3 min read

Comment Period on Proposed Rule for Forest Planning for National Forests ends May 16

The last time the rule outlining the process and content requirements for land management plans for the nation’s forests was updated, the Cold War was still raging and USA Today published its first issue. Clearly, much has changed in the last 30 years. Pest infestations have destroyed whole swaths of the nation’s forests, wildfires pose greater risk to surrounding communities and the loss of timber industry jobs has devastated local economies.

In order to make sure that today’s land management plans are consistent with the environmental and economic needs of the 21st century, the Department of Agriculture has released a proposed replacement rule.

Why Now?

The need for a new rule has existed since the 1990s. This proposed rule follows several failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush administrations to pass rules that were legally sound.

The current rule, which has been in effect since 1982, has proven so complex that modifying an existing plan or adopting a new one has become cost and time prohibitive. The numbers speak for themselves. Out of the 155 forests, 20 grasslands and 1 prairie under the National Forest System, only 127 have land management plans. Sixty-eight of these plans are past due for revision, some by as many as 15 years.

One reason for the lack of up-to-date land management plans is that the current system takes a top down approach. The national office determines overall policy that regional foresters then take into consideration when formulating regional plans, and then forest unit supervisors take both of these into consideration when they develop plans for a specific forest. The forest supervisor, in conjunction with an interdisciplinary team then formulates a plan, publishes it, allows for a 90-day comment period, then makes any necessary revisions as a result of the feedback loop. Once final, the Regional forester makes the final decision as to whether the plan is accepted or not.

The new rule is designed to change this. In order to avoid controversy at the end of the process, the new rule’s structure provides opportunities from the very beginning for interested parties to participate in the assessment, revision and monitoring stages of the process.  The new rule also takes a more bottom up approach. First, there is no longer a requirement for developing regional plans. Second, the final decision-making ability rests in the hands of the person closer to the forest—the forest unit supervisor.

The Framework for Plan Development

The rule outlines a three-part framework for the planning process: assessment, plan revision or amendment, and monitoring. According to the USDA, “These phases of the planning process are complementary and are intended to allow the Forest Service to adapt management to changing conditions and to improve plans with more frequent amendments based on new information and monitoring.”

By prescribing a planning cycle, the new rule is designed to shorten the time involved in developing management plans. It is also designed to encourage a more adaptive management approach. By continuously assessing the conditions on the ground and monitoring results, the forest service believes the new rule will allow them to deal more effectively with new threats to the forest based on changes in climate and to respond more rapidly to changes in water resources, animal and plant diversity and the economic and recreational needs of local communities.

The rule’s three-part framework is also less rigid than the previous one.  Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell pointed out, for instance, that the proposed rules would eliminate the practice of using indicator species, such as the northern spotted owl, as gauges of the health of an individual ecosystem. With the new plan, a broad range of species will be monitored and assessed to ensure greater diversity.

According to the Forest Service, the rule is intentionally less prescriptive so that different forests can be managed in different ways. A scientific assessment of the width of a riparian zone may vary depending upon the composition of vegetation, existing sediment filters and wildlife travel patterns, for instance. Public values and economic needs may differ from state to state as well. To address these differences, the Forest Service is giving forest unit supervisors the flexibility and authority to customize their land management plans accordingly.

Plan Contents

While it offers more flexibility, the proposed rule also emphasizes integrated resource management so that all the relevant interdependent elements of sustainability are considered as a whole, instead of as separate resources or uses.

They key components of sustainability include :

  • Maintain or restore ecosystem and watershed health and resilience
  • Protect key ecosystem elements, including water resources on the unit
  • Provide for plant and animal diversity
  • Contribute to social and economic sustainability

A plan must also contain, to the extent relevant to the plan area, the full suite of multiple uses, including:

  • Ecosystem services
  • Energy
  • Minerals
  • Outdoor recreation
  • Range
  • Timber
  • Watershed
  • Wildlife and fish
  • Wilderness

Learn More and Comment

To read the proposed rule and for more information, visit the USDA website. The public comment period on the proposed rule expires on May 16 (Comment on the Proposed Rule here). An extensive series of meetings will be held on the new rule (see the Draft Calendar of Public Meetings on the Rule).