63 Accordingly, we believe the Forest Service has an obligation in
the final rule to ensure quality recreation outcomes, not just opportunities, in order to maximize
public benefit.
91. Focus on Sustainable Recreation Outcomes, Including Quality Experiences
62 See, e.g., Geoffrey Godbey, Outdoor Recreation, Health, and Wellness: Understanding and Enhancing the
Relationship, Resources for the Future (May 2009), Available at: http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-09-21.pdf ;
Richard Louv, Last Child in the Woods (Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill 2008) (2005); Active Outdoor Recreation
Economy: A $730 Billion Annual Contribution to the U.S. Economy, Outdoor Industry Association (Fall 2006),
Available at: http://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/researchfiles/RecEconomypublic.pdf?26 .
63 See, e.g., Whitehead, John C., Haab, Timothy C., and Huang, Ju-Chin. 2000. “Measuring recreation benefits of
quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data”. Resource and Energy Economics, 22(4): 339-354;
Englin, Jeffrey & Mendelsohn, Robert, 1991. "A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple components
of site quality: The recreation value of forest management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 21(3): 275-290; Stevens, J. B. 1966. “Recreation benefits from water pollution control”, Water
Resources Research, 2(2): 167–182; Cicchetti, Charles J., V. Kerry Smith. 1973. “Congestion, quality deterioration,
and optimal use: Wilderness recreation in the Spanish peaks primitive area.” Social Science Research, 2(1): 15-30.
Badaracco, R.J. 1976. “ORVs: Often Rough on Visitors.” Parks and Recreation 11(9): 32-35,68-75.

FRD – 1132
The proposed rule says in § 219.10(b)(i) that plan components must provide for “Sustainable
recreation, considering opportunities and access for a range of uses.” While we agree that
opportunities and access are an important element of recreation planning, this language does not
incorporate what should be the ultimate goal of recreation planning: to provide quality recreation
outcomes. For example, hikers, bikers and off-road vehicles together on a mixed use trail would
provide opportunities and access for a range of uses, but not a quality experience for any of the
users. It would result in provision of opportunities but not in quality recreation outcomes. The
1982 planning rule specifically recognized this important distinction and required in
§219.21(a)(2) that forest plans identify “the recreational preferences of user groups and the
settings needed to provide quality recreation opportunities” (emphasis added). We are extremely
disappointed that this critical point has been lost in the proposed rule.
Below we recommend a series of changes to the proposed rule that would better allow the
Forest Service to plan for and provide sustainable recreation outcomes, including quality
experiences, thereby maximizing recreation benefits to the American public.
FFF. Sustainable Recreation Needs To Be More Clearly Defined
92. Incorporate the Full Range of Factors Affecting the Quality of Sustainable
Recreation
In definitions and provisions related to sustainable recreation, the draft rule does not
adequately incorporate the range of factors that contribute to the quality of a recreation
experience. The rule does incorporate the concept of aesthetic integrity in a clear way, which we
strongly support. However, this unintentionally suggests that other critical factors (particularly
soundscapes, user conflict, and ecological integrity) are either less important or optional in
determining the sustainability and quality of recreation. These other factors should be more
explicitly incorporated into the rule in order to ensure the full range of factors that ensure high
quality and sustainable recreation experiences are accounted for in the planning process.
Soundscapes in particular are a well-studied and proven element that define a sense of place
and ensure quality recreation experiences. 64 Simply illustrated, a survey of national park visitors
“revealed that nearly as many visitors come to national parks to enjoy the natural soundscape (91
percent) as come to view the scenery (93 percent).” 65
64 See, “Visitor Experience and Soundscapes: Annotated Bibliography,” National Park Service / Colorado State
University, 2006. Available at:
http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/PDF_docs/VisitorExperience_Soundscapes_AnnotatedBiblio_17Aug10.p
df . Also see, National Park Service’s compendium of other research, reports, and publications on soundscapes,
available at: http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/PDF_docs/Other_Research_Reports_Publications.pdf .
65 National Park Service Director’s Order #47, Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management (December 1,
2000).

FRD – 1132
In addition, user conflict is a particularly critical factor affecting the quality of sustainable
recreation. This is particularly true for conflicts between the needs of motorized and nonmotorized
users. The Forest Service has an affirmative obligation under Executive Order 1164
to minimize conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users. The 1982 rule expressly
incorporated this duty, saying in §219.21(g) “Off-road vehicle use shall be planned and
implemented to protect land and other resources, promote public safety, and minimize conflicts
with other uses of the National Forest System lands” (emphasis added). That the proposed rule
simply does not mention user conflict at all, despite both the importance of the issue and the
agency’s legal obligation to minimize conflicts pursuant to Executive Order 1164, is a glaring
omission that should be remedied.
Accordingly, we suggest several changes. First, in §219.19, the definition of “Landscape
character” should be changed to include not just visual images, but soundscapes and ecological
integrity as well. This change is consistent with the stated intent in the current definition, which
is to “define a ‘sense of place.’” Second, also in §219.19, the definition of “Recreational
setting” should be more specific about the minimum elements of the “surroundings or the
environment for the recreational activities” that must be evaluated by adding the phrase
“including, but not limited to, scenic character, naturalness, remoteness, soundscapes, social
encounters and user conflict.” Lastly, the word “soundscape” should be added after “aesthetic
values” in §219.10(a)(1), Multiple Uses, in order to ensure soundscapes are considered for
purposes of Integrated Resource Management.
93. Clarify the Definition of “Sustainable Recreation”
The draft definition of “sustainable recreation” in §219.19 is a somewhat circular definition
that defines sustainable recreation as “ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable”
without meaningfully explaining how those elements are to be determined.
First, it is not clear that “economically sustainable” includes the concept of “fiscally
sustainable” (i.e. ensuring that the Forest Service has the financial, personnel, and other
resources needed to implement recreation plans). Forest and grassland plans should address
what resources are needed to implement plans, including monitoring programs and management
activities, and how these resources will be obtained. This is a key aspect of economic
sustainability over which the Forest Service has direct control, and there is wide agreement
among recreation resource planners that this is a critical element of any plan. 66 Accordingly, it
66 See Principles of Recreation Resource Planning, National Association of Recreation Resource Planners (2009)
[hereinafter Principles of Recreation Resource Planning]. Available at:
http://www.narrp.org/clubportal/images/clubimages/1431/Recreation_Resource_Planning_Principles_April-
2009a.pdf Also see Whittaker, Doug, Bo Shelby, Robert Manning, David Cole, and Glenn Haas. 2011. “Capacity
Reconsidered: Finding Consensus and Clarifying Differences”, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration
29(1): 1-20. [hereinafter Capacity Reconsidered]. Available at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/730.pdf

FRD – 1132
should be explicitly incorporated into the definition of “economically sustainable.” In addition,
it is not clear that forest and grassland plans will be required to evaluate the economic
contribution of recreation to local communities, and how those benefits might compare to or be
affected by resource extraction or recreation-related environmental damage. This is critical in
determining the best balance for multiple use and recreation allocations. Further, economic
sustainability must incorporate accounting of both the economic benefits associated with the
recreation experiences as well as the economic costs (including ecosystem services).
Second, the draft rule provides no guidance on the meaning of “socially sustainable” or the
basic elements necessary to assess social sustainability. At a minimum, forest and grassland
plans should be required to evaluate types of recreation activities (e.g., motorized or
nonmotorized use), spatial arrangements of activities, amounts of use, and potential user conflict
to determine social sustainability of recreation. 67 As noted above, the 1982 rule specifically
required minimization of conflicts between motorized and other users in §219.21(g) and we
believe this requirement should be re-established in the final rule.
Lastly, it is not clear in the definition of “sustainable recreation” that ecological sustainability
sets the sideboards for determining sustainability. The rule must make clear, both in the
definition of sustainable recreation, and in the Rule in general, that social and economic
sustainability must exist within the boundaries set by ecological sustainability. If this were not
the case, by definition, recreation would not be sustainable since the values that are the very
foundation of social and economic sustainability related to recreation would erode – namely,
aesthetics (visual and auditory), healthy wildlife, biological diversity, healthy streams, clean
water, etc. See also our discussion above on decision-making and role of science.
Accordingly, we recommend that the rule include in §219.19 definitions for “economically
sustainable,” “socially sustainable,” and “ecologically sustainable” that incorporate the above
principles. We also recommend that §219.6 require analyses of these issues as a precursor to any
new plan or plan amendment that incorporates sustainable recreation.
94. Define “Sustainable Recreation” In Terms of Quality Outcomes, Not Just
Opportunities
The proposed definition of “sustainable recreation” states that it is the set of recreation
opportunities “allowing the responsible official to offer recreation opportunities now and into the
future.” We believe this is a flawed way of describing sustainable recreation because it focuses
solely on recreation opportunities, not outcomes. Managing for outcomes will allow the Forest
Service to achieve quality recreation experiences, not simply a range of opportunities (see
discussion above). This is an important and substantive distinction, as exemplified by the 6 th
67 See Capacity Reconsidered, p.8.

FRD – 1132
Circuit’s decision in Meister v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, where the court specifically relied in
inclusion of the word “quality” as a basis for its decision. 68
Accordingly, in §219.19, we recommend revising the proposed definition of “sustainable
recreation as follows (additions emphasized): “…allowing the responsible official to offer
quality recreation opportunities and outcomes now and into the future.”
GGG. Better Operationalize the Concept of Sustainable Recreation
95. Link Assessments to Plans
The recreation elements of forest and grassland plans should follow logically from
information gathered in the assessment phase about recreation niches, needs, and impacts. While
we understand that this is the intent of the draft rule, the proposed rule’s language is so loose as
to make the links between the recreation elements of the assessment and the recreation elements
of the forest or grassland plan almost entirely discretionary. See, for example, §219.7(c)(2)(i)
which requires that the official “shall review relevant information from the assessment phase”
and §219.7(2)(iii) which says the official “shall consider conditions and trends and stressors”
(emphasis added). There could be little to no link between the information contained in the
assessment and the content of the forest or grassland plan and still satisfy the requirements for
“reviewing” and “considering”.
We also note that the 1982 planning rule provides a closer link between assessment and
planning than does the proposed rule. For example, while both the proposed rule and the 1982
rule require consideration of State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans and the role of non-
Forest Service lands (§219.6(b)(2-3) and §219.21(e), respectively), the 1982 rule directly links
that consideration to the expected outcome: “with the aim of reducing duplication in meeting
recreation demands” (§219.21(e)).
For our full comments on agency discretion, see our discussion above. We specifically call
this issue out here because of its particular importance for recreation planning. Without
proactive and thoughtful recreation plan elements based on needs and niches identified in the
assessment, the Forest Service will not be able to adequately serve the changing and growing
recreation needs of the public.
96. Incorporate Sustainable Recreation into All of the Plan Components
Even though the issue of sustainability is included in the proposed rule, as we have noted
above, it is not well-defined in an operational way. In order to operationalize this concept, Dr.
Robert Manning (a nationally-recognized expert in recreation planning) states that recreation
planning experts have adopted a management-by-objectives framework in which “1) desired
68 Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 623 F. 3d 363 (6 th Cir. 2010).

