[Federal Register: December 6, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 235)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72769-72816]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06de02-22]
[[Page 72769]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
36 CFR Part 219
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning; Proposed
Rules
[[Page 72770]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 219
RIN 0596-AAB86
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing changes to the National Forest
System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule adopted November 9,
2000. These proposed changes are a result of a review conducted by
Forest Service personnel at the direction of the Office of the
Secretary. The review affirmed much of the 2000 rule and the underlying
concepts of sustainability, monitoring, evaluation, collaboration, and
use of science. Although the 2000 rule was intended to simplify and
streamline the development and amendment of land and resource
management plans, the review concluded that the 2000 rule is neither
straightforward nor easy to implement. The review also found that the
2000 rule did not clarify the programmatic nature of land and resource
management planning. This proposed rule is intended to improve upon the
2000 rule by providing a planning process which is more readily
understood, is within the agency's capability to implement, is within
anticipated budgets and staffing levels, and recognizes the
programmatic nature of planning.
DATES: Comments must be received in writing by March 6, 2003. Comments
received after this date will be considered and placed in the record
only if practicable.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: USDA FS Planning Rule, Content
Analysis Team, PO Box 8359, Missoula, MT 59807; via email to planning--
rule@fs.fed.us; or by facsimile to Planning Rule Comments at (406) 329-
3556. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and
copying. The agency cannot confirm receipt of comments. Persons wishing
to inspect the comments need to call (801) 517-1023 to facilitate an
appointment. In addition, the Forest Service preliminary draft
directives on ecological, social, and economic sustainability, the
business model cost study done to estimate predicted costs to implement
the 2000 and proposed rules, the Civil Rights Impact Assessment, and
the cost-benefit analysis accompanying this proposed rule are expected
to be posted during the comment period on the World Wide Web/Internet
at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma. These materials, when available, also may be
obtained from the Director, Ecosystem Management and Coordination
Staff, Forest Service, USDA, Mail Stop 1104,1400 Independence Avenue,
SW, Washington, DC 20250-1104.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Sutton, Content Analysis Team
Program Coordinator, Forest Service, (801) 517-1023.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
[sbull] Background
[sbull] The 2000 Planning Rule
[sbull] Subsequent Reviews of the 2000 Planning Rule
[sbull] Provisions and Intent of the Proposed Rule
[sbull] Overview
[sbull] Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule
Proposed section 219.1--Purpose and applicability.
Proposed section 219.2--Nature and scope of a land and resource
management plan.
Proposed section 219.3--Levels of planning and planning
authority.
Proposed section 219.4--Decisions embodied in plans.
Proposed section 219.5--Indicators of need to amend or revise a
plan.
Proposed section 219.6--Compliance with National Environmental
Policy Act.
Proposed section 219.7--Amending a plan.
Proposed section 219.8--Revising a plan.
Proposed section 219.9--Developing a new plan.
Proposed section 219.10--Application of plan direction.
Proposed section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation.
Proposed section 219.12--Collaboration, cooperation, and
consultation.
Proposed section 219.13--Sustainability.
Options for Providing Diversity
Comparison of Option 1 and Option 2
Proposed section 219.14--The consideration of science in
planning.
Proposed section 219.15--Special designations.
Proposed section 219.16--Determination of lands available for
timber harvest and suitable for timber production.
Proposed section 219.17--Limitation on timber harvest.
Proposed section 219.18--Plan documentation, maintenance, and
availability.
Proposed section 219.19--Objections to new plans, plan
amendments, or plan revisions.
Proposed section 219.20--Appeals of plan amendments in site-
specific project decisions.
Proposed section 219.21--Notice of plan decisions and effective
dates.
Proposed section 219.22--Transition.
Proposed section 219.23--Definitions.
[sbull] Conclusion
[sbull] Regulatory Certifications
[sbull] Regulatory Impact
[sbull] Environmental Impacts
[sbull] Energy Effects
[sbull] Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
[sbull] Federalism
[sbull] Consultation with Tribal Governments
[sbull] No Takings Implications
[sbull] Civil Justice Reform
[sbull] Unfunded Mandates
[sbull] List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 219
[sbull] Part 219--Planning (text of proposed rule)
[sbull] Tables
[sbull] Table I--Section-by-Section Comparison of the 2000 Rule
with the Proposed Rule
[sbull] Table II--Side-by-Side Comparison of Options for
Ecological sustainability
Background
The Forest Service (the agency), an agency within the United States
Department of Agriculture (the Department), is responsible for managing
the lands and resources of the National Forest System, which include
192 million acres in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The System is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands,
1 national prairie, and other miscellaneous lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary).
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974
(88 Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the National Forest Management
Act of 1976 (NFMA) (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614),
requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations under the principles
of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 that set out the
process for the development and revision of land and resource
management plans (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)). The first planning rule, adopted
in 1979, was substantially amended on September 30, 1982 (47 FR 43026),
and was amended in part on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29122), and on
September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383). The 1982 rule, as amended, has guided
the development, amendment, and revision of the land and resource
management plans (LRMP or plans) that are now in place for all national
forests and grasslands, including an initial plan recently completed
for the Midewin National Tall Grass Prairie that was recently added to
the National Forest System (NFS).
The Forest Service has undertaken several reviews of the planning
process implemented under the 1982 rule. The first review took place in
1989, when the Forest Service, with the assistance of the Conservation
Foundation, conducted a comprehensive review of
[[Page 72771]]
the planning process and published the results in a summary report,
``Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management Planning'' (1990). The
critique concluded that the agency spent too much time on planning;
that planning costs too much; and, therefore, that the Forest Service
needed a more efficient planning process. These findings are still
considered valid and are a prime consideration in the development of
this proposed rule.
Subsequently, the Forest Service published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 6508; Feb. 15, 1991) regarding possible
revisions to the 1982 rule. A proposed rule was published in 1995 (60
FR 18886); however, the Secretary elected not to proceed with that
proposal.
In response to suggestions from persons who commented on the 1995
proposed rule, the Secretary convened a 13-member Committee of
Scientists (Committee or COS) in late 1997 to evaluate the Forest
Service's planning process and recommend changes. In 1998, the COS held
meetings across the country to invite public participation in their
discussions. The Committee's findings were issued in a final report,
``Sustaining the People's Lands'' (March 1999). A proposed rule based
on the COS report was published on October 5, 1999 (64 FR 54074), and a
final rule was adopted on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67514).
The 2000 Planning Rule
In response to many of the findings in the 1990 Critique of Land
Management Planning and the 1999 COS report, the Forest Service
attempted to prepare a planning rule that would provide a more
efficient planning process. The 2000 planning rule (also referred to as
the 2000 rule) changed the Forest Service planning process by: (1)
Establishing ecological, social, and economic sustainability as the
overall stewardship goal for managing the National Forest System; (2)
identifying maintenance and restoration of ecological sustainability as
the first priority for management of National Forest System lands; (3)
requiring collaboration with the general public, interested
organizations, Tribal, State and local governments, and Federal
agencies in all phases of the planning process; (4) expanding
monitoring and evaluation requirements; (5) specifying the use of
scientists and establishing detailed requirements for the application
of science in the planning process; and (6) providing a dynamic
planning framework for solving problems and addressing issues at the
appropriate scale. The 2000 rule applies not only to plan amendments
and revisions, but also to project-level planning and decisionmaking.
The general goals of the 2000 rule are laudable. A major
improvement achieved in that rule is the emphasis on sustainability,
which assists the Forest Service in providing for multiple uses over
time. The 2000 rule also promotes efficiency in that it eliminates
zero-based plan revisions as recommended in the 1990 critique, and it
removes some analytical requirements of the 1982 rule, such as the
requirements for developing benchmarks, which are no longer considered
helpful. The 2000 rule also emphasizes public involvement more than the
1982 rule. The 2000 rule gives explicit direction on the use of science
in the planning process, while the 1982 rule relied on knowledge shared
through an interdisciplinary team approach without procedural
requirements for the use of science. The 2000 rule replaces the post-
decisional administrative appeal process for challenging plans with a
pre-decisional objection process. The 2000 rule also delegates the
authority for plan decisions to the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie
Supervisor, rather than to the Regional Forester. The 2000 rule also
recognizes the plan as a dynamic document.
Despite the positive aspects of the 2000 rule, however, the number
of very detailed analytical requirements, the lack of clarity regarding
many of the requirements, the lack of flexibility, and the lack of
recognition of the limits of agency budgets and personnel led to a
reconsideration of this rule.
Subsequent Reviews of the 2000 Planning Rule
After adoption of the 2000 rule, the Secretary received a number of
comments from individuals, groups, and organizations expressing
concerns regarding the implementation of the 2000 rule. In addition,
lawsuits challenging promulgation of the rule were brought by a
coalition of 12 environmental groups from 7 states and by a coalition
of industry groups (Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, No. C-01-
0728-BZ-(N.D. Calif., filed February 16, 2001)) and (American Forest
and Paper Ass'n v. Veneman, No. 01-CV-00871 (TPJ) (D.D.C., filed April
23, 2001)). As a result of these lawsuits and concerns raised in
comments to the Secretary, the Department initiated a review of the
2000 rule focusing on its ``implementability.'' The ``NFMA Planning
Rule Review,'' completed in April 2001, concluded that many of the
concerns regarding implementability of the rule were serious and
required immediate attention.
In addition, the Forest Service developed a business analysis model
of the 2000 rule and conducted a workshop with field-level planners to
determine the implementability of the 2000 rule based on this business
model. The business model reflected business activities directly
applied from the 2000 rule and provided the basis for a systematic
evaluation of the rule for implementability.
The business model identified the following nine major categories
of planning activities and associated sections of the 2000 rule:
(1) Collaboration (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.12 through 219.18);
(2) Best Science/Science Consistency (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.22
through 219.25 with consideration of relative text in Sec. Sec. 219.11
and 219.20);
(3) Recommendations (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.3 through 219.9 with
consideration of relative text in Sec. Sec. 219.19, 219.20, 219.21,
219.26, and 219.27);
(4) Sustainability (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.19 through 219.21 with
consideration of relative text in Sec. 219.11);
(5) Developing/Revising Plan Decisions (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.6
through 219.9 and 219.11 with consideration of relative text in
Sec. Sec. 219.20, 219.26, 219.28, and 219.29);
(6) Write Plan Documentation (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.11 and
219.30);
(7) Maintain the Plan (primarily Sec. 219.31);
(8) Objections and Appeals (primarily Sec. 219.32); and
(9) Miscellaneous (public notifications and selected NEPA
activities).
Within the context of the nine categories defined, the facilitated
workshop centered on answering two questions: (1) Are the business
requirements clearly understood? (2) What is the agency's perceived
ability to execute the requirements?
An important consideration in this business model analysis was that
it was conducted by planning practitioners who have current field-level
experience. They are the agency experts in a variety of resource areas,
including assessing what can reasonably be accomplished, considering
existing knowledge and information, the issues relevant to planning
areas, and local staffing and funding situations.
This review and analysis found the following:
(1) The 2000 rule has both definitions and analytical requirements
that are very complex, unclear, and, therefore, subject to inconsistent
implementation
[[Page 72772]]
across the agency; for example, species viability, population
monitoring, and the range of variation within the current climatic
period;
(2) Compliance with the regulatory direction on such matters as
ecological sustainability and science consistency checks would be
difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish; and
(3) The complexity of the 2000 rule makes it difficult and
expensive to implement.
Sustainability. The planners particularly questioned whether or not
the agency could achieve the ecological, social, and economic
sustainability standards established in Sec. 219.19 of the 2000 rule.
Similar concerns were noted regarding the viability provisions for the
diversity of plant and animal communities, also in Sec. 219.19 of the
rule. The reviewers found that the ecological sustainability
requirements in the rule are not only complex, but needlessly so.
Although the 2000 rule was intended to increase the focus on ecosystem-
level analyses for addressing the diversity of plant and animal
communities and, thereby, reducing the far more costly species-by-
species approach, the means to accomplish the intent of the rule are
not clear. There was disagreement among the reviewers about the degree
of potential reduction in the species-by-species analysis burden in the
2000 rule.
The role of science. The reviewers affirmed the importance of using
the best available science in planning. However, the detailed
provisions of the 2000 rule for the use of science and scientists in
the planning process raised many concerns.
(1) Field-level planners believed the 2000 rule includes
unnecessarily detailed procedural requirements for scientific peer
reviews, broad-scale assessments, monitoring, and science advisory
boards.
(2) Moreover, these requirements do not recognize the limits of
budgets for use of science, nor does the 2000 rule clearly relate use
of science to the scope of issues in the planning process.
(3) The 2000 rule also does not recognize limitations on the
availability of scientists. The reviewers believed it to be unwise to
place such detailed requirements on the use of scientists in the rule
given the ambiguities of the rule text and the limited availability of
scientists. Although science is needed to inform the Responsible
Official, the reviewers concluded that the 2000 rule anticipates a
level of involvement by scientists that may or may not be needed
considering the planning issues or the anticipated amount of project
activities during on-the-ground implementation of the plan.
Monitoring. Reviewers identified three major issues arising from
the monitoring requirements of the 2000 rule. First, the unnecessarily
detailed requirements for monitoring and evaluation in the 2000 rule
are likely beyond the capacity of many units to perform. Second, it was
considered to be generally confusing throughout the rule to mix
programmatic and project level planning direction. Third, the
monitoring requirements in the 2000 rule are overly prescriptive and do
not provide the Responsible Official sufficient discretion to decide
how much information is needed.
Also, during development of this revised proposed planning rule, it
became apparent that monitoring should be focused on whether on-the-
ground management is achieving desired conditions identified in the
plan. This focus was not clear in the 2000 rule, as its monitoring
direction primarily required a broad array of techniques intended to
measure indicators of sustainability. This conceptual change reflects a
fundamental difference in philosophy between the 2000 rule and this
proposed rule. The 2000 rule tends to be highly prescriptive regarding
a variety of aspects of planning. This proposed rule tends to focus
more on results, rather than on techniques for achieving results. The
Responsible Official is guided by a very large body of law, regulation,
and policy that helps ensure responsible management on the ground. The
much lower amount of procedural detail in this new proposed rule
reflects the agency's assumption that the Responsible Officials will
discharge planning duties responsibly and will conduct planning within
the bounds of authority.
Transition from the 1982 to the 2000 rule. The reviewers also
identified concerns with the transition requirements of the 2000 rule.
There is a lack of clarity about how projects are to be compliant with
the 2000 rule and how the entire rule is to be used in the more limited
scope of plan amendments. Planners expressed uncertainty about how
transition to the 2000 rule would occur, particularly for site-specific
decisions. Finally, to fully implement the 2000 rule the planners felt
the relatively short transition period provided is unrealistic given
the complexities and uncertainties identified.
Having considered the reports of the review teams, the Acting
Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment requested
that the Chief of the Forest Service develop a proposed rule to revise
the 2000 rule.
Provisions and Intent of the Proposed Rule
Overview
The Forest Service is now proposing changes to the planning rule at
36 CFR part 219, adopted November 2000, to address issues and concerns
raised in the various reviews. The proposed rule retains many of the
basic concepts in the 2000 rule, namely sustainability, public
involvement and collaboration, use of science, and monitoring and
evaluation. The agency has attempted to substantially improve these
aspects of the 2000 rule by eliminating unnecessary procedural detail,
clarifying intended results, and streamlining procedural requirements
consistent with agency staffing, funding, and skill levels.
Because of the concerns identified regarding the 2000 rule and
because this proposed rule changes the 2000 rule, it is necessary to
explain exactly how and why the 2000 rule has been adjusted in this
proposal. However, the agency believes it is productive to begin this
overview with a vision of the planning process and the contents of
resource management plans. The Forest Service believes the direction of
many aspects of current planning activities and the basic concepts of
the 2000 rule are very valuable and reflect the expectations of the
American people for planning on their public lands.
Planning
The agency expects programmatic planning to be accomplished in the
following ways:
[sbull] The extent of a plan analysis will be proportional to the
kinds of decisions being made.
[sbull] Plans will be kept up to date, because planning will be
simpler and thus, plans will be more efficiently amended.
[sbull] Plan revision will be based on a ``need for change.''
[sbull] Plan monitoring and evaluation will be emphasized more and
will measure the success of adaptive management efforts, and the
attainment of, or progress toward, desired conditions. This monitoring
and evaluation will provide key information to help keep plans current
and will help inform project-level decisionmaking. States, other
Federal agencies, local governments, Tribes, and the public will be
more closely involved in monitoring efforts.
[sbull] Public involvement is expected to be collaborative,
vigorous, and focused
[[Page 72773]]
on consensus-based identification of and reasonable choices for desired
conditions.
[sbull] Planning will continue to actively involve our Federal,
State, county, and Tribal partners.
[sbull] Science will be integrated throughout the planning process,
from initial data collection and interpretation, through issue
identification, to the analysis process, to development and design of
monitoring, and later to evaluation of monitoring results.
[sbull] The agency's strategic plan, national assessments, and
monitoring results will provide useful information for the development
of land and resource management plans and a national context for
planning.
[sbull] Planning analysis will be more focused on desired
conditions rather than speculative and detailed examination of future
project effects.
[sbull] Planning will continue to focus on addressing baseline
conditions and trends applicable to the planning issues. Baseline
condition and trend analysis will clearly display anticipated progress
toward desired conditions if active management occurs and also what may
happen if active management is restricted.
[sbull] Planning analysis will focus on reasonable choices for
zoning the landscape.
[sbull] Planning will recognize budget limitations in order to help
the Responsible Official prioritize and balance competing planning
activities, such as choosing the appropriate approach for monitoring
watersheds.
Plan Contents
The agency's vision of planning expects a land and resource
management plan to contain:
[sbull] Broad, programmatic direction for a forest, grassland, or
prairie. Plans will make such key strategic decisions as identification
of priority areas for wildfire hazard reduction; designating major
utility corridors; identification of areas of especially high
diversity, or areas containing rare or unique species, ecosystems, or
biotic communities that need certain protections; identification of
lands at the broad-scale (not an acre-by-acre determination) suitable
for timber harvest or grazing, or other consumptive uses;
identification of areas suitable for motorized use; and identification
of areas where certain types of recreation use may be emphasized.
[sbull] More specific statements of desired conditions for such
resources as vegetation, recreation, cultural and heritage resources,
and watersheds, developed within the context of ecological, economic,
and social systems.
[sbull] More specific outcome-based objectives (i.e., measurable
standards of performance).
[sbull] A set of standards that set appropriate limitations on
activities to help achieve desired conditions. Standards will be fewer,
simpler, and better allow for adaptive management than existing plans.
[sbull] Identified special areas, such as areas recommended for
wilderness or wild and scenic river status. Plans will continue to
include specific direction for these areas.
[sbull] As needed, associated materials such as maps or other
documents necessary to make plan decisions.
[sbull] Plans will be brief and will refer to, rather than repeat,
what is already in the Forest Service Directive System, existing law,
regulation, or policy.
[sbull] Collaborative work with the public and emphasis on
consensus building should lead to fewer unresolved issues and,
therefore, fewer plan alternatives.
The goal of the agency is to have a planning rule that is simpler
and easier to implement than the 2000 rule and that allows the agency
to more easily adapt to changing issues and opportunities. Available
agency budgets, personnel availability, and other resource limitations
are recognized as important because they help provide a framework for
the Responsible Official to make decisions such as the following: What
issues can the Responsible Official reasonably address? What method
will be used to solicit meaningful public involvement? What are the
pressing resource needs? What data needs to be collected? Does the unit
need to hire specialists to support the planning action? Are contracts
needed to obtain various kinds of information? Recognition of budget
availability and limitations helps the Responsible Official make
choices about how to weigh and balance competing needs and to consider
the costs and benefits of various actions for optimal results.
The proposed rule retains the important improvements of the 2000
rule. These include:
[sbull] Emphasis on sustainability;
[sbull] Strong public involvement and collaboration;
[sbull] Use of science throughout the planning process;
[sbull] An emphasis on monitoring and evaluation as fundamental to
adaptive management;
[sbull] Need-for-change planning;
[sbull] Use of the objection process;
[sbull] The identification of the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie
Supervisor as the Responsible Official; and
[sbull] The concept of planning as a dynamic process.
The Forest Service believes the proposed rule will apply these
important improvements more efficiently than does the 2000 rule. The
Forest Service believes that the proposed rule provides as efficient a
planning process as possible within the scope of the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) requirements. In addition to retention of the key
improvements, the agency also looked to earlier versions of published
and unpublished proposed planning rules as sources of ideas in revising
specific sections. Finally, the Forest Service has applied over 20
years of planning experience to craft this proposed rule.
It is also useful at this point to discuss in more detail one
important component of the body of direction that governs the
Responsible Official's actions. The Forest Service Directive System
consists of the Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Handbook (FSH), which
codify the agency's policy, practice, and procedure. The system serves
as the primary basis for the internal management and control of all
programs and the primary source of administrative direction to Forest
Service employees.
The FSM contains legal authorities, objectives, policies,
responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing
basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff in more than
one unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. The FSH
is the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for
carrying out the direction issued in the FSM. Examples include
Handbooks on land management planning and environmental analysis.
As discussed throughout this proposed rule, the Directive System
plays and will continue to play an important role in directing field
employees on how to conduct planning.
Section 219.5 of the 2000 rule is a specific example of direction
better included in the agency's Directive System. The agency believes
that much of the process direction, such as potential uses of an
assessment (e.g., identification of additional research needs), or who
has responsibility for a broad-scale assessment (Regional Foresters and
Station Directors), or examples of what a local analysis should
describe (e.g. likely future conditions, characterizations of the area
of analysis) are more appropriately addressed in the Directive System,
not
[[Page 72774]]
a codified rule. Pursuant to NFMA, the Forest Service will provide
notice and give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed
Forest Service Manual direction for this proposed rule because of the
substantial public interest in this direction (36 CFR 216.4).
The agency must improve its planning processes so that direction
and resources will be in place to manage the National Forest System
(NFS) lands more effectively. The trend in planning over the past 20
years has been towards more complexity with the result that limited
funds and personnel available to the agency are being
disproportionately spent on planning and analysis. With this proposal,
the agency seeks to produce a planning rule that sets the stage for
planning to be done in a reasonable manner, at reasonable costs, in a
reasonable amount of time, and thus provide a sound and rational
framework for managing National Forest System lands.
The agency has evaluated the entire cost of planning for both the
2000 rule and proposed rule. The evaluation shows that there will be
efficiencies and reduced costs associated with implementation of the
proposed rule.
Increasing efficiency and reducing costs are important. The Forest
Service believes that the public's primary expectation is that the
agency do a good job of land management. The agency needs to balance
its planning efforts with its efforts to actually manage the land
through the application of plan direction to subsequent actions. There
is urgency to make planning more efficient, as there are issues,
activities, and resource concerns that are not halted during the
planning process and which may pose increased concerns when planning
occurs over excessively long timeframes. There is a growing population
that will recreate on National Forest System lands whether the agency
is prepared to deal with these uses or not. There are growing needs for
watershed restoration for such purposes as prevention of flooding and
the attendant adverse effects on people, property, and resource health.
There are increasing demands for energy resources. Many NFS lands have
a critical wildfire problem. Spending disproportionate agency time and
money on planning and analysis that is not commensurate with the scope
and effect of the decision to be made reduces the agency's ability to
address serious land management issues.
Additionally, the Forest Service has seldom been able to revise its
plans prior to NFMA's 15-year deadline. There have been several reasons
for this delay, but one consistent cause has been the excessive length
of time needed to plan under existing procedures. Please refer to the
November 30, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 FR 59775), which
contains the agency's schedule to systematically approach the NFMA 15-
year revision deadline for NFS units, considering critical resource and
social/economic issues. Reviewers may also refer to the Forest Service
Ecosystem Management Coordination staff Web site at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma
for the latest update of the agency-wide land and resource
management plan (LRMP) revision schedule.
The Forest Service believes this proposed rule, if adopted, would
improve and streamline the planning process. In accordance NFMA, plans
are to be revised from time to time when the Secretary finds conditions
on a unit have significantly changed, but at least every 15 years. Plan
revisions that take four, five, or six or more years to complete are
not responsive to the vision of NFMA, are not responsive to changing
issues, and are in danger of exhausting public interest and
involvement. When plans cannot be easily amended, many people feel that
they need to have all their concerns resolved in a plan revision,
because that will be the direction in place for many years. This
viewpoint not only can increase contentiousness in planning, but also
result in unreasonably high expectations of what a plan does. Several
aspects of this proposed rule will improve the ability to not only
revise plans more easily, but also to amend them more easily.
As stated, the proposed rule is intended to reflect the
programmatic nature of planning and provide a process that is within
the agency's ability to implement. Fundamental to programmatic planning
is the premise that plans are permissive; that is, they allow, but do
not mandate, certain activities to take place within the plan area.
Consequently, the proposed rule emphasizes that plans themselves
generally are not actions that significantly affect the quality of the
human environment, nor do they dictate site-specific actions.
