[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18886-18932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8594]
[[Page 18885]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
Forest Service
_______________________________________________________________________
36 CFR Parts 215, 217 and 219
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18886]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Parts 215, 217, and 219
RIN 0596-AB20
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service requests comment on a proposed rule to
guide land and resource management planning for the 191-million acre
National Forest System. This proposed rule, which would revise and
streamline the existing planning rule, describes the agency's framework
for National Forest System resource decisionmaking; incorporates
principles of ecosystem management into resource planning; and
establishes requirements for implementation, monitoring, evaluation,
amendment, and revision of forest plans. The intended effect is to
simplify, clarify, and otherwise improve the planning process; reduce
burdensome and costly procedural requirements; and strengthen
relationships with the public and other government entities.
DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing and received by July 12,
1995.
The agency will provide briefings to assist the public in
understanding the proposed rule on April 24 at the locations and times
listed under Supplementary Information.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Director, Ecosystem Management
(1920; 3 CEN), Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC
20090-6090.
The public may inspect comments received on this proposed rule in
the Office of the Director, Third Floor, Central Wing, Auditor's
Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Those wishing to inspect comments are
encouraged to call ahead (202-205-1034) to facilitate entry into the
building.
Briefings will be held at the addresses set out under Supplementary
Information of this notice for proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Christensen, Land Management
Planning Specialist (202-205-1034).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Briefings and Locations
The Forest Service will hold public briefings on April 24 in the
following cities at the addresses and times shown:
1. Washington, DC--April 24, 1995, 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Crystal
City Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia,
22202.
2. Missoula, Montana--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., 4B's Inn
and Conference Center, 3803 Brooks Street, Missoula, Montana, 59801.
3. Denver, Colorado--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., USDA
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Auditorium, 740 Simms Street,
Golden, Colorado, 80401.
4. Grand Junction, Colorado--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30
p.m., Grand Junction Ranger District, 764 Horizon Drive, Grand
Junction, Colorado, 81506.
5. Durango, Colorado--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., San
Juan Forest Supervisor's Office, 701 Camino del Camino, Durango,
Colorado, 81301.
6. Chadron, Nebraska--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.,
Nebraska National Forest Supervisor's Office, 125 N. Main Street,
Chadron, Nebraska, 69337.
7. Rapid City, South Dakota--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30
p.m., Pactola Ranger District Office, 800 Soo San Drive, Rapid City,
South Dakota, 81506.
8. Casper, Wyoming--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Holiday
Inn, 300 ``F'' Street, Casper, Wyoming, 82601.
9. Albuquerque, New Mexico--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.,
Southwestern Regional Office, 517 Gold Avenue, S.W., Albuquerque, New
Mexico, 87102.
10. Phoenix, Arizona--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., Tonto
National Forest Supervisor's Office, 2234 East McDowell Road, Phoenix,
Arizona, 85010.
11. Boise, Idaho--April 24, 1995, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., National
Interagency Fire Center, Training Building Auditorium, 3833 Development
Avenue, Boise, Idaho, 83705.
12. Salt Lake City, Utah--April 24, 1995, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Federal
Building, Room 2404, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah,
84138.
13. Sacramento, California--April 24, 1995, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.,
Radisson Hotel Sacramento, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, California,
95815.
14. Portland, Oregon--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., USDA
Forest Service Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Robert Duncan Plaza,
333 S.W. First Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97208.
15. Atlanta, Georgia--April 24, 1995, 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., USDA
Forest Service Southern Region Office, 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W., room
199, Atlanta, Georgia, 30367.
16. Brookfield, Wisconsin--April 24, 1995, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.,
Brookfield Marriott Hotel, 375 South Moorland Road, Brookfield,
Wisconsin, 53005.
17. Juneau, Alaska--April 24, 1995, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Alaska Native
Brotherhood Hall, 320 Willoughby Avenue, Juneau, Alaska, 99801.
Public comments will not be taken at these briefings, which will
consist of video presentations prepared by the Chief's Office. As of
May 1, one copy of this video material will also be available at the
Chief's Office, each Regional Office, each Forest Supervisor's Office,
each Research or Experiment Station, the Forest Products Laboratory,
the Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry Office, and the
International Institute of Tropical Forestry. The video may be borrowed
by interested parties on a reservation basis by contacting their local
Forest Service office or calling the telephone number listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT earlier in this notice.
Background
The Forest Service is responsible for managing the land and
resources of the National Forest System. It is headed by the Chief of
the Forest Service and includes 191 million acres of lands in 42
States, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The National Forest System
consists of 155 National Forests, 20 National Grasslands, and various
other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Under the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) and
the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600), these
lands are managed for a variety of uses on a sustained basis to ensure
a continued supply of goods and services to the American people in
perpetuity.
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974
(RPA) (88 Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 USC 1601-1614)
(hereafter, NFMA), specifies that land and resource management plans
shall be developed for units of the National Forest System. Regulations
to implement NFMA are set forth at 36 CFR part 219.
A forest plan has been approved for every National Forest except
the Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Mendocino, and Six Rivers National
Forests, all located in California. It remains the agency's intent that
these National Forests complete their plans under the requirements for
forest plan development described by the existing regulation, adopted
September 30, 1982 (47 FR 43026), as amended June 24, 1983 (48 FR
29122), and September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383), and as set out in the
[[Page 18887]]
Code of Federal Regulations as of July 1, 1993.
During the 18 years since enactment of NFMA, much has been learned
about planning for management of National Forest System lands. The
original vision of NFMA raised many varied expectations, some of which
remain unfulfilled. Although forest planning efforts to date have
produced notable accomplishments in addressing forest management issues
and fostering public participation in public land management, many
controversies linger. For each National Forest, difficult resource
management choices must be made among competing interests, often where
there are no universally accepted answers. In such a setting, forest
planning cannot be expected to revolve all differences; however,
improvements in forest planning requirements and procedures can help
better focus the issues and choices and lead to better, more informed
decisions.
