1

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

FOREST PLAN REVISION ASSESSMENT WORKBOOKJohn Rupe and Peter Williams

UNDERSTANDING THE GOAL OF AN ASSESSMENT UNDER THE RULE

This document describes possible approaches for preparing an assessment for a Forest/Grassland Plan Revision under the proposed Forest Service Planning Rule.1 The rule expects a process that integrates both science and collaboration, as it makes clear from the very beginning:

The objective of this part is to guide the collaborative and science-based development, amendment, and revision of land management plans.2

Under the rule, an assessment must be collaborative and science-based, just as with the overall process, because it brings together many sources of information, including social, economic, and ecological, whether qualitative or quantitative. Moreover, the subsequent process must rely on information from an assessment if the process is to be collaborative and science-based. The planning rule characterizes an assessment this way:

An assessment is the gathering and integrating of information relevant to the planning area from many sources and the analysis of that information to identify a need to change a plan or to inform how a new plan should be proposed.3

Although one immediate purpose is to identify whether a need for change exists, the second, equally important purpose of an assessment is to inform design of the process by which specific changes will be proposed if a determination is made that a need for change does exist. The responsible official needs information to provide opportunities to participate in the collaborative and science-based process.4

The formal definition of an assessment, according to the proposed rule, is this:

A synthesis of information in support of land management planning to determine whether a change to the plan is needed. Assessments are not decision documents but provide current information on select issues.5

Under this definition, an assessment is both a process and a product. It is fundamentally a process to determine whether the current Forest Plan is working. Typically, a long set of potential assessment questions (see Appendix) are reviewed for local relevancy. Questions determined to have local relevancy are applied during the local assessment. Although technical information is essential, an assessment under the rule is not a technical process; it is fundamentally participatory, drawing on information and knowledge from multiple sources and multiple participants. During an assessment, the most accurate, reliable, and relevant scientific information is synthesized from governmental and non-governmental sources. But the process is also about clarifying values because an important step is to identify why a particular National Forest/Grassland is important to the participants. One reason for clarifying values is that the knowledge being sought includes how a new plan should be proposed. That is a process-oriented goal. To meet such a goal in a way that is appropriate for the local situation, the assessment must seek to understand procedural preferences—values—of stakeholders, including but not limited to those of FS personnel. The second specific assessment purpose is worth highlighting again: the goal of an assessment under

1 Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 30, February 14, 2011 (36 CFR 219, Proposed Rule)2 36 CFR 219.1(c) 3 36 CFR 219.5(a)(1) 4 36 CFR 219.1(c) and 219.4(a)(1)5 36 CFR 219.19

2

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

the proposed planning rule is to gather and integrate information that informs design of a participatory and collaborative process should one be needed to change the plan.

An assessment is also a product, playing a somewhat similar role to an Analysis of the Management Situation or various scoping documents under the 1982 planning rule. As a product, an assessment documents “existing and potential future conditions and stressors”6 that subsequently will serve as a foundation for the required Environmental Impact Statement prepared to disclose plan revision alternatives and environmental effects of those alternatives. The scope of the assessment document is determined by the responsible official. It describes the unit within the broader context of the larger ecosystem, and the counties and states within and surrounding the Forest/Grassland. Much as an assessment should inform design of the participatory process and the content of the EIS.

THE GENERAL PROCESS

In assessing the relevant conditions of a forest or the risks to the forest, two activities are often described in the planning literature: deliberation and analysis.7 These two activities can be thought of as complementary approaches to gaining knowledge about the world. Analysis uses rigorous, replicable methods to arrive at answers to factual questions; deliberation is any formal or informal process for communication and collective consideration of issues.8 The synthesis sought by the rule results from this combination of deliberation and analysis.

The Deliberative Democracy Consortium defines deliberation as an approach to decision-making in which citizens consider relevant facts from multiple points of view, converse with one another to think critically about options before them and enlarge their perspectives, opinions, and understandings. 9 Deliberative democracy strengthens citizen voices in governance by including people of all races, classes, ages and geographies in deliberations that directly affect public decisions. As a result, a citizen influences—and can see the result of that influence on—the policy and resource decisions that affect their daily lives and their future.

The Forest plan assessment process can be thought of as an iterative process between these two activities that results in the synthesis of participation and science:

6 36 CFR 219.6(b)(1)7 For instance, see Understanding Risk, Committee on Risk Characterization, National Research Council, Stern and Fineberg, editors, 1996 http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5138#toc 8 Ibid, p. 3-49 See the Deliberative Democracy Consortium website at http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/deliberation/

Analysis of Information

Deliberation by Participants

3

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

FRAMING QUESTIONSThe framing question for the assessment process is different from those that frame the biennial monitoring report, the plan amendment or revision process, or the NEPA compliance process. Although the proposed rule does not specify framing questions, the following table shows ones that are implicit:

Framework Phase

Framing Question

Biennial Monitoring Report

Is there new information since the last biennial report to suggest need for either (1) change to the plan or monitoring program or (2) a new assessment? (219.5(a)(3))

Assessment: Are changes needed in the plan or monitoring program and, if so, what design criteria should apply to that process? (219.5(a)(1))

Plan Amendment or Revision:

In light of the assessment results, if changes are needed, what changes are actually proposed to the plan components or the monitoring program and what reasonable alternatives have been considered? (219.7(c))

NEPA compliance:

In light of the changes proposed and the alternatives, what are the reasonably foreseeable, significant effects? (219.5(a)(2) and 219.14(a))

WHAT “COLLABORATIVE AND SCIENCE-BASED” MIGHT LOOK LIKE

4

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

Fundamentally, the process itself should be designed collaboratively with locally appropriate details added by the responsible official. The principle reason for this is that participants should have sufficient ownership in the process. If participants have ownership in the process, they will see it as fair, and therefore willing to live with the eventual outcomes. The steps and the sequence should be agreed upon by the participants at the beginning of the process. The Forest Supervisor needs to be fully engaged, explaining to the participants the sideboards for the

process, and that she/he will retain the discretion to determine the scope, scale, and timing of the assessment. 10 It’s helpful to think of the iterative process as something described in the collaboration literature as an “accordion process”11 which generally looks something like this:

Generally, as shown in the diagram, the assessment process cycles between deliberation activities and analysis activities. It also cycles between large group activities and small group activities. Each cycle refines the answers to the assessment questions, and may bring in new participants and new sources of knowledge. The flow chart expands with concurrent activities, then contracts into deliberative meetings, then expands again, hence the reason the literature describes it as an “accordion process.”

READINESS FOR ASSESSMENT

Once the assessment process begins, it is important to maximize the time of the participants in the deliberation and analysis steps. Therefore, some important pre-work should occur before any initial meetings (shown as “Initial Convenor Activities” in the preceding graphic).

STAFFINGGenerally, a forest planning process begins with work planning, including staffing. Here are some of the important roles and skills that will be necessary for the assessment:

10 219.6 (proposed rule)11 Straus, D. (2002). How to Make Collaboration Work: Powerful Ways to Build Consensus, Solve Problems, and Make Decisions. San Francisco, CA, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

5

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

Role Skills NeededForest Supervisor

The Forest Supervisor should manage the process and be engaged in all public meetings.

Planning Team Leader

The planning team leader should be skilled in leading an interdisciplinary team and communicating with the public, and should have the skills and knowledge to manage the process on a daily basis.

Collaboration Skills

See below.

Communication Skills

In addition to collaboration skills, the planning team will need communication skills. While often complementary, these skills are distinct. Typically, a communication plan is needed to address needs of the team internally, with other unit staff, and externally with stakeholders and other participants. An integrated plan is often more useful than separate ones for different audiences.

Science Liaison The planning rule requires coordination with Forest Service Research and Development, universities, and other government and non-governmental partners to consolidate existing scientific information and leverage resources for additional information needs. Science synthesis and integration require special knowledge and communication skills. Often, research scientists have a hard time communicating their findings to a general lay audience. They also may have trouble moving from specific research findings to more general planning questions or to different locations where the research may apply. Meanwhile, a forest ID team may not be aware of the latest research or scientific methods, or how the research might apply to the specific forest.

GIS and Analysis

The assessment will require the use and understanding of specific GIS and analysis tools to answer the assessment questions (see Appendix).

Maintenance of Planning Documents

The proposed rule requires documents to be readily accessible to the public by posting them online and through other means.12 This set of skills is very much related to the webpage needs and can intersect with collaboration skills.

Resource Specialists

In addition to having knowledge in their fields, forest planning requires the skills to think strategically, to be able to synthesize science, and to integrate with other resources.

WEBPAGEThe website should provide for interactive activities as well as retrieval of documents, maps, and analysis tools. This need relates to collaboration skills and to the maintenance of planning documents.

COLLABORATION CAPACITYBased on a study of ongoing Forest Service plan revision processes, there are six essential prerequisites for utilizing a collaborative process:13

12 36 CFR 219.14(b) (proposed rule)13 The Utilization of Collaborative Processes in Forest Planning, Sam Burns and Tony Cheng, December 2005 http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/ForestPlanning.pdf

6

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

Is the Forest Service staff aware of collaboration ideas and principles? Is there an understanding of the social and historical context for collaboration in the planning locale,

including community understanding of collaboration and related collaborative capacities? Is there internal capacity to do collaboration? Are there clear collaborative expectations? Are there ways to monitor and adapt the planning process? Is there a design for how the collaborative process will work?

AVAILABLE INFORMATIONDocuments likely to be useful in the assessment process should be assembled for the participants and typically made available electronically (re on-line). Here are some of the documents that should be available:

Document Discussion Update of the Existing Forest Plan

Surprisingly, experience has shown that many people begin a forest plan revision process without ever seeing the existing forest plan. The existing forest plan should be available on the internet for review. Where possible, the existing forest plan should be reformatted to reflect current forest plan content requirements, new terminology, etc., so that it can serve as the “no action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement for the plan revision.

Monitoring and Evaluation Reports

The proposed planning rule requires a biennial evaluation of the results of monitoring.14 Previous rules required annual evaluation reports. Through the evaluation process, available monitoring information is reviewed and evaluated on whether a change to the plan, management activities, or monitoring program may be warranted based on the new information.15

Regional Assessments

Where available, regional assessment can provide the broader context for the forest plan.