FRD – 1132
conditions/management objectives are developed, 2) quantitative indicators and standards are
formulated as proxies for desired conditions/management objectives, 3) indicators are monitored,
and 4) management actions are taken to help ensure that standards are maintained…[This
framework] is being used in the field of recreation to address carrying capacity and it should be
considered for adoption in the proposed planning rule as a way to define and manage
sustainability as it applies to recreation and other forest uses.” 69
This framework correlates reasonably well with the required plan components in
§219.7(d)(1) ―Desired conditions, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines―and the monitoring
component in § 219.12. However, while the proposed rule may give managers discretion to
adopt this approach, it contains no guarantees that it will occur. Despite all of these components
being recognized as fundamental elements of best practice in the field of recreation planning, a
forest or grassland plan could incorporate recreation into only one of the required plan
components, and monitor only one recreation indicator, and still meet the minimum requirements
of the rule.
It is particularly important to ensure objectives and standards for sustainable recreation are
set because they provide the measures that allow managers to determine if they are meeting
desired recreation outcomes, and which allow them to adaptively manage for changing
conditions. In their absence, adaptive management is not a meaningful concept and recreation
quality and outcomes suffer.
Requiring inclusion of recreation in each one of these plan components will allow the Forest
Service to adaptively manage for recreation using carrying capacity and other recreation best
management practices. In particular, a carrying capacity approach will help operationalize the
concepts of ecological and social sustainability (discussed above) by providing a rational
methodology for measuring and managing for both. While social and economic sustainability
are difficult to thoroughly define in a rule, carrying capacity is sound recreation science that will
ensure these terms are implemented in an effective and practical way.
Accordingly, we recommend that the second sentence of §219.10(b)(1)(i) be edited as
follows (edits emphasized): “The plan should identify recreational settings and niche, and
desired conditions including for scenic landscape character, objectives, standards, guidelines,
and suitability.”
97. Recreation Settings and Desired Conditions Should Be Mandatory
Section 219.10(b)(i) of the proposed rule states “[t]he plan should identify recreational
settings and desired conditions for scenic landscape character” (emphasis added). There is no
reason why this provision should be discretionary. Recreation settings and desired conditions are
69 See Appendix C: Letter from Dr. Robert Manning, Professor, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural
Resources, University of Vermont, to The Wilderness Society (February 17, 2011).

FRD – 1132
foundational elements of recreation planning 70 , and practical prerequisites for managing for
recreation outcomes. Accordingly, we recommend that “should” be replaced with “shall” in this
provision.
98. Require Recreation Monitoring To Support a Management-By-Objectives
Framework
Ongoing monitoring of recreation use and impacts is a fundamental element of sustainable
recreation management. Without sufficient monitoring, it will be impossible for the Forest
Service to adaptively manage for recreation objectives and outcomes, or manage for carrying
capacities and other best management practices, and therefore nearly impossible to achieve the
stated goal of sustainable recreation. As Dr. Manning notes, the “guidelines seem to suggest that
recreation could be adequately monitored on the basis of only one question or indicator, and this
is probably insufficient. Some plans may simply monitor the number of recreation visits or
visitors, and this offers little information about the type or quality of recreation that is being
offered.” 71 Certainly data from the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey alone is not
sufficient, though it is at present not unusual for this to be the only recreation monitoring
conducted by a forest or grassland.
Accordingly, we recommend that in §219.12(a) sufficient monitoring to support a
management-by-objectives framework, including carrying capacity, be made mandatory in order
to successfully manage for sustainable recreation. Alternative E in the DEIS provides a
reasonable attempt to provide a sufficient recreation monitoring scheme in §§219.12(a)(iv) and
(xiii). These provisions require monitoring of “Recreation user satisfaction and status and trend
of recreation settings and opportunities provided by the NFS unit compared to Desired
Conditions stated in the plan,” and “public safety and environmental impacts of road and trail
system on the NFS unit, including appropriate access, needs of adjacent landowners, public
demand, and geological risks,” including the question “Where is unauthorized use occurring on
or off the road and trail system?” We recommend the Forest Service adopt these monitoring
provisions from Alternative E.
For our full recommendations on monitoring, see the discussion below.
99. Alternative D Would Support Development of Sustainable Recreation
Infrastructure
Section 219.8(a)(3)(ii)(B) of Alternative D would require that “activities within riparian
conservation areas that are not for restoration such as construction of new facilities (for example
70 See, e.g., Principles of Recreation Resource Planning , supra; Capacity Reconsidered, supra; Manning, R. (2004).
“Recreation Planning Frameworks. Society and Natural Resources: A Summary of Knowledge.” Jefferson, MO:
Modern Litho, 83-96.
71 Id.

FRD – 1132
boat landings, road and trail crossings or campsites) must be designed using best available
science to minimize impacts to the ecological function of the area.” We believe this provision
would meaningfully enhance the Forest Service’s ability to provide for sustainable recreation. If
the Forest Service’s goal is to achieve sustainability of recreation, using BMPs to reduce the
impacts of recreation infrastructure in environmentally sensitive riparian areas―as this provision
would require―should be a minimum standard that is required of all forest and grassland plans.
Further, there is an additional social and economic sustainability benefit by preventing damage
and safety concerns arising from recreation infrastructure being located in flood zones.
Accordingly, we strongly recommend that §219.8(a)(3)(ii)(B) of Alternative D be adopted in
order to assist the Forest Service in implementing its goal of providing sustainable recreation.
HHH. The Rule Should Require Recreation Zoning
100. Land Allocations Are an Effective and Practical Way to Plan for Sustainable
Recreation
Land allocations are a critical tool for sustainable recreation planning. They allow the Forest
Service to establish a recreation zoning system that facilitates effective management for a variety
of recreation outcomes and the wide range of factors that affect those outcomes (soundscapes,
aesthetics, user conflict, etc.). This is particularly important for preventing resource damage,
ensuring quality experiences, and limiting conflict between recreational users, including that
between motorized and non-motorized users. Not every use is appropriate for every acre, and
achieving social and ecological sustainability requires careful allocation of recreation across the
landscape. Without the use of recreation land allocations, it is virtually impossible to manage
uses in a sustainable way that will prevent conflict and environmental damage.
For a general discussion of land allocations, see our comments on land allocations,
management areas, and special areas above.
101. Establish a Recreation Zoning System Using a Suite of Land Allocation Tools
Land allocations should be a mandatory plan component in order to establish a recreation
zoning system. This zoning system should be comprised of cascading, nested levels of
recreation allocations. Above the Forest level, congressionally-designated areas such as National
Recreation Areas and National Heritage Areas provide distinct management regimes for areas
that have been prioritized by Congress for recreation. That alone, however, is not sufficient.
At the unit level, plans should identify recreation management areas in order to appropriately
allocate different types of recreation across the landscape in an ecologically and socially
sustainable manner. At a minimum, recreation management areas should distinguish between
motorized and non-motorized recreation areas (see further discussion below), front-country and

FRD – 1132
back-country settings, and be consistent with the recreation niches identified in the assessment.
These management areas would establish the baseline recreation zoning system for the forest.
In addition, the rule should explicitly provide the opportunity for forests to designate “special
areas” (see Special Areas discussion above). Recreation special areas are named areas within a
management area(s) that act as an overlay designation, providing more specific recreation
management regimes than the general management area in order to support a particularly
important or sensitive use. For example, see Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the Fingers Lakes National
Forest plan 72 , which include a “national scenic trail special area” and a “recreation and education
special area”.
102. Suitability of Lands for Motorized Recreation Should Be Determined In
Every Plan
Motorized recreation should be among the suitability of uses examined for every plan
creation or revision because of the tremendous impacts motorized use has on ecologically
sensitive areas. This is part of the logic behind NFMA’s timber suitability requirement, and it is
equally applicable to motorized vehicle use. Further, the NFMA does not simply require the
determination of suitability for timber production; it requires that national forests and grasslands
“determine…the availability of lands and their suitability for resource management”. Sec. 6
(e)(2). Former Forest Service Chief Dale Boswoth recognized unmanaged motorized use as one
of the top four threats to national forests. 73 Noise from motorized vehicles stress wildlife by
startling species and impacting opportunities for roosting, foraging, and nesting. 74 Motorized
vehicles can damage habitat via fragmentation and serving as a vector for invasive species that
alter habitat composition, structure, and function. 75 Motorized vehicles degrade water quality by
causing increased sedimentation and erosion, particularly on steep slopes and unstable soils. 76
The 1982 planning rule recognizes the importance of determining suitability of areas for
motorized recreation, requiring both that forest planning identify “[t]he physical and biological
characteristics that make land suitable for recreation opportunities” (§219.21(a)(1)) and that
“[o]ff-road vehicle use shall be planned and implemented to protect land and other resources”
(§219.21(g)). The Forest Service’s travel management plans are not a substitute for suitability
72 Finger Lakes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, USDA Forest Service Eastern Region, R9-
FL-FP (April 2006).
73 Statement of Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Before the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health and the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands,
Committee on Resources, United States House of Representatives (Jul. 13, 2005), available at
http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BosworthTestimony07.13.05.pdf (last visited on
April 29, 2011).
74 See Appendix B: Petition to enhance and expand regulations governing the administration of recreational off-road
use on national forests. Submitted by Wildlands CPR, The Wilderness Society, et al. December 1999.
75 Id.
76 Id.