This proposed rule is the culmination of a systematic and
comprehensive review of forest planning rules and processes. The nature
of this review and its findings were described in detail in the Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on February 15, 1991 (56 FR
6508), along with a history of forest planning and an overview of the
existing planning rule.
Critique of Land Management Planning
Of particular note in development of this proposed rule is the
Critique of Land Management Planning. The Forest Service initiated this
comprehensive review of its land management planning process in March
1989. Conducted with the help of The Conservation Foundation, the
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources at Purdue University, and
others, the purpose of the Critique was to document what had been
learned since passage of the National Forest Management Act and to
determine how best to respond to the planning challenges of the future.
The Critique involved over 3,500 people both within and outside the
Forest Service. Workshops and interviews were conducted involving over
2,000 people who had participated in or had responsibilities for forest
planning. These participants represented a broad cross-section of all
those who were involved in planning, including members of the general
public, interest groups, representatives of other agencies, elected
officials, representatives of Indian tribal governments, Forest
Supervisors, Regional Foresters, resource specialists, and members of
interdisciplinary planning teams. Additionally, there were written
comments received from 1,500 interested people. The Critique was
completed in May 1990. The results of the Critique are documented in a
summary report, ``Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management
Planning'' (Vol. 1) and 10 other more detailed reports. In the interest
of economy and brevity, the findings of the Critique and other material
are not repeated here but should be considered as the foundation and
background for this proposed rule.
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on February
15, 1991 (56 FR 6508). The public comment period closed May 16, 1991.
The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking included preliminary
regulatory text completely revising the existing regulation, based
largely on the findings of the Critique. Four public informational
meetings were held to stimulate public interest in and comment on the
proposal in the Advance Notice and to assist the public in
understanding the ideas presented in the Notice. Meetings were held as
follows: Washington, DC, February 26, 1991; Portland, Oregon, April 8,
1991; Denver, Colorado, April 10, 1991; and Atlanta, Georgia, April 12,
1991. Altogether, approximately 50 people attended these meetings.
In addition to publishing the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in the Federal Register, the Forest Service mailed approximately 20,000
copies to known interested parties and invited comment on the rule.
Over 600 groups and individuals provided nearly 4,700 comments.
Approximately 10 percent were from business and industry groups; 11
percent from Federal, State, and local government agencies; 11 percent
from environmental and conservation groups; 2 percent from recreation
and user groups; 1 percent from academia; 1 percent from civic
organizations; 9 percent from agency employees; and the remaining 55
percent from individual citizens.
As stated in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the agency
received a petition on November 1, 1990, from the National Forest
Products Association and 79 other organizations ``to engage in a
rulemaking to amend the regulations set out at 36 CFR Part 219 to
improve the implementation of land and resource management plans
(`forest plants'), provide for prompt amendment, establish specific
environmental documentation requirements, and for related reasons.''
This petition for rulemaking included proposed regulatory text and the
rationale for it. It represented an alternative approach to changing
the NFMA planning regulation at 36 CFR Part 219. The specific
recommendations in the petition, along with supplemental comments
received from the National Forest Products Association during the
public comment period, were considered as part of the public comment
associated with the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Basic Conclusions Underlying This Proposal
The proposed rule now being published rests on many of the same
basic conclusions as the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which
are highlighted here.
1. Many Recommendations of the Critique of Land Management Planning can
and Should be Adopted by Revising the Planning Rule
Although a number of specific recommendations have been used in
developing this proposed rule, the following major recommendations
identified by the Critique are particularly important:
(a) Simplify, Clarify, and Shorten the Planning Process
The Critique found that the complexity of the forest planning
process was so overwhelming that few people really fully understood it.
Further, the Critique found that this complexity often inhibited
meaningful communication with the public and other governments, reduced
agency credibility, and increased the time and cost needed to complete
plans.
The Critique also identified the problems associated with trying to
resolve socio-political issues through a highly technical and
systematic set of planning procedures. The importance of balancing
technical information with the values and concerns of the public was
highlighted in the Critique reports.
Finally, the planning process is so lengthy and complex that the
process of completing forest plans is frustrating for the public and
agency employees alike. In addition, the financial expenditure required
for such a lengthy and complex process has had a major impact on the
agency and diverted funds and personnel from project decisionmaking and
other activities.
While endorsing the need to simplify, clarify, and shorten the
planning process, the Forest Service also recognizes that forest
planning is inherently complex due to the multitude of resources and
statutory responsibilities involved. Sound, yet often complex,
technical analyses serve
[[Page 18888]]
a critical role in evaluating resource trade-offs and ensuring that
resource decisions are based on the best possible information. A
balance must be found between the simplicity most people desire and the
complex reality of forest planning.
(b) Clarify the Decision Framework
The existing regulation does not precisely address the nature of
forest plan decisions and the appropriate scope of environmental
analysis. During development of the existing forest plans, many people
believed that forest plans would make irretrievable resource
commitments for all projects necessary to fully implement the goals and
objectives of the plan. Confusion over the nature of forest plan
decisions has been a principal source of controversy for many plans.
Most of the administrative appeals of forest plans challenge whether
forest plans and accompanying environmental impact statements satisfy
particular requirements of NFMA, NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the
Clean Water Act, and other environmental laws. Forest plan appellants
frequently argue that forest plans irretrievably commit the agency to
individual projects but fail to provide the analysis and documentation
required by these statutes.
In fact, the environmental impact statements accompanying forest
plans do not attempt to identify, evaluate, and decide every individual
project that may be permissible during the normal 10-year period of a
forest plan. It would be practically impossible to satisfy these
obligations in one single set of decisions or in a single environmental
impact statement. Court decisions as well as administrative appeal
decisions by the Chief of the Forest Service and the Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture have explained the content of forest plan
decisions and the scope of environmental analysis. To avoid confusion,
the existing rule should be revised accordingly.