State forest assessments

Under the 2008 Farm Bill, states have completed statewide assessment and strategies. These are available at: http://www.stateforesters.org/issues_and_policy/forests_in_the_farm_bill

State, County, and Tribal plans

The proposed planning rule requires coordination with equivalent and related planning efforts to the extent practicable and appropriate.16

Resource Planning Act Assessment

The National Forest Management Act is actually an amendment to the Resource Planning Act. Under RPA, the Forest Service prepares a nationwide assessment, which is available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/research/rpa/

PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND FINDINGSSome of the assessment questions (see Appendix) may take some time to answer. Prior to the assessment process, it may be helpful to review the questions and anticipate what pre-work might be necessary. For instance, the questions about the health and resilience of forest, rangeland, or aquatic ecosystems may require some work to identify the historical range of variation of the ecosystems in order to understand how the systems evolved. Once these ranges are established, however, that process should become one of validating that the previous ranges remain applicable. In other words, subsequent assessments may need only to address whether there is a newly emerged or newly recognized need to change that previous material about ranges of variation.

14 36 CFR 219.12(d) (proposed rule)15 36 CFR 219.12(d)(1) (proposed rule)16 36 CFR 219.4(b) (proposed rule)

7

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

It will also be important to anticipate what types of models might be necessary. Using the assessment questions, the analyst can determine what rules will be used to answer the question, and then what data or maps will be needed. Where possible, models should be tested and validated in advance.

ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

The fundamental task in the assessment process is to answer assessment questions (see Appendix) about how well the existing plan is working, and what (if anything) needs to change regarding three topics:

(1) The plan components, (2) The monitoring program, (3) The process for making those changes.

DETERMINING LOCAL APPLICABILITY AND UTILITY: COARSE SCREENING OF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONSThe list of potential assessment questions is lengthy, so each unit will need to conduct an initial, coarse screening to identify those that apply locally. Assessment participants should initially screen the questions using the following criteria derived from the proposed rule:

Assessment Goal Coarse Screening QuestionNeed for change in plan components or monitoring program

Is the information needed to inform and develop plan components (i.e., Is this a Forest Plan issue, not a program planning issue or a project issue)? 219.6(b)(1)Is the resource present? 219.7(b)(2)(ii)Is the resource important? 219.7(b)(2)(ii)Is addressing the resource within the authority of the Forest Service? 219.8, 219.9, 219.10, 219.11Is addressing the resource within the capability of the plan area? 219.8, 219.9, 219.10, 219.11Is addressing the resource within the fiscal capability of the unit? 219.10 Is there an emerging public issue that needs be addressed? 219.6

Design of process for revising a plan or monitoring program

Is the information needed to understand the discrete roles, jurisdictions, responsibilities, and skills of interested and affected parties? 219.4(a)Is the information needed to understand the expectations regarding the accessibility of the process, opportunities, and information? 219.4(a)Is the information needed to determine the scope, methods, forum, and timing of public participation opportunities? 219.4(a)(1)Is the information needed to develop required plan components (219.6(b)(1)), including information needed to inform design of the public notification and participation process? 219.7(c)(1)

CLARIFYING VALUESIt is sometimes helpful to begin the deliberative process by exploring what the participants appreciate about the current situation and then explore what could change. One formalized process is known as appreciative inquiry.17 17 See http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/

8

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

This process moves from (1) discovering what works well in the current situation; (2) envisioning what might work well in the future; (3) designing, planning and prioritizing what would work well; and (4) executing the proposed design.

An early step in the assessment process is to identify the distinctive roles and contributions of the unit within the context of the broader landscape.18 In the strategic planning literature, this is often described as the “niche” of the organization. It provides a “vision” for the unit. Not every National Forest is the same, and not every multiple use can work on every acre.

FUTURING AND SCENARIO PLANNING

Assessments are intended to assess both existing and potential future conditions and stressors. For things within Forest Service control, an assessment can be an important step in adaptive management. In most cases, however, the Forest Plan will need to be robust and flexible to respond to uncertainties beyond our control. A scenario approach can be used as a structured framework to identify actions that will be most effective across a range of potential futures or that promote desired outcomes.19

Applied to the Forest Plan assessment process, scenario planning would include the following steps:

In answering the assessment questions, what do scientists know, think they know, and don’t know? For the things we don’t know, what are the most critical forces that affect the answers to the assessment

questions? How can we combine the most critical forces into different stories about how the future will play out? What should be in the plan to respond to the various scenarios? What are important monitoring questions and indicators to see which scenarios may unfold?

Scenario planning focuses on multiple, reasonably plausible futures. While these multiple futures can be thought of as analogous to multiple forecasts, true scenario planning seeks to describe multiple plausible futures. Scenario planning does not seek to establish probabilities associated with those futures. The emphasis on plausibility instead of probability is overlooked by some disciplines that have embraced the terminology of scenarios without understanding the origins of scenario planning. Emphasis on probabilities reinforces a problematic search for a single best answer20, a problem the founders of scenario planning sought to address.21 This difference between emphasizing plausibility and emphasizing probability complicates the need to develop new FS skills because those trained in natural resource sciences are taught about probabilistic methods. Some of the new skills needed require rethinking fundamental training, which is an especially challenging demand.