The agency must align its planning processes and performance
responsibly. This means targeting dollars spent on planning to those
activities that will yield clear benefits. Programmatic land and
resource management planning cannot do more than establish a framework
for management in an ever-changing environment. The Forest Service
believes that the proposed rule provides as efficient a planning
process as possible within the framework of NFMA direction.
A detailed explanation of the proposed rule that would amend the
rules at 36 CFR Part 219 follows.
Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule
Table I at the end of this document provides a section-by-section
comparison of the 2000 rule and the proposed rule.
Proposed section 219.1--Purpose and applicability. The Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) establishes that NFS lands must be
administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and
wildlife and fish values. The Act authorizes and directs the Secretary
to develop and administer these resources for multiple use and the
sustained yield of the several products and services that are obtained
from management of the surface resources. The Act defines multiple use
as the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the
NFS lands so that they are utilized in the combination that will best
meet the needs of the American people. The Act further provides that
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 NFS
without impairment of the productivity of the land.
The Forest Service has embraced the concept of sustainability to
guide the agency in meeting requirements of MUSYA. Sustainability
addresses the ``sustained yield'' aspect of MUSYA because it requires
balancing resource management with the needs of current and future
generations ``in perpetuity.'' The concept of sustainability will
assist the Responsible Official in assuring that Forest Service
management of the various renewable resources will be administered
without impairment of the productivity of the land, as required by
MUSYA. Sustaining the productivity of the land and its renewable
resources means meeting present needs without compromising the ability
to meet the needs of future generations. Meeting present and future
needs does not imply all individual needs can be met at one time,
either now or in the future.
The concepts of multiple use and sustainability are addressed in
Sec. 219.1 of the 2000 rule. Because these concepts are so fundamental
to planning, they are retained in Sec. 219.1 of this proposed rule. As
does the 2000 rule, this proposed rule affirms the health of the land
and sustaining its resources within the
[[Page 72775]]
authority granted by MUSYA as the overall goal for managing the
National Forest System.
This section of the rule sets forth a clear process for
establishing, amending, and revising plans and for monitoring plan
implementation. As provided in Sec. 219.1 of the 2000 rule, this
proposed rule also recognizes that planning may consider many time
frames and geographic areas and that it is an ongoing process. However,
the proposed rule would not determine the selection or implementation
of site-specific actions. Rather, the proposed rule requires
documentation that a future project decision is consistent with the
plan. The agency believes that a rule which focuses solely on
programmatic-level planning will be better understood and more
consistently applied than a rule that includes direction on both
programmatic and project-level decisionmaking. Agency guidelines on
project-level planning are specified in FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15.
The USDA Office of General Counsel, Natural Resources Division
working paper entitled ``Overview of Forest Planning and Project Level
Decisionmaking,'' describes the nature of the agency's two-staged
decisionmaking process. The paper is available on the World Wide Web at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma. The relevant issues, levels and kinds of
analysis needed, and decisions to be made in a programmatic plan are
quite different from those required for development of site-specific
projects. The paragraph in this section regarding the applicability of
the proposed rule is the same as Sec. 219.34 of the 2000 rule, except
that it adds a reference to subsequent statutes in order to allow for
any future additions to the National Forest System.
Proposed section 219.2--Nature and scope of a land and resource
management plan. This section of the proposed rule establishes the
fundamental purpose of a plan and provides specific requirements on how
that purpose will be met. In contrast to Sec. Sec. 219.1-219.5 of the
2000 rule, this proposed section describes the nature of a land and
resource management plan concisely, and, thereby, sets the stage for a
planning process that is more flexible and efficient.
Proposed paragraph (a) of this section establishes that the
fundamental purpose of a plan is (1) to establish the desired
conditions to be achieved through the management of the lands and
various renewable resources of the National Forest System and (2) to
guide the Forest Service in fulfilling its responsibilities for
stewardship of the National Forest System to best meet the present and
future needs of the American people. This concept is central to the
planning vision. In contrast to the lengthy and non-regulatory
exposition of Sec. Sec. 219.1-219.5 of the 2000 rule, Sec. 219.2 of
this proposed rule concisely describes the nature of a land and
resource management plan.
Proposed paragraph (b) is somewhat similar to Sec. 219.2 of the
2000 rule in that it sets out principles on which that rule is based.
Rather than dwelling on principles modifying the rules, however,
paragraph (b) imposes core requirements for which the Responsible
Official will be held accountable in plan development, amendment, or
revision. While brief and concise, these requirements touch all the
major principles covered in Sec. 219.2 of the 2000 rule---
sustainability, use of science, consultation with government agencies
and Tribes, public participation, interdisciplinary planning, and
monitoring and evaluation.
Proposed paragraph (c) recognizes the role of plans in integrating
the various statutory authorities applicable to National Forest System
management. It also recognizes the Forest Service Directive System as
the primary source of agency-wide management direction relevant to
planning and management of National Forest System lands and resources.
Planning is conducted in the context of the body of environmental laws,
regulations, Executive orders, and policy. The plan itself does not
generally repeat existing law, regulation, Executive order, or policy
but rather interprets their requirements as they apply to the plan
area.
Although the proposed rule does not explicitly address integrating
statutory authorities, it does at Sec. 219.1(a) identify the principal
authorities applicable to National Forest System lands.
Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 219.2 describes the force and
effect of land and resource management plans, making clear that:
[sbull] These plans do not grant, withhold, or modify any contract,
permit, authorization, or other legal instrument;
[sbull] These plans do not subject anyone to civil or criminal
liability; and
[sbull] These plans create no legal rights.
This proposed paragraph better recognizes the programmatic nature
of plans than the 2000 rule, and therefore, more accurately describes
the nature of a land and resource management plan. Since a plan
provides only the framework for management, a plan normally does not
specifically authorize any ground-disturbing activities nor does it
specifically commit funding or resources. Therefore, the analysis
associated with a plan should be proportional to the level of decisions
made in a plan. Also, a plan focuses on desired conditions. It zones
the forest, grassland, or prairie into defined areas where activities
could occur to help meet those desired conditions and sets out a
program for monitoring progress toward desired conditions. This kind of
plan can be supported by an analysis that evaluates, on a broad level,
the areas' suitability for future potential activities.
The type of plan level analysis that the Forest Service has found
most useful for developing a plan, and for project analysis thereafter,
is baseline and general trend analysis, which gives as complete a
picture of the forest or grassland as possible at one time and provides
the best information of trends of natural processes and of uses in the
plan area and surrounding lands. The Forest Service will continue such
analyses in the planning process. The Forest Service believes that
environmental analyses are most useful when done in the development of
site-specific decisions that will execute on-the-ground management.
More specifically, while a plan guides project implementation,
extensive up-front effects disclosure is generally too speculative to
be useful for project analysis. Thus, the opportunity to ``tier'' a
project's NEPA analysis to a plan EIS, as provided in NEPA regulations
(40 CFR 1502.20), is useful only for certain aspects of analysis and in
practice has proven more theoretical than real. The Forest Service
therefore intends to conduct most detailed analysis on the site-
specific project level.
Plan management direction should be flexible and allow for adaptive
management. Monitoring should not only measure progress toward desired
conditions but also help measure the success of adaptive management
strategies and actions.
A plan is generally a zoning document. It may allow for later,
site-specific authorization of activities and may restrict activities
in specific areas. There are different ways this zoning is applied
depending on the type of existing or potential future activities. For
example, a plan may allow transportation development or motorized use
on some portions of the National Forest System unit, but not on others.
Such a plan decision does not immediately authorize road construction,
but rather identifies zones where road construction may occur in the
future, based on an appropriate project-specific NEPA analysis, public
involvement, and a future decision.
[[Page 72776]]
Another example of zoning-type direction in a plan is direction
that would restrict motorized access in areas where it has been allowed
in the past or that would restrict other recreation uses that are
currently allowed. The plan itself does not normally execute the
restriction. Rather, the restriction would have to be implemented with
a subsequent process, such as a closure order or other instrument.
It must be recognized that a plan is not the final word deciding
forever the fate of an area of land, determining that some actions will
certainly occur and others never will occur, over all or part of the
plan area. According to the Forest Service's vision of planning, plans
can and should be dynamic documents, which can and should be
reconsidered throughout their existence and readily amended when
circumstances call for change.
In summary, the plan is a framework for future on-the-ground
management decisions. Site-specific projects are proposed and developed
within the constraints of the plan, and are subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act and other applicable laws and regulations.
Proposed section 219.3--Levels of planning and planning authority.
This section of the proposed rule identifies three levels of planning--
national, regional, or unit (national forest, grassland, or prairie)
level. As in the 2000 rule, the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie
Supervisor is the Responsible Official for a land and resource
management plan, unless the Regional Forester or the Chief chooses to
act as the Responsible Official for a specific amendment or revision.
The key planning elements listed in Sec. 219.3(d) of the 2000 rule
are omitted from the proposed rule because they are unnecessary.
Proposed Sec. 219.5 provides direction on indicators or a need to
amend or revise a plan. Sec. Sec. 219.7-219.9 discuss the steps to
develop a new plan or amend or revise a plan. Sec. 219.10 discusses
application of plan direction and Sec. 219.11 provides for plan
monitoring or evaluating plans. It is not necessary to summarize these
planning elements in a single section. The 2000 rule Sec. 219.3 key
element number 7 is not needed because the proposed rule does not
provide direction for site-specific decisions. Additionally, in
contrast to the 2000 rule, Sec. 219.3 in this proposed rule does not
contain direction for site-specific actions. As noted previously, the
focus of this proposed rule is the development, amendment, and revision
of plans, not site-specific project planning. The Forest Service uses a
staged decisionmaking process in which land and resource management
plans establish the guidance that governs site-specific project
planning and decisionmaking.
One new provision of Sec. 219.3 is the recognition of the need to
ensure that management direction for designated areas of experimental
forests is consistent with the research being conducted and concurred
in by the appropriate Station Director. The need for this direction
emerged from review by Forest Service Research and Development
employees.
Proposed section 219.4--Decisions embodied in plans. This proposed
section, in paragraphs (a)(1)-(6), retain the five types of plan
decisions found in the 2000 rule. Those decisions are ``desired
conditions,'' ``objectives,'' ``standards,'' ``the identification and
designation of suitable and unsuitable land uses,'' and ``the
identification of requirements for monitoring and evaluation.'' For
efficiency and clarity, Sec. 219.26 of the 2000 rule, which governs
identifying and designating suitable uses, has been incorporated into
Sec. 219.4 as proposed paragraph (a)(4). Overall, this section of the
proposed rule is similar to Sec. 219.7 of the 2000 rule, although
reorganized in this proposal. The proposed rule, however, more
explicitly tracks the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
In proposed paragraph (a)(3) of section 219.4, the rule states
``Standards generally should be adaptable and assess performance
measures.'' The following is an example of an adaptable standard that
assesses performance measures: ``No pre-commercial thinning is allowed
in lynx habitat unless at least three years of monitoring of snowshoe
hares shows that hares are present and are not a limiting factor for
lynx. In these cases, pre-commercial thinning may occur on no more than
20 percent of the hare habitat.''
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of section 219.4 addresses maximum
size openings. The 2000 rule does not provide for maximum size
openings. As in the 1982 rule, the proposed rule reinstates this
statutory requirement and uses the same maximum size limits, by forest
cover type.
An additional required standard is added at Sec. 219.4(a)(3)(vii)
on the use and application of culmination of mean annual increment
(CMAI). The addition of CMAI direction was added to the proposed rule
in order to clarify how this NFMA requirement is to be applied because
there has been some confusion in this area. This new requirement
specifies that CMAI considerations apply only to regeneration harvest
of even-aged tree stands on suitable lands that are harvested for
timber production purposes. This section allows for exceptions to the
application of CMAI to be made in the plan; for example, a plan could
provide exceptions for wildlife openings or for fuel reduction or fuel
breaks.
The 2000 rule provides that lands are not suited for a particular
use if law, regulation, or Executive order would prohibit the use, if
the use is incompatible with the mission or policies of the National
Forest System, or if the use would involve substantial and permanent
impairment of the productivity of the land. The proposed rule retains
the 2000 rule's criteria concerning laws, regulations or Executive
orders and the criteria concerning productivity of the land. However,
the proposed rule changes the provision of Sec. 219.7(d) of the 2000
rule in two ways. First, the proposed rule no longer uses the criteria
of incompatibility with the mission or policies of the National Forest
System, because this is so broad that it would not be a useful
criterion for the Responsible Official to consider. Instead, the
proposed rule adopts a much more explicit criterion to consider; that
is, ``If agency resource management directives prohibit the use.''
Second, the proposed rule adds a criterion for determining if lands are
not suited for a particular use: ``If the use is incompatible with the
desired conditions as established for the plan.'' This criterion was
added to clearly recognize that the decisions made in adopting a plan
may result in prohibiting some uses on all or parts of a plan area. In
addition, this proposed section adds a clarification in paragraph (b)
that assessments, surveys, and similar efforts are not plan decisions
nor do they constitute a proposed action. This regulatory finding is
essential to avoid public and employee confusion about what is a plan
decision and what is not.
Proposed section 219.5--Indicators of need to amend or revise a
plan. This section focuses on emerging issues and new information as
indicators of the need to amend or revise a plan. Paragraph (a) of this
proposed section is very similar to paragraph (a) of Sec. 219.4 of the
2000 rule in identifying a variety of sources from which issues or
problems may come to be addressed in planning. However, proposed
paragraph (a) differs from the 2000 rule in that the reference to
evaluation of collaboratively developed landscape goals has been
removed from this section because of confusion regarding the intent of
this provision in the 2000 rule. The concept of collaboratively
[[Page 72777]]
developed landscape goals is addressed in this preamble in the
discussion of proposed Sec. 219.12--Collaboration, cooperation and
consultation. Proposed Sec. 219.5 retains the concept of engaging the
public in development of desired conditions as a cornerstone of
planning. Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 219.5 also differs from the
2000 rule by including a specific requirement for obtaining inventory
data, as required by NFMA.
The 1982 rule used the term ``issues'' many times, and issue
identification was a cornerstone of how planning was done, but the 1982
rule was not specific concerning the sources from which an issue could
arise, except that public participation was a key element of issue
identification. In contrast, the 2000 rule specifies how issues
originate and gives detailed description of the Responsible Official's
consideration of issues.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) lists factors the Responsible Official
may use to determine if an issue or opportunity is timely. Like the
2000 rule, this section makes clear that the Responsible Official has
full discretion to make this determination. The requirements in Sec.
219.4(b)(2)(ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (vii) of the 2000 rule address
the extent to which ``consideration'' of the issues relate to
opportunities of the planning unit to contribute to various elements of
resource protection and sustainability. The proposed rule does not
include these specific criteria, because it may not be practicable to
consider these criteria at the initial stage of planning. There is
often a lack of information when issues arise, and it is not always
known how the issues relate to the National Forest System unit's
contribution to sustainability. For example, there may not be complete
information early in the issue identification stage related to
opportunities to contribute to recovery of threatened or endangered
species. This consideration may not be appropriate or efficient to
consider until later in the planning process when the best available
science may be assembled, when better inventory data may become
available, or when public involvement may help discover opportunities
that were not earlier known.
This proposed section does not retain the provision at Sec.
219.4(b)(2)(v) that the Responsible Official should consider the extent
to which addressing an issue relates to the potential for negative
environmental effects on minorities. Potential negative effects are
most meaningfully identified and addressed in the analysis phase of
planning. Executive Order 12898 and Departmental Regulation 43004-4
(1978) require the Forest Service to determine if proposed actions
would create disproportionate adverse effects on minority populations
and, if so, to mitigate those effects to the extent practicable. The
Forest Service complies with these requirements through its NEPA
procedures. Scoping, the process of accepting public comments on a
proposed action, should indicate whether environmental justice issues
exist and the social and economic effects analysis would display the
depth and range of those impacts and possible mitigation. The agency
affirms that any action it can affect that would cause a
disproportionate adverse effect on minority populations would be
addressed through a NEPA procedure, thus there would be no controllable
effects that the agency would not disclose, analyze, and mitigate to
the extent practicable.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of this section incorporates the intent
of Sec. 219.5 of the 2000 rule with regard to addressing information
needs and requires the Responsible Official to keep information
gathering within reasonable costs and timeframes. However, this
proposed paragraph does not carry forward the detailed provisions of
Sec. 219.5 of the 2000 rule for conducting broad-scale assessments and
local analysis. These provisions are considered unduly detailed and too
inflexible to apply to all National Forest System units, which have a
wide variety of issues and information needs as well as differences in
budgets and staffing levels. Needed direction on what constitutes
broad-scale assessments and local analyses and how the Responsible
Official should develop and use this information is more appropriately
described in the agency's Directive System.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) makes clear that a decision to consider
or not consider an issue or opportunity is not subject to
administrative objection.
Proposed section 219.6--Compliance with National Environmental
Policy Act. This proposed section is intended to replace Sec. 219.6 of
the 2000 rule, which defines proposed actions, requires compliance with
Forest Service NEPA procedures, and ties scoping to issue development.
Applicability of NEPA. NFMA section 6(g)(1) requires the Secretary
of Agriculture to specify ``procedures to insure that land management
plans are prepared in accordance with'' NEPA, including ``direction on
when and for what plans an environmental impact statement shall be
prepared'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). Thus, NFMA provides the statutory
authority for the Secretary to specify not only what should be included
in a plan, but also when and how the documentation of NEPA compliance
applies to the planning process. This includes determining whether a
plan decision's NEPA compliance is to be documented in an EIS, an EA
and FONSI, or whether a plan decision may be categorically excluded
from NEPA documentation.
The proposed rule maintains the planning process requirements
already familiar to the public. These include public notice, public
involvement, analysis, public comment on the draft plan, and an
objection process for contesting planning decisions. The proposed
planning process is intended to be open to all stakeholders and well-
informed regarding the environmental effects of the proposed plan and
appropriate alternatives.
Plan analysis and documentation: The 2000 rule at section 219.9
requires documentation of a plan revision in an EIS and allows the
Responsible Official to determine whether or not to prepare an EIS for
a plan amendment. The proposed rule at section 219.6, in contrast,
applies this authority in a different manner and outlines the
environmental analysis and documentation requirements for revisions. An
EIS at the planning stage will not be required if the decision to adopt
a plan revision or amendment is not an action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment or if a component of a plan does
not yet authorize an action that commits funding or resources that
could have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. In addition, all plans in revision were adopted with full
EIS analysis. Therefore, where the existing EIS and subsequent plan
and/or project level documentation have adequately evaluated the
significance of plan direction, no further supplementation is required.
Plans that only establish goals, objectives, standards, land
allocations, monitoring requirements, and desired resource conditions
do not authorize site-specific implementing actions and would not be
expected to have significant effects on the environment or effects that
have not been previously addressed in prior NEPA documents. As noted
above, the question with respect to NFMA planning is when and how--not
whether--to follow NEPA where it applies. NFMA specifically authorizes
the Secretary of Agriculture to decide how and when to do NEPA
environmental analysis for National Forest System plans. The agency
may, based on the implementation of the proposed rule, identify a
category of
[[Page 72778]]
plan decisions that do not individually or cumulatively have
significant effects and may be categorically excluded from NEPA
documentation through a subsequent rule-making process. However, plan
decisions including actions that may have significant effects on the
human environment must analyze and describe those effects in a more
detailed environmental document, including an EIS where relevant. The
following examples illustrate this principle.
[sbull] A plan decision revising or amending a plan's desired
conditions, objectives, and standards for rangeland conditions would
not ordinarily be an action with significant environmental effects.
However, plan direction substantially increasing or reducing livestock
grazing on a part or all of the plan area would be an action requiring
further NEPA documentation of the effects of such a decision prior to
plan approval.
[sbull] Plan direction revising or amending a plan's desired
vegetative conditions, objectives, and standards to achieve such
conditions would not ordinarily be an action with significant
environmental effects. However, if plan direction imposes a substantial
change in vegetative conditions, such as conversion of vegetation type,
or if the plan decision includes a specific project or set of projects
to reach those desired conditions, then further NEPA documentation for
those actions must occur prior to plan approval.
[sbull] A plan decision revising or amending a plan's objectives
for travel management within the plan area would not ordinarily
constitute an action with significant environmental effects. However,
when such a plan decision would substantially modify ongoing uses
within the plan area, then NEPA documentation would be required for
that proposed action prior to plan approval.
[sbull] Plan direction that revises or amends goals and objectives
for consumptive and non-consumptive National Forest water uses and for
special use authorizations would not ordinarily be an action with
significant environmental effects. However, if a plan would impose
substantial new or changed by-pass flows on current special use
authorizations for the diversion of water, then NEPA documentation of
the effects of that proposed action would be required prior to plan
approval.
[sbull] Plan direction that revises or amends goals and objectives
for oil and gas leasing would not ordinarily be an action with
significant environmental effects. However, when a plan specifies
stipulations for oil and gas leasing which have not been previously
analyzed, NEPA disclosure would be required prior to plan approval.
Plan and project analysis: In contrast to the 2000 rule, the
proposed rule at Sec. 219.6(b) requires the detail of analysis at the
plan and project level to be proportional to the decisions proposed.
The proposed rule requires plans to provide substantial baseline data
and trend analysis, which can include the description of direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects information at a broad scale
appropriate to planning, while requiring more detailed fine-scale NEPA
analysis, including the description of direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects, to be conducted when a site-specific action at the project
level is proposed to implement the plan. Experience has shown that
site-specific NEPA analysis, based upon more general plan-level
analysis, provides a more timely and accurate assessment of the effects
of Forest Service management actions than could otherwise be projected
under more hypothetical reasoning in more detailed NEPA analysis at the
plan level.
The proposed rule requires plans to be based on substantial
analysis of pertinent issues regardless of the level of NEPA analysis
and documentation. These plan analyses would: (1) Serve to help the
Responsible Official, the public, and others develop land allocations,
standards, desired conditions, and other plan decisions; (2) help limit
the effects of future projects by application of the plan allocations,
standards, desired conditions, and other plan decisions; and (3)
provide information useful for analyzing project effects.
For example, both options in proposed section 219.13, developed to
ensure that the NFMA diversity requirements are met, require ecological
analyses. Option 2 in this proposed rule contains very specific
analytical requirements. It focuses ecological analyses at both
ecosystem and species levels of ecological organization, requires
analyses of diversity across multiple geographic areas and timeframes,
and stresses the importance of analyses conducted over large geographic
areas or long timeframes. Option 2 requires description of the
influence of the ecological condition, structure, and land use history
of the surrounding landscape, as well as of natural and human-induced
disturbance regimes, and a discussion on how these factors influence a
forest's or grassland's ability to achieve biological diversity
objectives. These analyses are a key part of both the proposed planning
rule and the analysis of the ecological effects of proposals for plan
decisions. This analysis will also provide essential baseline and trend
data that will inform the analysis of the direct and indirect effects
of plan implementation at the project level.
Cumulative effects analysis: Cumulative effects analysis normally
involves analysis both at the plan level and at the project level.
Under the proposed rule, plan-level analysis would evaluate existing
conditions and broad trends at the geographic scale of the plan area.
For example, depending on applicable issues, plan analysis may examine
habitats for wide-ranging species at various geographic scales and
discuss trends for that habitat. Plan analysis may examine recreation
use and trends near a community. Plan analysis may also examine the
current distribution and likelihood of spread for noxious weeds and
whether existing roads may serve as vectors for that spread.
Analysis for site-specific projects will provide additional
information that, when combined with the plan-level analysis and
monitoring information collected and maintained on the plan's
monitoring requirements, would serve as a basis for evaluating the
cumulative effects of projects carried out under the plan. For example,
where plan analysis documents the quantity and quality of habitat that
is available for a wide-ranging species, that plan-level analysis,
combined with applicable monitoring data and other inventory
information, can provide much of the information needed to describe the
cumulative effects of project and other past, current, and reasonably
foreseeable projects upon the habitat available for that species.
Likewise, if plan analysis indicates that a particular recreation
use is high and increasing the risk of loss of a rare plant, then plan
direction may require particular measures for rare plant protection
near trails in the recreation use area and a closer and more detailed
examination for cumulative effects analysis associated with recreation
management decisions. If plan-level analysis indicates that uses of
existing roads are contributing to the spread of noxious weeds, and
monitoring indicates that open roads from nearby projects are
contributing to the spread, the project-level cumulative effects
analysis may be required to assess mitigation measures that may be
needed to restrict travel for the area.
Project level NEPA compliance: As stated elsewhere in this
preamble, agency guidelines on project-level planning are specified in
FSM 1950 and
[[Page 72779]]
FSH 1909.15. Whether a proposed project is categorically excluded from
NEPA documentation, or is considered in an EA or EIS depends upon
whether that project would have a significant effect on the
environment.
For those projects that the agency believes there may be
significant effects, an EIS will be prepared to display those effects.