(c) Provide for an Incremental Approach to Revising Forest Plans
The Critique firmly endorsed an incremental approach to forest plan
revision. It was considered a key element to achieving the major
recommendations of the Critique to ``Simplify, clarify, and shorten the
planning process.'' In Volume 2 of the Critique report, the merits of
incremental planning are addressed:
Wiping the slate clean and beginning anew allows the entire
universe to alternatives to be examined, unprejudiced by directions
and choices that have gone before. In fact, however, change is
incremental when the alternatives available are heavily influenced--
and circumscribed--by the choices made in the past. Examining the
entire universe of alternatives in great detail may be both
interesting and informative, but it imposes a tremendous demand for
analysis that may go largely unused in the real decision process * *
*. Federal regulations should be revised to permit an explicitly
incremental approach to the revision of forest plans.'' (p. 61)
2. While NFMA Has Some Limitations, It Remains Basically Sound
Such NFMA principles as integrated resource planning, public
participation, and an interdisciplinary approach to planning continue
to provide a solid foundation for agency planning efforts. The Act also
provides flexibility to make needed improvements through rulemaking or
agency directives.
Many of the problems with forest planning are not directly
associated with the provisions of NFMA. Public land management is
complicated by a long series of laws and regulations enacted over many
years. This has resulted in a situation once described by Federal
District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton as a ``crazy quilt of
apparently mutually incompatible statutory directives.'' (United States
v. Brunskill, Civil S-82-666-LKK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 1984) unpublished
opinion, aff'd, 792 F.2d 9938 (9th Cir. 1986)). Thus, the controversy
which often has surrounded forest planning must be viewed in light of
the many requirements imposed by statutory and regulatory requirements
other than the National Forest Management Act (e.g., the National
Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act,
Clean Air Act). It is often the interaction of these other laws and
regulations that has increased the controversy surrounding forest
planning and land use.
Some of the dissatisfaction with NFMA can be traced to unrealistic
expectations. One of the major findings of the Critique of Land
Management Planning was the need for adjustments in the public's
expectations of forest planning. Volume 2 of the report of the Critique
explicitly addressed this as follows:
Expectations for forest planning are high in some cases,
unrealistically so. Some workshop participants expected forest
planning would lead to establishment of ``reasonable and
sustainable'' production goals. Others thought it would free
resource allocation from politics while building a powerful case for
budgets and appropriations sufficient to accomplish plan goals. And
many apparently thought that forest planning would be a way to
influence the political process and sway management to their
purposes. Probing more deeply, we found that it was not so much the
process to which people objected, but the results of that process.
In retrospect, it was inevitable that this would occur. When the law
was enacted, representatives of both the Sierra Club and the
National Forest Products Association returned to their constituents
and proclaimed victory. Obviously, both had different expectations
of outcomes under the law. (p.3)
3. Many Opportunities Exist to Streamline the Existing Regulatory Text
In addition to finding numerous opportunities to streamline the
substantive procedural requirements for forest planning, one of the
findings of the review of the existing regulation was that much could
be done to simplify the regulatory text itself and to enhance its
readability regardless of major substantive changes. For example, there
were numerous opportunities to simplify language, shorten definitions,
eliminate similar or duplicative provisions, improve structural
organization, and reduce overlap with other laws, regulations, or
Executive orders. In addition, language without real substance should
be removed. The composite effect of such changes can be a significant
reduction in the length of the regulation, an enhancement of its
readability, and a positive step forward towards better understanding
and simplification of forest planning.
In reviewing the existing regulation, the agency also has
considered the relative roles of the planning regulation at 36 CFR part
219 and the Forest Service Directive System. The review indicated that
the rule is better suited for defining the purpose and desired results
of planning and the minimum standards for planning than for giving
detailed procedural guidelines. As a result, some streamlining has been
achieved in the proposed rule by shifting detailed procedural direction
to agency directives. To implement the revised regulation, the agency
plans to reorganize and revise its directives related to forest
planning. Subject to procedures in 36 CFR part 216, substantive
revisions to planning direction in Forest Service Manual Chapter 1920
will be made available for public review and comment prior to being
adopted.
4. The Solution to Some Problems With the Planning Process Are Not
Within the Scope of the Planning Regulation
Only about one-third of the 232 Critique recommendations concern
changes that are appropriate to implement through revision of the
planning regulation or issuance of related guidance through the Forest
[[Page 18889]]
Service Directive System. The remaining two-thirds of the
recommendations must be addressed through other actions or channels,
such as increasing accountability for performance or improving
training.
In addition, even though some aspects of planning are within the
scope of the regulation, the real success or failure of some endeavors
will depend on the commitment and understanding of agency personnel and
the public. A good example of this is public involvement. No amount of
regulatory detail can guarantee effective and open communication.
Certain expectations can be defined and minimum procedures established,
but ultimately the success or failure of the communication between the
agency and public depends upon the people involved. As a result, the
agency recognizes that even though modifying the planning regulation is
a major and essential step towards improving the effectiveness of
forest planning, such improvements must occur in concert with other
changes and commitments in order for the full potential of forest
planning to be realized.
In addition to the preceding four conclusions which had been
addressed in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, one additional
finding has guided development of this proposed rule which were not
reflected in the Advance Notice.
5. Principles of Ecosystem Management Need to be Reflected in the
Planning Regulation
In the decade following promulgation of the existing planning rule,
the concept of ecosystem management has slowly and steadily evolved,
and the agency has made clear its intention to move toward an ecosystem
management approach to National Forest System management. In recent
years, the agency has actively promoted implementation of ecosystem
management principles within existing legal requirements. Other Federal
agencies are proceeding similarly. Additionally, the spotted owl
controversy in the Pacific Northwest has become a focal point for
exploring ways to implement the principles of ecosystem management. The
validity of an ecosystem approach was recently upheld when the Record
of Decision (ROD) for the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl was
sustained from programmatic challenge (SAS v. Lyons, No. C92-479WD
(W.D. WA, Dec. 21, 1994)). In that decision, Judge Dwyer stated,
``Given the current condition of the forests, there is no way the
agencies could comply with environmental laws without planning on an
ecosystem basis'' (slip. Op. @ 32).