The main goal of scenario thinking is to question basic assumptions about how the world works and to open people’s minds about possible futures that would otherwise be unimaginable. Managers can break out of their standard worldview, exposing blind spots that would otherwise be overlooked in the generally accepted forecast. Decision makers are better able to recognize a scenario in its earliest stages, should it actually be the one that unfolds. Managers are better able to understand the source of disagreement that often occurs when they are envisioning different scenarios without realizing it.

18 36 CFR 219.6(b)(3)19 See for instance, work by the Park Service at: http://www.nps.gov/climatechange/docs/ScenarioPlanningBrief.pdfAlso, see Peterson, Scenario Planning: A Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World Conservation Biology, Vol. 17, No. 2, April 2003 http://www.geog.mcgill.ca/faculty/peterson/PDF-myfiles/scenariosCB.pdf 20 Mitroff, I. I. and H. A. Linstone (1995). The Unbounded Mind: Breaking the Chains of Traditional Business Thinking. New York, Oxford University Press Paperback.21 Van Der Heijden, K. (2000). "Scenarios and Forecasting: Two Perspectives." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 65(1): 31-36.

9

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

Scenario planning is different from many other approaches to strategic planning. Approaches that are more traditional focus first on establishing a single-point forecast, often in the form of desired conditions. Those methods then focus on identifying probabilities associated with different alternatives for moving from current to desired conditions. Scenario planning, in contrast, was developed in part as a way to offset cognitive biases to which those traditional methods are often prone, such as bounded decision models, overconfidence, premature convergence, as well as monotonic, ballistic, and deterministic reasoning.

Collaborative engagement between participants is central to scenario planning—engagement that includes but is not limited to that of technical experts and scientists. This engagement is a scientifically valid method of bringing biases and assumptions to the surface and then using those to construct plausible alternative futures. In contrast, traditional approaches to strategic planning typically pit competing perspectives against each other in search for a single best forecast or scenario, occasionally looking for multiple single-point forecasts. The search for a single best forecast makes traditional methods fundamentally adversarial and, therefore, at odds with more collaborative, learning-oriented approaches of planning and decision-making.22

ACTIONABLE KNOWLEDGE

As a process, an assessment is most valuable when it seeks “actionable” information about whether changes are needed in a plan, the process by which those changes might occur, or in the unit’s monitoring program. Clearly, the assessment process is not about providing comprehensive “descriptive” information to characterize a Forest, Grassland, or its context. The formal, scientific meaning of actionable knowledge includes a deliberate, intentional search for error, understood as a mismatch between either intentions or assumptions and outcomes.23 Examples might include an error in judgment about which assumptions should guide a planning process or an error in projections about reasonably foreseeable effects of alternatives considered during that process. Often, these so-called errors result from unanticipated or even emergent interactions between assumptions and projections. In this sense, they are not errors; they are surprises, which are very common when dealing with a large, complex system with coupled social, economic, and ecological dimensions, like a National Forest System unit.

The whole idea of actionable knowledge is about having a reasonable process that facilitates timely recognition of likely, yet unpredictable surprises so that less costly actions are possible in response. Actionable knowledge is about looking to learn, instead of assuming that what we think we know during a planning process will always be the case as we move forward. The context in which we manage these public lands is just too dynamic for such assumptions.

It is worth noting that, while acting on descriptive knowledge is possible, such actions typically depend upon unsupported assumptions and tenuous conjecture about connections between described conditions, previous actions, potential future actions, and likely outcomes. Such a process is—by definition—not scientific because it is prone to errors of omission and commission, as well as to biases. In contrast, acting on authentic actionable knowledge—relying on an intentional search for surprises—is more scientifically valid and, when done well, more participatory, thereby making it more consistent with the objective of the proposed planning rule. And, because it is more intentionally focused and the focus is developed through a collaborative process, it is less costly to implement and less necessary to defend.

SETTING THE STAGE FOR LEARNING

22 Chermack, T. J., S. A. Lynham, et al. (2006). "Exploring the relationship between scenario planning and perceptions of learning organization characteristics." Futures 38(7): 767-777.23 Argyris, C. (1996). "Actionable Knowledge: Intent Versus Actuality." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 32(4): 441-444.

10

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

Often, there is more we don’t know about forest and grassland ecosystems than we care to admit, especially given interactions with relevant social and economic systems. This is especially true given those surprises that can happen when we take actions as part of those systems. These knowledge gaps will quickly become apparent in the assessment process even if we can never achieve complete understanding. The proposed planning rule establishes an assessment-revision-monitoring framework with the potential for facilitating learning. Ideally, learning objectives should be explicitly stated and incorporated into the objectives of the plan, with monitoring questions and indicators all tied to those objectives.

The rule requires identification of monitoring questions and indicators as part of the assessment process. Again, these will be most meaningful if participants begin by formally asking what they want to learn and why.

BUILDING ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS

The assessment process is more than collecting information. The process is about learning so we know whether there is a need for change, a need to adapt. It is also about stakeholder engagement and allowing participants to invest in that adaptive process. Without such an investment, we will not reach that basic standard of collaboration—are stakeholders, including the FS, willing to live with the proposed changes? Failing to reach that basic standard reduces the willingness to help get the job done and increases the willingness to challenge the decision administratively, legally, or through civil disobedience, such as ignoring new management rules.

