Here's a bit of background as to why this process is happening. By an Act of Congress on March 31, 1891 the President was directed to reserve ''public land bearing forests…whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations.'' By the Organic Administration Act of 1897 Congress provided for the establishment of forest reserves to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States. These acts led to the establishment of the Forest Service.

In 1960 Congress passed the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA in government-speak) authorizing and directing the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable resources of timber, range, water, recreation, and wildlife on the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services. Multiple Use was defined as managing and utilizing a national forest's renewable resources in the best way to meet the needs of the people. Sustained Yield was defined as achieving and maintaining a high level of output in perpetuity from a national forest's resources and services in a way that will not impair productivity.

In 1976 the National Forest Management Act (NFMA in government-speak) was passed directing the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, and develop and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. NFMA stated these plans must be consistant with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This explains why the Forest Service must have a Planning Rule.

The first Planning Rule was created in 1982. In 1989, the Agency initiated a comprehensive Critique of Land Management Planning, which identified a number of adjustments that were needed to the 1982 Planning Rule. The Critique found that the 1982 Planning Rule process was very complex, had significant costs, was lengthy, and was cumbersome for public participation. Throughout the 1990s a new Planning Rule was developed. After working with a committee of scientists, the Department issued the 2000 rule to replace the 1982 regulations. The 2000 revision of the Planning Rule described a new framework for NFS planning; made sustainability the foundation for NFS planning and management; required the consideration of the best available science during the planning process, and set forth requirements for implementation, monitoring, evaluation, amendment, and revision of land and resource management plans. The 2000 rule included transition provisions that allowed the Forest Service to continue to develop, revise, and amend forest plans using the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule.

Reviews in the spring of 2001 found that the 2000 rule would be unworkable.

The results of the review led the Department to issue a new Planning Rule in 2005, and a revised version again in 2008. On June 30, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California invalidated the 2005/2008 rule, holding that it was developed in violation of NEPA and ESA. Understanding that the 2000 Planning Rule had been set aside as being unworkable the Forest Service has determined that a new Planning Rule is the best way to go forward. This is why the Forest Service has issued the NOI to start the process of developing a new Planning Rule.

The following contains the principles and questions the Forest Service is seeking your input on. You will need to read these principles and questions carefully. After reading them you may find it useful to visit the Forest Service Land Management Planning Rule reference page. On this page you will find links to all the government documents concerning the previous plans and this current process. You can also check out the official documents for the 1982, 2000, 2005 and 2008 Land Management Planning Rules. Its pretty dry reading, takes several beers to get through, but I found it helpful to pull together my thoughts on what I want to say with my comments.

Your comments should state how you feel each principle should be applied, interpreted, and balanced against other principles. You can state the priority you would like to see these principles applied in. You can point out principles they have overlooked, as well as suggest additional questions you feel need to be considered. Best advice I can give is to treat this as if you were writing a thought piece for the Blue Ribbon Coalition magazine. Word it as if you were explaining it to a friend. Take your time. Spend the better part of now until Presidents Day pulling together your comments. I hate to say it, but treat it like an English Writing assignment that you absolutely, positively want to nail an A on!!!!!

Deadline for postmarking your comments is 16 February.

You can email your comments to fspr@contentanalysisgroup.com.

Snail mail goes to:
	Forest Service Planning NOI C/O Bear West Company 172 E 500 S Bountiful, UT 84010

Be sure to send a copy of your comments to Senators Reid and Ensign as well as to Congressman Heller. Get their contact information here.

As you read the following principles don't worry about being expert enough to provide a meaningful answer. Trust your common sense. The principles and questions concern issues that we all have feelings about what is right and what is wrong about the way these principles have been used to manage our public lands. Explain your opinion as if you we explaining it to a friend or you child. Trust to your instincts and you'll do good. You do not need to make comments on all the principles, nor do you need to answer all of the questions. Go with the principles you think are most important to your way of thinking. Here are a couple of examples. I'm not a expert on the the science being global warming, but I know what I know ....

One of the Principles they want you to comment on is how to deal with climate change. One of the questions they ask you to consider about this principle is: How can the Planning Rule be proactive and innovative in addressing the need for climate change adaptation and mitigation?