In light of the experience in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere,
there is much interest in finding ways for Federal land management
agencies to better incorporate the principles of ecosystem management
when conducting resource planning and decisionmaking activities. The
existing NFMA planning regulation was promulgated in 1982, long before
the concept of ecosystem management had begun to be widely recognized.
By contrast, the proposed rule has been promulgated with recognition of
the role of ecosystem management and represents a significant step
toward incorporating ecosystem management into the planning process to
the extent permitted by current law.
While basic principles of NFMA remain sound, there are questions as
to whether statutory changes may be appropriate if ecosystem management
is to become a fully operational concept for the management of National
Forest System lands. A related consideration is the interaction of NFMA
requirements with numerous other relevant statutes, such as the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321), the endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), or the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (86 Stat. 770). Experience to date has shown that the
existing ``crazy quilt'' framework of statutes creates some limitations
and uncertainties regarding implementation of ecosystem management
concepts. Although progress can be made within the existing legal
framework, the agency believes that a review of NFMA and other relevant
statutes may be appropriate before the concept of ecosystem management
can be transformed from an evolving vision into a fully operational
reality.
Moreover, it must be recognized that ecosystem management is a
continuously evolving concept. There is still much to be learned
regarding how best to implement the principles of ecosystem management
when fulfilling the agency's responsibilities for management of
National Forest System lands. As a result, the proposed rule should not
be viewed as the agency's ultimate vision for implementing ecosystem
management, but rather as a transitional step for beginning to
incorporate the concepts of ecosystem management into land and resource
management planning procedures and to do so in a manner consistent with
the requirements of NFMA.
In summary, as the first generation of forest plans prepared under
NFMA is coming due for revision, the Forest Service proposes a
substantially streamlined planning rule that builds on 15 years of
planning experience and evolving concepts of resource management. The
primary outcomes anticipated from the proposed rule include: forest
plans and forest planning procedures that are simpler, more
understandable, and less costly; stronger relationships with the public
and other government entities; the incorporation of ecosystem
management principles into forest planning; and clarification of the
nature of forest plan decisions and their relationship to other
planning and decisionmaking processes.
Comparison of Outlines of Proposed Rule to Existing Rule
The following table allows comparison of the existing table of
contents for 36 CFR part 219, subpart A to that in the proposed rule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule Existing rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
219.1 Purpose and principles................ 219.1 Purpose and
principles.
219.2 Definitions........................... 219.2 Scope and
applicability.
219.3 Relationships with the public and 219.3 Definitions and
government entities. terminology.
219.4 Sustainability of escosystems......... 219.4 Planning levels.
219.5 Framework for resource decisionmaking. 219.5 Interdisciplinary
approach.
219.6 Forest plan direction................. 219.6 Public
participation.
219.7 Ecosystem analysis.................... 219.7 Coordination with
other public planning
efforts.
219.8 Interdisciplinary teams and 219.8 Regional planning--
information needs. general procedure.
219.9 Forest plan amendments................ 219.9 Regional guide
content.
219.10 Forest plan revision................. 219.10 Forest planning--
general procedure.
219.11 Forest plan implementation........... 219.11 Forest plan
content.
219.12 Monitoring and evaluation............ 219.12 Forest plan
process.
[[Page 18890]]
219.13 Statutory timber management 219.13 Forest planning--
requirements. resource integration
requirements.
219.14 Special designations................. 219.14 Timber resource
land suitability.
219.15 Applicability and transition......... 219.15 Vegetative
management practices.
219.16 Timber resource
sale schedule.
219.17 Wilderness
designation.
219.18 Wilderness
management.
219.19 Fish and wildlife
resource.
219.20 Grazing resource.
219.21 Recreation
resource.
219.22 Mineral resource.
219.23 Water and soil
resource.
219.24 Cultural and
historic resource.
219.25 Research natural
areas.
219.26 Diversity.
219.27 Management
requirements.
219.28 Research.
219.29 Transition
period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section-by-Section Description
The principal features of the proposed rule are summarized here,
keyed to the proposed CFR section numbers.
Section 219.1 Purpose and Principles
The proposed rule would: (1) Describe the agency's framework for
National Forest System resource decisionmaking; (2) incorporate
principles of ecosystem management; (3) establish requirements for the
implementation, monitoring, evaluation, amendment, and revision of
forest plans; and (4) articulate the relationship between resource
decisionmaking and compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (hereafter, NEPA). Unlike the existing rule, the proposed rule
would not provide direction for development of initial forest plans,
because all but four of those plans are in effect.
Paragraph (b) would identify 10 principles which provide the basis
for National Forest System resource decisionmaking and management. The
existing rule contains 14 principles. Although the 14 original
principles are basically sound in and of themselves, the agency
believes the new set of principles better reflects the concepts of
ecosystem management and the agency's approach to resource
decisionmaking.
The first principle states the agency's commitment to managing for
sustainable ecosystems and the multiple benefits which they can yield.
The second principle articulates a key aspect of the agency's approach
to ecosystem management--that people are part of ecosystems and that
meeting people's needs and desires within the capacities of natural
systems is a primary role of resource decisionmaking.
The third principle reflects the dynamic nature of ecosystems and
that they occur at a variety of spatial scales, with the resulting need
for flexible planning processes that consider ecological changes over
time. The fourth principle recognizes that ecosystems often cross many
ownerships and jurisdictions, making it important to coordinate
planning efforts for National Forest System lands with other
landowners, governments, and agencies. This principle also addresses
the need to respect private property rights and the jurisdictions of
other government entities.
The fifth principle notes the importance of open, ongoing, and
equitable public involvement. This embodies the agency's belief that
such participation by all interested publics is an important and
integral part of National Forest System management.
The sixth principle highlights the vital role of scientists in
gathering and analyzing information for resource decisionmaking.
The seventh principle recognizes that a fundamental goal of
managing National Forest System lands is the optimization of net public
benefits, which includes consideration of both quantitative and
qualitative criteria.
The eighth principle emphasizes the importance of being able to
efficiently adjust forest plans in response to changing conditions and
new information.