FRD – 1132
determinations in forest and grassland plans because the travel planning process does not
consider whether certain areas of forests and grasslands are suitable or unsuitable for motorized
use, but instead only looks at whether individual routes at the ground level are suitable for
motorized designations.
Accordingly, we recommend the following change to the last sentence of §219.7(d)(1)(v) of
the proposed rule: “… Suitability does not need to be determined for every multiple use or
activity, but every plan must identify those lands not suitable for timber production (§219.11)
and motorized recreation.” (addition emphasized).
103. Distinguish Between Motorized and Non-Motorized Recreation Areas Year-
Round
Distinguishing between motorized and non-motorized recreation management areas is critical
to achieving sustainable recreation outcomes, particularly from a social sustainability
perspective. Research has repeatedly shown that combining motorized and non-motorized use
on shared trails and areas has significant negative effects on non-motorized users, both
summertime (e.g. hikers, bikers, hunters, fishermen) and wintertime (e.g. cross country and
backcountry skiers and snowshoers). 77 Under the 1982 rule, forests will sometimes (though not
always) distinguish between motorized and non-motorized areas for summertime activities, but
rarely do so for wintertime activities. We strongly object to this practice, since if anything,
designating distinct motorized and non-motorized areas is even more important for winter use
because limited access consolidates recreation activities into smaller areas (based on which roads
and parking areas are plowed, what trails are groomed, etc.), thereby increasing social conflicts
and impacts to non-motorized users. 78
Accordingly, we recommend that the rule require that forest and grassland plans distinguish
between motorized and non-motorized recreation areas for both summer and winter recreation
management. This should be accomplished by requiring that land allocations distinguish
between motorized and non-motorized year-round, and by adding the following sentence to the
end of §219.10(b)(1)(i): “The plan shall also distinguish between areas for motorized and
non-motorized recreation for summer and winter recreation.”
77 See Badaracco, R.J. 1976. “ORVs: Often Rough on Visitors.” Parks and Recreation 11(9): 32-35,68-75; Jackson,
E.L. and R.A.G. Wong. 1982. “Perceived Conflict Between Urban Cross -Country Skiers and Snowmobilers in
Alberta.” Journal of Leisure Research 14(1): 47-62; Kockelman, W. J. 1983. “Management concepts.
Environmental Effects of Off-road vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions”. H. Wilshire and R. Webb
(eds.). New York: Springer-Verlag; Knopp, T.B. and J.D. Tyger. 1973. “A Study of Conflict in Recreational Land
Use: Snowmobiling vs. Ski Touring.” Journal of Leisure Research 5(3): 6-17; Noe, F.P., J.D. Wellman, and G.
Buhyoff. 1982. “Perception of Conflict Between Off –Road Vehicle and Non Off -Road Vehicle Users in a Leisure
Setting.” Journal of Environmental Systems 11: 223-233.
78 See Winter Recreation on Western National Forest Lands, Winter Wildlands Alliance (July 2006). Available at:
http://www.winterwildlands.org/resources/reports/WWA_WinterRecreation.pdf (last visited May 4, 2011).

FRD – 1132
104. Recreation Elements of Plans Must Be Prescriptive, Not Simply Descriptive
The purpose of sustainable recreation planning should be self-obvious: to plan for recreation
in a way that will be sustainable. However, too often forests and grasslands have defaulted to
plans that simply codify existing, de facto recreation patterns. This is particularly true with
respect to use of the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS), where despite longstanding Forest
Service guidance to the contrary, we have repeatedly seen individual forests use the ROS as a
method to codify current recreation uses instead of to proactively plan for recreation
opportunities that will maximize social and ecological sustainability. The DEIS even explicitly
recognizes this, saying “Some plans used ROS settings just for inventory and tracking purposes.”
DEIS at 138.
The wording in the draft rule allows forests to continue to use recreation settings in a purely
descriptive manner if they so desire, thereby allowing the Forest Service to substitute
continuance of recreation status quo for proactive recreation planning. For example,
§219.10(b)(1)(i) simply says “The plan should identify recreational settings.” Not only does this
make identifying settings (currently done using the ROS) optional, it could easily be understood
to mean identify the settings as the currently exist, not as they should be planned for based on
needs and opportunities.
Accordingly, we recommend that in §219.19 the definition of “recreational setting” be edited
to clarify that it is a prescriptive planning tool, and not just a descriptive one. In addition, we
recommend that the recreation plan component ensure consistency with the forest’s identified
recreation niche. This should be done by editing §219.10(b)(1)(i) to read “The plan should shall
identify recreational settings and niche, and desired conditions including for scenic landscape
character, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability.
III. Ensure Equitable Recreation Access For Diverse Populations
Population data shows that minority and urban populations are growing at a tremendous rate,
and represent a significant and increasing segment of our population. 79 This growth is
particularly pronounced in western states that are home to vast stretches of national forests and
grasslands. 80 In order to ensure the recreation benefits provided by the national forests are able
to serve these populations, forest and grassland plans must actively facilitate equitable recreation
access for diverse communities. We appreciate and support the provision in §219.4 of the
proposed rule that the responsible official shall encourage participation in the planning process
by youth, low-income, and minority populations. However, this alone is not enough. Attention
should be paid to youth access needs and access for a diversity of skill levels in addition to
ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic status. The rule should establish a framework that ensures
79 DEIS at 136.
80 Id.

FRD – 1132
individual forest and grassland plans will adequately meet this obligation. The rule should do
this by integrating the elements related to equitable recreation access into the assessment,
planning, and monitoring elements of the rule.
105. Assess Equitable Access Opportunities for Minority and Urban Populations
The assessment phase of planning is particularly important for ensuring forests adequately
plan for equitable recreation access. Key elements of the assessment include analyses of the
regional population that the forest serves, barriers to access by diverse, under-privileged, and
urban populations, and the interface between forest service and regional transportation
infrastructure. The analysis of barriers should include, but not be limited to, transportation,
socioeconomics, skill level, and barriers created via land allocations and recreation facility siting
and design. The transportation infrastructure analysis should identify access points for public
transportation (federal, state, or municipal) so that diverse communities can easily access
recreation opportunities. While the language of §219.6(b) of the proposed rule allows forest
managers to evaluate these issues, it does not go far enough in guaranteeing their consideration.
To address this deficiency, we make two recommendations. First, in §219.6(b)(2) add the
phrase “public transportation plans” in the list of relevant documents. Second, in §219.6(b)(3),
revise the first sentence to read “…considering the roles of the unit in providing multiple uses,
including ecosystem services and recreation benefits to diverse members of the public, from
the NFS lands to the local area” (additions emphasized).
106. Require a Goal of Connecting With Youth, Minority and Urban Populations
As noted in our discussion above, the content and direction of a forest plan should flow
logically from the information contained in the assessment. For purposes of equitable access,
this means that forest and grassland plans should explicitly incorporate equitable access
strategies into the required plan components. Requiring inclusion of a goal to connect youth,
minority, and urban populations to the national forest or grassland would help better assure that
the required plan components (desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines)
incorporate and reflect the needs of diverse populations.
JJJ.
Failure to Disclose the Effects of Eliminating Recreation Section Of 1982 Rule
The 1982 planning rule (Alternative B in the DEIS) provides highly explicit direction with
regards to the recreation elements of forest and grassland plans. As we have noted above,
§219.21 of the 1982 rule contains specific provisions requiring quality recreation
(§219.21(a)(2)), analysis of suitability of lands for recreation (§219.21(a)(1)), demand-supply
analysis for recreation (§219.21(b)), and off-road vehicle use that is planned and implemented to
protect land and other resources, promote public safety, and minimize conflicts with other uses
(§219.21(g)). The proposed rule eliminates all of these provisions in favor of a bare-bones
statement that forests and grasslands shall provide for sustainable recreation. The proposed rule

FRD – 1132
also suggests but does not require identification of recreational settings and desired conditions
for scenic landscape character. But as we noted above, these are hardly a full reflection of the
elements identified by experts as best practices for recreation planning, and regardless, their
inclusion in plans is not mandatory.
The proposed rule’s removal of specific provisions of the 1982 rule is a material change with
real world affects on the type and distribution of recreation activities the Forest Service can
legally allocate in land management plans. For example, the 6 th Circuit Court of Appeals relied
on the requirements in the 1982 rule regarding demand-supply analysis (§219.21(b)), provision
of quality recreation opportunities (§219.21(a)(1)), and minimizing motorize use conflict
(§219.21(g)) to find that the Huron-Manistee National Forest had arbitrarily and capriciously
designated hundreds of miles of snowmobile trails and areas at the expense of cross-country
skiers. 81 As a result, the Huron-Manistee is expected to significantly reallocate recreation
amongst motorized and non-motorized users, which will have significant on-the-ground effects
related to habitat, soundscapes, and user conflict.
As such, the DEIS should have disclosed the reasonably anticipated effects of eliminating the
detailed and explicit requirements of the 1982 rule in favor of a vaguely defined and largely
voluntary recreation provision in the draft rule. Instead, the DEIS fails to mention this change at
all in any of its analyses on Alternatives A, C, or D.
KKK. The DEIS Unreasonably Relies On Unenforceable Planning and Management Tools
The DEIS suggests that changes in the recreation elements of the proposed rule would have
few if any consequences because recreation planning is controlled by agency tools and
guidelines, and not the rule itself. The DEIS states “The recreation program will continue to be
guided by the strategic plans and Agency policy no matter which alternative is selected. The
national program and the social and economic impacts of the program are largely independent of
planning regulations and land management plans.” DEIS, p.141. It continues on to admit that the
proposed rule is extremely vague, but asserts that recreation outcomes will be consistent
regardless of the planning alternative selected because recreation planning relies on a suit of
agency planning tools to conduct recreation planning, “As current planning rule procedures
related to recreation are quite general, these tools contribute to consistency in recreation planning
across NFS units.” DEIS, p.137.
But the DEIS undermines its own argument by citing a suite of recreation tools as the
rationale that outcomes will be consistent across alternatives, while explaining that none of these
tools is actually enforceable and compliance with them can’t be guaranteed. The DEIS spends
several pages describing the various recreation management tools currently employed by the
Forest Service. DEIS, p. 137-140. The DEIS simultaneously spends several pages carefully
describing the enforceable elements of Forest Service policy, which include Forest Service
81 Meister, 623 F. 3d 363.

FRD – 1132
Manuals (in some circuits, at least), but no other administrative policies. DEIS, p. 49-51.
Almost none of the recreation management tools described in the DEIS on pages 138-140 are
enforceable according to the DEIS on page 50. But the DEIS nonetheless relies on them to
conclude that the recreation element of the proposed rule will have few impacts and that
recreation outcomes would be consistent across national forests and grasslands, despite there
being no mechanism to ensure any of these tools are used in a consistent way (or at all, for that
matter) from unit to unit.
LLL. Social and Economic Impacts of Recreation Should Be Disclosed
As noted above, the DEIS asserts that “the social and economic impacts of the program are
largely independent of planning regulations and land management plans.” DEIS, p. 141. While
we agree that the Forest Service has limited ability to affect social and economic sustainability
on a large scale, this statement ignores two key aspects of social and economic sustainability
over which the Forest Service does have direct control. As we have pointed out above, conflict
between motorized and non-motorized users is one of the most pervasive and pernicious
management challenges on the national forests. This is an aspect of social sustainability that is
well within a plan’s ability to address through land allocations, suitability, and zoning. In
addition, the fiscal responsibility is an important aspect of economic sustainability that is also
well within a plan’s ability to address through an assessment of the Forest Service’s reasonably
expected resources to manage, maintain, and mitigate recreation activities and infrastructure.
Accordingly, we believe the assertion in the DEIS that the planning rule has limited ability to
affect the social and economic impacts of recreation is erroneous, and that the social and
economic impacts outlined above, which the planning rule does directly affect, should be
disclosed.
107.
108.
XV. Visuals and Aesthetics
To be completed
XVI. Cultural Resources
To be completed
XVII. Air
MMM. Need for Proactive Coordination
We are disappointed that the proposed rule appears to roll back existing air quality
safeguards for National Forest System lands, as well as the affirmative obligation to identify