Pursuant to the FSH requirements, EIS's are required for actions in
certain circumstances, for example, herbicide application, or road
construction in an inventoried roadless area. In addition, the Forest
Service typically documents other types of projects in an EIS. For
example, large timber sale projects are normally documented in an EIS.
Another example of a type of project that may be documented in an EIS
would be an approval of a plan of operation for a large hard-rock
mining operation.
The reason to do an EA is to determine whether or not an EIS is
necessary and to document agency NEPA compliance when an EIS is not
necessary. The EA will briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis
for determining whether to prepare an EIS or to reach a finding of no
significant impact for the proposed action.
Projects typically documented in an EA are those projects that, at
the time of the proposal, the Forest Service believes will not have
significant environmental effects. Examples of types of projects
typically documented in an EA include smaller timber sale projects,
road construction, campground construction, special use authorizations,
and fuels reduction.
The FSH also lists categories of actions that are excluded from
NEPA documentation because they do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment and have been found
to have no such effect in procedures adopted by the agency in
implementation of the regulations. Existing categories include road
maintenance, administrative site maintenance, or trail construction.
Whether a project is documented in an EIS or an EA or whether it is
categorically excluded from NEPA documentation, land and resource
management plan analyses will provide critical baseline and trend data
that will inform the site-specific analysis for the project. Project
level NEPA documentation will analyze project effects as needed,
depending on the nature of the project and the applicable issues, and
known information. Project analyses will supplement and use monitoring
data, pertinent assessments, inventories, research, and the plan
analysis information. This plan analysis information will be available
regardless of whether the plan is documented in an EA, EIS, or
categorically excluded from NEPA documentation.
Categorical exclusion for planning: If this proposed rule is
adopted, conforming changes would be required in FSH 1909.15, section
20.6. A new categorical exclusion pertaining to categories of plan
decisions may be adopted for plan decisions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effects on the human environment and
are found to have no such effect by the agency based on the
implementation of this proposed rule. A separate Federal Register
notice would be published to provide public notice of the proposed
category and request for comment.
Public comment: The agency recognizes that the manner in which the
proposed rule applies NEPA with respect to new plans, plan amendments,
and plan revisions is a departure from the approach taken in the 2000
rule and the 1982 rule requiring an EIS for plan revisions, significant
amendments, or new plans. This departure is based on the agency's
extensive experience with land and resource management planning over
the years. That experience indicates that attempting to draw precise
conclusions about the environmental effects of plan direction is
subject to analytical uncertainty and is ultimately of limited value
for purposes of informed decision-making in compliance with NEPA.
However, the agency recognizes that some level of NEPA documentation
for plan direction is warranted, and that there may be substantial
disagreement over the extent of NEPA analysis and documentation that is
appropriate. With this proposed rule, the Forest Service is attempting
to strike an appropriate balance between broad-scale plan-level
analysis and finer-scale project-level analysis with sufficient inter-
relationship between the two to ensure NEPA compliance for all
decisions. Therefore, the Forest Service specifically requests comments
and suggestions from the public regarding how the ``significance'' of
land and resource management plan direction is applied in this proposed
rule, what plan decisions authorize an action or commit funding or
resources that could have a significant effect on the environment and
the circumstances for which an EA or EIS for a plan would be
appropriate.
It is useful to summarize the differences between elements of NEPA
application in the 2000 rule and in this proposed rule. This summary
consolidates discussion present in other parts of this preamble.
Type of NEPA documentation: The 2000 rule requires preparation of
an EIS for a plan revision (36 CFR 219.9(d)). The proposed rule states
plans may be categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS
when the Responsible Official determines that the action fits an
established Categorical Exclusion category and no extraordinary
circumstances are present.
Public involvement: The 2000 rule has detailed requirements on who
should be involved in planning (Sec. Sec. 219.13-219.17). The proposed
rule has essentially the same requirements, although they are more
succinctly stated. These requirements would still apply for plans
categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS.
The Forest Service will ensure that categorically excluding land
and resource management plans from documentation in an EA or EIS does
not result in an adverse or disproportionate effect on groups of people
identified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Executive Order
12898--Environmental Justice or other civil rights laws, regulations,
and orders. These identified groups include minorities, seniors, women,
subsistence lifestyle populations, Tribes, and low income populations.
By definition in NEPA, a categorical exclusion address only those
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an EA
nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4). Pursuant to agency policy set
out in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 10, the Responsible
Official would still be required to identify potentially affected and
interested agencies, organizations, and individuals during the planning
process, regardless of which type of documentation is used.
Additionally, specific Forest Service guidance on scoping under NEPA
will still apply to categorical exclusions.
Issues: The 2000 rule has very detailed requirements for issue
identification. The proposed rule does not. While the proposed rule
would still require the Responsible Official to document a rationale
for issue identification in the proposed rule, it is likely that this
documentation would be briefer as he or she would not need to cross
reference an extensive list of issue sources (refer to Sec. 219.5 in
this preamble). The requirements in the proposed rule for issue
identification would still apply for plans categorically excluded from
documentation in an EA or EIS.
Analysis: The 2000 rule contains very detailed requirements for
what can be
[[Page 72780]]
termed ``analysis'' in Sec. Sec. 219.5, 219.9, and 219.20-219.25. The
proposed rule has much simpler requirements. In addition, as pointed
out previously in this preamble, the agency has a vision of an analysis
that is more proportional to the decisions being made and that the
analysis will be much briefer. The number and complexity of
requirements in the 2000 rule make it unlikely that a proportional
analysis effort would be successful.
Alternatives: The 2000 rule does not directly address alternatives
to consider in developing a new plan, revision, or amendment. This
proposed rule also does not directly address alternatives, but the
preamble does in the planning ``vision'' and signals the agency's
intention to work toward consensus with the public with an expected
result of fewer alternatives.
Neither the 2000 rule nor this proposed rule set out specific NEPA
requirements in the planning regulation, in accordance with the desire
not to repeat direction contained in law, regulation or Executive
order.
Proposed section 219.7--Amending a plan. As with the 2000 rule,
this section of the proposed rule characterizes an amendment to a plan
as an addition to, the modification of, or the rescission of one or
more of the plan decisions listed in Sec. 219.4. As with the 2000 rule
(at Sec. 219.18(b)), paragraph (a) of this proposed section
specifically excludes administrative corrections as amendments.
Paragraph (b) of this proposed section identifies issues or
opportunities as provided in Sec. 219.5 as potential sources for plan
amendments. Proposed paragraph (c) requires that the Responsible
Official provide opportunities for consultation and collaboration as
addressed in Sec. 219.12 during plan amendment. The process to produce
an amendment, including the identification of issues or opportunities,
the use of applicable information, an effects analysis, and provisions
for consultation opportunities for consultation are the same in the
2000 rule and the proposed rule. While the process steps are the same,
the rules are organized differently. The 2000 rule lists all the steps
for amendment in Sec. 219.8, while the proposed rule addresses issues
in Sec. 219.5, use of applicable information in Sec. 219.13, and
effects analysis in Sec. 219.6 by reference to NEPA. The two rules
differ in the specific requirements to accomplish the steps in the
amendment process. These differences are addressed in the discussion
for those individual sections in this proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (d) defines a significant amendment and requires
a 90-day comment period for a draft proposed significant amendment, as
referenced in Sec. 219.6 and as required by NFMA, (16 U.S.C. 1604 (f)
(4)).
Under the 1982 planning rule, when amending the plan, the Forest
Service has to cope with two processes to determine significance for
two different statutes. First, under NFMA, the Forest Service had to
determine whether an amendment is a significant change to a plan. Even
if an amendment was determined not to be a significant change to the
plan, the amendment still required an EIS if it was determined under
NEPA to be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment. This direction has proven confusing to agency
personnel and to the public. The 2000 rule uses only the NEPA
definition for significance. This proposed rule defines a ``significant
amendment,'' as one that would have a significant affect on the quality
of the human environment. The proposed rule also provides for a new
category of interim amendments in Sec. 219.7(f) to enable the agency
to make more rapid adjustments to management direction when necessary,
such as when a threatened or endangered species is newly listed or
initially discovered to exist in a particular area. In fact, a rapid
response to the needs of threatened or endangered species is the prime
reason this category of amendment is included. In 1995, for example,
the Southern Region of the Forest Service amended their plans to
provide interim standards and guidelines for the federally listed red-
cockaded woodpecker. This interim direction was to remain in effect up
to three years until individual plans could be amended or revised with
longer term direction.
An interim amendment would expedite needed amendments to a plan,
while the agency initiates further analysis and decisionmaking for a
permanent amendment. The proposed rule would establish a maximum
duration of four years for an interim amendment; however, there are a
number of alternative views on the duration and process for these
interim amendments, and the agency would especially welcome public
comment concerning their use.
Proposed section 219.8--Revising a plan. The proposed rule requires
a description of the current management situation and an assessment of
the adequacy of existing plan direction, a summary of timely and
relevant issues to be addressed, and a summary of relevant information.
The proposed rule requires consultation with federally recognized
Indian Tribes, State and local governments and other Federal agencies
and contains requirements for public notice of intent to revise a plan.
These requirements are much simpler than either the 1982 or 2000 rules.
The 2000 rule and the proposed rule are fundamentally different
with regard to the amount of information and analysis required to
initiate a revision. At Sec. 219.20 of the 2000 rule, the Responsible
Official must develop or supplement extensive information to address
ecosystem sustainability and must provide comparable information at
Sec. 219.21 to address social and economic sustainability.
To initiate a revision of a plan, Sec. 219.9 of the 2000 rule
established requirements related to collaboration; identification of
issues; analyses and information; identification of special areas;
identification of specific watersheds in need of protective or
restoration measures; identification of lands classified as not
suitable for timber production; identification of and evaluation of
inventoried roadless and unroaded areas; and development of an estimate
of anticipated outcomes for the next 15 years. Each of these
requirements refers in turn to additional requirements elsewhere in the
planning regulations. For example, paragraph (b)(4)of Sec. 219.9 of
the 200 rule states in order to begin the revision process, the
Responsible Official must, ``Evaluate the effectiveness of the current
plan in contributing to sustainability (Sec. Sec. 219.20-219.21) based
on the information, analyses, and requirements described in Sec.
219.20 (a) and (b) and Sec. 219.21 (a) and (b), and provide for an
independent scientific peer review (Sec. 219.22) of the evaluation.''
As the agency launched the November 2000 rule, field-level planners
and resource professionals expressed uncertainty about the degree and
scope of analysis and information gathering required to initiate a plan
revision. They also were concerned about the potential controversy that
might be associated with a plan developed under these untested and
unclear requirements. Also questioned was the appropriateness of and
the agency's ability to conduct pre-revision analysis and presenting
some of this information at the revision initiation stage. For example,
identification of new proposals for special areas or wilderness
recommendations benefit from public involvement and input, which is
more fully developed later in the planning process, not at the pre-
revision stage.
The agency supports sharing as much known information as possible
with the public at the early stage of revision initiation, but it does
not believe the
[[Page 72781]]
extensive information and analysis requirements of the 2000 rule are
necessary. In fact, the extensive work required to initiate revision
will create further delays in revision of plans.
Both the proposed rule and the 2000 rule address the statutory
requirements for plan initiation; however, the 2000 rule includes more
extensive direction on the revision process than does the proposed
rule. Both also include public notice requirements. The 2000 rule
includes a 45-day public comment period. The proposed rule does not
include a specified comment period, although notice is required to
invite comment. This proposed change would allow the Responsible
Official to tailor the comment period for initiation of plan revision
to the scope and complexity of planning issues and opportunities for
the unit.
The proposed rule and 2000 rule have the same substantive
requirement for a 90-day public comment period of a draft proposed
revision.
Proposed section 219.9--Developing a new plan. This proposed
section recognizes that, over time, additional units may be added to
the National Forest System, such as occurred with the recently
established Midewin Prairie in Illinois. Should Congress establish a
new national forest, grassland, prairie, or other unit of the National
Forest System, the Responsible Official must determine whether a
separate plan is needed or whether an existing plan can be amended. If
a new plan is needed, the Responsible Official must follow the
requirements of this regulation. The 2000 rule did not address this
issue.
Proposed section 219.10--Application of plan direction. Paragraph
(a) of this proposed section addresses the statutory requirements of
the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(h)(3)(i)) that permits, contracts, and other
legal instruments must be consistent with the applicable plan. This
paragraph is similar to the provisions of the 2000 rule at Sec. 219.10
requiring all site-specific project decisions, permits, contracts, and
other authorizations to be consistent with the applicable plan, which
is required by NFMA.
However, unlike the 2000 rule, this proposed paragraph adds a
specific requirement that project decisions disclose the relationship
of the project to the plan desired conditions. While all project
decisions must be consistent with the plan, it is not practical to
require each project decision to be in strict compliance with all
aspects of a plan's desired conditions. Sometimes a project may have
positive effects on one aspect of desired conditions and negative
effects on another. It is also possible that a project may have short-
term negative effects that relate to a specific desired condition, with
predicted long-term positive effects. At other times a project may have
neutral effects related to desired conditions. These examples
illustrate the complexity of the relationship of a particular project
to the desired conditions in a plan. The agency therefore, has chosen
not to include a specific requirement that projects comply with the
plan's desired conditions, but rather a requirement that the project
decision disclose how the decision relates to the applicable plan
desired conditions.
Also in contrast to the 2000 rule, this proposed paragraph
specifically requires that a new plan, amendment, or revision decision
document consider the effects of the plan on occupancy and use already
authorized. This change is proposed to ensure that there will be an
orderly transition when a new plan, amendment, or revision is
authorized. This proposed section also acknowledges that modifications
of instruments authorizing ongoing occupancy and use of the plan area
necessary to make them consistent with the changes in the plan are
subject to any valid existing rights.
Paragraph (b) of this proposed section provides that direction in
plans undergoing amendment or revision would remain in effect until the
Responsible Official signs a decision document for a new amendment or
revision. This provision is the same as in Sec. 219.10 of the 2000
rule.
Paragraph (c) of this proposed section makes clear that nothing in
the rule itself requires a change of approved projects while new
information is being assessed. This provision is proposed to clarify
the effect of considering new information and fills a gap in both the
1982 rule and the 2000 rule.
Paragraph (d) of this proposed section retains the provisions of
Sec. 219.10 of the 2000 rule that lists options available to a
Responsible Official when a proposal for a project or activity would
not be consistent with plan direction.
Paragraph (e) of this proposed section recognizes the need for
testing and research projects to gain information and knowledge that
will assist the land manager. This paragraph makes clear that testing
and research projects are subject to all applicable laws, regulations,
and Executive orders and must be consistent with the plan. This is a
new paragraph developed to acknowledge the important role of research
in National Forest System land management and the role of NFS lands as
sites for research. This provision also further strengthens the
emphasis of this proposed rule on monitoring and evaluation.
Proposed section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation. As at Sec.
219.11 of the 2000 rule, this proposed section specifies that plans
must include requirements for monitoring and evaluation, although this
proposed rule does not refer to such requirements as a ``strategy.''
This proposed section provides direction on the purpose of monitoring
and evaluation, the data sources that may be used, the coordination of
monitoring that may occur, possible evaluation activities, and
direction on record keeping. Paragraph (a) provides that the
Responsible Official ensure that monitoring occurs and that monitoring
methods may be adjusted without plan amendment or revision. As with the
2000 rule, monitoring could be conducted jointly with other interested
parties such as other governmental agencies, Tribes, and scientific and
academic organizations.
Paragraph (b) lists situations where evaluation may be used to
determine, among other things: trend identification; information and
analysis validation; use of performance measures to assess the effects
of programs, projects, and activities; and the effectiveness of plan
standards. Paragraph (c) of this proposed section would require
information to be collected from any of a variety of sources to meet
the monitoring requirements. Paragraph (d) requires findings and
conclusions to be published annually in reports that are made available
to the public.
At Sec. 219.11(b), the 2000 rule requires that if there is a need
for monitoring and evaluation of site-specific actions, decision
documents must include a description of the monitoring and evaluation
and the Responsible Official must determine that funding is adequate to
conduct monitoring and evaluation before authorizing the site-specific
project. This provision is not retained in the proposed rule which is
limited to programmatic planning.
The monitoring and evaluation provisions of the proposed rule
differ from the monitoring provisions of the 2000 rule, which impose
far more detailed and specific requirements for monitoring
characteristics of sustainability, ecological conditions, and
populations of focal species/species-at-risk and for site-specific
activities. Monitoring is very important, but given the testing and
experimentation inherent in monitoring and evaluation, Responsible
Officials need considerable flexibility to design monitoring strategies
to fit local
[[Page 72782]]
situations. The specificity of the 2000 rule does not allow for such
flexibility and discretion. To the extent that guidance is needed on
who should do monitoring, how monitoring should be done, what
monitoring should be done, and how monitoring information should be
evaluated, that can best be provided through the agency's Directive
System rather than specified in a rule.
For example, the detailed provisions in Sec. 219.11(a)(1)(ii)(B)
and (C) of the 2000 rule are being evaluated for issuance in the Forest
Service Manual or Handbook. Some of these current regulatory
requirements will be made optional in order to be responsive to
variations in funding, staffing, and information needs among individual
National Forest System units.
Other monitoring and evaluation provisions of the 2000 rule that
are proposed to be removed from the rule are those for which there is
no corresponding provision elsewhere in the proposed rule. Also, at
Sec. 219.23(c), the 2000 rule requires that scientists play a
significant role in developing and evaluating monitoring strategies.
The agency certainly believes use of science is important in monitoring
and in evaluating results; however, the agency has determined upon
review that the degree of required participation of Forest Service
research scientists specified in the 2000 rule would overburden the
Research and Development mission area of the Forest Service. Moreover,
not every plan amendment or revision will require the same degree and
intensity of scientific review.
Monitoring may take many forms and include different requirements
for the understanding of science and involvement by scientists.
Different types of monitoring require different levels of scientific
rigor in their development and application. For example, if a plan has
a standard to keep fences repaired and gates closed to aid with the
restoration of certain degraded riparian systems, then monitoring to
assess the ability of the managers to keep the fences standing and the
gates closed requires little, if any, involvement of science. However,
to assess if keeping the fences closed and gates repaired was an
effective approach to reach the desired condition of a restored
riparian system may well require development and application of
particularly rigorous, scientifically valid monitoring protocols. The
consistency evaluation process described in Section 219.14 would
evaluate the likelihood that the designed monitoring plan would be able
to determine the effectiveness of the action (keeping the gates closed
and fences repaired) in achieving the objective of ecosystem
restoration.
As this proposed rule was being developed, a great deal of internal
discussion occurred regarding direction for, and decisions on, adaptive
management and on whether the proposed rule needed to specifically
address this concept. The term ``adaptive management'' has been used
formally and informally within the agency to describe the process of
continually adjusting management techniques in response to new
information, knowledge, or technologies. The Forest Service recognizes
that uncertainty and unknowns exist in the course of achieving any
natural resource management goal. The adaptive management process
relies on focused monitoring to measure success in achieving desired
conditions and to determine if there is the need to make further
changes in strategies and implementation. Whether such monitoring would
be scientifically rigorous would depend on the resource, the use, and
the specific situation.
The 2000 rule uses the term ``adaptive management,'' and explains
adaptive management concepts and purposes, but it has no specific
requirements for how the concept and purposes were to be carried out.
Although the agency believes that adaptive management concepts are
valid, the agency maintains that it is not necessary for the planning
rule to specifically address these concepts beyond stating that
measurement of adaptive management results is one of the purposes of
monitoring and stating in Sec. 219.4 that the need to provide adaptive
management is one reason why plan standards should not be overly rigid.
A plan can allow for and address adaptive management without
specific direction to do so in the planning rule. Essentially, there is
no real difference between the 2000 rule and the proposed rule in the
area of adaptive management. Under both rules, plans can include
adaptive management strategies and methods in their direction.
In fact, both conceptually and operationally, adaptive management
is integral to the planning process laid out in this proposed rule, and
monitoring and evaluation represent a fundamental component of the
adaptive management process, as was the case in the 2000 rule. In this
context, an essential linkage exists between plan requirements for
monitoring and evaluation, discussed previously, and those for the
ecological component of sustainability, discussed later in this
preamble under proposed section 219.13. The ecological information and
analyses focused on assessing ecosystem and species diversity, as
specified in proposed Sec. 219.13(b)(1), contribute directly to
adoption of plan decisions that provide for ecosystem and species
diversity in the plan area within the multiple use objectives of the
plan. Results of monitoring and evaluation are among the information
and analyses that may contribute to the development of future plan
decisions affecting diversity. Moreover, monitoring and evaluation
provide an essential feedback loop to assess whether implementation of
plan direction is producing progress toward attainment of desired
conditions and plan objectives, as well as the basis for deciding
whether plan direction should be modified or changed through plan
amendments or revision.
As specified in Sec. 219.11(a), data and other information
pertinent to characteristics of ecosystem and species diversity, as
determined relevant by the Responsible Official, should be included in
the monitoring information to be collected. Evaluation of this
information should reveal whether progress toward achievement of
diversity objectives is being achieved, or whether plan direction or
plan implementation must be changed. In this sense, and with specific
reference to the ecological component of sustainability, monitoring and
evaluation complete the essential feedback loop of adaptive management
to assess whether plan direction is achieving the NFMA requirement that
plans provide for diversity in a multiple use context. Monitoring and
evaluation focused on the characteristics of diversity thus inform both
the development of plan decisions and the decision to undertake plan
amendments or revisions, thereby ensuring that adaptive management is
an integral part of this revised planning rule.
Proposed section 219.12--Collaboration, cooperation, and
consultation. This proposed section combines Sec. Sec. 219.12 through
219.17 of the 2000 rule. Paragraph (a) of this section is similar to
paragraph (a) of Sec. 219.12 of the 2000 rule in requiring the
Responsible Official to provide early and frequent opportunities for
the public to participate in the planning process, using any of several
specified roles, and to encourage such participation. Paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2) incorporate the provisions of Sec. Sec. 219.13, 219.14,
219.16 and 219.17 of the 2000 rule which address engaging Federal
agencies, State and local governments, interested individuals and
[[Page 72783]]
organizations, and private landowners in planning, and paragraph (a)(3)
incorporates the provisions of Sec. 219.15 of the 2000 rule, which
address engaging federally recognized Tribes in planning.
The 2000 rule at Sec. 219.12(b) requires Forest Service
participation with others in efforts to cooperatively develop landscape
goals. Although the cooperative development of landscape goals may be
of value in some planning efforts, this specific activity should not be
a requirement because it will not always be useful and may often be
unachievable with participating groups. The proposed rule does not
refer to collaboratively developed landscape goals; rather, at Sec.
219.12(b), the proposed rule clarifies that the Responsible Official
should consider participating in existing groups to address resource
management issues within the community. The agency also feels that the
list of objectives for collaboration in the 2000 rule are not necessary
as they are more appropriately defined under existing law or through
the collaboration process itself.
In contrast to the 2000 Rule at Sec. 219.18, this proposed section
on collaboration, cooperation, and consultation does not include a
provision for requiring advisory committees. That provision requires
that each national forest or grassland have access to an advisory
committee. Having considered employee concerns over this provision, the
agency now considers this provision to be inadvisable. There are many
valid methods for effectively engaging the public. An advisory
committee may be the most effective method in some circumstances, the
least effective in others.
Each Forest, Grassland, or Prairie Supervisor currently has the
option of requesting establishment of an advisory committee under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and implementing regulations
issued by the General Service Administration (GSA). The 2000 rule
requires that each Forest or Grassland Supervisor have access to an
advisory committee with knowledge of local conditions and issues. While
the rule does not require each planning unit to have its own committee,
many believe that the local conditions and issues requirement
effectively require a separate committee for most planning units.
The costs of establishing and administering FACA committees is high
in terms of Federal employee time and salaries to charter the
committees, manage the nomination and selection process, and to set up
meetings. There are also meeting facility costs as well as costs for
reimbursement of committee members for their transportation, meals, and
lodging. While these costs may well be justified to address issues for
some planning units, they might be an unwise use of funds on other
units. Also, the process for establishing committees can be a long one.
The Act and implementing GSA regulations require substantial
administrative work including drafting charters, nominating members,
checking nominees' backgrounds, giving Federal Register notice,
considering public input, and giving notice of the committee members
selected. By law, committees must be re-chartered every two years.
Requiring most units to undertake the expenditure of time and funds
for establishing and re-establishing FACA committees imposes a
significant continuing administrative responsibility. Instead of
mandating a ``one-size-fits-all'' national approach to public input,
the agency believes that it is better to provide Responsible Officials
flexibility to design public involvement strategies to best meet the
local needs the most cost effective way.
In summary, the proposed rule reduces the amount of process-related
descriptions of the public involvement processes. The agency's
intention is to continue and support vigorous and active public
interaction and involvement without mandating which process would most
effectively support this interaction. Consequently, this proposed rule
drops the non-substantive portions of the 2000 rule, such as detailed
examples of how people, groups, and organizations can contribute to the
planning effort.