The ninth principle makes clear that NEPA procedures define the
scope and level of analysis conducted for resource decisionmaking and
the need for analysis to be commensurate with the scope and nature of
decisions being made.
The last principle acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in
resource decisionmaking, and the need for resource decisionmaking to
proceed using an adaptive approach to resource management.
The 10 principles highlight the underlying concepts and assumptions
upon which the remaining sections of the proposed rule are based and
set out many of the principles of ecosystem management which are
reflected in the proposed rule.
Section 219.2 Definitions
The following words are defined in the existing rule, but would not
be included in the definitions provided in the proposed rule, because
they are not used or do not vary in meaning from common or well-
established use of the term:
Base sale schedule
Biological growth potential
Capability
Corridor
Cost efficiency
Diversity
Even-aged management
Goods and services
Integrated pest management
Management concern
Management direction
Management intensity
Management practice
Planning horizon
Present net value
Public issue
Real dollar value
Receipt shares
Responsible line officer
Sale schedule
Silvicultural system
Suitability
Sustained-yield of products and services
Timber production
Uneven-aged management
The following terms are not defined in the Definitions section of
the existing rule, but would be defined in the proposed rule:
Catastrophic event
Category 1 candidate species
Category 2 candidate species
[[Page 18891]]
Chargeable timber volume
Conservation agreement
Culmination of mean annual increment
Decision document
Directive
Directive System
Ecosystem analysis
Ecosystem management
Environmental assessment
Environmental impact statement
Even-aged stand
Forest Supervisor
Guideline
Infrastructure
NEPA documents
NEPA procedures
Previous planning rule
Project
Proposed action
Regional Forester
RPA Program and Assessment
Resource conditions
Responsible official
Species and natural community rankings
Standard
Station Director
Sustainability of ecosystems
Tribal governments
The following definitions appear in the existing rule and would be
modified or retained unchanged in the proposed rule:
Allowable sale quantity
Forested land (previously listed as ``forest land'')
Goal
Long-term sustained-yield timber capacity
Management prescription
Objective
Multiple-use
Plan area (previously listed as ``planning area'')
Plan period (previously listed as ``planning period'')
Readers of this Supplementary Information should refer to the
definitions section of the proposed rule (Sec. 219.2) for definitions
of terms used in this preamble.
Section 219.3 Relationships With the Public and Government Entities
This section focuses on building and maintaining relationships with
the public and other government entities and, in conjunction with
numerous provisions in other sections of the proposed rule, would
substantially strengthen the role of public participation and
government coordination compared to the existing rule. This emphasis
responds to findings of the Land Management Planning Critique, which
highlighted the critical role of ongoing and meaningful public
involvement and the need to strengthen coordination with other Federal
agencies and State, local and tribal governments. Although the Federal
Advisory Committee Act imposes some limitations on how involvement
activities can be conducted, a cornerstone of ecosystem management and
this proposed rule is the recognition that the public and other
agencies and governments must work closely together if resource
management issues are to be addressed effectively.
Although this section would specifically address public
participation and government coordination, there are numerous other
sections of the proposed rule that reflect the agency's recognition of
the importance of people in resource management and that reflect the
agency's intent to expand opportunities for public involvement in
agency planning and for public comment. For example, six of the
principles in proposed Sec. 219.1 highlight the role of people in
managing the National Forest System (Sec. 219.1(b)(1), (2), (4)-(7)).
There would be two new opportunities for public notice and comment--a
30-day comment period for some minor amendments (Sec. 219.9(c)(2)(i))
and a 30-day comment period prior to updating a monitoring and
evaluation strategy (Sec. 219.12(c)(2)). In addition, three new
provisions designed to provide more information to the public are
proposed: (1) the requirement for an annual monitoring and evaluation
report (Sec. 219.12(e)); (2) the requirement to periodically update
estimated levels of goods and services and management activities
(Sec. 219.11(d)(2)); and (3) the requirement to conduct and make
available the results of a prerevision review when initiating the
revision process (Sec. 219.10(c) and (d)). Involvement in the revision
process would also be strengthened by a requirement to provide
opportunities for participation in the prerevision review
(Sec. 219.10(c)(2)) and in formulation of a communications strategy for
the prerevision review and revision effort (Sec. 219.10(c)(2)(ii)).
Finally, the proposed rule provides opportunities for involvement and
coordination in monitoring and evaluation efforts
(Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(x)).
Separate sections in the existing rule for Public Participation
(Sec. 219.6) and Coordination With Other Public Planning Efforts
(Sec. 219.7), would be combined into one section in the proposed rule.
Combining the two sections is not intended to diminish the distinctive
roles and importance of the public and cooperating agencies and
governments; rather, combining these sections allows the agency to
avoid repeating the many provisions that are applicable to both the
public and cooperating agencies and governments while still providing
the ability to address their specific and unique needs.
Proposed paragraph (a) asserts that building and maintaining
relationships with the public and other Federal agencies and State,
local, and tribal governments is an essential and ongoing part of
National Forest System planning and management. Paragraphs (a) (1)-(5)
would expand on this statement by further describing five purposes for
establishing and maintaining communication with parties interested in
forest planning.
The first purpose is to develop a shared understanding of the
variety of needs, concerns, and values held by the public. In the past,
public involvement efforts have too often promoted polarization of
parties and interests. The agency believes communication and
understanding of needs, concerns, and values is essential if
polarization is to be replaced with cooperative problem solving and a
genuine desire to move towards consensus.
A second purpose is to coordinate planning efforts with other
Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments. This
reflects the agency's desire to strengthen working relationships with
other agencies and governments as well as an awareness of the distinct
roles and jurisdictions that must be recognized during resource
planning efforts. This purpose also is consistent with the emphasis in
ecosystem management that all parties interested in an ecosystem work
together rather than approaching resource planning efforts in
isolation. The provision would encourage coordination of planning
efforts between the Forest Service and other government entities.
However, the Forest Service recognizes that the Federal Advisory
Committee Act is an important consideration that can influence the
extent to which such coordinated efforts can occur.