Ideally, the assessment process can be the first step in creating a sort-of adaptive “co-management” (or what has been referred to as “adaptive governance”) where participants have a stake in an adaptive management process. 24 It is about bringing together a wide range of parties at multiple scales to deal with the interrelated dynamics of resources and ecosystems, management systems, and social systems, as well as uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise. 25

Here are some of the principles of adaptive governance that can be applied to the forest plan assessment process:26

Planning sets goals (the roles and contributions of the forest). You try alternatives. The burden of decision making shifts to monitoring and evaluation and terminating policy alternatives that fail.

No policy is permanent because interests, knowledge, and other significant details of the context are subject to change.

There is an understanding that politics are unavoidable. Participants assume responsibility and accountability for the policy because they must live with the consequences of implementing it.

Best available science is integrated with other kinds of knowledge, including local and cultural knowledge. Science must be contextual, necessitating interpretations and judgments that integrate what is known

about the context.

24 See Brunner, Steelman, Coe-Juell, Cromley, et. al, Adaptive Governance: Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making, Columbia University Press, 200525 “Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems”, Carl Folke, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005. 30:441-473 http://www.steps-centre.org/PDFs/Folke%20et%20al%202005%20ARER.pdf26From Brunner, et. al.

11

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

HOW TO BOUND AND WHEN TO STOP THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Forest planning has sometimes been called a classic example of a “wicked problem”, 27 where there is no definitive statement of the problem. If there is no definitive problem, there can be no definitive solution and, therefore, no clear boundaries and no stopping rule, two other classic characteristics of a wicked problem.

In these circumstances, there needs to be continual iteration and refinement about the problem statement and about the purpose of the assessment process and the subsequent forest plan. In addition, the forest planning process will involve fragmented stakeholders, high-uncertainty, disagreement about the role of science, political engagement, and an ebbing and flowing of Forest Supervisor control. The assessment process will need to be adaptive and the process itself needs to be monitored for unexpected surprises.

A collaborative assessment process can potentially be expensive and time consuming and can weary participants beyond their tolerance limits. Plus, it’s just the beginning of a revision process, with subsequent public participation in designing alternatives, commenting on the Environmental Impact Statement, and participating in any objection process.

As the assessment process goes through the iterations of deliberation and analysis, the Forest Supervisor should determine if it is still helping define the problem, or still building relationships and capacity for subsequent planning and project work. There are no easy rules of thumb for ending the process. There are no “right” answers for many of the assessment questions. The proposed planning rule provides some flexibility by allowing the assessment process to overlap with the revision process. It also gives the Forest Supervisor the discretion as to when to end the process. If the Forest Supervisor has communicated early in the process how she/he will decide when to end the process, participants shouldn’t be surprised when management intervention is taken.

27 See for instance H. Salwasser, Confronting the Implications of Wicked Problems: Changes Needed in Sierra Nevada National Forest Planning and Problem Solving http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr193/psw_gtr193_1_05_Salwasser.pdf

12

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

APPENDIX

ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

Adapted from Proposed Planning Rule

Public Participation Process Design

1. What are the discrete roles, jurisdictions, responsibilities, and skills of interested and affected parties? 219.4(a)

2. What are the expectations regarding the accessibility of the process, opportunities, and information? 219.4(a)

Distinctive Roles and Contributions

1. What are the distinctive roles and contributions of this National Forest/Grassland within the context of the broader landscape? 219.6(b)(3)

a. What is the landscape-scale context for management? 219.10(a)(6)b. What multiple uses and ecosystem services are provided to the local area, region, and Nation?

219.6(b)(3)c. What roles and contributions is this National Forest/Grassland best suited, considering the Forest

Service mission, unique capabilities, and the resources and management of other lands in the vicinity? 219.6(b)(3)

2. What monitoring questions or indicators are important to measure the progress toward fulfilling the unit’s distinctive roles and contributions? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(vii)

Air Quality

1. What aspects of air quality are relevant to the plan area and the forest planning process? 219.10(a)2. What is the current air quality? 219.10(a)(1)3. Do plan components related to air quality need to change?

Geologic Features

1. What physical resources are present and important in the unit, and relevant to the forest planning process? 219.7(c)(2)(ii) and 219.10

2. What is the condition of geological features? 219.10(a)(1)3. Do plan components related to geologic features need to change?

Forest Ecosystems

1. Are forest ecosystems healthy (with integrity) and resilient? 219.8(a)(1)a. What are the terrestrial ecosystems that are present and important? 219.7(c)(2)(ii) b. Do they exhibit the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient

ecosystems? 219.8(a)(1)c. At the landscape-scale, are terrestrial ecosystems negatively influenced by aquatic ecosystems?