FRD – 1132
measures needed to effectively coordinate air quality control with state agencies. Despite the
decision to abandon these requirements, the Forest Service completely ignores the proposed
rule’s effects on air quality in the DEIS. We suggest a return to the 1982’s recognition that
forest and grassland plans should include direction that will ensure its management activities will
comply with the agency’s non-discretionary duties under the Clean Air Act and other applicable
laws. In addition, we believe the planning rule should retain and expand upon the 1982 rule’s
commitment to interagency air quality coordination in order to better take advantage of the 2007
Exceptional Events Rule, so that the agency may more consistently rely on the use of prescribed
fire in its restoration efforts.
The final rule should require proactive coordination with state air quality agencies in order to
promote the use of prescribed fire for restoration purposes. The 1982 rule required each regional
guide to contain “specific standards and guidelines” for “[i]dentifying in forest plans significant
current and potential air pollution emissions from management activities and from other sources
in and around the forest planning area and identifying measures needed to coordinate air quality
control with appropriate air quality regulation agencies.” 36 C.F.R. § 219.9(a)(5)(v) (emphasis
added). The proposed rule discards this provision, which is a mistake because an affirmative
recommitment to coordinating with state air quality control agencies could better facilitate efforts
to restore natural fire regimes to ecosystems through the appropriate use of prescribed fire.
The EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule specifically allows states to exclude data showing
exceedances or violations of national ambient air quality standards resulting from prescribed
fires, so long as those fires meet the definition of an “exceptional event” and the state files (and
EPA approves) the requisite paperwork requesting an exemption. 50 C.F.R. §§ 50.1,
50.14(a)(1), (b)(3); see also 72 Fed. Reg. 13560 (Mar. 22, 2007). If EPA approves the
paperwork submitted to demonstrate use of the exceptional events exemption is justified,
emissions from prescribed fires do not count against the state as the EPA reviews areas for
nonattainment. We understand the “demonstration” can be fairly burdensome, which is one
reason that some state agencies have not fully embraced the use of prescribed fire. Thus, in
order to improve the Forest Service’s ability to take full advantage of the exceptional events
exemption, the final rule should require proactive coordination between the Forest Service and
state air quality regulators, one purpose of which would be to develop a plan to share
responsibility for preparing the “demonstration.” Including a provision in the final rule that
would require early and meaningful cross-jurisdictional coordination could enable the Forest
Service to more regularly use prescribed fire in order to restore natural fire regimes and lessen
the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and its attendant damage to air quality, public health and
safety, and ecosystem structure.
Importantly, the 1982 rule also required that management prescriptions “[b]e consistent with
maintaining air quality at a level that is adequate for the protection and use of National Forest
System resources and that meets or exceeds applicable Federal, State and/or local standards or
regulations.” 36 C.F.R. § 219.27(a)(12). In other words, the 1982 rule was clear that the Forest
Service, as manager of millions of acres of land and numerous pollutant emitting activities, was

FRD – 1132
obligated to independently assure compliance with relevant Federal, State, and local air quality
standards. It was not enough to simply assert that an activity or use would comply with
applicable air quality laws. Rather the agency was duty-bound to demonstrate that its
management actions were indeed consistent with maintaining air quality at levels meeting or
exceeding such standards or regulations.
NNN. Agency Examples
The proposed rule is an extreme and unfortunate departure from the agency’s prior
understanding that its forest and grassland plans influence the degree to which site-specific
projects and permitted activities will affect air quality. If left as written, the proposed rule could
be interpreted as prohibiting the agency’s historic practice of including explicit air quality
direction in its land management plans. See Draft Sec. 219.2(b)(2) (stating “[p]lans should not
repeat laws, regulations, [etc.]”). For example, provisions similar to those below, which are from
existing forest plans completed under the 1982 rule, might no longer be permitted in future forest
and grassland plans:
The 2004 Medicine Bow National Forest land management plan sets forth a standard that
requires the Forest Service to “Conduct all land management activities to comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local air quality standards and regulations[.]” Medicine Bow
National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan at 1-25, available at
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5163437.pdf (last accessed
April 28, 2011).
In addition to requiring compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local air quality
standard and regulations, the 2002 Thunder Basin National Grassland land management plan
also sets forth a standard that requires the Forest Service to, “Ensures emissions from projects
on the Grassland and forest management activities area within Class I or Class II ranges.”
Thunder Basin National Grassland Revised Land and Resource Management Plan at 1-9,
available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5166417.pdf (last
accessed April 28, 2011). The reference to “Class I or Class II ranges” refers to air quality
standards called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) increments, which are set
forth at 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(c). See id. at A-1, available at
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5166421.pdf (last accessed
April 28, 2011).
The 1985 Tonto National Forest land management plan sets a goal of meeting “minimum
air…quality standards” and expressly requires that “[m]anagement activities will be planned
so that air quality will [be] equal to or better than that required by applicable federal, State,
and local standards or regulations.” Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan at 50, available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/tonto/projects/forest-plan-documents/chapter-
4.pdf.

FRD – 1132
The 1986 Carson National Forest land management plan provides explicit direction with
regard to the protection of Class I areas, stating that the Forest Service will “In the Class I air
quality areas in the Wheeler Peak Wilderness maintain high quality visual conditions.”
Carson National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan at 17.Wilderness 1, available at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3f/carson/plans/forest_plan/fp_d_management_area_17.pdf (last
accessed April 28, 2011). The land management plan also requires the Forest Service to plan
its management activities “so that air quality will be equal to or better than that required by
the applicable Federal, State and/or local standards or regulations.” Id. at Air-1, available at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/carson/plans/forest_plan/fp_c_air.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2011).
These are but a handful of examples where the Forest Service clearly recognized its duty to
safeguard air quality, as required by broadly applicable environmental statutes like the Clean Air
Act, and sought to fulfill this duty through its land planning requirements.
To be sure, the proposed planning rule and draft EIS acknowledge that compliance with the
Clean Air Act and other laws is mandatory. See § 219.1(g), DEIS, p. 49. See also, e.g., 42
U.S.C. § 7506(c). However, mere acknowledgment that this is so is insufficient to ensure that
the Forest Service fulfills its unique duties with regard to air quality through its management of
the land. More disconcerting is that the proposed rule could be interpreted as prohibiting the
agency from specifically referencing or explaining its obligations under the Clean Air Act, or
other relevant laws, in forest and grassland plans. § 219.2(b)(2). Instead, the proposed rule
merely requires the Forest Service to “take into account” air quality when setting multiple use
plan components. § 219.8(a)(1)(iii). This direction is meaningless as it imposes no substantive
duty, but rather a procedural duty that is inherent in the agency’s NEPA process. Simply “taking
into account” impacts does nothing to fulfill the purpose of various statutes and regulations
designed to protect air quality through land management planning.
The proposed rule and forest and grassland plans revised under the rule should continue to
reflect the agency’s affirmative duty to protect air quality, which is well-founded in a number of
the Forest Service’s overarching environmental mandates, including NFMA, the Wilderness Act,
and the Clean Air Act. Notably, as part of its renewable resource program duties, NFMA
requires the Forest Service to “recognize the fundamental need to protect and where appropriate,
improve the quality of...air resources.” 16 U.S.C. § 1602(5)(C) (emphasis added). The agency
is further obligated to ensure that this goal, among the other goals of the renewable resource
program, is achieved through land management plans. See 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3).
OOO. Wilderness and Air Quality
The Wilderness Act of 1964 also requires that Congressionally designated wilderness areas
be managed “in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so
as to provide for the protection of these areas [and] the preservation of their wilderness
character[.]” 16 U.S.C. § 1131(a). This duty clearly extends to air pollution, which can
oftentimes impair the wilderness character of wilderness areas through haze or by causing other

FRD – 1132
forms of environmental degradation. Indeed, the Forest Service cites the Wilderness Act as
providing authority to protect air quality in all wilderness areas managed by the agency. See
Forest Service Air Management Responsibilities, http://www.fs.fed.us/air/respon.htm (last
accessed April 28, 2011).
For wilderness areas identified as Class I under the Clean Air Act, the duty to protect air
quality is even more explicit. Class I areas include all wilderness areas designated prior to 1977
and within the National Forest System, encompass dozens of wilderness lands in 20 states. See
40 C.F.R. §§ 81.401, et seq. (list of mandatory Class I areas by state). With regard to protecting
air quality in these areas, the Clean Air Act imposes upon the Forest Service an “affirmative
responsibility” to protect all air quality values, including visibility, within these Class I areas. 42
U.S.C. § 7475(d)(2)(B). This “affirmative responsibility” includes, but is not limited to,
ensuring that proposed major emitting facilities do not adversely impact air quality values in
Class I areas. In other words, while the Forest Service must generally protect air quality,
including in wilderness areas, it must make a proactive effort to do so in all Class I areas under
its management authority.
By potentially prohibiting a national forest or grassland from explaining, or even mentioning
(under an extreme interpretation of Draft Sec. 219.2(b)(2)), its obligations under other laws in
land management plans, the proposed rule risks preventing the Forest Service from effectively
meeting its statutory and regulatory obligations. We are concerned that agency staff could
inadvertently overlook those duties when planning projects, such as determining where to allow
off-road vehicle use or whether to propose leasing for oil and gas development, because those
duties might no longer appear in forest and grassland plans. Thus, it is critical that all land
management plans clearly articulate the need to comply with relevant statutory and regulatory
mandates, including meeting or exceeding federal, state, or local air quality standards and
fulfilling related duties to safeguard wilderness values and other air quality-related values. We
request the final rule either include the same language from the 1982 rules on air quality, or
otherwise ensure that the same purpose of protecting air quality is met.
Furthermore, we believe the Forest Service must fully analyze and assess the impacts under
NEPA of rolling back its longstanding air quality safeguards and affirmative obligation to
identify measures for effectively coordinating air quality control with state agencies. The DEIS
does not even contain the phrase “air quality,” so it is quite clear the agency failed to consider
the effect of eliminating regulatory requirements in the existing rule (Alternative B) that
currently govern forest and grassland plans and site-specific projects throughout the National
Forest System in favor of the ambiguous requirements of the proposed rule (Alternative A). If
the agency is to support any deviation from its current air quality requirements in the 1982 rule,
it must present a full and thorough analysis, i.e. take a “hard look” under NEPA, at the
ramifications, including a robust consideration of impacts to Class I areas, wilderness areas, and
other resources on National Forest System lands that are affected by air pollution. This
requirement is made even stronger by the fact that “Coordination and Cooperation Beyond NFS