The third purpose is to improve the information base influencing
decisions and to promote a shared understanding of the validity of this
information. If the public is to have confidence in resource decisions
made by the agency, there must be confidence in the information used in
making those decisions. The public and other agencies and governments
can play an integral part in improving the information base used and in
helping to assess its validity. For example, this could mean working
together with the public, scientific community, and other agencies to
conduct an ecoregion assessment, or development of joint data bases
with
[[Page 18892]]
other agencies. This could also involve providing more opportunities
for the public to review the information being used early in the
decision process so that concerns about its validity can be identified
and resolved in a cooperative and ongoing manner.
The fourth purpose is to strengthen the scientific basis for
resource management decisions through involvement of members of the
scientific community. Although the agency has always considered the
scientific community as part of the public, the proposed rule would
highlight the particular importance of the involvement of scientists in
resource planning. This emphasis is appropriate because the concept of
ecosystem management recognizes and validates the important role of
science and the need to integrate scientific expertise more effectively
into resource planning and management.
The fifth and final purpose is to resolve conflicts associated with
resource decisionmaking. The first four goals, if achieved, lay the
groundwork for conflict resolution. Although the Forest Service
recognizes that resource management issues are often highly
controversial and consensus may not be achievable, agency involvement
and coordination efforts, nevertheless, should strive to promote the
kind of communication and understanding that helps diminish differences
and encourages parties with varying interests to work through issues
together.
Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 219.3 would require the Forest
Supervisor to maintain and periodically update a mailing list of
interested individuals, organizations, scientists, and government
agencies and officials. This provision is intended to assure a means by
which anyone who so desires can be informed of planning activities.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require the maintenance of planning
records that document forest plan amendments, revisions, and monitoring
and evaluation and would ensure public access to these records. This is
generally comparable to Sec. 219.10(h) of the existing rule.
Proposed paragraph (d) would require copies of forest plans and
monitoring and evaluation strategies to be accessible to the public at
designated locations and is generally comparable to Sec. 219.6(i)(3) of
the existing rule.
Paragraph (e) of this section would direct Regional Foresters to
seek to establish a memorandum of understanding or other form of
agreement to guide coordination of planning efforts when desired by
State officials or affected tribal governments. Paragraph (1) (i)-(ii)
set forth the content requirements for such agreements, and paragraphs
(1) (iii)-(iv) indicate when Forest Supervisors may execute such
agreements and when a memorandum of understanding can be jointly
executed by two Regional Foresters. This new provision is intended to
help strengthen communication and cooperation between the Forest
Service and State and tribal governments. This provision would
supplement Forest Service authority to enter into such agreements with
other Federal agencies or local governments.
Proposed paragraph (f) highlights the need for public involvement
and government coordination procedures to conform with NEPA
requirements and other applicable laws, Executive orders, or
regulations. This is included as a reminder that there are numerous
requirements already in place with which the agency must comply.
Perhaps the two most notable are public involvement requirements
associated with NEPA procedures and the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act has been increasingly recognized as
having a substantial impact on how public involvement activities are to
be conducted.
Section 219.4 Sustainability of Ecosystems
This section is the central focus of the agency's shift toward an
ecosystem approach to resource management. The fundamental premise is
that the principal goal of managing the National Forest System is to
maintain or restore the sustainability of ecosystems and that this is
essential because sustained yield of benefits for present and future
generations is more likely to occur when the ecosystems from which
those benefits are produced are in a sustainable condition.
This section is also based on the premise that a diversity of plant
and animal communities is an inherent feature of sustainable
ecosystems. Therefore, this proposed regulation is premised on the
assumption that maintaining or restoring the sustainability of
ecosystems simultaneously meets the NFMA provision to, ``provide for
diversity of plant and animal communities'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).
Seven key themes are woven throughout this section.
1. Adoption of Sustainable Ecosystems As a Goal. This proposed
section explicitly establishes the maintenance or restoration of the
sustainability of ecosystems as a goal and recognizes that the agency
has the discretion to determine what processes and information will be
used to work toward this goal. Under the proposed rule, the agency
would retain the discretion to determine for each plan area which
conditions are indicative of sustainable ecosystems and how the plan
area could be managed to promote achievement of those conditions. There
is nothing in the proposed rule that establishes a concrete standard
regarding ecosystem sustainability or diversity.
This discretionary, goal-oriented approach to diversity and
maintenance of sustainable ecosystems is consistent with the statutory
basis for forest planning and the NFMA diversity provision which has
been interpreted by court rulings to be a goal within the context of
multiple use. ``Diversity is not the controlling principle in forest
planning, although it is an important goal to be pursued in the context
of overall multiple-use objectives.'' Sierra Club v. Robertson, 845 F.
Supp. 485, 502 (S.D. Ohio, 1994). The interpretation of the NFMA
diversity provision as a goal rather than a concrete standard is
supported by the legislative history of the Act and has been upheld to
date in a number of court cases. In Sierra Club v. Espy, No. 93-5050
(5th Cir. Nov. 15, 1994) the court recognized that the Forest Service
has discretion to determine how it provides for diversity. See also,
Sierra Club v. Robertson, 784 F. Supp. 593, 609 (W.D. Ark. 1991); ONRC
v. Lowe, 836 F. Supp. 727 (D. Ore. 1993); Glisson v. USFS (S.D. Ill.
August 26, 1993); Sierra Club v. Marita, 843 F. Supp. 1526 (E.D. Wisc.
1994); Krichbaum v. Kelly, 844 F. Supp. 1107 (W.D. Va. 1994); Sierra
Club v. Marita (Robertson), 845 F. Supp. 1317 (E.D. Wisc 1994); in
which courts have upheld Forest Service decisions based on NFMA
diversity grounds.
In addition, the goal statement in paragraph (a) of proposed
Sec. 219.4 is consistent with Section 4(a) of the Multiple-Use,
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) which calls for ``* * *
harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each
with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land * *
*.'' Similarly, Section 2(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., hereafter, ESA), states that one of
the purposes of the Act is to ``provide a means whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be
conserved * * *.''