Proposed section 219.13--Sustainability. This proposed section
contains direction for how the specific social, economic, and
ecological components of sustainability are to be applied. This section
of the proposed rule replaces Sec. 219.19 through Sec. 219.21 of the
2000 rule. This proposed rule emphasizes the interconnection between
the ecological, social, and economic components of sustainability and
requires consideration of each in the planning process.
However, the proposed rule departs from the 2000 rule on several
important points. Sustainability under this proposed rule is viewed as
a single objective with interdependent social, economic, and ecological
components. In contrast to the 2000 rule, this concept of
sustainability is linked more closely to the MUSYA in that economic and
social components are treated as interdependent with ecological aspects
of sustainability, rather than as secondary considerations. This change
in emphasis is not intended to downplay the importance of ecological
sustainability or of maintaining the health and productivity of the
land.
The proposed rule also affirms the commitment of the Forest Service
to meet the NFMA requirement that plans provide for the diversity of
plant and animal communities and tree species and retains the joint
focus of the 2000 rule by considering and evaluating both ecosystem
diversity and species diversity, in order to reach plan decisions that
provide for diversity within the multiple use objectives of the plan.
The proposed rule addresses social and economic sustainability at
Sec. 219.13(a). Even though social and economic issues are different
they are discussed together because both social and economic components
of sustainability address the well-being of communities that are
dependent on the National Forests. There are elements of analysis that
have implications for both economic and social sustainability. For
example, demographics (such as population, age, income, employment,
home ownership, school, growth) have implications for both economic and
social sustainability. Conversely, there are other elements of social
and economic analysis that are clearly distinct. For example, a social
analysis might help identify Native American use of medicinal plants to
ensure the agency considers how these plants may be protected. A social
analysis might also help identify what local people particularly value
about National Forest System lands. An economic analysis might identify
the interconnectedness between goods and services produced from NFS
lands and the economy in surrounding communities in terms of employment
and income; for example, the recreation use of NFS lands and service
industries. To assess social and economic sustainability, the Forest
Service proposes to require the Responsible Official to: (1) Identify
values that interested and affected persons want to see sustained; (2)
consider how human activities and social and economic conditions and
trends affect NFS lands; (3) identify the benefits NFS lands provide;
and (4) examine how land management decisions affect social and
economic conditions.
The Forest Service understands that sustainable social and economic
systems are very complex and that programmatic planning decisions form
only a part of the environment in which these systems operate. The
agency acknowledges that it cannot assure
[[Page 72784]]
sustainability of those systems. The Forest Service can, however,
engage the public in planning, identify social and economic issues, and
analyze the relationship of planning to social and economic systems,
and, thereby, make positive contributions to communities. As stated in
the preamble to proposed Sec. 219.1, plans consider the uses of
variable renewable resources within the context of multiple use so the
resources of the NFS lands are utilized in a combination that will best
meet the needs of the American people.
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 219.13 of the proposed rule incorporates the
social and economic components of sustainability in Sec. 219.21 of the
2000 rule, but removes the many highly detailed, discretionary elements
from the rule. This simplification is proposed in response to concerns
that many of the detailed requirements of Sec. 219.21 do not reflect
the variety of social and economic issues that arise across the range
of National Forest System lands; that available information may not be
sufficient to meet these requirements; and that the required level of
detail may not meet the needs of an agency whose administrative units
vary in funding and staffing levels. Processes for conducting social
and economic analysis are already in the agency's Directive System, are
most appropriately located there, and are currently being revised and
updated.
Two options for the ecological component of sustainability are
included in paragraph (b) of Sec. 219.13 of the proposed rule, which
incorporates the intent of Sec. 219.20 of the 2000 rule for the
ecological component of sustainability. The National Forest Management
Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(b)) requires that plans provide for
the diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability
and capability of the land area, and where appropriate and to the
extent practicable, provide for steps to preserve the diversity of tree
species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan,
within the multiple use objectives of the plan (referred to hereafter
as the NFMA diversity requirement). There has been extensive, ongoing
debate concerning how to meet the NFMA diversity requirement ever since
the Act was passed. The proposed rule includes two distinct options for
meeting the diversity requirement in Sec. 219.13(b).
The first option in this proposed rule was developed by modifying
the 2000 rule and establishes the viability of vertebrates and vascular
plants well distributed within their ranges in the plan area as the
primary basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity
requirement. This first option significantly streamlines the 2000 rule
by removing many of the prescriptive operational details and making
other changes described in this preamble.
Drawing heavily on the expertise of its research scientists, the
agency developed a second option on ecological sustainability that
provides a clear alternative to Option 1. In Option 2, the primary
basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement is the
requirement that plan decisions foster the maintenance and restoration
of biological diversity in the plan area, at ecosystem and species
levels, within the range of diversity characteristic of native
ecosystems in the larger landscape within which the plan area is
embedded.
In preparing two distinct options to meet the NFMA diversity
requirement, the agency seeks to stimulate meaningful public discussion
and input on this important topic so that the Secretary can make an
informed choice at the final rule stage. To ensure that the agency has
access to knowledgeable and diverse views on this topic, the Forest
Service also plans to host a workshop of subject matter specialists in
a variety of policy, management, and resource fields to discuss the
strengths and shortcomings of the two proposed options, or variations
of these options, for achieving the NFMA diversity requirement.
Information regarding this workshop will be provided in a separate
Federal Register notice.
Comparison to 2000 Planning Rule
Both options in the proposed rule are considerably streamlined and
shorter as compared to Sec. 219.20 of the 2000 rule. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, the agency's review of the 2000 planning rule
judged the section on the ecological component of sustainability to be
needlessly complex and overly prescriptive and to lack the flexibility
needed to tailor or adapt the required ecological information and
analyses to the issues identified by the Responsible Official, the
risks to ecological sustainability, and the availability of information
relevant to the particular plan area. To respond to this criticism,
most of the operational details of the analyses of ecosystem and
species diversity in Sec. 219.20(a)(1)(i)(A)-(E), Sec.
219.20(a)(2)(i)(A)-(H), and Sec. 219.20(a)(2)(ii)(A)-(D), as well as
the qualifications regarding how plan decisions should be applied in
Sec. 219.20(b)(1)(i)-(v) and Sec. 219.20(b)(2)(ii)-(iv), will be
transferred, perhaps in modified form, to the Forest Service Directive
System or to other technical guidance documents (e.g., white papers),
sometimes as requirements but more often as optional methods for the
Responsible Official to consider and use as appropriate. Because this
shift in approach to sustainability represents a major change from the
2000 rule and because the specific operational details as to how to
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species
represent a controversial topic, the agency has posted this preliminary
draft material pertinent to both options on the World Wide Web/Internet
and made these documents available at the address listed earlier in
this document for consideration and review during the public comment
period.
Several concepts that were essential features of the required
ecological information and analyses in the 2000 rule are now treated as
optional elements of the analyses and will be covered in the Directive
System or other guidance documents. For example, neither of the
diversity options specifically requires broad-scale assessments as did
the 2000 rule, but each will make use of information from such
assessments, where they represent the best science available, and as
stepped down from the assessment area to the plan area. Similarly,
neither option specifically requires that focal species be identified
for the plan area and evaluated to provide insights concerning the
ecological integrity of the larger ecological system with which they
are associated. Again, however, both options permit such a use of focal
species on an optional basis. Option 2, in particular, states that
individual species may be identified for analysis in order to develop a
more complete understanding of the condition and trends of ecosystems,
which is conceptually equivalent to the manner in which focal species
were a required element of the diversity analyses in the 2000 rule. As
a final example, neither option specifically requires use of the
concept of the range of variability under the natural disturbance
regime of the current climatic period, but Option 1 identifies range of
variability as being among the approaches that may be used to evaluate
ecosystem diversity.
Both options also eliminate language concerning how plan decisions
must address federally listed threatened and endangered species because
consideration of federally listed species is integral to the
consideration of diversity under either option and because the planning
rule need not repeat existing requirements of law. The 2000 rule at
Sec. 219.20(b)(3) included requirements that plan decisions
[[Page 72785]]
promote the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered
species, provide for implementing conservation agreements, and address
requirements and recommendations from biological opinions. These
requirements are not included under either Option 1 or Option 2 of the
proposed rule. The agency reaffirms its commitment to comply with
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including conducting
programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species
consistent with the multiple use objectives of plans, but sees no
reason to specify this in the rule itself. The ESA is among the
relevant statutes listed under 219.2(c)(1).
Following adoption of a final new planning rule, and contingent on
which diversity option is selected, the agency fully intends to develop
detailed operational guidance on the means to implement the procedural
requirements of the new planning rule, particularly with reference to
procedures for meeting the NFMA diversity requirement. This will
include detailed guidance in the agency Directive System, as well as
``white papers'' and other documents.
Option 1--Sec. 219.13(b) Ecological Component of Sustainability
Option 1 of the proposed rule is most similar to corresponding
sections on ecological sustainability in the 2000 rule. In fact, Option
1 was developed from the 2000 rule by significantly streamlining the
rule and eliminating significant amounts of procedural detail, as
discussed earlier in this preamble. In this option, plan decisions
would be developed to provide a high likelihood of supporting, over
time, the viability of native and desired non-native vertebrates and
vascular plants well distributed within their ranges in the plan area.
This viability standard serves as the primary basis for judging
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement in Option 1. This option
also contains an ecosystem diversity standard, so that plan decisions
would be developed to provide measurable progress toward maintenance or
restoration of ecological conditions that support the desired
characteristics of ecosystem diversity. However, it is the species
viability standard that will provide the clearest measure of
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement under Option 1.
Under this option of the proposed rule, analysis of the ecological
component of sustainability follows a hierarchical, sequential
approach. This option requires ecosystem diversity to be evaluated
first, with the goal of ensuring that plan decisions provide measurable
progress toward maintaining or restoring ecological conditions that
support the diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species,
and other characteristics of ecosystem diversity. Species diversity
would be evaluated only after consideration of ecosystem diversity.
This hierarchical, sequential approach is based on the assumption that
conditions capable of supporting viability for most species are likely
to be met through provisions for ecosystem diversity. Where this is not
the case, species at risk would be identified and separate analyses of
species diversity performed. This approach provides the Responsible
Official flexible options for meeting the analytical requirements of
Option 1 as the Responsible Official determines the scope and scale of
the analysis. There are some required characteristics of ecosystem and
species diversity and accompanying evaluation factors, although far
fewer than in the 2000 rule. The Responsible Official is not limited to
only those characteristics or analytical processes if other information
or techniques are available or appropriate.
The desired conditions, objectives, standards, identification of
suitable and unsuitable land uses, and any special designations and
other management areas of a plan should provide the framework for
management that would maintain or restore ecological conditions that
the Responsible Official determines will provide a high likelihood of
supporting, over time, the viability of native and desired non-native
vertebrates and vascular plants well distributed within their ranges in
the plan area. Note that ``high likelihood'' is not necessarily a
statistical or mathematical determination. Rather, it is an application
of expert agency judgment based on a reasonable review and
consideration of available information.
Option 2--Sec. 219.13(b) Ecological Component of Sustainability
The second option for addressing the ecological component of
sustainability was developed initially by agency research scientists to
provide a clear and distinct alternative to Option 1. Several specific
objectives or perspectives influenced development of Option 2,
including: (1) Focus required ecological analyses, as well as the final
management standard against which plan decisions are to be judged, at
both ecosystem and species levels of ecological organization; (2)
require analyses of diversity across multiple geographic areas and
timeframes, and especially stress the importance of analyses conducted
over large geographic areas or long timeframes; (3) emphasize the
influence of the ecological condition, structure, and land use history
of the surrounding landscape, as well as of natural and human-induced
disturbance regimes, on the ability to manage NFS lands to achieve
biological diversity objectives; and (4) require a more rigorous and
structured set of analyses of diversity than contained in Option 1.
Option 2 focuses attention on the general objective of maintaining
and restoring ecological conditions that provide for biological
diversity in the plan area and on the more specific objective of
maintaining and restoring ecosystem diversity within landscapes, and
within the framework of larger-scale ecosystem analyses, of maintaining
and restoring species diversity within ecosystems. In this sense,
Option 2 adopts an explicitly hierarchical approach to analyses of
biological diversity, as does Option 1.
Option 2 focuses attention directly on evaluating and maintaining
biological diversity in the planning or assessment area. Biological
diversity is an inclusive concept employed in the scientific and
conservation literature to refer to the variety of living things
together with their interactions and processes. It is defined at
various levels of ecological organization, but especially three--genes,
species, and ecosystems. The general concept of biological diversity
incorporates the concept of the diversity of plant and animal
communities and tree species as originally used in the language of the
NFMA diversity requirement. However, the term ``biological diversity''
also reflects significant progress in the sciences of ecology and
conservation biology over the past 20-25 years. Scientific progress in
these fields has revealed substantial new information such as factors
that regulate biological diversity and the relationship between
biological diversity and ecosystem function and resilience. As a
consequence, and consistent with progress in scientific knowledge and
conservation practice, the overriding objective of the approach in
Option 2 is to focus planning analyses on factors that foster the
maintenance and restoration of biological diversity in the planning or
assessment area, at both ecosystem and species levels of ecological
organization.
Option 2 directs the Responsible Official, in the planning process,
to follow and fully disclose results of a structured approach to
considering and assessing biological diversity at two levels of
ecological organization: ecosystem and species. Analyses of
[[Page 72786]]
biological diversity at these two levels should be tailored to the
particular planning or assessment area, to the availability of
information, to the issues identified in the planning process, and to
the risks to ecological sustainability.
Consideration and evaluation of ecosystem diversity within the
framework of biological diversity constitutes the core approach of
Option 2 and is the primary focus of ecological information and
analyses. Option 2 focuses attention on similar characteristics of
ecosystem diversity as Option 1, but adds additional spatial attributes
to the list of characteristics to be considered. Similarly, in addition
to analyses specified in Option 1, Option 2 focuses evaluations on
identification of unique or rare ecosystems and ecosystems at risk,
specific threats to these systems, and measures required for their
conservation or restoration.
In Option 2, consideration and evaluation of species diversity is a
complementary approach that extends ecosystem analyses to provide a
more complete understanding of the effects of past, current, and
anticipated future management direction on biological diversity,
including the status of species and the ecosystems in which they occur.
This second option requires that species should be selected for
evaluation to develop a more complete understanding of the condition
and trends of ecosystems, or where substantive concerns exist regarding
the continued persistence of the particular species within the planning
or assessment area. In such cases, evaluations under Option 2 should
identify specific threats to these species and specific measures
required for their conservation or restoration.
In addition to the primary evaluations of biological diversity
specified at ecosystem and species levels, Option 2 also requires three
additional types of analyses of biological diversity at ecosystem and
species levels. First, this option requires that biological diversity
be evaluated across multiple geographic areas and time frames,
especially over large areas and long time frames, to assess the
dynamics of wide-ranging species and cumulative impacts of management
actions on, among other factors, biological diversity. Second, Option 2
requires that impacts of natural and human disturbance regimes on
biological diversity be evaluated, including consequences of altered
disturbance regimes for diversity. Third, this second option requires
evaluations of the effects of landscape context on biological
diversity, where landscape context refers to the ecological condition,
structure, and land use history of the planning or assessment area and
effects on biological diversity. Of special interest in these
evaluations are differences in ecological structure and condition
between NFS lands and surrounding or interspersed ownerships and the
consequence of such differences for options and opportunities to manage
NFS lands to achieve biological diversity objectives at ecosystem and
species levels.
In contrast to Option 1, Option 2 formulates a substantially
different and more general biological diversity standard for judging
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement. Specifically, this
option requires that plan decisions foster the maintenance and
restoration of biological diversity in the plan area at both ecosystem
and species levels within the range of biological diversity
characteristic of native ecosystems in the surrounding landscape within
which the plan area is embedded. When reaching plan decisions regarding
biological diversity, Option 2 requires the Responsible Official to
consider disturbance regimes and landscape context and the effects of
these factors on options and opportunities to manage NFS lands in order
to achieve biological diversity objectives.
The biological diversity standard embedded in Option 2 provides a
degree of flexibility in managing NFS lands to achieve biological
diversity objectives in a multiple use framework. However, this
flexibility is clearly bounded. Some amount of change in the abundance,
extent, and distribution of components of biological diversity at
ecosystem and species levels is acceptable within the intent of
fostering the maintenance and restoration of biological diversity in
the plan area at ecosystem and species levels within the range of
diversity characteristic of native ecosystems in the planning or
assessment area. The loss of an ecosystem type or species from all or a
significant portion of the plan area or a substantial reduction in
abundance, extent, or distribution within all or a substantial portion
of the plan area as a result of actions under the direct control of
Forest Service land managers, however, is not consistent with, and thus
outside the bounds of, the standard established for Option 2.
If Option 2 is selected for inclusion in a final rule, the agency
will need to develop detailed guidance in the Directive System and
other appropriate outlets (e.g., white papers) regarding how to
implement and apply the standard it contains for biological diversity.
Determining whether this standard is being achieved and thus whether
the NFMA diversity requirement is being met will require monitoring
data that will allow an assessment as to whether amounts and components
of diversity, at both ecosystem and species levels, are within the
bounds or range of what would be expected of natural or native
ecosystems located within the larger landscape in which the plan area
is embedded. It will also require baseline information that allows
clear determination of the range of ecosystem and species diversity
that is reasonable to expect for native ecosystems in this larger
landscape, relative to the characteristics of ecosystem and species
diversity enumerated in Option 2. In this sense, this standard is
conceptually similar to the ecosystem diversity standard referenced to
the expected range of variability in the 2000 rule, but here it is
applied at both ecosystem and species levels of ecological
organization. As compared to the 2000 rule, this option explicitly
recognizes the important effect that both landscape context and
disturbance regimes can have on the ability to maintain or restore
biological diversity within the range of diversity that is
characteristic of native ecosystems in the surrounding landscape,
especially when landscape structure and disturbance regimes have been
significantly altered by past human activities.
In reaching plan decisions related to biological diversity, Option
2 requires the Responsible Official to consider the landscape context
in which NFS lands exist and to use that information as a basis for
identifying the special role and unique contributions of NFS lands for
conserving and restoring biological diversity within the larger
landscape in which the plan area exists.
Comparison of Option 1 and Option 2
For both options, the consideration and evaluation of diversity is
important not only in order to meet the NFMA diversity requirement, but
also because diversity is viewed in each option as an important
indicator or surrogate for other important characteristics of
ecosystems. In addition to diversity (diversity of plant and animal
communities and tree species in Option 1, biological diversity in
Option 2), both options define the ecological component of
sustainability as including the productivity, health, and function of
ecosystems and the quality of soil, water, and air resources. In
relation to these characteristics of ecosystems, maintaining key
ecological processes that are responsible for sustaining the
functioning and resilience of ecosystems is of fundamental concern.
However, it is difficult to observe or measure
[[Page 72787]]
ecological processes directly in a planning or management environment.
Thus, information on the presence, distribution, abundance, and spatial
relations of the biological and physical components of ecosystems is
commonly used to make inferences with reference to ecological processes
of interest. In this context, the maintenance and restoration of
diversity, as evaluated in both Option 1 and Option 2, is considered to
be the primary indicator of the maintenance of key ecological processes
of ecosystems.
Both options maintain the agency's fundamental commitment to the
conservation and restoration of ecosystems and species through
implementation of the NFMA diversity requirement, but adopt different
approaches to doing so. Option 1 establishes a clear viability standard
as the primary basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity
requirement, and as the basis against which to evaluate plan decisions.
However, it also specifies a less detailed set of analyses, with much
of the detail that was found in the 2000 rule to be moved to the
Directive System as optional elements of the analysis. Option 2, in
contrast, requires a more complete and robust set of analyses, but
replaces the very specific viability standard of Option 1 with a more
general biological diversity standard, at both ecosystem and species
levels. This biological diversity standard, which is the basis in
Option 2 for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement
requires that plan decisions foster biological diversity in the plan
area within the range of diversity that is characteristic of native
ecosystems within the landscape in which the plan area is embedded. In
this sense, Option 2 is more like the 2000 rule in terms of specifying
more detailed and complete analyses of diversity, whereas Option 1 is
more like the 2000 rule in terms of establishing species viability as a
primary standard for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity
requirement.
Both options establish a hierarchical approach to analyses of
ecosystem and species diversity, although Option 2 does so more
explicitly in the rule language. Some of the comparable details of the
relationship between analyses of ecosystem and species diversity in
Option 1 have been moved to the Directive System. Both options focus
first on analyses and achievement of ecosystem diversity, with
attention to analyses of species diversity added to address the needs
of species not met by attention to ecosystem diversity. Details of
analyses of ecosystem diversity under the two options are similar.
Option 2 adds several spatial attributes to the list of characteristics
of ecosystem diversity to be considered, and it also gives greater
explicit attention to analyses of rare and unique ecosystems and
ecosystems at risk, but the differences between the two options in
terms of ecosystem analyses are not large.
The two options differ more substantially in their approach to
analyses at the species level than at the ecosystem level. Option 1
focuses analyses on species at risk, their habitat requirements, and
threats placing them at risk. Option 2 places similar emphasis on
requiring detailed analyses for particular species for which continued
persistence within the planning or assessment area is a substantive
concern. However, such analyses do not emphasize species of vertebrates
and vascular plants as they do under Option 1. Option 2 specifies that
species may be selected for analysis to address specific planning
issues and to develop more complete understanding of the condition and
trends of ecosystems. Unlike Option 1, it also includes community
analyses to determine whether maintenance of ecosystem diversity is
sufficient to maintain the existing pool of species within the planning
or assessment area.
The above comments notwithstanding, the primary focus of analyses
under Option 2 is at landscape and ecosystem levels of ecological
organization. The primary intent of Option 2 is to complete analyses
that lead to provisions for maintaining the broad-scale structure and
condition of the landscape in the plan area and the identity, spatial
arrangement, and characteristics of ecosystems within that landscape.
Most analyses under Option 2 will concentrate on these outcomes. Option
2 does call for detailed analyses of individual species where
significant concerns have been raised relative to continued persistence
of particular species. Other types of species analyses specified in
Option 2, however, are focused on ecosystems rather than on individual
species. Community analyses seek to assure that provisions for
maintaining ecosystem diversity will maintain the existing pool of
species, and some individual species analyses seek to provide more
detailed information regarding the condition and trends of ecosystems,
similar to the focal species concept of the 2000 rule. Option 1 also
requires a variety of ecosystem analyses, but it is less specific
regarding a need for landscape scale analyses. Because Option 1 retains
a clear species viability standard for vertebrates and vascular plants,
it is likely that greater emphasis will be placed on analyses focused
on species persistence or viability under this option than under Option
2. While both diversity options are explicitly hierarchical and call
for species analyses following and within the framework provided by
ecosystem analyses, it is likely that Option 2 would place greater
emphasis on ecosystem and landscape level analyses than Option 1, while
Option 1 would place greater emphasis on species level analyses than
Option 2. However, the exact balance between ecosystem and landscape
focused analyses and species focused analyses under either option will
vary depending on the nature and condition of the plan area and the
identified planning issues.
Option 2 specifies several additional types of ecological
information and analyses that should be included in the approach to
considering and evaluating biological diversity at ecosystem and
species levels. Specifically, Option 2 requires that biological
diversity be evaluated with respect to spatial and temporal scales and
patterns, natural and human disturbance regimes, and landscape context.
Similar details in Option 1 are optional and have been moved to the
Directive System.
Option 2 emphasizes more strongly than Option 1 the critical role
that landscape context plays in shaping planning decisions and
evaluations of biological diversity. Landscape context refers to the
ecological condition and structure of ecosystems and landscapes on
National Forest System lands as compared with other surrounding and
interspersed lands, as well as the land use history of the planning or
assessment area (National Forest System and surrounding lands).
Landscape context can play a very significant role in limiting or
facilitating a land manager's options and opportunities to manage NFS
lands to achieve biological diversity objectives. Option 2 requires
explicit consideration of landscape context in reaching plan decisions
affecting biological diversity.
Option 2 also focuses more explicit attention on addressing spatial
scale and patterns, requires evaluations of biological diversity at
multiple spatial scales as appropriate, and emphasizes the importance
of analyses at large spatial scales, which may require coordination in
planning across multiple National Forest System administrative units or
Regions. In a similar manner, Option 2 routinely calls for analyses and
evaluations of biological diversity at the spatial scale of the
planning or assessment area, which is typically larger than the plan
area and which includes other
[[Page 72788]]
surrounding and interspersed ownerships as appropriate. In contrast,
Option 1 specifies analyses and evaluations of diversity at the spatial
scale of the plan area.