A possible answer might be: When we have tried to modify existing ecosystems by introducing new species to control perceived pests we have created an issue of invasive species. Every time we have tried to modify an ecosystem we have countless unintended and harmful results. We need to learn we cannot play god and modify our environments. At best we can do try not adversely affect the ecosystem as it exists. It is only with hindsight that we will truly understand the impact of climate change and would risk doing more harm than good by trying mitigate, or predict the correct adaptations.

Another question is what kinds of data, research, and monitoring could assist land management planners to incorporate climate change adaptation considerations into plans?

A possible answer might be there is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism. The science must be sound and it must be based on what is observable and not try to predict. We don't understand evolution well enough to correctly predict how it should be managed in the face of pressures that are redefining the meaning of survival of the fittest. We have only recently come to understand birds are the direct descendents of dinosaurs but we don't understand why they were the fittest. While we can study what is happening I think we must admit that we are only along for the ride.

1. Land management plans could address the need for restoration and conservation to enhance the resilience of ecosystems to a variety of threats. Climate change; alterations of natural fire regimes; changing water conditions; aggressive insects, disease, and invasive species; increasingly intense floods and drought; increasing air and water pollution; increasing development pressures; and other factors threaten the health of forests and grasslands. When the health and integrity of our lands deteriorate, so do the environmental, economic, and social benefits they provide, with enormous potential impacts on drinking water, greenhouse gas emissions, climate, wildlife, recreation, community health, and prosperity. Plans could promote restoration and management of national forests and grasslands to make them more resilient to these threats, and to ensure the continued delivery of important ecosystem services and benefits. They could also promote the active conservation of healthy lands to prevent them from degrading and to strengthen overall resiliency.

   Specific questions we would like the public to address include:

   • What do you see as the biggest threats to forest and grassland health and ecosystem resiliency?
   • How do you define restoration? What is your concept of restoration? How can the Planning Rule foster restoration of NFS lands?
   • What kinds of conservation efforts can enhance ecosystem resiliency and prevent degradation?

2. Plans could proactively address climate change through monitoring, mitigation and adaptation, and could allow flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and incorporate new information. Climate change is one of the great challenges facing the United States and the world, and is dramatically reshaping how the Agency will deliver on its mission of sustaining the health and diversity of the nation's forests. Management will need to restore ecosystem resiliency, and also factor adaptation and mitigation strategies into planning and project development. Plans will need to be innovative, integrate climate change and watershed management, and use climate change as a theme under which to integrate and streamline existing national and regional strategies for ecological restoration, fire and fuels, forest health, biomass utilization, and others. Plans could also include clear monitoring programs and incorporate evolving research in order to develop science-based understanding around climate change impacts and adaptation and mitigation efforts.

   Plans will need to anticipate climate change-related uncertainty and be adaptive to new science and knowledge about changing conditions on the ground. Responsible officials will also need flexibility to be able to adjust plan objectives and requirements where there are circumstances outside of agency control: For example, where increasing water t emperatures resulting from climate change make it impossible to maintain a sensitive fish species in its native habitat. Incorporating this concept of adaptive management into the Planning Rule will be especially important as we increase our understanding of climate change and how it will impact the landscape, but will also be important to respond to and apply new information regarding water conservation, insect and disease, species conservation, threats from catastrophic wildfire, and impacts from the loss of open space.

   Specific questions we would like the public to address include:

   • How can the Planning Rule be proactive and innovative in addressing the need for climate change adaptation and mitigation?
   • What kinds of data, research, and monitoring could assist land management planners to incorporate climate change adaptation considerations into plans?
   • How should the Planning Rule address uncertainty? How do other public and private entities recognize and incorporate uncertainty in their planning efforts?
   • How can a new Planning Rule appropriately build in the flexibility land managers will need to adapt to changing science, information or conditions? What mechanisms should be used to incorporate new data? Do you know of any successful adaptive management regimes that can inform our process?
   • How should plans anticipate and address changing conditions or impacts outside of agency control? How can external factors be incorporated or recognized in plan guidance and requirements?