FRD – 1132
Boundaries” is one of the issues driving the purpose and need, and range of alternatives for the
proposed Rule.
XVIII. Grazing
The Wilderness Society is concerned that both the proposed rule and the DEIS are seriously
lacking in specific guidance and information that address the harmful impacts of livestock
grazing.
PPP. Impacts from Grazing on Riparian and Other Resources
At low levels of grazing and within a functionally intact or resilient ecosystem, livestock
grazing may not significantly impact upland plant communities, soils, and ecosystem services.
However, when livestock densities increase sufficiently to limit the establishment, growth,
and/or reproduction of native plant species or signficantly alter soil processes, the long-term
effects to an ecosystem can be profound. The cumulative effect of such impacts is typically a
loss of “resiliency” or the capacity of an ecosystem to retain its basic function and structure
while absorbing additional disturbance and/or stress.
Riparian areas occupy a small percentage of western landscapes and are generally the most
productive for plant biomass (NRC 1996, 2002; Kauffman et al. 2001). Riparian areas are
disproportionally utilized by livestock (Kauffman and Krueger 1984), thus reducing the
abundance and vigor of riparian vegetation, preventing its recovery, and contributing to
invasions of exotic species and a host of negative impacts on aquatic dependent species (Belsky
et al. 1999; Fleischner 2010).
Many wildlife species use riparian areas entirely or in part for nesting, food and cover.
Livestock-driven changes in plant communities and aquatic ecosystems can have profound
effects on wildlife habitat and appreciably contribute to the imperiled status of ripariandependent
birds, mammals, and other vertebrates, including fish (Ohmart 1996; Kauffman et al.
2001).
Livestock use of riparian areas damages soils. Trampling effects along streams combined
with the loss of bank-stabilizing vegetation from intensive grazing physically alter streambanks
and reduces their stability. Accelerated streambank erosion and channel widening/incision are
prevalent features of contemporary stream systems across much of the West where grazing has
occurred. Degraded, incised channels contribute to the drying of former floodplains and loss of
wet meadows, loss of floodwater detention storage, impoverished riparian plant communities,
decreased availability of food/construction materials for keystone species such as beaver (Castor
canadensis), and reductions in baseflows (Ponce and Lindquist 1990, Trimble and Mendel 1995,
Belsky et al. 1999). Furthermore, livestock can significantly elevate fecal bacteria levels in
streams, posing a health risk in drinking water supplies (Derlet et al., 2010).

FRD – 1132
The altered channel morphology, increased sedimentation, and elevated stream temperatures
commonly associated with heavily grazed and trampled riparian areas (a frequent feature on
national forests) have contributed significantly to the long-term decline in abundance and
distribution of resident and anadromous fishes in the western US (Platts 1991; Rhodes et al.
1994; NRC 1996; Behnke 2002).
QQQ. The Rule Language is Inadequate to Meet the Forest Service’s Responsibility to
Manage for Grazing
We appreciate that the proposed rule’s broad mandate Section 219.8(a) to maintain, protect,
or restore grasslands and riparian areas could result in changes to management plans that lead to
significant reductions in grazing impacts. However, we are concerned that the particular
treatment of grazing in the proposed rule is limited and undefined. Specifically, the proposed
rule is fuzzy as to the requirements at the planning unit level around grazing. Section 219.10
says:
“In meeting the requirements of § 219.8 and § 219.9, and within Forest Service authority,
the capability of the plan area and the fiscal capability of the unit, the plan must provide
for multiple uses, including ecosystem services, outdoor recreation, range, timber,
watershed, wildlife and fish, as follows:
(a) Integrated resource management. When developing plan components for
integrated resource management, to the extent relevant to the plan area and the
public participation process and the requirements of §§ 219.7, 219.8, 219.9, and
219.11, the responsible official shall consider:
(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem
services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and
rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreational values and settings,
riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails,
vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources;”
(emphasis added)
This language makes it seem that the Forest Service could meet its obligation towards
managing for grazing in a forest or grassland plan by reviewing rangeland related information
and considering grazing and forage when developing plan components. That is, nothing in
219.10 of the proposed rule guarantees that grazing will be substantively addressed in unit level
plans to ensure that healthy conditions are maintained or restored.
Second, unlike the 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.20(a)), the proposed rule language does
not require a suitability analysis for grazing, despite the fact that livestock grazing is a pervasive

FRD – 1132
activity in the national forests that can have widespread, and sometimes significant adverse
ecological impacts. Requiring such an analysis would not add much of a burden to planning at
the unit level, but would aid considerably in meeting the goals of ecosystem restoration and
watershed protection, both of which are part of the purpose and need of preparing a new
planning rule. See DEIS at 7 and FR Preamble at 8480. In determining the suitability of lands
for livestock grazing, plans should be required to identify allotments in poor or declining
condition since impaired condition could be an indicator that the lands are not suitable.
We are also troubled by the implication in the DEIS that the Forest Service would be
expected to identify lands currently subject to livestock grazing as suitable for this use.
Specifically, in discussing alternative C, the DEIS makes the following statement: “As in
Alternative A, this alternative would allow identification of areas suitable for various multiple
uses (§ 219.7(d)(1)(v)). Where livestock grazing is currently authorized, lands would be
expected to be identified as suitable for this use” (DEIS, pg. 154). While this statement refers to
Alternative C, one could infer it also applies to the proposed action Alternative A, since the cited
passage, 219.7(d)(i)(v), is identical in both alternatives. In any case, the planning rule should
make it clear that lands currently grazed by livestock should not automatically be considered
suitable for this activity. Some lands have been badly damaged by excessive and/or poorly
managed grazing and may need to be removed from grazing over the life of the respective plan
so that the affected ecosystems can recover.
RRR. Effects Analysis and Comparison of Alternatives
The discussion of current environmental impacts of livestock grazing on the national forests
in the DEIS Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences chapter is limited to three
paragraphs on the direct environmental impacts (DEIS, pg. 144) and ten paragraphs on the goals
and formal framework of current rangeland management in the national forest system (DEIS,
pgs. 145-146). The first of the three environmental consequences paragraphs is a difficult to
understand, abstract discussion of complexity and adaptation theory. The second paragraph
reduces the impacts of livestock grazing to “perspectives” in which “impacts from livestock
grazing on natural resources range from negative through neutral to positive,” citing six scattered
and unrelated articles (three of them from rangeland journals) and mixing grazing from east of
the Rockies with arid West lands. The third paragraph indicates that the effects analysis of the
planning rule and alternatives on livestock grazing in the DEIS will only focus on the
contribution of livestock grazing to “support communities,” and not on whether livestock grazing
is ecologically sustainable or compatible with restoration. These three DEIS paragraphs on
environmental consequences do not meet the requirement of NEPA Regulations at 1502.16
(“Environmental consequences”) to discuss (a) direct effects and their significance; (b) indirect
effects and their significance; and (c) possible conflicts between the proposed action and federal
policies, such as adaptation to climate change and watershed protection. This section of the
DEIS should at least discuss the scientific information about the environmental consequences of
livestock grazing that is summarized in our comments above (see “Impacts from Grazing on
Riparian and other Resources”).

FRD – 1132
Further, the comparison of alternatives in the DEIS does not adequately disclose the effect of
the rule change itself. In particular, it does not describe the potential environmental effects of
going from the 1982 planning rule (which contained an entire section on grazing at 36 CFR
219.20) to the new proposed rule which, as described above, barely mentions grazing in the
“multiple use” section. Rather, the DEIS discusses the differences between the various
alternatives but fails to discuss the environmental effects of eliminating the procedures provided
under the current rule. To this end, the DEIS should analyze, among other things, the
environmental consequences of eliminating the requirement that units must identify lands that
are suitable for grazing (36 CFR 219(a)). Making this discretionary will result in many units not
making suitability determinations which could have profound consequences. The DEIS also
must analyze the impacts of removing the requirement that the Forest Service must develop
“direction for rehabilitation of ranges in unsatisfactory condition” (36 CFR 219.20(b)). Failing
to acknowledge the environmental consequences of eliminating the requirements for grazing
under the current rule and moving to a new approach is a serious flaw in the analysis that must
be addressed.
SSS.
Recommendations
Alternative D would provide the agency the best chance of improving riparian conditions.
Among all of the alternatives, the standards and guidelines found in 219.8 (a)(3) and (4)
of Alternative D offer the only assurance that water quality and riparian resources will be
protected and restored. Without these mandatory requirements, too much is left to the
discretion of local field units to offer protections for these resources. With the increasing
importance of water and riparian areas in the face of climate change, the Forest Service
should adopt these standards and guidelines into the final rule.
Grazing is a multiple use for which suitability must be determined. It would aid the goals
of ecosystem restoration and watershed protection, both of which are part of the purpose
and need of preparing a new planning rule. To determine suitability of lands for livestock
grazing, plans should be required to identify allotments in poor or declining condition. A
requirement that includes this information in the assessment needs to be added as
219.6(b)(5). We propose the following language:
Identify grazing allotments in poor or declining condition. Lands in less than satisfactory
condition shall be identified and appropriate action planned for their restoration.
We also propose that 219.7(d)(1)(v) be amended to require plans to identify lands that are
not suitable for grazing.
Lands currently grazed by livestock should not automatically be considered suitable for
this activity. Some lands have been badly damaged by excessive and/or poorly managed

FRD – 1132
grazing and may need to be removed from grazing over the life of the respective plan so
that the affected ecosystems can recover. The Final Rule and FEIS should make clear
that lands currently grazed by livestock will not automatically be considered suitable for
this activity.
Monitoring is a critical step in managing our forests. Monitoring is the method used by
the agency to identify where conditions are improving or declining and what shift in
management needs to occur to ensure forest resources are restore and protected. The unit
level monitoring questions and requirements offered in Alternative E at 219.12(a) would
help in assessing rangeland condition and should be adopted. Specifically, the following
monitoring question should be added to 219.12(a)(5):
“Each unit monitoring program must contain one or more monitoring questions or
indicators addressing each of the following:
The rangeland conditions for areas rated in poor or declining condition.
How effective were management actions in making progress toward
restoring rangelands in poor or declining condition?”
XIX. The Objection Process
The draft rule includes a separate subpart B establishing a pre-decisional objection process in
which citizens may request changes to a forest plan before it is finalized. While intended to
make the planning process operate more quickly and smoothly, the proposed objection process
includes problematic features that place unreasonable and unfair burdens on citizens who are
potential users of the process.
TTT. Limitation on Issues Subject to Objection
The draft rule would generally only allow someone to raise an issue in an objection if that
person raised the same issue in “previously submitted substantive formal comments” on the
proposed plan, “unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for
formal comment” (§ 219.53(a)). The draft rule goes on to specify that “the burden is on the
objector to demonstrate compliance with requirements for objection,” and the objection must
include a “statement that demonstrates the link between prior formal comments attributed to the
objector and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after
the opportunities for formal comment.” Draft Sec. 219.53(a), 219.54(c)(7). Furthermore, the
draft rule requires that “when an objection lists multiple individuals or organizations, each
individual or organization must meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section” (§
219.53(c)).