[[Page 18893]]
The premise is that by maintaining or, where needed, restoring the
sustainability of ecosystems, the productivity of the land will not be
impaired and the ecosystems upon which plant and wildlife species
depend will be functioning properly. Thus, the ecological foundation is
in place from which multiple benefits can be derived over time. Without
those natural systems functioning properly, the ability to provide
multiple benefits would be at risk.
The goal in proposed paragraph (a) also is consistent with the
multiple-use mission of the National Forest System as mandated by
Section 2 of the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act, which directs the
Secretary to ``* * * develop and administer the renewable surface
resources of the national forests for multiple-use and sustained-yield
of the several products and services obtained therefrom.'' The Act
specifically identifies recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife,
and fish as values for which national forests are administered. Later,
at Sec. 219.6(a), the proposed rule would make clear that forest plans
address the full range of multiple-uses in an integrated manner and on
a sustained-yield basis.
2. Recognition of the Relationship between Sustainable Ecosystems
and Meeting the Needs of People. The goal statement of Sec. 219.4(a),
which is the foundation for this proposed section, clearly links the
sustainability of ecosystems to the ability to provide multiple
benefits to present and future generations. As stated at
Sec. 219.1(b)(2) of the proposed rule, people are considered part of
ecosystems, and meeting people's needs and desires within the
capacities of natural systems is a primary role of resource
decisionmaking. The proposed rule is based on the premise that National
Forests are managed to provide multiple benefits to people in a manner
that is sustainable over time, and that those benefits which people
need and desire will only be sustained when the ecosystems from which
they are derived are sustained.
Although proposed section Sec. 219.4 is focused on the biological
and physical aspects of sustainable ecosystems, the proposed rule would
make clear that forests plans address the full range of multiple-uses
(Sec. 219.6(a)). In addition, proposed Sec. 219.8(c) would make clear
that the social and economic effects of resource decisions must be
considered when amending or revising the forest plan. Thus, the
proposed rule provides a holistic approach to National Forest
management by assuring that the needs of people and the capacities of
natural systems in both the near and long-term are considered when
making resource decisions.
3. Adoption of ``Coarse Filter/Fine Filter'' Approach. This section
of the proposed rule incorporates the ``coarse filter/fine filter''
concept of conservation biology, which holds that a strategy focused on
maintaining the function, composition, and structure of an ecosystem as
a whole will be adequate to meet the needs of most species. In essence,
most species' needs are ``caught'' by the mesh of the ``coarse
filter.'' In contrast, some species have additional needs or more
narrow habitat requirements that are not adequately met by focusing
solely on the ecosystem as a whole. Under these circumstances,
additional ``fine filter'' measures are needed to ``catch'' and support
the special needs of species whose needs otherwise would have gone
unmet.
The proposed rule provides the ``coarse filter'' by requiring that
forest plan goals and objectives address the desired composition,
function, and structure of ecosystems. These three aspects are
generally considered to be integral to understanding and describing
sustainable natural systems. Ecosystem structure includes the
distribution and pattern of ecosystem elements such as forest openings
and riparian corridors at a landscape scale, and the amount and
arrangement of special habitat features such as seeps, snags and down
woody material at smaller scales. Ecosystem composition includes the
plant and animal species which make up an ecosystem. Ecosystem function
includes processes and the relationships among processes, such as
nutrient cycling in a system. In many cases, these three aspects of
ecosystems will be described in the forest plan for ecosystems at
fairly large scales, such as for ecosystems encompassing sizable
portions of the plan area.
The ``coarse filter'' can be provided at a variety of spatial
scales, however. For example, proposed paragraph (b)(3) would direct
that forest plans are to provide for the protection of rare natural
communities. In many cases, these areas provide the ``coarse filter''
even though they may only be a fraction or an acre in size. By
protecting rare natural communities, many individual species that are
dependent on those habitats and communities are protected, thereby
exemplifying the ``coarse filter/fine filter'' concept.
The ``fine filter'' safeguard is provided in the proposed rule
through the requirements to protect threatened and endangered species.
For example, proposed Sec. 219.4(b)(4) would require that forest plans
provide for the conservation of species listed as threatened and
endangered, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). It also would make explicit that once a species is listed or
proposed for listing, management activities on National Forest System
lands which affect the habitat of the species must comply with the
requirements of ESA. Additional ``fine filter'' protection is provided
by the requirements of Option I to protect sensitive species, and the
requirements of Option II to address viability of species which are
addressed later in this section.
4. Clear Intent to Seek to Prevent Listing of Species Under the
Endangered Species Act. This proposed rule would send a clear signal
that forest plan direction should seek to prevent the need for a
species being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA
addresses the conservation of species that have been listed as
threatened or endangered, but does not address protection of those
species for which there is evidence of a trend toward listing but which
are not yet listed. Option I of the proposed rule would target and
treat as sensitive those species for which there is some evidence of
risk but which are not yet imperiled to the point of being listed as
threatened or endangered.
5. Emphasis on Strengthening Cooperation and Sharing of
Professional Expertise. Another theme of the proposed rule is
strengthened cooperation and coordination with other resource
professionals. For example, Option I of the proposed rule utilizes the
expertise of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Network of
Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers in the
identification of sensitive species and natural communities. In
addition, this section of Option I of the proposed rule parallels both
the spirit and application of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
recently signed by the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and other government agencies (94-
SMU-058; January 25, 1994) to guide cooperation and participation in
the conservation of species toward listing. Like this Memorandum of
Understanding, the proposed rule (Option I) focuses on those species
tending toward listing in order to preclude their designation as
threatened or endangered, stresses interagency cooperation to address
this goal, and recognizes the value of addressing species conservation
within an ecosystem approach.
[[Page 18894]]
6. Focus on Habitat Rather Than Populations. Option I of the
proposed rule would emphasize the management of habitat for fish and
wildlife species, and not the management of populations as some would
interpret the existing rule. As used in this section, habitat
capability includes the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitats
needed by a species. A focus on habitat capability is more appropriate
than a focus on populations because there are many factors affecting
populations that are not under the agency's direct control. These may
include disease, predation, hunting or fishing pressures, natural
cyclical changes and conditions occurring or actions being taken
outside the plan area.