3. Land management plans could emphasize maintenance and restoration of watershed health, and could protect and enhance America's water resources. Responding to the challenges of climate change in providing water and water-related ecosystem services is one of the most urgent tasks facing the Agency. The NFS alone is the source of fresh water for more than 60 million people from coast to coast. In coming decades, climate change; impacts from catastrophic fire and tree mortality; the increasing intensity of weather patterns; events including droughts and storms; increasing pollution; and increasing development pressures will combine to impact the quantity, availability, and quality of America's water resources and the health of its watersheds. Plans could promote the restoration and maintenance of watersheds to ensure abundant clean water, the protection of soils, and the health of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

   Specific questions we would like the public to address include:

   • Should a new Planning Rule include standards to address watershed health? If so, what might those look like? Should the Agency be held accountable only for actions and problems on its NFS lands or take into account water availability and quality factors that are outside of the Agency's control?
   • What planning or management guidance could the Agency incorporate in the rule to protect and enhance water resources?
   • One way to approach planning for an NFS unit is to think about the future of the planning area through the context of its watersheds. Do you see benefits and/or drawbacks to a rule requiring land management planning on a watershed basis?
   • Do you see benefits or drawbacks to a rule requiring adherence to regionally specific Best Management Practices?

4. Plans could provide for the diversity of species and wildlife habitat. The NFS is a refuge for numerous species, including 425 threatened and endangered species. The NFMA directs the Agency to 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 ...'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). Over time, the Agency's Planning Rules have sought to meet this statutory requirement to provide for diversity in a number of ways.

   The 1982 Planning Rule required management prescriptions to provide for diversity as well as additional prescriptions to provide for the viability of native vertebrates and desired non-native vertebrate species. The 2000 Planning Rule required (with qualifications) ecological conditions that provide a ``high likelihood'' that conditions are capable of supporting viability of native and desired non-native species over time. In addition, the 2000 Planning Rule included detailed and complex analytical requirements regarding ecological sustainability in terms of ecosystem and species diversity (ecological sustainability), including identification of ``focal species'' and ``species at risk.'' The 2005 and 2008 Planning Rules required plans to provide a framework for contributing to ecological sustainability, in terms of ecosystem diversity and (where necessary) species diversity, in terms of ``species of interest,'' and ``species of concern.'' These two rules had much less detail than the 2000 rule with additional detail set forth in the Forest Service Directive System.

   The Agency faced a number of challenges in implementing the species viability requirements of the 1982 rule. These challenges will be exacerbated as climate change affects the range and viability of species, both flora and fauna. In anticipation of coming changes, the Agency must look at new ways to meet diversity requirements.

   The new rule needs to provide planning procedures that meet the intent of NFMA to provide for diversity in a way that achieves protection for species, habitats, and ecosystems while taking into account environmental and management factors and impacts that are outside of the Agency's control.

   Specific questions we would like the public to address include:

   • How should the new rule provide for diversity?
   • How should the Planning Rule guide protection of at-risk species of animals and plants and their habitat?
   • How can the new Planning Rule account for variables outside of Agency control, including those impacts that are the result of climate change?
   • Should species diversity provisions in planning look beyond the individual unit to a watershed or landscape scale, and if so, what is a practical and workable way to incorporate a broader perspective?
   • How could wildlife habitat monitoring be addressed in a Planning Rule?

5. Plans could foster sustainable NFS lands and their contribution to vibrant rural economies. Forests and grasslands offer enormous environmental benefits, including clean air, clean and abundant water, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, erosion control, and other ecosystem services. They generate economic value by attracting tourism and recreation visitors; sustaining green jobs; and producing timber, other forest products, minerals, food, and energy, both renewable and non-renewable. They are also of immense social importance; they enhance rural quality of life, sustain scenic and culturally important landscapes, oftentimes define the essence of a community, and provide opportunities to engage in outdoor recreation and reconnection with the land. The Agency recognizes the interdependence of these ecological, economic, and social values and the need for land management planning to take all three into account.

   In pursuit of sustainable management in the new Planning Rule, the Agency proposes to include provisions for the protection and enhancement of ecosystem services, such as clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat. It also proposes that plans could provide a sustainable set of opportunities for goods and services that will support vibrant rural and national economies in a way that is compatible with natural resource conservation and restoration goals.