As noted above, Option 2 does not establish species viability as
the primary basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity
requirement. However, viability analyses may be appropriate under
Option 2 for select species for which substantive concerns have been
identified regarding continued persistence within the planning or
assessment area; such analyses represent a legitimate analytical
approach for species at risk of extinction globally or extirpation from
the planning or assessment area. Where such concerns exist for
particular species, these concerns must be addressed in analyses of
biological diversity. Thus, Option 2 recognizes that viability analyses
or similar analyses are potentially useful tools. Recognizing
limitations of such analyses, however, Option 2 does not prescribe a
specific approach for viability analyses. It permits a flexible
approach shaped by issues identified in the planning process and by the
present state of conservation biology theory and practice. It also does
not limit the species for which viability analyses might be
appropriate. Species other than vertebrates and vascular plants might
be selected for analysis based on specific concerns raised in the
planning process.
One final attribute common to both diversity options is the
fundamental importance of linking ecological information and analyses
completed in the planning process to monitoring and adaptive
management. Under the 1982 planning rule, planning has become a costly
process that limits resources available for on-the-ground management
and monitoring. Reviews of the 2000 rule concluded it would have
resulted in even higher planning costs. Moreover, it has become
increasingly clear that the agency's ability to forecast future
ecological conditions is limited and characterized by considerable
uncertainty. As a consequence, both diversity options envision
transferring the investment in upfront ecological analyses as part of
planning to on-the-ground management, rigorous and scientifically based
monitoring of resource conditions with reference to progress in
achieving desired conditions, careful evaluation of monitoring results,
and adjustment of management direction in an adaptive management
context. Thus, inherent in each option is the fundamental premise that
planning must be placed more directly into the framework of plan
implementation through adaptive management if it is to contribute to
progress toward achievement of desired conditions and to sustaining the
health and productivity of the land and its resources.
The following questions help define and frame the issues that must
be resolved in developing any workable approach to providing for
biological diversity in the planning process. The agency encourages
those who wish to comment on the diversity options in the proposed rule
to consider these questions in formulating their comments:
(1) What elements of biological diversity (e.g., ecosystems,
communities, processes, species or species groups, focal species, etc.)
should be considered and evaluated in the forest planning process? At
what levels of ecological organization (landscape, ecosystem, species,
gene, etc.) should these elements be evaluated?
(2) Over what geographic areas and timeframes should diversity be
evaluated?
(3) What is an appropriate management standard against which
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement should be judged (e.g.,
population viability of select taxa or range of biological diversity of
native ecosystems in the surrounding landscape)? What is an appropriate
baseline or reference state or condition for this standard?
(4) In reaching decisions regarding achievement of the NFMA
diversity requirement, how should the planning process consider and
evaluate differences in current conditions between NFS lands (the plan
area) and the surrounding landscape?
(5) How does a plan provide for diversity of plant and animal
communities and tree species within the context of the multiple use
objectives of the plan?
(6) What is the capability of the Forest Service to implement
Option 1, Option 2, or variations of these options in order to provide
for biological diversity in a multiple use context, given limitations
of available information, personnel and financial resources?
Table II at the end of this document compares the key features
contained in the ecological sustainability section of the 2000 rule
with the two options for ecological sustainability in the proposed
rule.
Proposed section 219.14--The consideration of science in planning.
This section of the proposed rule combines Sec. 219.22 through Sec.
219.25 of the 2000 rule. The proposed rule retains the emphasis on the
use of science in planning from the 2000 rule. However, the proposed
rule differs from the 2000 rule by focusing on the use of science,
rather than on scientists, in the planning process.
Section 219.14 of the proposed rule requires the use of independent
peer reviews, science advisory boards, or other appropriate means to
evaluate the consistency and application of science used in the
planning process. Procedures for these methods will be provided in the
agency's Directive System. Section 219.14 provides for a science
consistency review process to determine whether scientific information
of appropriate content, rigor, and applicability has been considered,
evaluated, and synthesized in the documents that underlie the land
management plan in a manner that keeps it consistent with that science.
In its basic form, a science consistency review is used to evaluate
whether a plan has:
[sbull] Considered and used the best available scientific
information;
[sbull] Evaluated and disclosed the uncertainties of that
scientific information;
[sbull] Evaluated and disclosed the consequences, substantial
risks, and uncertainties from applying that scientific information to
the proposed management alternatives; and
[sbull] Interpreted and applied that information reasonably and
accurately.
The goal of the science consistency review is to produce a plan
that meets these review criteria and to thus allow the Responsible
Official to make a finding that a plan is consistent with available
scientific information. The criteria apply to all aspects of the
planning process, including the Responsible Official's delineation of
the appropriate time frame and geographic extent of the analyses to be
conducted, the analyses themselves, and the monitoring plan set up to
evaluate the effectiveness of the on-the-ground management to meet the
desired conditions in a plan. This science consistency review process
encompasses relevant standards of the Data Quality Act concerning
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information used in
science-related decisionmaking (Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, Sec. 515)).
Both the 2000 rule and the proposed rule require that the
Responsible Official ensure that science is considered, correctly
interpreted, and applied in planning, and that incomplete or
unavailable information,
[[Page 72789]]
scientific uncertainty, and risk be evaluated and disclosed. When
conducted independently, this evaluation and disclosure of uncertainty
and risk provide a crosscheck to an appropriate interpretation and
application of science and help to clarify the limitations of the
information base, which informs plan decisions. The 2000 and proposed
rules are substantively the same in their overall goals of achieving
consistent use of scientific information. They differ in that the 2000
rule provides many requirements on how this goal was to be met; the
proposed rule does not. The agency will place needed technical detail
that provides ``how-to'' direction in its Directive System. For
example, although the 2000 rule provides flexibility for when
independent scientific peer reviews should occur, the rule also
provides technical detail about how scientific peer reviews should be
conducted. This level of detail is not necessary or appropriate for a
rule, but the agency will need to provide guidance to its employees on
how various scientific reviews may be conducted.
The 2000 rule at Sec. 219.23 requires specific involvement by the
Research and Development (R&D) mission area of the Forest Service in
broad-scale assessments. As stated in the explanation of Sec. 219.5,
the proposed rule does not require that level of assessment, so it does
not address who should be involved.
The 2000 rule at Sec. 219.23(c) requires use of scientists to
design and evaluate monitoring strategies and requires an independent,
scientific peer review of plan monitoring on at least a biennial basis.
The agency often needs scientific expertise in monitoring; however,
there are certain types of monitoring where the need for direct
scientific expertise is quite limited. For example, monitoring may
include surveys of road condition to determine if drainage structures
are working properly, or it may involve continuation of use of long-
standing inventories such as the Christmas bird count. Thus, monitoring
does not always need scientific expertise applied to its design,
evaluation, and review. The agency believes that the Responsible
Official should be able to determine the appropriate level of
involvement of scientists in designing and evaluating monitoring as
well as in reviewing monitoring plans. The science review process will
clarify if this involvement is at the appropriate level, given the
issues involved.
The proposed rule retains the requirement that the Responsible
Official document that the new plan, plan amendment, or revision was
developed using the best available science in a manner that keeps the
plan consistent with that science. In contrast to the 2000 rule, this
proposed rule is explicit that the determination of best available
science must be made in the context of the issues being considered in a
plan development, amendment or revision. These proposed changes will
ensure that the Responsible Official uses the best available science
pertinent to the resource uses and conditions being addressed in a
plan. Again, the science review process will provide an important
cross-check on the Responsible Official's appropriate use of science.
There are terms related to science that are used in the 2000 rule
and the proposed rule that require additional explanation and context.
One term is ``uncertainty'' as used in the context of scientific
uncertainty. If there are uncertainties associated with plan decisions
that utilize scientific information, then those uncertainties must be
described.
Another term requiring additional explanation is ``risk'' as used
in the context of scientific risk. If there are known risks associated
with plan decisions, then those risks must be described. Risk arises
from uncertainty in science, from assumptions made in analysis, from
occurrences such as catastrophic events, and from trade-offs made in
development of the plan. Trade-offs occur when a Responsible Official
decides to accept negative impacts to one resource in order to achieve
benefits for another resource.
For example, a plan may have a desired condition for streams that
includes components of shading, nutrient loading, reduction of
sedimentation, and the recruitment of large organic debris to the
stream. Science may show that a 100-foot buffer strip prohibiting
harvest of trees is optimum to reduce sedimentation in streams.
However, science may also show that the trees in that 100-foot buffer
should be of a certain size to optimize shading, nutrient loading, and
large organic debris to the stream. Allowing thinning within buffer
strips may be desirable, depending upon specific stand characteristics,
to achieve a stand structure that better meets the desired condition
for streams. The Responsible Official may trade off the short term risk
of higher sedimentation rates associated with thinning trees for
achieving the desired outcomes of shading, nutrient loading, and
recruitment of large organic debris in the long term. This risk should
be evaluated and disclosed by the Responsible Official.
Substantial risk also occurs when the aggregate sources of risk
result in the likelihood that the desired resource or output condition
cannot be achieved. For example, in the situation described previously,
a large catastrophic fire may cause additional sedimentation, resulting
in an inability to achieve the desired condition. This aggregate risk
of allowing thinning and potential impacts from catastrophic fire must
be evaluated and disclosed.
Appropriate interpretation of science depends upon the
applicability of scientific information to the relevant planning issue.
For example, if one assumes that there is an issue regarding the growth
of Douglas-fir at high elevations on a forest and there is a study on
the growth of Douglas-fir at low elevation, that study may be available
and relevant to the extent that it relates to the same species of tree,
but it could not be correctly interpreted to say that the results of
the low elevation study were indicative of high elevation growth.
Appropriate interpretation also involves using all of the relevant
information, not just selecting part of that information. When the
results of two studies relevant to an issue suggest somewhat different
outcomes, uncertainty associated with science arises and the risk
associated with decisions based on that science may increase. In such
cases, the uncertainty in that science needs to be evaluated and
disclosed.
The reviews of the 2000 rule indicate that the Forest Service is
not likely to have the resources necessary to involve scientists to the
degree required by the 2000 rule. Also, there is not necessarily a need
for rigorous scientific reviews when levels of anticipated actions are
expected to be low with fewer environmental consequences within the
control of the agency. Changing the focus from the role of scientists
to the appropriate use of science makes the proposed rule more
practical and realistic.
The 2000 rule at Sec. 219.23 requires the establishment of science
advisory boards and provides that the Responsible Official may use a
science advisory board. Again, the agency believes that there is no
need in the planning rule to require one specific method to ensure that
the best available science is used appropriately. Some may claim that
the agency is reducing its emphasis on the use of good science because
of the reduction of the many specific detailed requirements on how best
to obtain and use the best available science in the proposed rule. The
[[Page 72790]]
agency strongly supports the use of science in planning, but believes
that the detailed requirements of the 2000 rule added an unnecessary
level of bureaucracy and cost to planning.
Proposed section 219.15--Special designations. This section of the
proposed rule is very similar to the provisions of Sec. 219.27 of the
2000 rule. In cases where the Congress has made special designations,
the planning objective is to provide management direction according to
Congressional intent. In other cases, Responsible Officials have the
authority to make special designations through the planning process.
This section of the proposed rule would also retain the requirement
that inventoried roadless areas be evaluated and considered for
recommendation as potential wilderness areas during the plan revision
process. This section would also retain the provision of the 2000 rule
to allow such roadless and wilderness evaluations and recommendations
at other times by a plan amendment. The two rules mainly differ
primarily in the examples for the different categories of specially
designated areas.
Proposed section 219.16--Determination of lands available for
timber harvest and suitable for timber production. This section of the
proposed rule meets the statutory requirements of the NFMA and retains
the intent of Sec. 219.28 of the 2000 rule with one exception. For
lands where timber may be harvested for timber production purposes, the
2000 rule at Sec. 219.28(b) requires that not only must these lands be
available, capable of being harvested without damage to other
resources, and capable of regeneration, but that the analysis must show
that the costs of timber production are justified by ecological,
social, or economic benefits. This requirement goes far beyond the
statutory language of NFMA, and a concern has developed within the
agency about how this justification would be developed and documented.
Therefore, the proposed rule does not retain this portion of the 2000
rule. Instead, the Responsible Official must consider physical,
ecological, economic, social, and other pertinent factors when
establishing timber production in a plan for any lands not identified
in paragraph (a) of Sec. 219.16.
This proposed section retains the same three categories as Sec.
219.28 of the 2000 rule and retains the requirement that plans identify
lands where timber may not be harvested, lands where timber may be
harvested with an objective of timber production, and lands where
timber may be harvested or cut for the purpose of meeting other
multiple use resource management objectives. This section also provides
some examples of these other multiple use objectives.
Proposed section 219.16 addresses only the suitability of lands for
timber production. Suitability for other purposes is addressed at Sec.
219.4(a)(4) of the proposed rule.
Proposed section 219.17--Limitation on timber harvest. This section
of the proposed rule meets the statutory requirements of NFMA and
retains the intent of Sec. 219.29 of the 2000 rule with two important
changes. The 2000 rule requires the calculation of long-term sustained
yield to include all lands where timber may be harvested. Under the
proposed rule, the calculation of long-term sustained yield would apply
only to those lands where timber production would be a management
objective. The intent of estimating long-term sustained yield of
potential timber harvest is to ensure that lands where timber
production is a management objective can continue to produce sustained
levels of harvest in the future. Therefore, it is not reasonable or
necessary to calculate sustained yield from lands that are not
allocated to that purpose. It is also very difficult to accurately
estimate harvest levels when timber is harvested for such purposes as
wildlife openings, because these types of harvests are not normally
planned on a scheduled basis. Also, in cases such as development of
fuel breaks or meadow restoration, it is not desirable to reforest
harvested lands, and in these cases, calculation of long-term sustained
yield is not logical. In other words, it is not necessary to calculate
yield if reforestation and later growth and harvest are not desired.
In addition, the 1982 rule established at Sec. 219.27--Management
direction, allowable sale quantity (ASQ) as the quantity of timber that
may be sold from the area of suitable land covered by the forest plan
for a period specified by the plan. Neither the 2000 rule, nor this
proposed rule provides for allowable sale quantity, and in contrast,
uses long-term sustained yield as the upper limit of timber that may be
harvested during the planning period. This change was made in the 2000
rule and is continued in the proposed rule, primarily because the
sustained yield requirement is adequate, and dropping the requirement
that planning establish an ASQ reduces the risk of misperception that
ASQ is a target to be achieved, rather than a limit to harvest.
In the 2000 rule at Sec. 219.29(a), if a unit has less than
200,000 acres of forested lands, two or more forests may be combined
for the purpose of estimating the amount of timber that could be sold
annually on a sustained-yield basis. This provision is covered in Sec.
219.17(a) of this proposed rule. It is similar to the provision in the
2000 rule, except that the 200,000-acre unit size is not cited because
it is already included in NFMA. The proposed rule also clarifies that
the limitation on timber harvest in Sec. 219.17(b) is to be applied on
a decadal basis.
Proposed section 219.18--Plan documentation, maintenance, and
availability. This section of the proposed rule would retain the
requirements of Sec. 219.31 of the 2000 rule for availability of
planning records and for establishing a provision for administrative
corrections to planning documents that would not be decisions under
NEPA. Paragraph (a) of this proposed section also would supercede Sec.
219.30 of the 2000 rule. Like that section, proposed paragraph (a)
would provide a description of a plan, but would remove the detailed
provisions of Sec. 219.30(a) through (e) of the 2000 rule which
requires a summary of the plan, a display of public uses, plan
decisions, and a display of actions and outcomes, including projected
implementation schedules. The rationale for the simplification in the
proposed rule is that much of the information required in the 2000 rule
is unnecessarily prescriptive, is already located in the planning
record which is readily available, or is already provided for by other
means. The 2000 rule requires a summary of the plan and contains
considerable detail about what this summary should contain. The agency
believes that it is not necessary to provide the Responsible Official
detailed instructions about how to summarize a plan. For example, the
2000 rule requires, as part of the summary, a display of public uses.
The proposed planning rule at Sec. 219.4 already addresses suitability
of certain lands for certain uses. In another example, the 2000 rule
requires a display of actions and outcomes. This requirement is already
outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1905.15 which requires making
available a quarterly schedule of proposed actions that may undergo
environmental analysis and documentation, so there is no need to have a
separate process to display anticipated projects.
Proposed section 219.19--Objections to new plans, plan amendments
or plan revisions. This section of the proposed rule differs from other
sections of this rule in that it provides essential detail for the
procedures necessary to initiate and carry out the objection process.
The
[[Page 72791]]
Committee of Scientists, in their 1999 report, recommended that the
Forest Service seek to harmonize its administrative appeal process with
those of other Federal agencies. Accordingly, the 2000 rule adopted an
objection process that provides for a pre-decisional objection
opportunity instead of a post decision administrative appeal. The
proposed rule modifies the objection process and models it more closely
on the protest process used by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
(found at 43 CFR part 1600). The proposed rule adopts the BLM
regulatory approach with some necessary modifications to recognize the
different organizational structure of the Forest Service.
The proposed rule differs from the 2000 rule in the following
specific ways. The proposed rule does not require publication of
objections received. Unlike the 2000 rule, the proposed rule includes
specific requirements that the content of the public notice announcing
a new plan, amendment, or revision be made for public review and
subject to pre-decisional objection process. The 2000 rule does not
limit who can file an objection. The proposed rule does not allow other
Federal entities to file an objection, because there are other avenues
for Federal agencies to work together to resolve concerns. This
exclusion of Federal agencies is a long-standing procedure of Forest
Service administrative appeal provisions at 36 CFR parts 215 and 251,
Subpart C. The Forest Service is required to involve other Federal
agencies, at Section 219.12. The proposed objection process, like that
in the 2000 rule, is intended primarily other governments, such as
federally recognized Indian Tribes, States, and counties, and for the
public. Neither the appeal process in the 1982 rule nor the proposed
objection process is suitable to resolve concerns between sister
agencies in the executive branch. The Forest Service anticipates that
other agencies will be able to resolve most planning concerns
informally. Where it is anticipated that there may be concerns that are
not easily resolved by planners and other agency personnel, various
techniques such as establishments of Memorandums of Understanding or
local working agreements may be used. Some agencies also have
regulatory authority; for example, EPA has review authority pursuant to
section 309 of the Clean Air Act. These techniques and authorities are
successfully being used now and will continue to be used in the future.
The two rules are similar in what must be in an objection, but the
proposed rule, unlike the 2000 rule, specifically requires that an
objector provide an explanation of why the objector believes that the
environmental disclosure documents and proposed final documents are
inconsistent with law, regulation, Executive order, or policy and any
recommendations for change. The proposed rule drops the requirement of
the 2000 rule that objectors describe their participation in the
planning process and provide relevant documents submitted during the
process. The 2000 rule allows objectors to request meetings with a
Reviewing Officer. The proposed rule does not address meetings, because
although nothing prevents an objector from requesting meetings, the
agency does not want to set up expectations that meetings should be
requested, or that those requests would be granted in every case. The
agency has learned that meetings are helpful in many cases, but not in
all, and the Forest Service would like to provide flexibility to the
Reviewing Officer to work through the review process in an effective
manner. The proposed rule also drops the provisions for inclusion of
``interested persons'' in the meetings between the Forest Service and
the objectors. This change occurred in the proposed rule because
meetings are not specifically addressed and also so that the objection
process would more closely mirror the BLM process, which does not
provide for involvement of interested persons.
Proposed section 219.20--Appeals of plan amendments in site-
specific project decisions. This proposed section makes clear that the
administrative review process established in 36 CFR 215.7(a) applies to
site-specific project decisions that include non-significant plan
amendments, rather than subjecting such decisions to the objection
process for new plans and revisions.
Proposed section 219.21--Notice of plan decisions and effective
dates. At paragraph (a), this section of the proposed rule provides
direction on where public notification of decisions for new plans,
amendments, and revisions is to occur. Proposed paragraph (b) provides
that new plans, significant amendments, and plan revisions are
effective 30 days after notice of the plan decisions has been
published. This proposed paragraph also provides that decisions for
nonsignificant amendments are effective immediately. This new section
of the proposed rule fills a void in the 2000 rule.
Proposed section 219.22--Transition. This section of the proposed
rule is a modification of the transitional procedures of Sec. 219.35
of the 2000 rule. The proposed rule does not explicitly require use of
science for implementing and amending existing plans during the
transition period, as provided in the 2000 rule at Sec. 219.35(a),
because use of science is adequately addressed through an
interdisciplinary team approach without specific procedural
requirements. The proposed rule does not address lands not suited for
timber production in the same manner as the 2000 rule at Sec.
219.35(c). The agency believes that the 1982 rule requirement
adequately responded to NFMA and has incorporated similar language from
the 1982 rule into the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would remove the provisions for site-specific
decisions at Sec. 219.35(d) of the 2000 rule because these decisions
are explicitly excluded from the proposed rule. The provisions in the
2000 rule for removal of regional guides (Sec. 219.35(e)) and
establishment of a revision schedule (Sec. 219.35(g)) are not included
in this proposal because the regional guides have already been removed.
The transition requirements for monitoring reports at Sec.
219.35(f) of the 2000 rule are dropped from the proposed rule, because
it is acceptable for the monitoring done under the 1982 rule to
continue until the plans are completed under the proposed rule. The
proposed transition includes the option to continue any amendments or
revisions that were initiated under the 1982 rule or to adjust the
process to follow this proposed regulation or parts thereof. The
Department issued an interim final rule on May 20, 2002, to extend
until a new revised planning rule is adopted, the date by which all
plan amendments or revisions must be in compliance with the 2000 rule
(67 FR 35431).
Proposed section 219.23--Definitions. This section sets out the
special terms used in this proposed rule and their definitions. Some
definitions are the same as those in the 2000 rule. These are:
``Diversity of plant and animal communities,'' ``ecological
conditions,'' ``major vegetation types,'' ``native species,'' ``species
viability,'' and ``successional stages.''
Some terms found in Sec. 219.36 of the 2000 rule are not included
because they are not used in the proposed rule or their meanings are
self-evident. These are: ``Candidate species,'' ``conservation
agreement,'' ``current climatic period,'' ``desired condition,''
``ecological sustainability,'' ``ecosystem composition,'' ``ecosystem
processes,'' ``focal species,'' ``inherently rare species,''
``productive capacity of ecological systems,'' ``reference
landscapes,'' ``undeveloped areas,'' and ``unroaded areas.''
[[Page 72792]]
The terms included in this proposed rule that were not used in the
2000 rule are: ``Biological diversity,'' ``culmination of mean annual
increment,'' ``cultural/heritage resources,'' ``disturbance regime,''
``ecosystem diversity,'' ``energy resources,'' ``environmental
disclosure document,'' ``federally recognized Indian Tribe,'' ``forest
land,'' ``health,'' ``high likelihood of viability,'' ``mean annual
increment,'' ``newspaper(s) of record,'' ``plan,'' ``planning area,''
``productivity,'' ``science consistency,'' ``species diversity,''
``species persistence,'' ``timber harvest,'' ``visitor opportunities,''
and ``wilderness.''
The following explains changes to definitions that are used in this
proposed rule and in the 2000 rule.
1. The definition of ``adaptive management'' is slightly changed
for clarity. Also, the 2000 rule discusses the role of adaptive
management in sustainability, while the proposed rule discusses the
role of adaptive management in terms of efficiency and responsiveness
of management.
2. The definition of ``assessment or analysis area'' is changed in
the proposed rule by dropping analysis area and defining assessment
areas. Assessment areas are larger than planning areas and typically
involve multiple ownerships.
3. The definition of ``desired non-native species'' is changed in
the proposed rule to improve clarity and to make sure the definition is
consistent with each of the diversity options and also with the new
definition of species.
4. The definition of ``ecosystem structure'' is changed in the
proposed rule to refer to the arrangements and relationships among
ecosystem components. This broadened the definition to encompass all of
the aspects of structure that are of importance in both of the proposed
rule's options for ecological sustainability.
5. The definition in the 2000 rule for ``Forest Service NEPA
procedures'' is shorter and is now identified as ``NEPA procedures'' in
the proposed rule, but contains no substantive changes.
6. The definition for ``inventoried roadless areas'' is
substantially changed. The 2000 rule includes specific criteria for
consideration of roadless areas identified as those in the November
2000 Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 2. The proposed rule does address criteria for roadless area
consideration and does not limit areas to be considered from the
November 2000 Roadless Area Conservation maps. The proposed rule allows
information from a variety of sources.
7. The definition of ``native species'' is changed in the proposed
rule to improve clarity and to make sure the definition is consistent
with each of the diversity options and also with the new definition of
species.
8. The definition for ``plan area'' is not substantially changed,
but is broadened in the proposed rule to make clear that a plan area
may have more than one Responsible Official.
9. The definition for ``range of natural variability'' is retained
except that the term ``current climatic period'' is dropped because of
considerable disagreement and confusion regarding the identification
and use of this time period.
10. The definition of ``Responsible Official'' is changed in the
proposed rule to conform it with changes made to other sections of the
rule and to reflect that the proposed rule addresses only forest
planning and not project level decisions.
11. The definition of ``species'' is changed in the proposed rule
to make clear the distinction between the two diversity options in
terms of which species may be considered in forest planning.
12. The definition for ``species-at-risk'' in the proposed rule
removes references to species that may, but are not required to, be on
the list and removes references to ``focal species,'' a term not used
in the proposed rule.