FRD – 1132
These requirements impose unreasonable limitations on the ability of citizens to participate in
the objection process and would likely create needless conflict, complications, and frustration
between the Forest Service and members of the public. Instead of simply allowing the Forest
Service to consider and address citizens’ concerns about the plan, the agency would first have to
inspect the prior comments to determine whether the issues in the objections filed by each
objector match up with the issues in the objectors’ comments. If the agency finds that a certain
objection is not “based on” that objector’s comments, the agency would be barred from
considering or responding to the objection, even if the agency thought that the objectors’
concerns had merit. See Draft Sec. 219.55(a), “The reviewing officer must set aside and not
review an objection when…. [n]one of the issues included in the objection is based on previously
submitted formal comments….” (emphasis added).
The draft rule would give the public a strong incentive to load up their comments with
everything possible, rather than focusing on their primary concerns, for fear of being disqualified
from the objection process. It would also effectively give an exclusive “objection copyright” to
individuals or groups that raise a particular issue in their comments, to the exclusion of anyone
else who may wish to file an objection on the basis of that issue but was not aware of it during
the initial comment period. One consequence could be that “copyright owners” will be pressured
into filing an objection by “non-copyrighted” citizens who are barred by the planning rule from
raising the issue on their own.
Recommendation: Eliminate provisions of the rule that require objections to be based on prior
comments.
UUU. 30-Day Filing Deadline
The draft rule gives potential objectors just 30 days to file objections, with no possibility of
time extensions (§ 219.56(a) and (d)). During this time -- which includes weekends, holidays,
summer vacations, etc. -- citizens would be expected to read and analyze the FEIS and plan,
consult with scientists and other experts, obtain additional information from the agency, (in some
cases) consult with and obtain approval from an organization’s leaders, and write and file an
objection with all necessary documentation. When added to the documentation requirements
discussed below, this places an undue burden on many of the very people the agency is hoping to
create a collaborative environment with, thus potentially undermining a significant agency goal.
Not only does the draft provide an unreasonably short and non-extendable 30-day deadline
for filing objections, it also adds insult to injury by providing the Forest Service a 90-day
extendable deadline for responding to the objections. This discrepancy raises an obvious
question: why shouldn’t citizens get at least as much time to submit an objection as the Forest
Service gets to respond to the objection?
When questioned at the March 10 national forum on the planning rule about the short time
period for filing objections, the Forest Service responded that the intent was to allow additional

FRD – 1132
discussions of issues to take place between the objectors and the agency during the 90-day period
between when the objection is filed and the Forest Service responds to the objection. However,
since the draft rule does not allow objectors to supplement their documents during that 90-day
period, this response does not at all alleviate the unreasonable burden that a 30-day filing
deadline imposes. In the unhappy event that the agency and an objector are unable to resolve
significant differences during the objection period, such that resort to the courts proves
necessary, an objector who fails to raise an issue in her objection due to the short time constraints
might be precluded from raising that issue in court. The planning rule should not limit the
public’s ability to bring legitimate grievances to the legal system for neutral arbitration.
Answers to other questions at the national forum indicated that the agency thought that the
collaborative environment the agency was trying to foster would mean that objections would
focus on just a small number of points, hence making the 30-day objection period more
reasonable. Our own experience with the objection process under the 2005 and 2008 planning
rules (which were not as onerous as the proposed rule) has shown this not to be the case.
Recommendation: The planning rule should allow citizens 90 days to file objections.
VVV. Timeliness and Availability of Objection Materials
Another concern with the draft rule is over the timeliness and availability of plan documents
and other objection materials. The draft rule does not require that environmental or plan
documents actually be available, or be provided to those who have requested them, at the
beginning of the objection period (see § 219.52(c)(1) & (2)). Too many times we’ve requested
Forest Service documents during comment periods only to be told that they’re not available, or in
some egregious instances not even written yet despite their prominent place in agency NEPA
documents. In addition, despite the fact that according to the agency’s own guidance the project
record is supposed to be available to the public without resort to the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), many citizens have been told they have to file a FOIA request to have access to these
materials during comment and appeal periods. A thirty-day objection period will almost never
be sufficient to gain access to requested materials given current FOIA timelines.
WWW. Inability to Incorporate Materials by Reference
With the exception of statutes, regulations, agency guidance, forest plans, the objector’s own
formal comments, and documents the agency itself referenced in the “planning documentation
related to the proposal subject to objection,” 82 the rule does not allow the public to incorporate
documents or other’s arguments by reference. Draft Sec. 219.54(b). This requirement places an
82 Even for those documents, the public must apparently include the name, date, page number, and “relevant section
of the cited document.” Id. We are uncertain what it means to include the “relevant section of the cited document.”
Does this mean one should cut and paste “the relevant section” from the document into the comments? Does it
mean that the lay public should provide the exact legal citation for requirements under NEPA, the Clean Water Act,
NFMA, and other relevant laws? The provision is unclear.

FRD – 1132
undue burden on the public. For instance, the provision requires that the public submit to the
Forest Service the agency’s own documents, to which Forest Service staff clearly already have
access. Furthermore, attachments must be sent within the objection period, so the public may not
mail CDs with large documents cited in an objection even the day after an objection is timely
filed, for example, at 11:45 PM on the final day of the 30-day objection period. Draft Sec.
219.56(a). Providing these materials to the Forest Service, particularly within the narrow
timelines established under the draft rule, represents an unreasonable burden on the public. This
is particularly true when agency inboxes may not be of sufficient size to allow large attachments
to objections or when email programs limit the size of documents that a user may send. The
agency is essentially requiring the public to overwhelm its systems in an effort to ensure that
each of the documents objectors cite actually become part of the record.
It is unclear from the rule whether citing a website is sufficient to have a document become a
part of the project record. The rule states: “All other documents, web links to those documents,
or both must be included with the objection.” Draft Sec. 219.54(b). We think the agency intends
that an objector can just include a web link to a document, and that will be sufficient to make the
document part of the record. If so, this will be an improvement over past agency practice;
however, we want the agency to confirm that our understanding is correct. It would go partway
to addressing the concerns raised above, though some documents the public may like to
reference do not exist online. In order to ensure the agency examines those documents, the time
constraints established in the rule will continue to be unduly burdensome.
Finally, the Forest Service’s reliance on Swanson v. U.S. Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339 (9th
Cir. 1996) to suggest that federal courts would condone the agency’s decision to allow the public
to incorporate hardly any substantive material or arguments by reference is, quite frankly,
absurd. 76 FR 8505. That case dealt with incorporation by reference between pleadings in
federal court before a federal judge under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The objection
process is a completely different beast, involving line officers who have specialized knowledge
of the laws applicable to National Forests and expertise in forest planning reviewing their
colleagues’ work before a final decision has even been made. Unlike federal judges who cannot
look outside the administrative record, a reviewing or deciding officer can, at any point, discuss
with others within the agency an argument made in an objection or look outside the project
record in making her decision. The constraints made on the lay public in appealing or objecting
to a Forest Service decision and the constraints made on attorneys litigating in federal court are
simply not comparable, and the bar should not be set so high for members of the public
attempting to engage in the forest planning process.
Recommendation: The final rule should abandon the prohibition on incorporation by reference
for both documents and arguments.
XXX. Duplicative Appeals and Objections

FRD – 1132
Under the proposed rule, members of the public will frequently find themselves in situations
in which they will need to file both a pre-decision objection and a classic post-decision
administrative appeal for the same project. The proposed rule would require that plan
amendments that apply to all future projects or activities may only be objected to (not appealed)
using the process set out in the draft Subpart B, even if that plan amendment is part of a project
or activity decision subject to the normal notice, comment, and appeal regulations at 36 CFR part
215 or part 218. This means that the public will have to file two separate documents to protest a
decision made by the agency. This is unduly burdensome and unfair to the public, not to
mention additional work for the agency. In these situations, which occur frequently, both the
plan amendment and the project/activity part of the decision should simply be addressed in a
single administrative appeal under 36 CFR part 215 or 218.
Recommendation: The agency should abandon the idea of bifurcated objections and appeals in
project-level decisions, so that objections to plan amendments of future effect will be made in the
same administrative appeal as the project/activity decision itself.
References
Alward, G.S., J.R. Arnold, M.J. Niccolucci, and S.A. Winter. 2003. Evaluating the Economic
Significance of the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision): Methods and Results
for Programmatic Evaluations. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service Inventory and
Monitoring Report No. 6. 45 p.
AppU_www.nifc.govpoliciesred_book2003.pdf (The National Interagency Fire Center’s Red
Book discusses MIST as an approved tactic)
Badaracco, R.J. 1976. “ORVs: Often Rough on Visitors.” Parks and Recreation 11(9): 32-35,68-
75.
Beechie, T.B., B.D. Collins, M.M. Pollock and G.R. Pess. 2000. Watershed-scale patterns of
stream temperature change in a Puget Sound river basin. Northwest Fisheries Science Center,
National Marine Fisheries Service. 36 p. [See
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/hcp/type5/authors/beechie_2000.html for a brief summary of this
paper’s results. (accessed 4-22-11)]
Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America. Simon and Schuster, New York.

FRD – 1132
Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and
riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
54:419–431.
Beyers, W.B. and D.P. Lindahl. 1996. Lone eagles and high fliers in rural producer services.
Rural Development Perspectives 11(3): 1-10.
Bishop, R.C. and M.P. Welsh. 1992. Existence values in benefit-cost analysis and damage
assessment. Land Economics 68(4): 405-417.
Black, D.A., T.G. McKinnish, and S.G. Sanders. 2000. Tight labor markets and the demand for
education: Evidence from the coal boom and bust. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 59(1):
3-15.
Bosworth, Dale. 2005. Statement of Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, Before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health and the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
United States House of Representatives (Jul. 13, 2005), available at
http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BosworthTestimony07.13.05.pd
f
Bowker, J.M., D.B.K. English and J.A. Donovan. 1996. Toward a value for guided rafting on
southern rivers. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 28(2): 423-432.
Brosofske, K., J. Chen, R. Naiman, and J. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic
gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications 7(4):
1188-1200.
Bulte, E.H. and G.C. Van Kooten. 1999.Marginal valuation of charismatic species: implications
for conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics 14(1): 119-130.
Cameron, T., W. Shaw, S. Ragland, M. Callaway, S. Keefe. 1996. Using actual and contingent
behavior with differing levels of time aggregation to model recreation demand. Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics 21(1): 130-149.
Carnefix, G. and Frisell, Chris. 2010. Science for Watershed Protection in the Forest Service
Planning Rule: Supporting Scientific Literature and Rationale. Pacific Rivers Council.
Carson, R. and R. Mitchell. 1993. The value of clean water: The public’s willingness to pay for
boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resources Research 29(7): 2445-2454.