219.8(a)(1)(i)

13

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

d. Is ecosystem health and resilience potentially affected by system drivers, stressors, or disturbance regimes, including climate change? 219.8(a)(1)(ii) and 219.10(a)(9)

e. Are ecosystems affected by poor air quality? 219.8(a)(1)(iii)f. Are the types of anticipated fires consistent with how the ecosystems adapted to fire? 219.8(a)(1)(iv)g. Are the reasonably forseeable risks to ecological sustainability being addressed? 219.10(a)(8)

2. Is the current diversity of native tree and native plants species similar to that existing in the Plan area? 219.9(c)

3. Are there any specific forest stands or habitat types that need special attention in a Plan? 219.8(a)(2)(ii)4. Are there any rare terrestrial plant and animal communities that need special attention in a Plan? 219.8(a)

(2)(iii)5. What “regulating” ecosystem services are important, such as long term storage of carbon, climate

regulation, or disease regulation? 219.10(a)(1) and 219.196. What “supporting” ecosystem services are important, such as pollination, seed dispersal, or nutrient

cycling? 219.10(a)(1) and 219.197. What monitoring conditions or indicators are important for determining the status of select ecological

conditions? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(ii)8. What focal species should be established? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(iii)9. What monitoring questions or indicators are important to measure changes related to climate change and

other stressors? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(v)10. What monitoring questions or indicators are important to measure the carbon stored in vegetation?

219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(vi)11. Do plan components related to forest ecosystems need to change?

Range Ecosystems

1. Are range ecosystems healthy (with integrity) and resilient? 219.8(a)(1)a. What are the range ecosystems that are present and important? 219.7(c)(2)(ii)b. Do they exhibit the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient

ecosystems? 219.8(a)(1)c. At the landscape-scale, are range ecosystems negatively influenced by aquatic ecosystems?

219.8(a)(1)(i)d. Is ecosystem health and resilience potentially affected by system drivers, stressors, or

disturbance regimes, including climate change? 219.8(a)(1)(ii) and 219.10(a)(9)e. Are ecosystems affected by poor air quality? 219.8(a)(1)(iii)f. Are the types of anticipated fires consistent with how the ecosystems adapted to fire? 219.8(a)

(1)(iv)g. Are the reasonably forseeable risks to ecological sustainability being addressed? 219.10(a)(8)

2. Is the current diversity of native plants similar to that existing in the plan area? 219.9(c)3. Are there any specific grasslands, meadows, or habitat types that need special attention in a Plan?

219.8(a)(2)(ii)4. Are there any rare terrestrial plant and animal communities that need special attention in a Plan? 219.8(a)

(2)(iii)5. What monitoring conditions or indicators are important for determining the status of select ecological

conditions? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(ii)6. What focal species should be established? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(iii)7. What monitoring questions or indicators are important to measure changes related to climate change and

other stressors? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(v)8. What monitoring questions or indicators are important to measure the carbon stored in vegetation?

219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(vi)

14

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

9. Do plan components related to range ecosystems need to change?

Soils and Watersheds

1. What physical resources are important? 219.7(c)(2)(ii)2. What “regulating” ecosystem services are important, such as water filtration, purification and storage, soil

stabilization, or flood control? 219.10(a)(1) and 219.193. What “supporting” ecosystem services are important, such as soil formation or nutrient cycling? 219.10(a)

(1) and 219.194. Are there any existing problems with soils, soil productivity, soil erosion or sedimentation? 219.8(a)(2)(v)5. Is special attention needed in the Plan to address public water supplies, sole source aquifers, source water

protection areas, groundwater, and other bodies of water (including guidance to prevent or mitigate detrimental changes in quantity, quality, and availability, including temperature changes, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediments)? 219.8(a)(2)(iv)

6. Is timber harvest being carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soils and watersheds? 219.11(d)(2)

7. What monitoring questions or indicators are important for determining the status of select watershed conditions? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)

8. What monitoring questions or indicators are important for determining the effects of management systems to determine that they do not substantially and permanently impair the productivity of the land? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(viii)

9. Do plan components related to soils and watershed need to change?

Subsurface Water

1. What aspects of subsurface water resources are relevant to the plan area and the forest planning process? 219.10

2. What subsurface water resources are important? 219.7(c)(2)(ii)3. What is the subsurface water quality? 219.10(a)4. Do plan components related to subsurface water resources need to change?

Water Use

1. What areas are suitable for water use considering the appropriate integration of resource management and uses? 219.7(c)(2)(vi)

2. Do plan components related to water use need to change?

Aquatic Ecosystems

1. Are aquatic ecosystems healthy (with integrity) and resilient? 219.8(a)(1)a. What are the aquatic ecosystems that are present and important? 219.7(c)(2)(ii)b. Do they exhibit the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient

ecosystems? 219.8(a)(1)c. At the landscape-scale, are aquatic ecosystems negatively influenced by terrestrial ecosystems?

219.8(a)(1)(i)d. Is ecosystem health and resilience potentially affected by system drivers, stressors, or

disturbance regimes, including climate change? 219.8(a)(1)(ii) and 219.10(a)(9)e. Are ecosystems affected by poor air quality? 219.8(a)(1)(iii)f. What is the surface water quality? 219.10(a)(1)g. Are the reasonably forseeable risks to ecological sustainability being addressed? 219.10(a)(8)

15

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

2. Are there any specific aquatic elements that need special attention in the Plan, such as lakes, streams, wetlands, stream banks, or shorelines? 219.8(a)(2)(i)

3. Are there any rare aquatic communities that need special attention in the Plan? 219.8(a)(2)(iii)4. Is special attention needed in the Plan to address public water supplies, sole source aquifers, source water

protection areas, groundwater, and other bodies of water (including guidance to prevent or mitigate detrimental changes in quantity, quality, and availability, including temperature changes, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediments)? 219.8(a)(2)(iv)

5. For timber harvest, is protection being provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat? 219.19(d)(1) and 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iii)

6. What monitoring conditions or indicators are important for determining the status of select ecological conditions? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(ii)

7. What focal species should be established? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(iii)8. What monitoring questions or indicators are important to measure changes related to climate change and

other stressors? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(v)9. Do plan components related to aquatic ecosystems need to change?