13. The definition of ``timber production'' is changed in the
proposed rule by dropping the reasons for harvest.
Conclusion
This proposed planning rule has been prepared by the Forest Service
at the direction of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture to
address problems identified through a Departmental review of the 2000
planning rule. That review focused on the agency's ability to implement
the 2000 rule. The concerns identified in the review centered on
confusing text contained the 2000 rule as well as on the extensive
resources, primarily funding and skilled personnel, that would be
required to adequately implement the various new planning concepts and
requirements of the 2000 rule.
The intended effects of the proposed rule are to simplify, clarify,
and otherwise improve the planning process and to enable the Forest
Service to more efficiently implement an improved planning process
while retaining the key concepts of the 2000 rule for sustainability,
collaboration, monitoring and evaluation, and the use of science. The
proposed rule is substantially shorter than the 2000 rule as it removes
highly procedural and technical instructions more appropriate for the
agency's Directive System. Grounded in both law and practical
experience, the proposed rule affirms forest health and sustainability
as the overall goal for management of National Forest System lands.
Written comments are requested and will be considered in adoption
of a final rule. Reviewers should note that greater weight will be
given to original, substantive comments than to form letters, check-off
lists, pre-printed post cards, petitions, or similar duplicative
materials.
Regulatory Certifications
Regulatory Impact
This proposed rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been
determined that this is not an economically significant rule. This rule
will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy
nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This rule will
not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor
raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs.
However, because of the extensive interest in National Forest System
planning and decisionmaking, this proposed rule has been designated as
significant and, therefore is subject to Office of Management and
Budget review under Executive Order 12866.
Two studies investigating the costs of land and resource management
planning are associated with the proposed rule: (1) A cost-benefit
analysis addressing the comparative costs and benefits of the 1982,
2000, and proposed rules, and (2) a comprehensive assessment of the
estimated costs of the 2000 and proposed rules.
For the cost-benefit analysis, the cost estimates were developed
for planning activities under the 1982 rule with the assistance of
Headquarters, Regional, and Forest level planning specialists, using
cost data for plan revisions recently completed based on planning as
currently practiced under the 1982 rule. These costs were included in a
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations entitled,
``Forest Service Land and Resource Management Planning: The Status of
[[Page 72793]]
Activities,'' dated January 31, 2002. The costs contained in this
report, however, only included planning costs at the forest or
grassland level. They did not include the costs incurred at other
organizational levels. The cost-benefit analysis relied on results from
the costing study to approximate the likely costs of regional office,
contracts, and science support to forests or grasslands under the 1982
regulation. An empirical estimate of the per plan cost of resolving
appeals under the 1982 regulation was also made.
The results of the 2002 NFMA Costing study were used to estimate
the costs associated with planning activities under the 2000 regulation
and this proposed 2002 rule. The costing study used a business modeling
process and is the most comprehensive study on Forest Service planning
costs ever conducted. It identifies and directly compares major cost
centers for both the 2000 regulation and this proposed 2002 rule and
includes field validation of the estimates by agency planners and
interdisciplinary specialists who participate in planning.
The cost-benefit analysis prepared on this proposal focuses on key
activities in land and resource management planning for which costs can
be estimated under the 1982 rule, the existing 2000 rule, and the
proposed rule. The key activities include regional guides,
collaboration, science support, effects analysis for the 2000 and
proposed rule, and ``revise plan'' for the 1982 rule, evaluation of
sustainability and diversity, and the resolution of disputes over plan
decisions. The cost-benefit analysis compares the costs and benefits
for these activities with practices under the 1982 planning rule. This
proposed rule would reduce costs by eliminating regional guides,
shortening the length of the planning process, and providing the
Responsible Official with more discretion to decide how to conduct the
planning process.
Based on costs that can be quantified, this proposed rule is
estimated to save an average $1.1 million annually compared to the
expected costs under the 1982 rule. Cost savings under the proposed
rule are estimated to be about $27.7 million per year compared to the
2000 rule. The discounted value of the cost savings over the 15-year
planning horizon is estimated to be $8.6 million for the proposed rule
when compared to the 1982 regulation and approximately $240 million
when compared to the 2000 regulation.
As noted in the cost-benefit analysis for the proposed rule, the
NFMA costing study assumed traditional application of plan analysis. It
also did not take into consideration possible savings if a plan
revision analysis was categorically excluded or documented in an
Environmental Assessment, rather than an Environmental Impact
Statement. Both these areas of potential savings could be substantial.
In addition to the analysis of the costs and benefits of this proposed
rule, this rule has also been considered in light of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it has been
determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act.
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this
rule. The rule imposes no requirements on either small or large
entities. Rather, the rule sets out the process the Forest Service will
follow in planning for the management of the National Forest System.
The rule should provide opportunities for small businesses to become
involved in national forest, grassland, and prairie plan decisions.
Moreover, by streamlining the planning process, small businesses should
see more timely decisions that affect outputs of products and services.
The recognition of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and how it
affects the social and economic components of sustainability should
provide for better balancing of conflicting impacts and issues.
Environmental Impacts
An environmental assessment was prepared for the 2000 rule. This
assessment was not required by law, regulation, or agency policy;
however, the agency elected to prepare the extra documentation at that
time to ensure that no procedural defects might occur. In the case of
this proposed rule, the agency proposes to categorically exclude this
action, because it is clearly within an established category, there are
no extraordinary circumstances related to the action, and this approach
will further the agency's efforts to streamline process. The agency
invites public comments on environmental effects of the proposed rule.
This proposed rule would establish the administrative procedures
and requirements to guide developing, amending, and revising National
Forest System land and resource management plans. As such, the proposed
rule has no direct and immediate effects regarding the occupancy and
actual use of National Forest System land. Rather, the environmental
effects of this proposed rule will not be known until specific plans
are created, amended, or revised under the rule. Section 31.1b of
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43168; September 18, 1992)
excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact
statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide
administrative procedures, program processes, or instruction.'' The
action of ``establishing procedures for amending or revising Forest
Land and Resource Management Plans' is specifically listed as one of
the examples of this category. There are no extraordinary circumstances
related to this action. Although an environmental assessment will not
be prepared, the agency has prepared a cost-benefit analysis and a
Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA), because as discussed previously in
this section, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that
this rule is otherwise significant. Both the cost-benefit analysis and
the CRIA may be found on the World Wide Web/Internet at the address
listed earlier in this document.
Energy Effects
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of
May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this
rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the
Executive order. Procedural in nature, this proposed rule would guide
the development, amendment, and revision of National Forest System land
and resource management plans. These plans are programmatic documents
that set the standards and other parameters for making future project-
level resource management decisions. As such, these plans will address
access requirements associated with energy exploration and development
within the framework of multiple use, sustained-yield management of the
surface resources of the NFS lands. These plans may designate major
rights-of-way corridors for utility transmission lines, pipelines, and
water canals. The effects of these plans on energy supply,
distribution, or use are, of necessity, considered on a case-by-case
basis as plan amendments or revisions are proposed and adopted.
Consistent with the Executive order, direction to incorporate
consideration of energy supply, distribution, and use in the planning
process will be included in the agency's administrative directives for
implementing the proposed rule, notice of which will be given at the
time of adoption of a final rule.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501
[[Page 72794]]
et seq.), the information collection or reporting requirements included
in Sec. 219.19 of the proposed rule for the objection process were
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned
control number 0596-0158, expiring on October 31, 2003, under the 2000
rule.
This proposed rule retains the objection process established in the
2000 rule but simplifies it. The proposed rule removes the requirements
for interested parties, publication of objections, and formal requests
for meetings (36 CFR 219.32). These changes would result in a minor
reduction in the burden hours from the collection of information that
would be insignificant to the total 12,100 annual hours requested by
the agency.
Federalism
The agency has considered this proposed rule under the requirements
of Executive Order 12875, Government Partnerships, and Executive Order
13132, Federalism. The agency has made a preliminary assessment that
the rule conforms with the Federalism principles set out in these
Executive orders; would not impose any compliance costs on the States;
and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
In addition, the agency has reviewed the consultation requirements
under Executive Order 13132, which calls for enhanced consultation with
State and local governmental officials and emphasizes increased
sensitivity to their concerns. Section 219.8 of this proposed rule
shows sensitivity to federalism concerns by requiring the Responsible
Official to provide opportunities for involvement of State and local
governments in the planning process. In the spirit of these
requirements, the agency has consulted with the Western Governors'
Association and the National Association of Counties to obtain their
views on a preliminary draft of this proposed rule. The Western
Governors' Association supported the general approach to create a rule
that works and placed importance on the quality of collaboration for
implementation. Agency representatives also contacted the International
City and County Managers Association, National Conference of State
Legislators, The Council of State Governments, Natural Resources
Committee of the National Governors Association, U.S. Conference of
Mayors, and the National League of Cities to share information about
the proposed planning rule prior to the publication of this proposed
rule. Based on comments received on this proposed rule in response to
this notice, the agency will determine if any additional consultation
will be needed with State and local governments prior to adopting a
final rule.
Consultation With Tribal Governments
Pursuant to Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal governments, the agency has assessed the impact of
this action on Indian Tribal governments and has determined that the
proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect communities of
Indian Tribal governments. The proposed rule deals with the
administrative procedures to guide the development, amendment, and
revision of National Forest System land and resource management plans
and, as such, has no direct effect regarding the occupancy and actual
use of National Forest System land. At Sec. 219.8, the proposed rule
requires consultation with federally recognized Tribes when planning.
The agency has also determined that this action does not impose
substantial direct compliance cost on Indian Tribal governments. This
proposed rule does not mandate Tribal participation in National Forest
System planning. Rather, the rules impose an obligation on Forest
Service officials to consult early with Tribal governments and to work
cooperatively with them where planning issues affect Tribal interests.
No Takings Implications
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, and it has
been determined that the rule does not pose the risk of a taking of
Constitutionally-protected private property. This proposed rule only
modifies the administrative process for amending and revising land and
resource management plans for National Forests, Grasslands, and
Prairies.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. The agency has not identified any State or local
laws or regulations that are in conflict with this regulation or that
would impede full implementation of this rule. Nevertheless, in the
event that such a conflict were to be identified, the proposed rule, if
implemented, would preempt the State or local laws or regulations found
to be in conflict. However, in that case, (1) no retroactive effect
would be given to this proposed rule; and (2) the Department would not
require the parties to use administrative proceedings before parties
may file suit in court challenging its provisions.
Unfunded Mandates
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22,
1995, the agency has assessed the effects of this proposed rule on
State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This rule
does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State,
local, or Tribal governments or anyone in the private sector.
Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 219
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
statements, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Forest and forest
products, National forests, Natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Science and technology.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is
proposed to revise Part 219 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to read as follows:
PART 219--PLANNING
Subpart A--National Forest System Planning for Land and Resource
Management Plans
Sec.
219.1 Purpose and applicability.
219.2 Nature and scope of a land and resource management plan.
219.3 Levels of planning and planning authority.
219.4 Decisions embodied in plans.
219.5 Indicators of need to amend or revise a plan.
219.6 Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act.
219.7 Amending a plan.
219.8 Revising a plan.
219.9 Developing a new plan.
219.10 Application of plan direction.
219.11 Monitoring and evaluation.
219.12 Collaboration, cooperation, and consultation.
219.13 Sustainability.
219.14 The consideration of science in planning.
219.15 Special designations.
219.16 Determination of lands available for timber harvest and
suitable for timber production.
219.17 Limitation on timber harvest.
219.18 Plan documentation, maintenance, and availability.
219.19 Objections to amendments or revisions of plans.
219.20 Appeals of plan amendments in site-specific project
decisions.
219.21 Notice of plan decisions and effective dates.
[[Page 72795]]
219.22 Transition.
219.23 Definitions.
Subpart B--[Reserved]
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; and Secs. 6 and 15, 90 Stat. 2949,
2952, 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613).
Sec. 219.1 Purpose and applicability.
(a) The rules of this subpart set forth a process for establishing,
amending, and revising land and resource management plans for the
National Forest System as required by the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National
Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). This subpart is based
on the principle that planning occurs over multiple time frames and
various geographic areas and is a continuous process that reveals when
and where plan decisions need to be adjusted. These rules also identify
the nature and scope of decisions made in a land and resource
management plan and define the required elements of a plan. The
provisions of this regulation are applicable to all units of the
National Forest System as defined by 16 U.S.C. 1609 or subsequent
statute.
(b) Consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960,
the overall goal of managing the National Forest System is to sustain
in perpetuity the productivity of the land and the multiple use of its
renewable resources. Management of renewable resources is to be in the
combination that will best meet the needs of the American people.
Achieving sustainability is essential to providing multiple uses over
time. Thus, National Forest System management focuses on maintaining or
restoring the health of the land in order to provide a sustainable flow
of uses, values, benefits, products, services, and visitor
opportunities.
Sec. 219.2 Nature and scope of a land and resource management plan.
(a) Fundamental purpose of a plan. A land and resource management
plan (also referred to as a plan) establishes the desired conditions to
be achieved through the management of the lands and various renewable
resources of the National Forest System. A plan guides the Forest
Service in fulfilling its responsibilities for stewardship of the
National Forest System to best meet the needs of the American people.
(b) Requirements. The Responsible Official is responsible for
ensuring that the planning process and the plan meet the following
requirements:
(1) Planning must address issues at the appropriate time frames and
geographic scales using the best available science and other knowledge
and information. Analysis shall be proportional to the decisions to be
made in a plan and shall focus broadly on the environmental baseline
and trends in order to provide information to help develop a plan.
(2) Planning must be conducted using an interdisciplinary,
collaborative approach.
(3) Consultation with States and local governments, Federal
agencies, and federally recognized Indian Tribes must occur early and
often in the development of an initial plan or subsequent amendment or
revision.
(4) The planning process must provide opportunities for the
interested public, both organizations and individuals, to participate
in planning to guide the stewardship of their national forests,
grasslands, and prairies, and other units of the National Forest
System.
(5) A plan must provide for uses, benefits, products, services, and
visitor opportunities that are appropriate to and consistent with the
multiple use objectives outlined in the plan.
(6) A plan must address the social, economic, and ecological
components of sustainability for the land and resources within the plan
area, consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and
with the NFMA diversity requirement that plans provide for the
diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species consistent
with the multiple-use objectives of the plan.
(7) A plan must identify the monitoring and evaluation necessary to
assess the achievement of desired conditions and to indicate whether
direction in the plan should be modified, as necessary, to address new
issues, new information, and changed conditions.
(8) The management direction in a plan should reflect the limits
and likely variability of agency budgets.
(c) Integration of authorities. Plans integrate the requirements of
statutes, Executive orders, regulations, and agency policy that apply
to the lands and resources of the National Forest System.
(1) Statutory authorities related to planning and management of the
National Forest System include the Organic Administration Act of 1897,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 473 et seq.); the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield
Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.); the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National
Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.); Wilderness Act
(16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); Clean
Water Act of 1948, as amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987 and other laws
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 1323 et seq.); and other relevant laws.
(2) Agency-wide management policy and procedure relevant to
planning and resource management are issued through the Forest Service
Directive System (36 CFR 200.4).
(d) Force and effect of plans. A land and resource management plan
prepared under this subpart is strategic and programmatic in nature. A
plan provides guidance and direction applicable to future site-specific
projects and activities. Plans also may restrict some activities or
establish other requirements applicable to particular areas. The
direction in a plan does not normally create, authorize, or execute any
ground-disturbing activity. A plan, in and of itself, does not grant,
withhold, or modify any contract, permit, or other legal instrument,
does not subject anyone to civil or criminal liability, and creates no
legal rights.
Sec. 219.3 Levels of planning and planning authority.
(a) The Chief of the Forest Service is responsible for national
planning, such as preparation of the Forest Service Strategic Plan
required under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (5
U.S.C. 306; 31 U.S.C. 1115-1119; 31 U.S.C. 9703-9704) which is
integrated with the requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The Strategic Plan
establishes goals, outcomes, performance measures, and strategies that
apply to management of the National Forest System as well as to the
other Forest Service mission areas.
(b) The National Forest, Grassland, or Prairie Supervisor is the
Responsible Official for development and adoption of a new land and
resource management plan for lands under the responsibility of the
Supervisor, as well as for amendment or revision of a plan, unless a
Regional Forester, the Chief, or the Secretary chooses to act as the
Responsible Official for a specific plan, amendment, or revision.
(c) A Regional Forester, the Chief, or the Secretary may amend or
revise multiple plans, where social, economic, or ecological issues or
opportunities occur on more than one national forest,
[[Page 72796]]
grassland, prairie, or other comparable unit and a single,
comprehensive planning effort is determined to be the most efficient
and effective approach to addressing issues or opportunities. Where
National Forest System lands are adjacent, two or more Responsible
Officials may undertake joint planning that concludes with each
official signing the decision document(s).
(d) Management direction in plans for areas designated as
experimental forests must be consistent with the research activity
being conducted on these areas and concurred with by the associated
Station Director.
Sec. 219.4 Decisions embodied in plans.
(a) A plan constitutes the programmatic management direction for
all or part of a plan area (Sec. 219.23) and embodies the following
decisions:
(1) Desired conditions. A plan must describe the desired conditions
toward which management of the lands and resources of the plan area is
to be directed. Identification of desired conditions is a primary focus
of a plan.
(2) Objectives. A plan must establish objectives intended to
contribute to the achievement of desired conditions. Objectives, which
are concise statements of measurable, time-specific outcomes, are
pursued through the implementation of programs, projects, and other on-
the-ground activities within the plan area.
(3) Standards. A plan must establish standards that state the
permissions or limitations applicable to land uses and management
actions within the plan area. Standards are measurable requirements
that are explicitly identified in a plan as ``standards.'' Standards
are established to achieve the desired conditions and objectives of a
plan and to comply with applicable laws, regulations, Executive orders,
and agency directives. In establishment of standards, the Responsible
Official must identify, consider, and address special conditions or
situations involving hazards to the various resources. Standards
generally should be adaptable and assess performance measures. A plan
shall include but not be limited to the following standards:
(i) Limitations on even-aged timber harvest methods including
provisions to require harvest in a manner consistent with the
protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and
aesthetic resources and the regeneration of the timber resource,
including requirements that even-aged harvest may occur only upon a
finding that it is appropriate and that clearcutting may occur only
upon a finding that it is the optimum method to meet the objectives and
requirements of the plan;
(ii) Maximum size openings created by timber harvest according to
geographic areas, forest types, or other suitable classifications for
areas to be cut in one regeneration harvest operation. This limit may
be less than, but will not exceed, 60 acres for the Douglas-fir forest
type of California, Oregon, and Washington; 80 acres for the southern
yellow pine types of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas; 100
acres for the hemlock-sitka spruce forest type of coastal Alaska; and
40 acres for all other forest types. These size opening limits shall
include provisions to exceed the established limits after appropriate
public notice and review by the officer one level above the Responsible
Official provided that such limits shall not apply to the size of areas
harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire,
insect and disease attack, or windstorm;
(iii) Requirements for achieving aesthetic objectives, including
requirements that cut blocks, patches, or strips that are shaped and
blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain;
(iv) Requirements for maintaining or restoring ecological
conditions that support desired characteristics of ecosystem and
species diversity in order to, within the multiple use objectives of
the plan, provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities
based on the suitability and capability of the plan area and, where
appropriate and to the degree practicable, provide for steps to
preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the
plan area;
(v) Requirements for maintaining or restoring soil and water
resources, including protection 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, when management activities are likely to seriously and
adversely affect water conditions on fish habitat;
(vi) Requirements that timber harvest projects be considered
through interdisciplinary review, assessing the potential
environmental, biological, aesthetic, engineering, and economic impacts
on the sale area, as well as the consistency of the sale with the
multiple use of the general area, and that the harvesting system used
is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar
return or the greatest unit output of timber; and
(vii) Requirements for assuring that even-aged stands of trees
scheduled for harvest during the planning period have generally reached
culmination of mean annual increment of growth. This requirement
applies only to regeneration harvest of even-aged stands on lands
identified as suitable for timber production and where timber
production is a management objective.
(A) The culmination of mean annual increment of growth requirement
does not apply to cutting for experimental or research purposes; to
non-regeneration harvests, such as thinning or other stand improvement
measures; to management of uneven-aged stands or to stands under
uneven-aged silvicultural systems; and to salvage or sanitation
harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire,
windthrow, or other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger from
insect or disease attack.
(B) A plan must identify categories of activities that are
exceptions to the culmination of mean annual increment if necessary to
meet resource objectives, such as wildlife habitat enhancement, visual
enhancement, or riparian area improvement. Exceptions to the
culmination of mean annual increment requirement and the reasons for
these exceptions must be specifically disclosed during the public
participation process for a plan.
(4) Identification of suitable and unsuitable land uses. National
Forest System lands are generally suitable for a variety of uses such
as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvest (Sec.
219.16), energy resource development, mining activities, watershed
restoration, cultural and heritage interpretation, and other uses.
Rather than determine the suitability of all lands for all uses, a plan
should assume that all lands are potentially suitable for a variety of
uses except when specific areas are identified and determined not to be
suited for one or more uses. A plan must identify National Forest
System lands as not suited for a certain use under any of the following
circumstances:
(i) If law, regulation, or Executive order prohibits that use;
(ii) If agency resource management directives prohibit the use;
(iii) If the use would result in substantial and permanent
impairment of the productivity of the land or renewable resources; or
(iv) If the use is incompatible with the desired conditions
established for all or part of the plan area.
(5) Special designations and other management areas. Consistent
with Sec. 219.15 of this subpart, a plan may
[[Page 72797]]
designate specific areas for special management or provide direction
for managing previously established special areas such as wilderness,
national trails, national monuments, and national recreation areas.
Additionally, a plan may establish and provide direction for other
types of management areas.
(6) Monitoring and evaluation requirements. Each plan must
establish monitoring and evaluation requirements, including the
establishment of performance measures, in accordance with Sec. 219.11.
The primary focus of monitoring is to measure the maintenance of, or
progress toward, desired conditions through establishment and
assessment of performance measures. The information and conclusions
that emerge from monitoring and evaluation provide an important basis
for determining whether there is a need to change a plan. Essential
components of the monitoring and evaluation process are data
collection, analysis, data storage, interpretation of the analyses, and
reporting of the results.
(b) Assessments, surveys, analyses, monitoring results, and other
studies are not plan decisions nor do they constitute agency proposed
or final actions.
Sec. 219.5 Indicators of need to amend or revise a plan.
The Responsible Official may propose to amend or revise a plan
based on the consideration of issues or opportunities.
(a) Origination of issues or opportunities. Issues or opportunities
may originate from a variety of sources. These may include inventories,
user surveys, assessments, analyses, monitoring and evaluation results,
and collaborative activities and discussions with those interested in
National Forest System management, as well as proposals made by
individuals, organizations, Tribes, or government entities. Disturbance
events such as floods, wind, fire, and insect infestation may create
conditions that require modification of plan direction. New regulations
or laws also may necessitate amendment or revision of a plan. Each
Responsible Official must obtain appropriate inventory data on the
various renewable resources and soil and water, including pertinent
maps, graphic material, and explanatory aids.
(b) Consideration of issues and opportunities. (1) When an issue or
opportunity arises, the Responsible Official has the discretion to
determine whether and to what extent the matter is appropriate and
timely for consideration in a proposed amendment or revision. Factors
that the Responsible Official may weigh to determine whether
consideration of an issue or opportunity is appropriate and timely
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) The scientific basis and merit of available information and
analyses, including the results of monitoring and evaluation;
(ii) The scope, complexity, intensity, and geographic scale of the
issue or opportunity;
(iii) Statutory requirements or valid existing rights; and
(iv) Organizational and available resources, including current and
likely Forest Service budgets.
(2) If the Responsible Official determines that an issue or
opportunity should be addressed in an amendment or revision, the
Responsible Official should review the best available science and other
relevant knowledge and information as part of the planning process.
Whenever possible, the Responsible Official should use existing
information to address issues or opportunities. However, new
information or a supplemental or new inventory, assessment, or analysis
may be developed as appropriate to the scope, timeframe, and geographic
extent of an issue or opportunity, provided that additional information
can be obtained at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. A decision
whether or not to consider an issue or opportunity is not subject to
objection under this subpart.
Sec. 219.6 Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act.
(a) The Responsible Official must comply with NEPA procedures
(Sec. 219.23) and incorporate them as necessary and appropriate
throughout the planning process. The Responsible Official must
determine how NEPA applies in the development of a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision. The Responsible Official shall ensure that
the level of NEPA analysis for planning is proportional to the
decisions being made.
(b) If the Responsible Official determines that a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision, or a component thereof, would be an action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, or
authorizes an action that commits funding or resources that could have
a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, then an
environmental impact statement would be required. A new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision may be categorically excluded from
documentation in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement as provided in agency NEPA procedures.
Sec. 219.7 Amending a plan.