FRD – 1132
Cicchetti, Charles J., V. Kerry Smith. 1973. “Congestion, quality deterioration, and optimal use:
Wilderness recreation in the Spanish peaks primitive area.” Social Science Research, 2(1): 15-
30.
Cole, D.N., and L. Yung (eds.). 2010. Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness
Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change. Island Press, Covelo, CA.
Cordell, H.K., M.A. Tarrant, B.L. McDonald and J. C. Bergrstrom. 1998. How the public views
wilderness: more results from the USA survey on recreation and the environment. International
Journal of Wilderness 4(3): 28-31.
Corn, P.S. and R. Bury. 1989. Logging in western Oregon: responses of headwater habitats and
stream amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management. 29(1-2): 39-57.
Daily, G. (Ed).1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.
Washington, D.C: Island Press.
Dawson, T.P., Jackson, S.T., House, J.I., Prentice, I.C., and G.M. Mace. 2011. Beyond
predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. Science 322:53-58
de Groot, R.S., M.A. Wilson and R. M. J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics
41(2002): 393-408.
Deller, S.C. 1995. Economic impacts of retirement migration. Economic Development Quarterly
9(1): 25-38.
Deller, S.C., T. Tsai, D.W. Marcouiller and D.B.K. English. 2001. The role of amenities and
quality of life in rural economic growth. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2):
352-365.
Derlet, R.W., C.R. Goldman, and M.J. Connor. 2010. Reducing the impact of summer cattle
grazing on water quality in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California: a proposal. Journal of
Water and Health 8:326-333.
Doss, C. and S. Taff. 1996. The influence of wetland type and wetland proximity on residential
property values. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21(1): 120-129.

FRD – 1132
Duffy-Deno, K.T. 1998. The effect of federal wilderness on county growth in the intermountain
western United States. Journal of Regional Science 38(1): 109-136.
ECONorthwest. 2005. The Economic Benefits of Old-Growth Forests in the Pacific Northwest:
An Overview. ECONorthwest: Eugene, OR.
Englin, J. and R. Mendelsohn. 1991. A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple
components of site quality: the recreation value of forest management. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 21(3): 275-290.
Final Forest Plan Revision, Payette National Forest, Payette NFP Ch III Mgmt area 14
wilderness, USDA Forest Service, January 2008
Fleischner, T.L. 2010. Livestock grazing and wildlife conservation in the American West:
historical, policy and conservation biology perspectives. Pages 235-265 in J.T. du Toit, R. Kock,
and J.C. Deutsch (editors). Wild rangelands: conserving wildlife while maintaining livestock in
semi-Arid ecosystems. Blackwell Publishing.
Fortmann, L. P. J. Kusel, and S.K. Fairfax. 1989. Community stability: The foresters' fig leaf. In
D. C. Le Master and J. H. Beuter (Eds.), Community Stability in Forest-based Economies:
Proceedings of a Conference in Portland, Oregon, November 16-18 1987. Portland, OR: Timber
Press. 198 pp.
Fredrickson, R., D. Moore, and L. Norris. 1973. The impact of timber harvest, fertilization and
herbicide treatment on water quality in western Oregon and Washington. In: Bernier, B. and C.
Winget (Eds), Forest Soils and Forest Land Management, Proceeding of the North American
Forest Soils Conference.
Freeman, A.M. III. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 2 nd Edition.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Freeman, L. R., F. March, J. W. Spensley. 1994. NEPA Compliance Manual, 2 nd Edition.
Government Institutes, Inc., Rockville MD.
Freudenburg, W. R. 1992. Addictive economies: extractive industries and vulnerable localities in
a changing world economy. Rural Sociology 57: 305-332.
Freudenburg, W. R. and R. Gramling. 1994. Natural resources and rural poverty: a closer look.
Society and Natural Resources 7: 5-22

FRD – 1132
Friend of the Forest. 2007. “Forest Service and NFF Combat Climate Change.” Accessed April
22, 2011 at http://www.becomeafriend.org/news/news-59.html
Garber-Yonts, B., J. Kerkvliet and R. Johnson. 2004. Public values for biodiversity conservation
policies in the Oregon Coast Range. Forest Science 50(5): 589-602.
Godbey, Geoffrey. “Outdoor Recreation, Health, and Wellness: Understanding and Enhancing
the Relationship,” Resources for the Future (May 2009), Available at:
http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-09-21.pdf ;
Gowdy, J. M. 1997. The value of biodiversity: markets, society, and ecosystems. Land
Economics 73(1): 25-4.
Grant, G. and A. Wolff. 1991. Long-term Patterns of Sediment Transport After Timber Harvest,
Western Cascade Mountains, Oregon, USA. Sediment and Stream Water Quality in a Changing
Environment: Trends and Explanation. Proceedings of the Vienna Symposium. August 1991.
IAHS Publ. no. 203: 31-40.
Great Lakes Environmental Center. 2008. National Level Assessment of Water Quality
Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best Management Practices,
available at
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/files/Forest%20Road%20BMP%20final%20report%2012%2004%
2008%20rev1%20(3).pdf
Hall, B. 2007. “Foresters Propose Climate Tactics.” Gazette Times. (November 6, 2007)
Accessed April 22, 2011 at: http://gazettetimes.com/news/local/article_9b0c5024-1968-5f23-
a842-7a48240c6e9c.html.
Harmon, M., W. Ferrell and J. Franklin. 1990. Effects on carbon storage of conversion of oldgrowth
forests to young forests. Science New Series 247 (4943): 669-702.
Haynes, R.W. and A.L. Horne. 1997. Economic Assessment of the Basin. In T.M. Quigley and
S.J. Arbelbide (eds.), An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin
and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume IV. 1715-1870. USDA Forest Service,
PNW-GTR-405, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Henderson, J. 2004. Wildlife recreation: rural America's newest billion-dollar industry. The
Main Street Economist, April 2004. Kansas City, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

FRD – 1132
Henderson, J. and B. Abraham. 2004. Can rural America support a knowledge economy?
Economic Review Third Quarter, 2004: 71-95. Kansas City, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City.
Hobbs R.J., D.N. Cole, L. Yung, E.S. Zavaleta, G.H. Aplet, F.S. Chapin III, P.B. Landres, D.J.
Parsons, N.L. Stephenson, P.S. White, D.M. Graber, E.S. Higgs, C.I. Millar, J.M. Randall, K.A.
Tonnessen, and S. Woodley. 2010. Guiding concepts for park and wilderness stewardship in an
era of global environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8(9): 483-490.
Hoekstra, T.W., G.S. Alward, A.A. Dyer, J.G. Hof, D.B. Jones, L.A. Joyce, B.M. Kent, R. Lee,
R.C. Sheffield, R. Williams. 1990. Analytical Tools and Information. Critique of Land
Management Planning, Volume 4. USDA Forest Service, FS-455. 47 pp.
Hoffman, S.A. and Fortmann, L. 1996. Poverty in forested counties: an analysis based on aid to
families with dependent children. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress,
vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of
California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
http://www.nps.gov/archive/crmo/firemp/crmofmp_aj.htm (Craters of the Moon National
Monument)
http://www.nps.gov/moja/parkmgmt/upload/B-Wilder.pdf (Mojave National Monument)
Holderegger, R. & Di Giulio M. 2010. The genetic effects of roads: A review of empirical
evidence. Basic and Applied Ecology 11: 522–531.
Holmes, F.P. and W.E. Hecox. 2004. Does wilderness impoverish rural regions? International
Journal of Wilderness 10(3): 34-39.
Hulse, D., G. Grant, E. Niemi, A. Branscomb, D. Ulrich, and E. Whitelaw. 2002. Muddy
Waters: How Floods Clarify Evolving Relationships among Landscape Processes and Resource
Management Decision –Making in Municipal Watersheds, National Council on Environmental
Research and Quality Assurance. US EPA GAD #R825822.
Humphrey, C.R., G. Berardi, M.S. Carroll, S. Fairfax, L. Fortman, C. Geisler, T.G. Johnson, J.
Kusel, R.G. Lee, S. Macinko, M.D. Schulman, P.C. West. 1993. Theories in the study of natural
resource-dependent communities and persistent poverty in the United States. In Summers, G.
(Ed.) Persistent poverty in rural America, 136–172. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

FRD – 1132
Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.). Geneva, Switzerland.
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthes
is_report.htm)
Johnson, J. and R. Rasker. 1993. The role of amenities in business attraction and retention.
Montana Policy Review 3(2):11-19.
Jackson, E.L. and R.A.G. Wong. 1982. “Perceived Conflict Between Urban Cross -Country
Skiers and Snowmobilers in Alberta.” Journal of Leisure Research 14(1): 47-62.
Johnson, J., and R. Rasker. 1995. The role of economic and quality of life values in rural
business location. Journal of Rural Studies 11(4): 405-416.
Jones, J. and G. Grant. 2001. Comment on “Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in
small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon: A second opinion” by R. Thomas and W.
Megahan. Water Resources Research 37 (1): 179-180.
Jones, J. and G. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large
basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 32 (4): 959-974.
Kauffman, J.B., M. Mahrt, L. Mahrt, and W.D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. Pp.
361-388 in D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil (eds), Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and
Washington, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 736 pp.
Keeley, J.E. and C.J. Fotheringham. 2003. Impact of past, present, and future fire regimes on
North American Mediterranean shrublands, pp. 218-262. In T.T. Veblen, W.L. Baker, G.
Montenegro, and T.W. Swetnam (eds), Fire and Climatic Change in Temperate Ecosystems of
the Western Americas. Springer, New York
Kerkvliet, J., J. Hicks and B. Wilmer. 2010. Carbon Sequestered When Unneeded Roads are
Revegetated. Briefing Memo. Washington, DC: The Wilderness Society.
Kiffney, P. and J. Bull. 2000. Factors controlling Periphyton accrual during summer in
headwater streams of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Freshwater Ecology
15(3): 339-351.
Knopp, T.B. and J.D. Tyger. 1973. “A Study of Conflict in Recreational Land Use:
Snowmobiling vs. Ski Touring.” Journal of Leisure Research 5(3): 6-17.

FRD – 1132
Kockelman, W. J. 1983. “Management concepts. Environmental Effects of Off-road vehicles:
Impacts and Management in Arid Regions”. H. Wilshire and R. Webb (eds.). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Krieger, D. J. 2001. Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Review. Washington D.C.:
The Wilderness Society.
Krikelas, A.C. 1991. Industry structure and regional growth: A vector autoregression forecasting
model of the Wisconsin regional economy. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-
Madison.
Krikelas, A.C. 1992. Why regions grow: a review of research on the economic base model.
Economic Review 77(4): 16-29.
Krug, D. and M. Lankoande. 2005. Economic Analysis: Forest Practices Rule Making Affecting
Northern Spotted Owl Conservation. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 10 p.
Krutilla, J. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review 57: 787-796.
Landres, P. 2010. Let it be: a hands-off approach to preserving wildness in protected areas.
Ch. 6 in Cole, D.N. and L. Yung (eds.), Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness
Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change. Island Press, Covelo, CA.
Limerick, P.N., W. Travis and T. Scoggin. 2002. Boom and bust in the American West.
Workshop Report. Center of the American West, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Loomis, J. and D. White. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and
meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18(1996): 197-206.
Loomis, J. B. and R. Richardson. 2000. Economic Values of Protecting Roadless Areas in the
United States. Washington, D.C.: The Wilderness Society and Heritage Forests Campaign.
Loomis, J. B. and R. Richardson, 2001. Economic values of the U.S. wilderness system: research
evidence to date and questions for the future. International Journal of Wilderness 7(1): 31-34.
Lorah, P. and R. Southwick. 2003. Environmental protection, population change, and economic
development in the rural western United States. Population and Environment 24(3): 255-272.