Riparian Ecosystems

1. Are riparian ecosystems healthy (with integrity) and resilient? 219.8(a)(1)a. What default width makes sense for riparian areas around all lakes, perennial or intermittent

streams, and open water wetlands (standard width or variable based on ecologic or geomorphic factors or water body type? 219.8(a)(3)

b. Do they exhibit the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient ecosystems? 219.8(a)(1)

c. At the landscape-scale, are riparian ecosystems negatively influenced by terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems? 219.8(a)(1)(i)

d. Is ecosystem health and resilience potentially affected by system drivers, stressors, or disturbance regimes, including climate change? 219.8(a)(1)(ii) and 219.10(a)(9)

e. Are ecosystems affected by poor air quality? 219.8(a)(1)(iii)f. Are the types of anticipated fires consistent with the ways that riparian areas adapted to fire?

219.8(a)(1)(iv)g. Are the reasonably forseeable risks to ecological sustainability being addressed? 219.10(a)(8)

2. What monitoring conditions or indicators are important for determining the status of select ecological conditions? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(ii)

3. What focal species should be established? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(iii)4. What monitoring questions or indicators are important to measure changes related to climate change and

other stressors? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)(v)5. Do plan components related to riparian ecosystems need to change?

Species Conservation

1. Is the current plan contributing to the recovery of threatened and endangered species? 219.9(b)(1)a. What threatened or endangered species are in the plan area? 219.7(c)(2)(ii)b. What is their status? c. Is there habitat and habitat connectivity? 219.10(a)(1)d. What authorities does the Forest Service have to manage the species? 219.9e. What is the inherent capability of the plan area to provide for the species? 219.9

16

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

f. Are the reasonably forseeable risks being addressed? 219.10(a)(8)2. Is the current plan conserving candidate species? 219.9(b)(2)

a. What candidate species are in the plan area?b. What is their status?c. Is there habitat and habitat connectivity? 219.10(a)(1)d. What authorities does the Forest Service have to manage the species? 219.9e. What is the inherent capability of the plan area to provide for the species? 219.9f. Are the reasonably forseeable risks being addressed? 219.10(a)(8)

3. Is the current plan maintaining viable populations of species of conservation concern within the plan areas? 219.9(b)(3)

a. What species of conservation concern are in the plan area? 219.7(c)(2)(ii)b. What is their status?c. Is there habitat and habitat connectivity? 219.10(a)(1)d. Are the reasonably forseeable risks being addressed? 219.10(a)(8)e. What authorities does the Forest Service have to manage the species? 219.9 f. What is the inherent capability of the plan area to provide for the species? 219.9g. If it is beyond the authority of the Forest Service, or the inherent capability of the land, what

maintenance or restoration of ecological conditions is practicable in order to contribute to maintaining a viable population of a species within its range? 219.9(b)(3)

h. What coordination is needed with other Federal, State, tribal, and private land managers having management authority over lands where populations exists? 219.9(b)(3)

4. Is the current plan providing habitat conditions for fish and plants commonly used by the public, such as species that are hunted, fished, trapped, gathered, observed, or needed for subsistence? 219.10(a)(5)

a. What areas are suitable for subsistence considering the appropriate integration of resource management and uses? 219.7(c)(2)(vi)

5. What is the current status of focal species? 219.12(a)(5)(iii)6. Is timber harvest being carried out in a manner consistent with fish and wildlife? 219.11(d)(2)7. Do plan components related to fish and wildlife need to change?

Recreation

1. What areas are suitable for recreation use considering the appropriate integration of resource management and uses? 219.7(c)(2)(vi)

2. Are recreational opportunities and uses sustainable? 219.8(b)(2) and 219.10(b)(1)(i)3. What are the recreation values and setting? 219.10(a)(1) and 219.10(b)(1)(i)4. Are there opportunities and is there access for a range of uses? 219.19(b)(1)(i)5. Is the trail system adequate? 219.10(a)(1)6. Are recreation facilities sustainable? 219.10(a)(3)7. Is timber harvest being carried out in a manner consistent with recreation and aesthetic resources?

219.11(d)(2)8. What monitoring questions or indicators are important to measure the status of visitor use and progress

toward meeting recreational objectives? 219.6(b)(4) and 219.12(a)(5)9. Do plan components related to recreation need to change?

Scenery

1. What aspects of scenery or aesthetics are important and relevant to the plan area and the forest planning process? 219.10(a)(1)

2. What is the condition of scenery and viewsheds and what is desired? 219.10(a)(1) and 219.10(b)(1)(i)

17

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

3. Are there any opportunities to coordinate with neighboring landowners to link open spaces? 219.10(a)(4)4. Are timber cut blocks, patches, or strips being shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the

natural terrain? 219.11(d)(1) and 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iii)5. Do plan components related to scenery need to change?