(a) A plan may be amended to add, modify, or rescind one or more of
the plan decisions described in Sec. 219.4. As provided for in Sec.
219.18, administrative corrections and additions are not amendments.
(b) An amendment arises from consideration of issues or
opportunities and a determination of a need to change a plan as
described in Sec. 219.5.
(c) During the amendment process, the Responsible Official must
provide opportunities for consultation and collaboration as required by
Sec. 219.12 of this subpart.
(d) A plan amendment for which an EIS is prepared is a significant
amendment. The Responsible Official must publish a Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS in the Federal Register and provide a 90-day comment
period on a draft proposed significant amendment and accompanying Draft
EIS.
(e) The Responsible Official must give prior notice of the
opportunity to object to any proposed amendment and any associated
final environmental disclosure documents that are subject to the
objection process established at Sec. 219.19 of this subpart.
(f) An interim amendment may be used to establish plan direction of
limited duration as follows:
(1) Only a Regional Forester or a higher level official may be the
Responsible Official for an interim amendment;
(2) An interim amendment must specify the duration of the
amendment, which is not to exceed four years. An amendment may be
renewed in accordance with procedures in Sec. 219.7(f)(3);
(3) The Responsible Official shall notify the public in
newspaper(s) of record, and allow public comment, before an interim
amendment is renewed beyond the four year period; and
(4) An interim amendment is not subject to the objection process of
Sec. 219.19.
Sec. 219.8 Revising a plan.
(a) Initiating revision. Unless otherwise provided by law, a plan
must be revised at least every 15 years, or a plan must be revised
sooner if a Responsible Official determines that conditions within the
plan area have significantly changed.
(1) To initiate the plan revision process, the Responsible Official
must prepare the following:
[[Page 72798]]
(i) A description of the current management situation for the plan
area and an analysis of existing plan direction;
(ii) A summary of issues or opportunities that the Responsible
Official determines to be appropriate and timely for consideration
(Sec. 219.5); and
(iii) A summary of any current and new information relevant to the
issues or opportunities determined appropriate for consideration.
(2) Using the description prepared under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
this section and the summaries prepared under paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and
(iii) of this section, the Responsible Official must consult with
Federally recognized Indian Tribes, State and local governments, and
other Federal agencies in conformance with Sec. 219.12 of this
subpart.
(b) Public notice to revise a plan. After completion of the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the Responsible Official
must give notice of the initiation of a plan revision. If an EIS is to
be prepared, then a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS must be
published in the Federal Register. If an EIS is not to be prepared, a
notice of initiation of the revision must be published in the
newspaper(s) of record. The notice must inform the public of the
availability of the documentation listed in paragraph (a) of this
section; include a summary of the identified issues and opportunities;
invite the public to comment on these issues and opportunities and to
identify any other issues and opportunities that they feel should be
addressed during revision; include an estimated schedule for the
revision process; and specify the time available and process for the
public to submit comments.
(c) Notice of availability of draft proposed revision. The
Responsible Official must provide a 90-day comment period on a draft
proposed revised plan and any accompanying environmental disclosure
documents. A notice of the availability of the proposed draft revision
must be provided as follows:
(1) For any revision for which the Chief or the Secretary is the
Responsible Official or for which an environmental impact statement is
prepared, notice of the proposed draft revision and availability of the
DEIS must be published in the Federal Register.
(2) For all other revisions, notice of the availability of the
proposed draft revision, specifics regarding the time available, and
process for comments must be published in newspaper(s) of record (Sec.
219.23).
(d) Notice of objection process. Before the Responsible Official
approves a revised plan, the Responsible Official must give notice that
the proposed final revised plan and any final environmental disclosure
documents are subject to the objection process at Sec. 219.19 of this
subpart.
Sec. 219.9 Developing a new plan.
(a) If Congress establishes a new National Forest, Grassland,
Prairie, or other comparable unit of the National Forest System, the
Regional Forester must determine if the unit requires a separate plan
or if an existing plan can be amended or revised to apply to the lands
within the new unit.
(b) If the Regional Forester determines that a separate plan is
required for a new unit of the National Forest System, the Responsible
Official for the new unit must develop and approve a plan that
establishes the desired conditions, objectives, standards, any special
management areas, and monitoring and evaluation requirements and that
identifies any suitable or unsuitable land uses within the plan area as
provided in Sec. 219.4 of this subpart. The Responsible Official shall
initiate and conduct planning and conduct government-to-government
consultation and public involvement as provided in Sec. Sec. 219.8,
219.12, and all other applicable sections of this subpart.
Sec. 219.10 Application of plan direction.
(a) Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision to
existing authorizations and approved projects and to project decisions
issued after the approval of the plan or amendment. Permits, contracts,
and other instruments authorizing the use and occupancy of National
Forest System lands must be consistent with the standards in the plan
for that unit. New project decisions must disclose the relationship of
the project to applicable plan desired conditions. When changes are
proposed to a plan, the Responsible Official must take into
consideration the possible effects of the proposed changes on occupancy
and use currently authorized through permits, contracts, or other
instruments. The decision document accompanying a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision must address the application of new plan
direction to ongoing activities or uses authorized by existing permits,
contracts, or other instruments. Any modifications of permits,
contracts, or other instruments authorizing occupancy and use of the
plan area necessary to make them consistent with the plan as developed,
amended, or revised are subject to valid existing rights. Such
modifications should be made as soon as practicable following
development, amendment, or revision of the plan.
(b) Application of plan direction during amendment or revision
process. Direction in a plan remains in effect until that direction is
changed through amendment or revision.
(c) Application of plan direction to approved projects in light of
new information. Nothing in this subpart requires deferral, suspension,
or modification of approved projects while new information is being
assessed. Approved projects are those for which a Responsible Official
has signed a decision document.
(d) Amendments made through site-specific project decisions. If a
proposed site-specific project or action would not be consistent with
the standards of the plan (Sec. 219.4), the Responsible Official may,
subject to valid existing rights, take one of the following steps:
(1) Modify the proposed site-specific project or action to make it
consistent with the plan;
(2) Reject the proposal; or
(3) As part of the project decision, amend the plan to modify one
or more standards or to exempt application of one or more standards to
the project or action to allow for its implementation.
(e) Testing and research. Management of National Forest System
lands and resources should provide the land manager a continuous flow
of new information and knowledge. Testing and research projects are
integral to gaining this information and knowledge. Projects proposed
to test assumptions, management methodologies, or other aspects of
resource management must comply with all applicable laws and
regulations and must be consistent with the plan standards. Where a
research or testing project would not be consistent with plan
standards, paragraph (d) of this section applies.
Sec. 219.11 Monitoring and evaluation.
Monitoring and evaluation should assess, over appropriate
timeframes and geographic areas and at a reasonable cost, the effects
of activities on achievement of desired conditions and objectives of a
plan, the results of adaptive management, and, as provided in Sec.
219.4, contribute to determining whether a plan needs to be changed or
whether plan implementation needs to be adjusted.
(a) Monitoring requirements. The Responsible Official must ensure
the timely collection of information needed to meet the monitoring
requirements of a plan as well as the interpretation and evaluation of
monitoring information.
[[Page 72799]]
Monitoring information should include, but not be limited to, data and
other information pertinent to characteristics of ecosystem and species
diversity, as determined relevant by the Responsible Official.
(1) Changes in monitoring methods. Monitoring methods may be
changed in response to new information or changed circumstances without
plan amendment or revision.
(2) Coordination of monitoring. To the extent practicable,
monitoring may be conducted jointly with other Federal agencies,
federally recognized Indian Tribes, State and local governments,
scientific and academic communities, and others.
(b) Evaluation requirements. Evaluation includes, but is not
limited to, such activities as:
(1) Identifying trends and conditions;
(2) Validating information and analyses used to adopt, amend, or
revise a plan;
(3) Assessing, through the use of identified performance measures
and other methods, the effects of programs, projects, and activities in
achieving the desired conditions and objectives for the plan; and
(4) Determining the effectiveness of plan standards.
(c) Data sources. Data also may come from a variety of sources,
including other Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, State and local
governments, scientific and academic institutions, and others.
Monitoring data also may come from project analysis, surveys,
inventories, administrative studies, and research.
(d) Records and reporting. Findings and conclusions from monitoring
and evaluation must be disclosed annually and made available to the
public. The disclosure should summarize the monitoring results for the
year; present significant findings and conclusions, if any; discuss
implications for current and future management of the administrative
unit; and describe actions taken or planned in response to findings
made in previous reports. While the monitoring and evaluation
disclosure shall be produced annually, specific monitoring items and
evaluation of specific resources or conditions may occur at other
intervals.
Sec. 219.12 Collaboration, cooperation, and consultation.
The Responsible Official must use an interdisciplinary,
collaborative approach to planning by engaging the skills and interests
of appropriate combinations of Forest Service staff, consultants,
contractors, other Federal agencies, federally recognized Indian
Tribes, State or local governments, or other interested or affected
communities, groups, or persons, consistent with applicable laws.
(a) Providing opportunities for collaboration in Forest Service
planning. The Responsible Official must provide early and frequent
opportunities for individuals and entities to participate openly and
meaningfully in the planning process, taking into account the discrete
and diverse roles, jurisdictions, and responsibilities of interested
and affected agencies, organizations, groups, and individuals. The
Responsible Official shall determine the methods and timing of
opportunities to participate in the planning process.
(1) Engaging interested individuals and organizations. The
Responsible Official must provide for and encourage participation by
interested individuals and organizations, including private landowners
whose lands are within, adjacent to, or otherwise affected by
management actions on National Forest System lands.
(2) Engaging State and local governments and Federal agencies. The
Responsible Official must provide opportunities for the coordination of
Forest Service natural resource management planning efforts with those
of other land management agencies. The Responsible Official also must
meet with and provide early opportunities for other government agencies
to be involved in the planning process for National Forest System
lands. During the planning process, the Responsible Official should
seek assistance, where appropriate, from other State, local government,
and Federal agencies and scientific and academic institutions to help
address management issues or opportunities.
(3) Engaging Indian Tribes. The Forest Service shares in the
Federal Government's overall trust responsibility for federally
recognized Indian Tribes. The Responsible Official must consult with
and invite federally recognized Indian Tribes to participate in the
planning process and also provide opportunity for coordinated planning
efforts. In working with federally recognized Indian Tribes, the
Responsible Official must honor the government-to-government
relationship between Tribes and the Federal Government.
(b) Forest Service participation in other planning efforts. When
appropriate, the Responsible Official should consider participating
with existing groups organized for public purposes in their land and
resource management planning efforts.
Sec. 219.13 Sustainability.
Consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960
(MUSYA), the Responsible Official must ensure that the plan provides
for desired conditions, objectives, standards, special area
recommendations, and monitoring based upon consideration of the three
interdependent components of sustainability: Social, economic, and
ecological. A plan by itself cannot ensure sustainability but provides
an overall framework to guide on-the-ground management. Sustaining the
productivity of the land and its renewable resources is achievable only
by the continuous and dynamic process of planning, implementing
projects under the plan, monitoring, adapting management as a result of
monitoring, and where necessary and appropriate, amending or revising
the plan or modifying proposed site-specific projects to meet the
desired conditions.
(a) Social and economic components of sustainability. To understand
the social and economic contributions that National Forest System lands
presently make and may make in the future, the Responsible Official
must consider and assess economic and social information at relevant
timeframes and geographic areas as appropriate to the issues. Social
and economic information may be obtained from others or developed and
analyzed through assessments, analyses, inventories, monitoring
results, or other methods. In assessing social and economic conditions
and trends relevant to the issues being addressed through plan
development, amendment, or revision, the Responsible Official should:
(1) Engage and participate with interested and affected parties to
identify the values they want to see sustained and the benefits they
accrue from National Forest System lands;
(2) Consider how human activities and social and economic
conditions and trends affect the ecological component of sustainability
on and around National Forest System lands, and how people can
contribute to maintaining and restoring the health of National Forest
System lands; and
(3) Gather and analyze social and economic information to assess,
at the appropriate timeframes and geographic scales, how land
management has affected and may affect the contribution of National
Forest System lands to social and economic systems. This includes
identifying the benefits National Forest System lands provide;
analyzing conditions and trends of social and economic systems; and
analyzing the relationships between
[[Page 72800]]
people and the national forests, grasslands, and prairies.
Option 1 for Paragraph (b)
(b) Ecological component of sustainability. The ecological
component of sustainability includes, but is not limited to, the
following elements: The productivity, health, and function of
ecosystems; the diversity of plant and animal communities and tree
species; and the quality of soil, water, and air resources. As part of
planning, the Responsible Official must follow a hierarchical,
sequential approach to consider and assess both ecosystem diversity and
species diversity. Ecosystem diversity should be considered and
evaluated first, leading to development of plan direction that provides
for the needs of most species of plants and animals. Where the needs of
particular species, species assemblages, or other species groupings are
not likely to be met through plan direction for ecosystem diversity,
species diversity should be considered and evaluated for these species,
species assemblages, or other species groupings. Consideration and
evaluation of ecosystem and species diversity includes development and
analysis of information over relevant timeframes and geographic areas
as determined by the Responsible Official.
(1) Ecological information and analyses. Analyses of ecosystem and
species diversity should be proportional to the issues identified by
the Responsible Official, risks to ecological sustainability, and
availability of information relevant to the plan area. Information and
analyses may be identified, obtained, or developed through a variety of
methods, including assessments, analyses, and monitoring. The
ecological information and analyses must include the following
components:
(i) Consideration and evaluation of ecosystem diversity.
Characteristics and evaluation of ecosystem diversity should be
identified and completed at the scope and scale determined to be
appropriate by the Responsible Official. Evaluations should describe
the contribution of National Forest System lands to ecosystem diversity
within the area of analysis.
(A) Characteristics of ecosystem diversity. Characteristics of
ecosystem diversity include, but are not limited to, a description of
composition (such as major vegetation types, rare communities, aquatic
systems, and riparian systems); structure, including successional
stages; principal ecological processes, including historic and current
disturbance regimes; and soil, water, and air resources within the area
of analysis.
(B) Evaluation of ecosystem diversity. Evaluations of ecosystem
diversity should include the status of the characteristics of ecosystem
diversity identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this section; a
description of the historic and current effects of human activities on
characteristics of ecosystem diversity; risks to ecosystem health; an
evaluation of water and air quality and soil productivity; and an
estimation of current and foreseeable future consumptive and non-
consumptive National Forest System water needs and the quantity and
quality of water needed to support those uses.
(ii) Consideration and evaluation of species diversity.
Characteristics and evaluation of species diversity should be
identified and completed at the scope and scale determined to be
appropriate by the Responsible Official. Evaluations should describe
the contribution of National Forest System lands to species diversity
within the area of analysis.
(A) Characteristics of species diversity. Characteristics of
species diversity include, but are not limited to, the known number and
identity of plant and animal species within the area of analysis, and
the status, distribution, and geographic ranges of plant and animal
species within the area of analysis. Species, species assemblages, or
other species groupings may be used to characterize species diversity.
(B) Evaluation of species diversity. Evaluations of species
diversity should identify species-at-risk, their habitat requirements,
and threats placing them at risk, based on current conditions and
trends and management direction. The level of detail of the analyses
performed should be proportional to the issues identified by the
Responsible Official and the associated risk to species viability.
Evaluations should include assessments of risk to species viability and
identification of ecological conditions capable of supporting species
viability over time. Where little information is available for
particular species, assessments may be qualitative. The assessment
evaluations may be simplified by the use of groups of species or
species that serve as surrogates for evaluating species diversity.
(2) Plan decisions. The Responsible Official must provide for the
diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species within the
plan area consistent with the multiple use objectives of the plan while
sustaining the productivity of the land. When developing plan
decisions, the Responsible Official must consider the information and
analyses described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The following
requirements apply over relevant timeframes and geographic areas that
the Responsible Official determines to be appropriate:
(i) Ecosystem diversity. Plan decisions should provide for
measurable progress toward the maintenance or restoration of ecological
conditions that will support the diversity of plant and animal
communities and tree species and other characteristics of ecosystem
diversity. A variety of approaches may be used, such as conservation
strategies designed for one or a group of species-at-risk, or
management practices that emulate effects of natural disturbance
regimes or result in characteristics of ecosystem diversity within the
range of variability expected to occur under current disturbance
regimes.
(ii) Species diversity. Plan decisions should provide for
ecological conditions that the Responsible Official determines provide
a high likelihood of supporting over time the viability of native and
desired non-native vertebrates and vascular plants well distributed
within their ranges in the plan area. When assessing ``high-
likelihood'' and ``well distributed,'' the Responsible Official shall
consider factors under agency authority and relative to species life
history and distribution within the plan area. Where conditions capable
of supporting viability for particular species or species groups are
not likely to be met through provisions for ecosystem diversity,
specific plan objectives or standards should be developed for those
species or species groupings.
Option 2 for Paragraph (b)
(b) Ecological component of sustainability. The ecological
component of sustainability includes, but is not limited to, the
following elements: The productivity, health, and function of
ecosystems; biological diversity at ecosystem and species levels; and
the quality of soil, water, and air resources. As part of the planning
process, the Responsible Official must ensure that the hierarchical
approach described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is followed to
consider and assess biological diversity at two levels of ecological
organization, ecosystem and species. Consideration and evaluation of
ecosystem diversity constitutes the core approach and is the primary
focus of ecological information and analyses. Consideration and
evaluation of species diversity is a complementary approach that
extends ecosystem analyses to address specific planning issues.
Biological diversity should be considered and evaluated
[[Page 72801]]
over appropriate timeframes and geographic areas as determined by the
Responsible Official. Assessments of biological diversity at ecosystem
and species levels should address effects of natural and human
disturbances and of the ecological condition, structure, and land use
history of the planning or assessment area.
(1) Ecological information and analyses. Analyses of biological
diversity at ecosystem and species levels should be proportional to the
issues identified by the Responsible Official, risks to ecological
sustainability, and availability of information relevant to the
planning or assessment area. Information and analyses may be
identified, obtained, or developed through a variety of methods,
including assessments, analyses, and monitoring and, where appropriate,
should extend to the larger landscape in which the plan area is
embedded. Ecological information and analyses must be based upon an
assessment of the components described in the following paragraphs and
tailored to the particular planning or assessment area and the specific
issues identified in the planning process:
(i) Consideration and evaluation of ecosystem diversity.
Characteristics and evaluation of ecosystem diversity should be
identified and completed over timeframes and geographic areas
determined to be appropriate by the Responsible Official. Analyses
should describe and assess the contributions of National Forest System
lands to ecosystem diversity in the planning or assessment area.
(A) Characteristics of ecosystem diversity. Characteristics of
ecosystems that should be considered within the planning or assessment
area include, but are not limited to: ecological composition,
structure, and processes; spatial extent, distribution, and relations;
geology and landforms; and soil, water, and air resources.
(B) Evaluation of ecosystem diversity. Evaluations of ecosystem
diversity should identify ecosystems in the planning or assessment area
and characterize their ecological structure, composition, processes,
and spatial relations.
(1) Analyses should evaluate the status of the characteristics of
ecosystem diversity identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this
section and risks or threats to these characteristics, including
impacts of past, current, and anticipated management direction on
ecosystem diversity.
(2) Analyses should evaluate the condition and quality of water and
air resources, the condition of stream networks and channels and of
watersheds, and the quality and productivity of soils, and should
estimate current and foreseeable future consumptive and non-consumptive
National Forest System water needs and the quantity and quality of
water needed to support those uses.
(3) Evaluations should identify unique areas, including rare
ecosystems, compositional or structural elements, and ecosystems at
risk, specific risks or threats to these areas, and measures required
for their conservation or restoration.
(ii) Consideration and evaluation of species diversity.
Characteristics and evaluation of species diversity should be
identified and completed over timeframes and geographic areas
determined to be appropriate by the Responsible Official. Analyses
should describe and assess the contributions of National Forest System
lands to species diversity in the planning or assessment area. Analyses
of species and species groups should be undertaken to provide a more
complete understanding of impacts of past, current, and anticipated
management direction on biological diversity, including the status of
species and the ecosystems in which they occur. In a hierarchical
context, species analyses should be conducted within the framework of,
and should incorporate information from, larger-scale ecosystem
analyses.
(A) Characteristics of species diversity. Characteristics of
species diversity that should be considered within the planning or
assessment area include, but are not limited to, the composition and
richness (number of species) of the existing pool of species and the
abundance, distribution, geographic range, and status of individual
species chosen for analysis.
(B) Evaluation of species diversity. Individual species should be
identified for evaluation to address a particular planning issue, to
develop a more complete understanding of the condition and trends of
ecosystems, or where substantive concerns exist regarding the continued
persistence of the particular species within the planning or assessment
area. Evaluations of species diversity should be conducted along two
tracks with related purposes. Community analyses should determine
whether maintenance of ecosystem diversity is sufficient to maintain
the existing pool of species within the planning or assessment area.
Individual species analyses should evaluate impacts of past, current,
and anticipated management direction on individual species selected for
analysis.
(1) Evaluations should identify species or species groups found
within the planning or assessment area, including native and non-native
species, and, where feasible, compile information on species status,
spatial distribution, geographic range, abundance, and population
trends.
(2) Evaluations should analyze the composition and distribution of
communities and species assemblages across the planning or assessment
area; examine relations of community or assemblage measures to
underlying biophysical conditions, with particular attention to
attributes affected by management actions; and analyze impacts of past,
current, and anticipated management direction on individual species
selected for analysis.
(3) Evaluations must identify species for which substantive
evidence exists that continued persistence in the planning or
assessment area is at risk, specific risks or threats to these species,
and measures required for their conservation or restoration.
(iii) Further analyses of biological diversity. In addition to the
information and analyses identified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this section, the following additional information and analyses should
be included in the approach to considering and assessing biological
diversity at ecosystem and species levels.
(A) Consideration and evaluation of spatial and temporal scales and
patterns. Biological diversity at ecosystem and species levels should
be evaluated across multiple timeframes and geographic areas. The
Responsible Official should follow a spatially explicit approach to
assessments of biological diversity, by considering such factors as
abundance, extent, patch size, distribution, and interspersion of
ecosystems and species populations over time and by focusing on
specific landscape features as well as their sizes, shapes, and spatial
relationships. Where appropriate, detailed analyses should be conducted
over large geographic areas and long timeframes, which extend beyond
the plan area and planning time horizon of specific National Forest
System administrative units. Analyses at these large scales are
appropriate for evaluating dynamics of wide-ranging species and
cumulative impacts of management actions on biological diversity.
Evaluations of biological diversity over large geographic areas should
be coordinated across multiple National Forest System administrative
units.
(B) Consideration and evaluation of disturbance regimes. The
Responsible Official should consider and evaluate
[[Page 72802]]
impacts of disturbance regimes, natural and human-induced, on
biological diversity at ecosystem and species levels over appropriate
geographic areas and timeframes. Evaluation of disturbance regimes
should help clarify the land manager's opportunities and options for
achieving biological diversity objectives. Analyses should characterize
current and recent disturbance regimes in terms of spatial extent and
distribution, periodicity, type, and intensity and should evaluate
impacts on biological diversity in the planning or assessment area.
Evaluations should consider impacts of past, current, and anticipated
management direction on disturbance regimes and consequences of altered
disturbance regimes for biological diversity in the planning or
assessment area.
(C) Consideration and evaluation of landscape context. The
Responsible Official should consider and evaluate the landscape context
for assessments of biological diversity at ecosystem and species
levels. Analyses of landscape context should evaluate and characterize
the ecological condition, structure, and land use history of the
planning or assessment area and evaluate effects on biological
diversity. Analyses also should consider and evaluate differences in
the ecological condition and spatial structure of ecosystems and
landscapes between National Forest System lands and adjacent
ownerships. Based on these differences, the Responsible Official should
identify and evaluate options for and any special role of National
Forest System lands to contribute to maintenance or restoration of
biological diversity in the planning or assessment area, especially
unique or rare elements of biological diversity, as well as factors
that would limit options and opportunities for managing National Forest
System lands to achieve biological diversity objectives.
(2) Plan decisions. The Responsible Official must provide for
biological diversity at ecosystem and species levels within the plan
area consistent with the multiple use objectives of the plan while
sustaining the productivity of the land. When developing plan
decisions, the Responsible Official must consider the limits of agency
authorities and must consider and fully disclose results of the
ecological information and analyses described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this section. The following requirements apply over
relevant timeframes and geographic areas that the Responsible Official
determines to be appropriate:
(i) Biological diversity. Plan decisions, to the extent feasible,
should foster the maintenance or restoration of biological diversity in
the plan area, at ecosystem and species levels, within the range of
biological diversity characteristic of native ecosystems within the
larger landscape in which the plan area is embedded. In reaching plan
decisions, the Responsible Official should consider current and recent
disturbance regimes as well as the ecological condition, structure, and
land use history of the planning or assessment area, and effects of
these factors on options and opportunities to manage National Forest
System lands to achieve biological diversity objectives.