FRD – 1132
Louv, Richard. 2005. Last Child in the Woods (Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill 2008).
Low, S. 2004. Regional asset indicators: entrepreneurship breadth and depth. The Main Street
Economist, September, 2004. Kansas City, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Maleki. 2008. Understanding the Social and Economic Transitions of Forest Communities.
Science Update, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 (Fall): 1-11.
Manning, R. (2004). “Recreation Planning Frameworks. Society and Natural Resources: A
Summary of Knowledge.” Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho, 83-96.
McGranahan, D.A. 1999. Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division. Agricultural
Economics Report No. 781.
Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 623 F. 3d 363 (6 th Cir. 2010).
Michael, H., K. Boyle, R. Bouchard. 1996. Water Quality Affects Property Prices: A Case
Study of Selected Maine Lakes. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Report # 398,
University of Maine, Orono, Maine, U.S.A.
Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future:
managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17:2145-2151.
Myers, N. 1997. The world’s forests and their ecosystem services. In G. Daily (Ed), Nature’s
Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 215-236.
Naidoo, R. and T. Ricketts. 2006. Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation.
PLoS Biology 4(11): 2153-2163.
National Association of Recreation Resource Planners, 2009. Principles of Recreation Resource
Planning. Available at:
http://www.narrp.org/clubportal/images/clubimages/1431/Recreation_Resource_Planning_Princi
ples_April-2009a.pdf
National Park Service and Colorado State University. 2006. “Visitor Experience and
Soundscapes: Annotated Bibliography,” Available at:
http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/PDF_docs/VisitorExperience_Soundscapes_Annotated
Biblio_17Aug10.pdf .

FRD – 1132
National Park Service. Compendium of other research, reports, and publications on
soundscapes, available at:
http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/PDF_docs/Other_Research_Reports_Publications.pdf.
National Park Service Director’s Order #47, Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management
(December 1, 2000).
National Research Council. 2000. Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forest
Management. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nelson, P.B. 1999. Quality of life, nontraditional income, and economic growth: new
development opportunities for the rural West. Rural Development Perspectives 14(2): 32-37.
Niemi, E., W. Whitelaw, M. Gall, A. Fifield. 1999. Salmon, Timber, and the Economy. Report
prepared for the Pacific Rivers Council, Oregon Trout, Audubon Society of Portland and the
Institute for Fisheries Resources. ECONorthwest: Eugene OR. 86 pp.
Noe, F.P., J.D. Wellman, and G. Buhyoff. 1982. “Perception of Conflict Between Off –Road
Vehicle and Non Off -Road Vehicle Users in a Leisure Setting.” Journal of Environmental
Systems 11: 223-233.
NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific
Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 452 pp.
Ohmart, R.D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife
resources in western riparian habitats. Pages 245-279 in P.R. Krausman (ed). Rangeland wildlife.
Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.
Outdoor Foundation. 2010. Outdoor Recreation Participation Report 2010. Boulder CO:
Outdoor Foundation. 67 p.
Outdoor Industry Association, 2006. Active Outdoor Recreation Economy: A $730 Billion
Annual Contribution to the U.S. Economy. Available at:
http://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/researchfiles/RecEconomypublic.pdf?26 .
Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2002. Outdoor Recreation Participation and Spending: A Stateby-State
Perspective. Boulder, CO: Outdoor Industry Association.
Payne, C., J. M. Bowker, and P. C. Reed. (compilers) 1992. The Economic Value of Wilderness:
Proceedings of the Conference; 1991 May 8-11; Jackson, WY. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-78.
Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment
Station. 330 pp.

FRD – 1132
Perez-Garcia, J. 2001. Costs Benefit Analysis for New Proposed Forest Practices Rules
Implementing the Forests and Fish Report. Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Pickton, T. and L. Sikorowski. 2004. The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife
Watching in Colorado. Final Report prepared by BBC Research and Consulting for the
Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, CO.
Pimentel, D., C. Harvey, P. Resosudarmo, K. Sinclair, D. Kurz, M. McNair, S. Crist, L. Shpritz,
L. Fitton, R. Saffouri and R. Blair. 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and
conservation benefits. Science 267(24): 1117-1126.
Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. Pp 389-423 in W.R. Meehan (ed). Influences of forest and
rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland. 751 pp.
Ponce, V.M., and D.S. Lindquist. 1990. Management of baseflow augmentation: a review. Water
Resources Bulletin 26:259-268.
Postel, S. and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services, in Daily, G. (Ed). Nature’s
Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press 195-214.
Power, T. M. 1996. Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies. Covelo, CA: Island Press.
Rasker, R. 1994. A new look at old vistas: the economic role of environmental quality in western
public lands. University of Colorado Law Review 52(2): 369-399.
Rasker, R. and D. Glick. 1994. Footloose entrepreneurs: pioneers of the New West? Illahee
10(1): 34-43.
Rasker, R. and A. Hansen. 2000. Natural amenities and population growth in the Greater
Yellowstone Region. Human Ecology Review 7(2): 30-40
Rasker, R., B. Alexander, J. van den Noort, and R. Carter. 2004. Public Lands Conservation and
Economic Well-Being. The Sonoran Institute, Tucson, AZ.
Ribaudo, M. 1989. Water Quality Benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Agriculture Economic Report 606.

FRD – 1132
Richardson, H.W. 1985. Input-output and economic base multipliers: looking backward and
forward. Journal of Regional Science 25(4): 607-661.
Rubin, J., G. Helfand, J. Loomis. 1991. A benefit-cost analysis of the northern spotted owl.
Journal of Forestry 1991(December): 25-29.
Rhodes, J.J., D.A. McCullough, and F.A. Espinosa. 1994. A coarse screening process for evaluation
of the effects of land management activities on salmon spawning and rearing habitat in ESA
consultations. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Technical Report 94-4, Portland,
Oregon. 126 pp., plus appendices.
Rudzitis, G. 1999. Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural West. Rural Development
Perspectives 14(3): 9-13.
Rudzitis, G., and H.E. Johansen. 1989. Amenities, Migration, and Nonmetropolitan Regional
Development. Report to National Science Foundation. Department of Geography, University of
Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Rudzitis, G. and R. Johnson. 2000. The impact of wilderness and other wildlands on local
economies and regional development trends. In McCool, S.F., D.N. Cole, W.T.
Borrie, and J. O'Loughlin (comps.) Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume
2: Wilderness within the Context of Larger Systems, 1999 May 23-27. Missoula, MT.
Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL 2., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.
Shumway, J.M. and S.M. Otterstrom. 2001. Spatial patterns of migration and income change in
the mountain West: the dominance of service-based, amenity-rich counties. Professional
Geographer 53(4): 492-501.
Snepenger, D.J., J.D. Johnson, and R. Rasker. 1995. Travel-stimulated entrepreneurial
migration. Journal of Travel Research 34(1): 40-44 .
Stephenson, N.L., Millar, C.I., and D.N. Cole. 2010. Shifting environmental foundations: the
unprecedented and unpredictable future. Ch. 4 in Cole, D.N. and L. Yung (eds.), Beyond
Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change. Island
Press, Covelo, CA.

FRD – 1132
Stevens, J. B. 1966. “Recreation benefits from water pollution control”, Water Resources
Research, 2(2): 167–182.
Swanson, C.S., and Loomis, J.B. 1996. Role of Nonmarket Economic Values in Benefit-Cost
Analysis of Public Forest Management. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-361. 32p.
Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael eds. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological,
Economic, and Social Assessment: Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment
Team. 1993-794-478. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Tiebout, C.M. 1956. Exports and regional economic growth. The Journal of Political Economy
64(2): 160-164.
Trimble, S.W., and A.C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent, a critical review.
Geomorphology 13:233-253.
United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment. 1992. Forest Service Planning:
Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems. OTA-F-505. Washington,
DC.
USDA Forest Service. 2010. Memo on “Travel Management, Implementation of 36 CFR, Part
212, Subpart A (36 CFR 212.5(b).” Forest Service, Washington Office.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007. Interim update of the 2000 Renewable
resources planning act assessment. FS-874. Washington, DC. 113 p. Accessed on April 24, 2011
at
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/rpa/2005rpa/RPA_Interim_Update_April2007_low_resolution.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2001. National Forest System Road Management Strategy
Environmental Assessment. Forest Service, Washington Office, available at
http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/road_mgt/Final-Forest-Service-EA/PDF/FINAL%20EA.PDF
USDA Forest Service. 2006. Finger Lakes National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan, USDA Forest Service Eastern Region, R9-FL-FP (April 2006).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce,
Census Bureau. 2006. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1992. Natural Resources Management Issues. GAO/OCG-92-
17TR. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.

FRD – 1132
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Oil and Gas Development: Increased Permitting
Activity Has Lessened BLM's ability to Meet Its Environmental Protection Responsibilities.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate. June 2005. GAO-05-418.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2011. Forest Service: Continued Work Needed to
Address Persistent Management Challenges. Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director of Natural
Resources and Environment.15 p.
Veblen, T.T, W.L. Baker, G. Montenegro, and T.W. Swetnam (eds), Fire and Climatic Change
in Temperate Ecosystems of the Western Americas. Springer, New York.
Walsh, R.G., J.B. Loomis and R.A. Gillman. 1984. Valuing option, existence, and bequest
demands for wilderness. Land Economics 60(1): 14-29.
Western Organization of Resource Councils. 1999. Coal-bed methane development: boon or
bane for rural residents? Billings, MT.
Whitehead, John C., Haab, Timothy C., and Huang, Ju-Chin. 2000. “Measuring recreation
benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data”. Resource and Energy
Economics, 22(4): 339-354.
Whitelaw, E. and E.G. Niemi. 1989. Migration, Economic Growth, and the Quality of Life. In
Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Pacific Northwest Regional Economic Conference,
Corvallis, OR, pp 36-38.
Whitelaw, E. et al. (100 total authors) 2003. A Letter from Economists to President Bush and the
Governors of Eleven Western States Regarding the Economic Importance of the West's Natural
Environment.
Whittaker, Doug, Bo Shelby, Robert Manning, David Cole, and Glenn Haas. 2011. “Capacity
Reconsidered: Finding Consensus and Clarifying Differences”, Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration 29(1): 1-20. Available at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/730.pdf
Wilson, M. and S. Carpenter. 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the
United States: 1971-1997. Ecological Applications 9(3): 772-783.
Winter Wildlands Alliance. 2006. Winter Recreation on Western National Forest Lands.
Available at: http://www.winterwildlands.org/resources/reports/WWA_WinterRecreation.pdf

FRD – 1132
World Bank. 2005. How Much Is an Ecosystem Worth?: Assessing the Economic Value of
Conservation. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Washington, DC:
World Bank. 33 p.