Cultural and Heritage Resources

1. What cultural and heritage resources are important and relevant to the plan area and the forest planning process? 219.7(c)(2)(ii) and 219.10(a)

2. What is the condition of cultural and heritage resources? 219.10(a)(1)3. Are they being protected? 219.10(b)(1)(ii)4. Are areas of tribal importance being protected? 219.10(b)(1)(iii)5. Do plan components related to cultural and heritage resources need to change?

Wilderness

1. What is the condition of existing Wilderness areas? 219.10(a)(1)2. Are existing Wilderness areas being protected? 219.10(b)(1)(iv)3. What areas are potentially Wilderness? 219.7(c)(2)(iv)4. Are the ecologic and social values and character of recommended wilderness areas being protected?

219.10(b)(1)(iv)5. Do plan components related to existing Wilderness or recommended Wilderness areas need to change?

Wild and Scenic Rivers

1. Are existing wild and scenic rivers being protected? 219.10(b)(1)(v)2. What stream segments are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System? 219.7(c)(2)

(v)3. For eligible rivers not yet determined suitable, are the values for which they might be included in the

system being protected? 219.10(b)(1)(v)4. Do plan components related to existing Wild and Scenic rivers or eligible segments need to change?

Research Natural Areas and Other Designated Areas (Special Areas)

1. Are research natural areas and other designated areas being protected? 219.10(b)(1)(vi)2. Are recommended areas being protected? 219.10(b)(1)(vi)3. Do plan components related to existing or recommended designated areas need to change?

Livestock Grazing

1. What areas are suitable for livestock grazing considering the appropriate integration of resource management and uses? 219.7(c)(2)(vi)

2. What level of livestock grazing is occurring? 219.10(a)(1)3. Do plan components related to livestock grazing need to change?

Timber Harvest

1. What level of timber harvest is occurring? 219.10(a)(1)2. Which lands are not suitable because (a) legally prohibited, (b) withdrawn, (c) not compatible with desired

conditions or objectives, (d) would cause irreversible damage, (e) can’t be restocked within five years, (f) isn’t forest land, or (g) affected by other physical, economic or other pertinent factors? 219.11(a)(1) and (3)

18

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

3. Which lands are suitable for timber harvest considering the appropriate integration of resource management and uses? 219.7(c)(2)(vi)

4. Are harvesting systems being selected not because they are giving the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber? 219.11(d)(1) and 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iv)

5. Are clearcuts determined to be the optimum method, and are other cuts appropriate to meet the objectives and requirements of the Plan? 219.11(d)(1) and 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(i)

6. Are there reasons that harvest units should be greater than 40 acres (or other limits established for specific species in the rule)? 219.11(d)(3)

7. Are there reasons to cut even-aged stands before the culmination of the mean annual increment of growth? 219.11(d)(5)

8. What is the long term sustained yield? 219.11(d)(4)9. Do plan components related to timber harvest need to change?

Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy and Mineral Resources

1. What areas are suitable for energy or mineral development considering the appropriate integration of resource management and uses? 219.7(c)(2)(vi)

2. What level of development is occurring? 219.10(a)(2)3. What is the potential? 219.10(a)(2)4. Do plan components related to energy and mineral resources need to change?

Other Relevant Resources1. Are there any other relevant resources not mentioned above, and what is their condition? 219.10(a)(1)2. Are there other multiple uses that should be provided for? 219.10(b)(2)3. For these other multiple uses, what areas are suitable considering the appropriate integration of resource

management and uses? 219.7(c)(2)(vi)4. Do plan components for other relevant resources need to change?

Utility Corridors

1. What areas are suitable for utility corridors, considering the appropriate integration of resource management and uses? 219.7(c)(2)(vi)

2. Is management of utility corridors sustainable? 219.10(a)(3)3. Do plan components for utility corridors need to change?

Transportation

1. What areas are suitable for roads, considering the appropriate integration of resource management and uses? 219.7(c)(2)(vi)

2. Is management of transportation corridors sustainable? 219.10(a)(3)3. Is there access for other land owners? 219.10(a)(7)4. Do plan components for transportation need to change?

Other Infrastructure

1. Is management of other infrastructure sustainable? 219.10(a)(3)2. Do plan components for other infrastructure need to change?

Social, Cultural and Economic Conditions

1. Is Forest Service management contributing to social and economic sustainability? 219.8(b)

19

Version 3.4 ; May 26, 2023

a. In the area influenced by the Plan, what are the current social, cultural and economic conditions? 219.8(b)(1)

b. How are sustainable recreation opportunities and uses contributing to social and economic conditions? 219.8(b)(2)

c. How are multiple uses and ecosystem services contributing to local, regional and national economies in a sustainable manner? 219.8(b)(3)

d. How are cultural and historic resources and uses contributing to social and economic conditions? 219.8(b)(4)

2. How are we addressing reasonably forseeable risks to social and economic sustainability? 219.10(a)(9)3. Do plan components need to change to address social and economic sustainability?