(ii) Contributions of NFS lands. When reaching plan decisions, the
Responsible Official must identify and evaluate the special role and
unique contributions of National Forest System lands in maintaining and
restoring biological diversity within the larger landscape in which the
plan area is embedded.
Sec. 219.14 The consideration of science in planning.
(a) Decisions embodied in a plan must be consistent with the best
available science. As part of the planning record, the Responsible
Official must:
(1) Demonstrate how the planning process considered and made use of
the best available science within the context of the issues being
considered;
(2) Evaluate and disclose any substantial uncertainties in that
science;
(3) Evaluate and disclose substantial risks associated with plan
decisions based on that science; and
(4) Validate that the science was appropriately interpreted and
applied.
(b) To meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the
Responsible Official must use independent peer review, a science
advisory board, or other appropriate means to evaluate the consistency
and application of science used in the planning process.
Sec. 219.15 Special designations.
(a) A plan is the mechanism by which the Responsible Official may
allocate specific areas to special designations and recommend areas for
special designation by higher-level authorities. The plan also provides
management direction for specially designated areas and areas
recommended for special designation within the plan area.
(b) Special designations are areas within the National Forest
System that are identified for their unique or special characteristics
and include the following:
(1) 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 national
monuments.
(2) Administratively designated areas. These areas include, but are
not limited to, geological areas, significant caves, botanical areas,
cultural/heritage areas, research natural areas, and scenic byways.
(3) Inventoried roadless areas. Unless otherwise provided by law,
inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System must be
evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential wilderness
areas during the initial plan development or the plan revision process.
As part of this evaluation, the Responsible Official must review and
validate the maps of inventoried roadless areas within the plan area or
adjust them as necessary and appropriate. The Responsible Official also
may evaluate these areas at other times as determined appropriate.
Sec. 219.16 Determination of lands available for timber harvest and
suitable for timber production.
(a) Lands not suitable for timber production. The plan must
identify lands within the plan area not suitable for timber production.
These lands include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) Land that is not forest land (as defined at Sec. 219.23);
(2) Land where technology is not 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;
(3) Lands where there is no reasonable assurance that such lands
can be adequately restocked within 5 years after final regeneration
harvest;
(4) Lands where timber production would violate statute, Executive
order, regulation, or agency directives;
(5) Those lands that have been withdrawn from timber production by
the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service; and
(6) Lands where timber production would not be justified after
considering physical, ecological, social, economic, and other pertinent
factors. However, lands not suited for timber production may be
available for timber harvest pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Lands suitable for timber production. After considering
physical, ecological, social, economic, and other pertinent factors to
the extent feasible, a Responsible Official may establish
[[Page 72803]]
timber production as an objective in a plan for any lands not
identified in paragraph (a) of this section. The Responsible Official
must review lands not suited for timber production at least once every
10 years, or as otherwise prescribed by law, to determine their
suitability for timber production. As a result of this 10-year review,
timber production may be established as a plan objective for any lands
found to be suitable for such purpose through amendment or revision of
the plan.
(c) Lands where trees may be harvested for multiple use values
other than timber production. Designation of lands as unsuitable for
timber production does not preclude the harvest of trees for other
multiple use values. Except for lands described at (a)(2) of this
section, trees may be harvested to create temporary or permanent
openings for wildlife habitat improvement; to establish fuel breaks or
reduce fuels; to create vistas; to enhance recreation use; to manage
cultural/heritage sites; to salvage dead or dying trees; or to achieve
other multiple use purposes not related to timber production.
Sec. 219.17 Limitation on timber harvest.
(a) Estimate of the long-term sustained-yield capacity. The
Responsible Official must estimate the amount of timber that could be
harvested annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis from
National Forest System lands identified as suitable for timber
production (Sec. 219.16(b)). This estimate must be based on the yield
of timber that could be harvested consistent with achievement of
objectives or desired conditions in the applicable plan and a specified
management intensity consistent with these multiple use objectives.
Increased harvest levels may be based on intensified management
practices, such as reforestation, thinning, and tree improvement if
such practices justify increasing the harvests in accordance with the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. Such estimates of yield shall be
adjusted downward if anticipated practices are not successfully
implemented to achieve objectives or desired conditions. The
Responsible Official may combine one or more administrative units, or
parts of administrative units, for the purpose of estimating the amount
of timber that could be harvested annually on a sustained-yield basis.
(b) Limitation on timber harvest. Within any decade, the
Responsible Official must limit the average annual quantity of timber
sold during that decade from the lands identified as suitable for
timber production to a quantity equal to or less than that estimated in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Exceptions to limitations of timber harvest. The Responsible
Official may sell timber from areas that are substantially and
adversely affected by fire, wind, or other events, or for which there
is an imminent threat from insects or disease, and may either
substitute such timber for timber that would otherwise be sold or, if
not feasible, sell such timber over and above the limit established in
paragraph (b) of this section. If departure from the quantity of timber
established in paragraph (b) of this section is necessary to meet
overall multiple use objectives of the plan, the requirements in 16
U.S.C. 1611 must be followed.
Sec. 219.18 Plan documentation, maintenance, and availability.
(a) Plan description. A plan is a set of documents that integrates
and displays the desired conditions, objectives, standards, and other
management direction that apply to a unit of the National Forest
System. Included among the documents in a plan are text, maps, tables,
charts, and other information relevant to how the plan area is to be
managed. Other records considered or created during the planning
process, such as the science review (Sec. 219.14), are not part of the
plan, but these records must be made available for public review as
provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Maintenance of the plan. The following administrative
corrections and additions may be made at any time, are not plan
amendments or revisions, and do not require public notice or the
preparation of an environmental document under NEPA procedures:
(1) Corrections and updates of data and maps;
(2) Corrections of typographical errors or other non-substantive
changes; and
(3) Changes in monitoring methods (Sec. 219.11).
(c) Availability of planning documents. Each National Forest,
Grassland, or Prairie Supervisor must maintain a complete set of the
planning documents that constitute the plan for the unit. The planning
records must be available to the public during the planning process as
well as after adoption of a plan, plan amendment, or revision.
Sec. 219.19 Objections to new plans, plan amendments, or plan
revisions.
(a) Exceptions. Before approving a new plan, plan amendment, or
plan revision, the Responsible Official shall provide the public, both
individuals and entities, at least 30 calendar days for pre-decisional
review of a proposed plan, amendment, or revision. Where an EIS or EA
is prepared, the FEIS or EA shall also be made available for review.
Written objections to a proposed plan, amendment, or revision may be
submitted to the Reviewing Officer, except as follows:
(1) When an amendment is made in conjunction with a site-specific
project decision as provided in Sec. 219.20;
(2) When the amendment is an interim amendment as provided in Sec.
219.7;
(3) When the entity is a Federal agency; or
(4) When the Responsible Official for the decision is the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(b) Public notice of the objection period. Public notice of the
availability of a proposed plan, amendment, or revision and the
objection period must be provided as follows:
(1) For any proposed plan, amendment, or revision for which the
Chief or the Secretary is the Responsible Official, the notice must be
published in the Federal Register.
(2) For all other proposed plans, amendments, or revisions, legal
notice must be published in newspaper(s) of record as defined in Sec.
219.23 of this subpart.
(c) Content of public notice of the objection. Public notice of the
opportunity to file objections and of the objection period published
pursuant to this section must include the following:
(1) A concise identification of the proposed plan, amendment, or
revision;
(2) The name, title, and address of the Responsible Official;
(3) Information on the availability of the proposed plan,
amendment, or revision and the final environmental disclosure document,
if any;
(4) Identification of when the objection period begins (the day
following the notice's publication) and the date the objection period
ends; and
(5) The name of the Reviewing Officer and the addresses where an
objection must be sent.
(d) Submitting objections. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)
of this section, any person or non-Federal entity may submit written
objections regarding a proposed plan, amendment, or revision to the
Reviewing Official. Only original substantive comments that meet
objection content requirements set out in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section will be accepted. Form letters, check-off lists, pre-printed
post cards, or similar duplicative materials will not be accepted as
objections. Objections that
[[Page 72804]]
are mailed must be postmarked no later than the last day of the
specified time period. Objections that are submitted by any means other
than U.S. mail must be received by the Reviewing Official within the
time period described in the public notice. When the objection period
would expire on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the time is
extended to the end of the next Federal working day. No other extension
of the time period may be granted.
(2) An objection must contain the following:
(i) The name, mailing address, and if possible, telephone number of
the objector. Where an objection is filed by an organization or other
entity on behalf of multiple objectors, the objection must indicate the
representative contact, who will notify the other objectors of the
objection response and any other written correspondence related to the
objection that may occur;
(ii) An identification of the specific proposed plan, amendment, or
revision that is the subject of the objection; and
(iii) A concise statement explaining how the environmental
disclosure documents, if any, and proposed plan, amendment, or revision
are inconsistent with law, regulation, Executive order, or policy and
any recommendations for change.
(e) Responding to objections. (1) The Reviewing Officer must review
the objections and relevant information to determine whether or not the
proposed plan, amendment, or revision and any accompanying
environmental disclosure documentation, if any, are consistent with
law, regulation, Executive order, or policy with respect to the
issue(s) raised in the objection. In conducting a review under this
section, the Reviewing Official may discuss the objection with the
Responsible Official or the objectors. The Reviewing Officer may render
one response to multiple objections. The Reviewing Officer's response
must be in writing and must be sent to the objecting party by certified
mail, return receipt requested, and to the Responsible Official.
(2) If the Reviewing Officer concludes that the proposed plan,
amendment, or revision and accompanying environmental disclosure
documents, if any, are consistent with law, regulation, Executive
order, and policy, the Responsible Official may proceed to make a
decision.
(3) If the Reviewing Officer concludes that the proposed plan,
amendment, or revision, and accompanying environmental disclosure
documents, if any, are not consistent with law, regulation, Executive
order, and policy, in whole or in part, the Reviewing Officer must
describe what further action is required by the Responsible Official
prior to approving the new plan, amendment, or revision. Upon approval
of the plan, amendment, or revision, no further objection is available.
(f) Use of other administrative review processes. Where the Forest
Service is a participant in a multi-Federal agency effort that is
subject to objection under this part, the Responsible Official may
waive the objection procedures of this part and instead adopt the
administrative review procedure of another participating Federal
agency. As a condition of such a waiver, the Responsible Official for
the Forest Service must have agreement with the Responsible Official of
the other agency or agencies to provide a joint response to those who
file for administrative review of the multi-agency effort.
(g) Compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The information
collection requirements associated with submitting an objection have
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned
control number 0596-0158.
Sec. 219.20 Appeals of plan amendments in site-specific project
decisions.
If a plan amendment is made in conjunction with a site-specific
decision, a person may appeal the plan amendment and the site-specific
decision only as described in 36 CFR 215.7(a).
Sec. 219.21 Notice of plan decisions and effective dates.
(a) Notice of decision. Following approval of a plan, amendment, or
revision the Responsible Official must provide notice of the decision
in the newspaper(s) of record (Sec. 219.23), or, if the Chief or
Secretary is the Responsible Official, in the Federal Register, and by
other appropriate means, as needed.
(b) Effective date. A new plan, significant plan amendment, or
revised plan is effective 30 days after publication of notice of the
decision. Any other amendment is effective immediately upon publication
of notice of the decision.
Sec. 219.22 Transition.
(a) For the purposes of this paragraph, the reference to a new
plan, amendment, or revision initiated before the effective date of
this rule, means that the agency has issued a Notice of Intent or other
public notice announcing the commencement of a plan amendment or
revision as provided for in the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations at 40 CFR 1501.7 or in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15,
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook, section 11.
(b) Until 90 days after the effective date of this rule, a
Responsible Official may elect to initiate an amendment, continue an
amendment or a revision under the planning regulations in effect prior
to November 9, 2000, or the Responsible Official may conform the
amendment or revision process to the provisions of this subpart.
(c) For new plans, amendments, or revisions initiated under the
November 2000 rule, the Responsible Official must adjust the planning
process to conform to this subpart.
(d) In conforming a previously initiated planning process to the
requirements of this subpart, the Responsible Official is not required
to halt the process and start over. Rather, the Responsible Official
should integrate the requirements of this subpart into the future steps
and procedures of plan development, amendment, or revision process.
(e) The Responsible Official shall give notice of how the planning
process will be adjusted to conform to the requirements of this subpart
in the newspaper(s) of record.
Sec. 219.23 Definitions.
Definitions of the special terms used in this subpart are set out
in alphabetical order in this section:
Adaptive management: An approach to natural resource management
where actions are designed and executed and effects are monitored for
the purpose of learning and adjusting future management actions, which
improves the efficiency and responsiveness of management.
Assessment area: A geographic area within which ecosystems or their
components or processes are analyzed. An assessment area may include
multiple ownerships and is typically much larger than a planning area.
Biological diversity: A general and inclusive concept that refers
to the variety of living things together with their interactions and
processes. Biological diversity is defined at various levels of
ecological organization, but especially three: genes, species, and
ecosystems. In the context of land and resource management planning,
attention is focused specifically on the diversity of ecosystems within
landscapes and of species within ecosystems.
Culmination of mean annual increment: The age in the growth cycle
of an even-aged stand at which the mean annual increment for volume of
wood is at a maximum. Mean annual increment shall be based on expected
[[Page 72805]]
growth of stands, according to intensities and utilization standards
assumed in the forest plan or its supporting document. Mean annual
increment shall be expressed in cubic measure.
Cultural/Heritage resources: Archeological, historic, or
architectural sites, structures, places, objects, ideas, traditions,
etc. identified by field inventory, historical documentation, or
evidence that are of importance to specified social or heritage groups
and/or scientific and management endeavors.
Desired non-native species: Those species of plants or animals that
are not indigenous to an area but are highly valued for social,
cultural, economic, or ecological reasons.
Disturbance regime: Actions, functions, or events that influence or
maintain the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or
aquatic ecosystems. Natural disturbances include, among others,
drought, floods, wind, fires, insects, and pathogens. Human-caused
effects include, among others, actions such as recreational use,
livestock grazing, mining, road construction, timber harvest, and the
introduction of exotic species.
Diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species: The
distribution and relative abundance or extent of plant and animal
communities and their component species, including tree species,
occurring within an area.
Ecological conditions: Components of the biological and physical
environment that can affect the diversity of plant and animal
communities and tree species, including species viability, and the
productive capacity of ecological systems. These could include the
abundance and distribution of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, roads
and other structural developments, human uses, and invasive and exotic
species.
Ecosystem diversity: The variety and relative extent of ecosystem
types, including their composition, structure, and processes, within
all or part of a planning area.
Ecosystem structure: The horizontal, vertical, and numerical
arrangement and relationships among the components of ecosystems.
Possessing both physical and biological aspects, structure is the
result of interactions among species and with the physical environment.
Energy resources: Renewable energy resources include biomass,
hydropower, wind, solar and geothermal, and non-renewable energy
resources include coal, oil and gas, and coal bed methane.
Environmental disclosure document: Environmental assessment,
environmental impact statement, finding of no significant impact and
notice of intent.
Federally recognized Indian Tribe: An Indian or Alaska Native
Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary
of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe pursuant to
the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.
Forest land: Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of
any size or formerly having had such tree cover and not currently
developed for nonforest uses. Lands developed for non-forest use
include areas for crops, improved pasture, residential, or
administrative areas, improved roads of any width, and adjoining road
clearing, and power line clearing of any width.
Health: A condition wherein a forest, grassland, or prairie has the
capacity across the landscape for renewal, for recovery from a wide
range of disturbances, and for retention of its ecological resilience
while meeting current and future needs of people for desired levels of
values, uses, products, and services.
High likelihood of viability: Habitats are of sufficient quality,
distribution, and abundance to allow species populations to be well-
distributed and interactive and to have a high probability of
persisting over multiple generations (within the bounds of the life
history of the species and the capability of the landscape) within the
plan area. The focus is on providing habitat for species resilience,
long-term survival over multiple generations, and long-term
adaptability.
Inventoried roadless areas: Areas identified in a set of
inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service records, or
any subsequent update or revision of those maps.
Major vegetation types: Plant communities, which are typically
named after dominant plant species that are characteristic of the
macroclimate and geology of the region or sub-region.
Mean annual increment: The total increment of a stand (standing
crop plus thinning) up to a given age divided by that age.
Native species: Species indigenous to the plan, planning or
assessment area.
NEPA procedures: The term used to refer to the requirements of 40
CFR parts 1500 through 1508, as supplemented by Forest Service NEPA
directives issued in Forest Service Manual Chapter 1950 and Forest
Service Handbook 1909.15, which implement the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969.
Newspaper(s) of record: Those principal newspapers of general
circulation annually identified and published in the Federal Register
by each Regional Forester to be used for publishing notices as required
by 36 CFR 215.5.
Plan: A plan is a repository that integrates and displays the
desired conditions, objectives, standards, and other plan decisions
that apply to a unit of the National Forest System. The plan also
contains maps and other information relevant to how the plan area is to
be managed.
Plan area: The geographic area of National Forest System
administered lands covered by an individual plan and subject to the
programmatic direction of a plan. The area may include all or part of
one or more administrative units and may be administered by one or more
Responsible Officials. The Responsible Official's decision is only for
the plan area.
Planning area: The geographic area considered during analysis and
development of one or more plans. A planning area is typically larger
than a plan area but smaller than an assessment area.
Productivity: Use of this term is derived from the MUSYA and
subsequent statutes, which require that NFS lands be administered to
provide various renewable resources (recreation, range, timber,
watershed, wildlife, and fish) without impairment of the productivity
of the land. In this context, productivity means the capacity of NFS
lands and the ecological systems thereon to provide the various
renewable resources in certain amounts over time. In this sense, it is
an ecological term, not an economic one.
Range of variability: The expected range of variation in ecosystem
composition and structure that would be expected under current natural
disturbance regimes. These regimes include the type, frequency,
severity, and magnitude of disturbance in the absence of fire
suppression and extensive commodity extraction.
Research Natural Areas: An area in as near a natural condition as
possible, which exemplifies typical or unique vegetation and associated
biotic, soil, geologic, and aquatic resources. The area is set aside to
preserve a representative sample of an ecological community primarily
for scientific and educational purposes.
Responsible Official: The Official with the authority and
responsibility to oversee the planning process and to make plan
decisions.
Reviewing Officer: The supervisor of the Responsible Official who
is proposing adoption of a new plan, plan amendment, or revision.
[[Page 72806]]
Species: For purposes of this rule, potentially any member of the
currently accepted and scientifically defined kingdoms of organisms,
which is described as a species in a peer-reviewed scientific
publication. The term ``species,'' as identified here, includes all
species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened,
endangered, candidate, or proposed for listing by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. Under diversity
Option 1, with the exception of species-at-risk, consideration of
species under this rule is explicitly limited to vertebrates and
vascular plants. Under diversity Option 2, species may include any
described species belonging to any of the defined kingdoms of
organisms.
Species-at-risk: Federally listed endangered, threatened,
candidate, and proposed species and other species for which loss of
viability, including reduction in distribution or abundance, is a
concern within the plan area.
Species diversity: The variation in the number and relative
abundance of species within all or part of a planning area.
Species persistence: The likelihood that a species will continue to
exist or occur within a geographic area of interest and over a defined
period of time as a functioning member of the species pool of that
area. In the context of land management planning, species persistence
is the likelihood that actions or factors under the direct control of
land managers will not directly cause the extinction, globally or
locally within the planning or assessment area, of a species of
interest, or will not cause the density or total population size of
that species to decline to such a low level that the risk of extinction
due to factors outside the control of the land manager, including
chance events, is deemed to be unacceptably high.
Species viability: A species consisting of self-sustaining and
interacting populations that are well distributed through the species'
range. Self-sustaining populations are those that are sufficiently
abundant and have sufficient diversity to display the array of life
history strategies and forms to provide for their long-term persistence
and adaptability over multiple generations.
Successional stages: The different structural and compositional
phases of vegetation development of forests and grasslands that occur
over time following disturbances that kill, remove, or reduce
vegetation and include the major developmental or seral stages that
occur within a particular environment.
Timber harvest: The removal of trees for wood fiber utilization.
Timber production: The sustained long-term management, harvest and
regeneration of trees for wood fiber utilization. For purposes of this
regulation, the term timber production includes the production of fuel
wood and wood for other products.
Visitor opportunities: The spectrum of settings, landscapes,
scenery, facilities, services, access points, information, learning-
based recreation, wildlife, natural features, cultural and heritage
sites, etc. that are available for National Forest System visitors to
use and enjoy.
Wilderness: Any area of land designated by Congress as part of the
National Wilderness Preservation System that was established in the
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, section 2(c)).
Dated: November 26, 2002.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief.
Note: The following tables will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Table I.--Section-by-Section Comparison of the 2000 Rule With the
Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Rule Proposed rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 219.1 Purpose...................... Sec. 219.1 Purpose and
Applicability.
Sec. 219.1 Purpose...................... Sec. 219.2 Nature and
scope of a land and
resource management plan.
Sec. 219.3 Overview.....................
Sec. 219.2 Principles................... Sec. 219.2 Nature and
scope of a land and
resource management plan.
Sec. 219.3 Overview..................... Sec. 219.3 Levels of
planning and planning
authority.
Sec. 219.4 Identification and Sec. 219.5 Indicators of
consideration of issues. need to amend or revise a
plan.
Sec. 219.5 Information development and Sec. 219.5 Indicators of
interpretation. need to amend or revise a
plan.
Sec. 219.6 Proposed actions............. Sec. 219.4 Decisions
embodied in plans.
Sec. 219.7 Plan decisions............... Sec. 219.4 Decision
embodied in plans
Sec. 219.6 Compliance with
National Environmental
Policy Act.
Sec. 219.8 Amendment.................... Sec. 219.7 Amending a
plan.
Sec. 219.9 Revision..................... Sec. 219.8 Revising a plan
Sec. 219.9 Developing a
new plan.
Sec. 219.10 Site-specific decisions..... Sec. 219.10 Application of
plan direction.
Sec. 219.11 Monitoring and evaluation Sec. 219.11 Monitoring and
for adaptive management. evaluation.
Sec. 219.12 Collaboration and Sec. 219.12 Collaboration,
cooperatively developed landscape goals. cooperation, and
consultation.
Sec. 219.13 Coordination among federal Sec. 219.12 Collaboration,
agencies. cooperation, and
consultation.
Sec. 219.14 Involvement of state and Sec. 219.12 Collaboration,
local governments. cooperation, and
consultation.
Sec. 219.15 Interaction with American Sec. 219.12 Collaboration,
Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives. cooperation, and
consultation.
Sec. 219.16 Relationships with Sec. 219.12 Collaboration,
interested individuals and organizations. cooperation, and
consultation.
Sec. 219.17 Interaction with private Sec. 219.12 Collaboration,
landowners. cooperation, and
consultation.
Sec. 219.18 Role of advisory committees. Removed.
Sec. 219.19 Ecological, social, and Sec. 219.13
economic sustainability. Sustainability.
Sec. 219.20 Ecological sustainability... Sec. 219.13
Sustainability.
Sec. 219.21 Social and economic Sec. 219.13
sustainability. Sustainability.
Sec. 219.22 The overall role of science Sec. 219.14 The
in planning. consideration of science in
planning.
Sec. 219.23 The role of science in Sec. 219.14 The
assessments, analysis, and monitoring. consideration of science in
planning.
Sec. 219.24 Science consistency Sec. 219.14 The
evaluations. consideration of science in
planning.
Sec. 219.25 Science advisory boards..... Sec. 219.14 The
consideration of science in
planning.
Sec. 219.26 Identifying and designating Sec. 219.4 Decisions
suitable uses. embodied in plans.
[[Page 72807]]
Sec. 219.27 Special designations........ Sec. 219.15 Special
designations.
Sec. 219.28 Determination of land Sec. 219.16 Determination
suitable for timber harvest. of lands available for
timber harvest and suitable
for timber production.
Sec. 219.29 Limitation on timber Sec. 219.17 Limitation on
harvest.. timber harvest.
Sec. 219.30 Plan documentation.......... Removed.
Sec. 219.31 Maintenance of the plan and Sec. 219.18 Plan
planning records. documentation, maintenance,
and availability.
Sec. 219.32 Objections to amendments or Sec. 219.19 Objections to
revisions. new plans, plan amendments,
or plan revisions.
Sec. 219.33 Appeals of site-specific Sec. 219.20 Appeals of
decisions. plan amendments in site-
specific project decisions.
Sec. 219.34 Applicability............... Sec. 219.1 Purpose and
applicability
Sec. 219.21 Notice of plan
decisions and effective
dates.
Sec. 219.35 Transition.................. Sec. 219.22 Transition.
Sec. 219.36 Definitions................. Sec. 219.23 Definitions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72808]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.000
[[Page 72809]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.001
[[Page 72810]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.002
[[Page 72811]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.003
[[Page 72812]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.004
[[Page 72813]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.005
[[Page 72814]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.006
[[Page 72815]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.007
[[Page 72816]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.008
[FR Doc. 02-30683 Filed 12-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-C
Go to the Top