   Specific questions we would like the public to address include:

   • 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?
   • How can the Agency recognize and incorporate provisions in the Planning Rule for managing lands for the sustainable delivery of ecosystem services?
   • How can plans guide units of the NFS in achieving natural resource conservation and restoration goals in a way that is compatible with providing a set of opportunities for goods and services to support vibrant rural and national economies.

6. Land management planning could involve effective and pro-active collaboration with the public. NFS lands are the public's lands that the Agency manages in trust for current and future generations. The Agency welcomes and encourages public collaboration throughout the planning process, and will seek to structure a new Planning Rule to ensure that processes for developing, revising and amending plans are efficient, transparent, and effectively engage the public. After plans are approved, responsible officials will continue to work with the public to resolve issues, to evaluate management under the plan, and to consider whether there is a need to adjust the plan. One challenge the Agency has faced with regard to public participation is that plans can at times take 8-10 years to revise, a timeframe that is too long to sustain a true collaborative effort and use the most up-to-date science and management thinking.

   Specific questions we would like the public to address include:

   • How could the Agency foster collaborative efforts? What kinds of participation, forums for collaboration, and methods of providing input have you found most engaging?
   • What should the rule require to ensure a planning process that is both efficient and transparent while allowing for full public collaboration and participation within a reasonable timeframe?
   • What kinds of information, methods, and analyses should the Agency provide to the public during the planning process to aid understanding of the possible consequences of a proposed rule and alternatives?
   • What kind of administrative review process should be offered to the public in the Planning Rule? Should there be a pre-decisional objection or a post-decisional appeal process?

7. Plans could incorporate an ``all-lands'' approach by considering the relationship between NFS lands and neighboring lands. The threats and opportunities facing our lands and natural resources do not stop at ownership boundaries. Healthy forests and grasslands are elements of integrated landscapes that need to be restored, conserved and managed across geographical and organizational boundaries in ways that respect private rights and multiple ownerships. The land management planning process provides direction for NFS lands only. However, the planning process provides an opportunity for the Agency to engage other Federal land management agencies; Tribes, State, and local land managers; private landowners; and non-governmental partners to collaborate on strategies to restore and sustain healthy forests and grasslands across landscapes. Incorporating an all-lands approach in the planning process is also important as land management plans anticipate the effects of broad challenges such as climate change which can cause impacts on a regional scale.

   Specific questions we would like the public to address include:

   • How should the Planning Rule account for the relationship of NFS lands to surrounding landscapes?
   • What other planning and assessment efforts or processes at the national, state or local level should the Agency look at that could inform an ``all-lands'' approach?

8. Plans could be based on the latest planning science and principles to achieve the best decisions possible. The new Planning Rule could encourage the creation of a shared vision of the planning area. Developing this through a strong collaborative public process could create a common understanding of the goals and direction for each plan, and will frame management actions and projects on the ground as a plan is implemented. Creating a plan that reflects a clear description of the shared vision and the desired conditions of a planning area, a strategy for moving toward the vision; and design criteria, including standards and guidelines that would apply to project and activity decisions, might be one way to move toward achieving the vision.

   Specific questions we would like the public to address include:

   • How can the Planning Rule support the creation of a shared vision for each planning area through the planning process?
   • Local and regional differences will have an impact on desired conditions and on the successful creation and implementation of a shared vision for any given planning area. Given that different areas will have different needs, should the Planning Rule allow a choice of planning processes? How could the Planning Rule create different process choices, and how could they be presented in the rule? What kinds of provisions would need to be included to guide and evaluate a process choice?
   • Much discussion has been centered on how land management plans should be viewed; are they strategic documents that lay the foundation for specific future actions to help meet unit goals? Or, should land management plans also make project or activity decisions? Based on your response to the question above, what is the range of options for fully complying with NEPA during land management plan development, amendment, or revision?
   • Should the new Planning Rule require standards and guidelines that are required for all plans?
   • How can the agency analyze and describe the environmental effects of a Planning Rule in the environmental impact statement?