The proposed rule would not alter the current cooperative
relationship with State fish and wildlife agencies. The Forest Service
role has traditionally been to provide habitat rather than manage
numbers of species. States generally exercise jurisdiction over hunting
and fishing on National Forest System lands.
7. Use of Best Available Information. The agency recognizes that
there are many uncertainties regarding how to maintain or restore
sustainable ecosystems and that scientific knowledge will always be
incomplete and evolving. The terms ``sustainable,'' ``restoration,''
``maintenance,'' or ``deteriorated ecosystem'' are all subject to
varying and evolving interpretations. Furthermore, there is an infinite
number of ecosystems, and realistically, planning efforts must be
allowed to focus on only those ecosystem considerations of most
relevance to decisionmaking. Therefore, in concert with the principle
that the agency must retain discretion in its approach to maintaining
or restoring sustainable ecosystems, the proposed rule (Sec. 219.4(e))
also recognizes the inevitable need to use the best available
information in making the various decisions associated with approval of
a forest plan. The proposed rule makes clear that there is no
expectation that there will ever be a precise and universally accepted
understanding or measure of what sustainable ecosystems are and the
actions appropriate to maintain or restore them; rather, the
expectation established by this proposed rule is that the agency will
use the best information available and an adaptive management approach
in its efforts to maintain or restore sustainable ecosystems and to
manage the National Forest System toward that outcome.
Adaptive management is considered one of the cornerstones of
ecosystem management. This concept acknowledges that our understanding
of ecosystems is always changing, that we learn by observing how
natural systems respond to actual situations, and that we should adapt
our actions accordingly. Adaptive resource management recognizes that
decisions cannot always be halted until research is complete,
especially since, at times, inaction can have far-reaching
consequences.
Proposed paragraph Sec. 219.4(e) not only would establish the use
of an adaptive management approach for dealing with incomplete and
changing information, but also would clearly signal that resource
decisionmaking need not be halted if there is uncertainty or incomplete
knowledge. In accordance with NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1502.22),
decisionmaking is expected to proceed using the best information
available commensurate with the decision being made, and monitoring and
evaluation is to be used to assess the effects of those decisions and
to identify new information which may come available. Since project
decisions for the decade of the forest plan are approved incrementally
during the plan period, the opportunity exits to adapt those decisions
as needed to respond to new information.
Options for Providing Diversity
In addition to the provisions of Sec. 219.4(b)(1)-(4), this
proposed rule sets out two options for providing diversity. Proposed
Option I would provide for diversity by addressing sensitive species.
By contrast, Option II which is basically the requirements of the
current regulation would provide for diversity by addressing viability
of species.
Option I. Proposed Sec. 219.4(b)(5) creates a system for protection
of habitat capability for sensitive species in order to prevent the
need for listing the species as threatened or endangered under ESA and
to preclude extirpation of the sensitive species from the plan area.
Paragraph (b)(5)(i) describes how sensitive species would be
identified. First, sensitive species can encompass species, subspecies,
populations, or stocks of vertebrates, invertebrates, vascular plants,
bryophytes, fungi, and lichens. Second, the species must be known to
occur or to be likely to occur on National Forest System lands. Third,
the species must meet one of the criteria described at (b)(5)(i)(A)-
(C). These criteria utilize a combination of information derived from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Network of Natural Heritage
Programs and Conservation Data Centers.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Federal agency with
primary responsibility for administering ESA. The Network of Natural
Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers is generally considered
to have one of the most comprehensive and accurate compilations of
information on species that are imperiled in the United States. The
Network consists of approximately 85 data centers, including at least
one in each State. Each data center is established within a local
institution, most frequently as part of a government agency responsible
for natural resource management and protection, and each center
functions in support of Natural Heritage Programs. The Nature
Conservancy is involved in the establishment and operation of the data
centers by providing technical, scientific, and administrative support
and training. The Conservancy also makes available the computer
technology, data inventory and management methodology, and procedural
manuals used.
Natural Heritage Programs and the Conservation Data Centers provide
continuously updated, computer-assisted inventories of the biological
and ecological features and biodiversity preservation of the region in
which they are located. Most data centers use the Biological and
Conservation Data System as the basis for operation, a system developed
and refined by The Nature Conservancy since 1974.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) (A) and (B) would establish the
process for ensuring that forest plan direction is responsive to the
needs of sensitive species. The first step is to identify the sensitive
species for the plan area using the rankings and listings and to
identify their habitat needs. Second, the habitat needs for the
sensitive species, or assemblages of sensitive species, are compared
against current forest plan direction with consideration of the likely
contribution of lands outside the plan area. When the forest plan is
being revised, habitat needs are compared to the tentatively proposed
revisions to forest plan direction. This provides for consideration of
sensitive species habitat needs throughout the forest plan revision
process and inclusion of this direction in the draft environmental
impact statement and proposed revised forest plan when they are
released for public comment.
In accordance with (b)(5)(ii)(B)(1), forest plan direction must be
modified if a continuing downward trend in habitat capability is
predicted to occur within the plan area and that downward trend is
predicted to result in the need for Federal listing of the species or
if it is predicted that the sensitive species will be extirpated from
the plan area.
[[Page 18895]]
Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(2) would establish that if a conservation
agreement has been approved by the Forest Service and either the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, and
if relevant direction from that agreement has been incorporated by
amendment into the forest plan, the requirement to establish direction
to protect the habitat capability of the species is met. The forest
plan amendment requires full NEPA analysis and disclosure.
Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(3) would affirm that the needs of a
threatened or endangered species take precedence over a sensitive
species should a conflict occur relative to protective measures needed.
Although it is not anticipated such a conflict would happen often, it
is important that the rule provide for such circumstances because the
proposed rule's requirements for protection of both sensitive species
and threatened and endangered species could theoretically be in
conflict. It is reasonable that the rule provide that listed species be
given priority in the event of conflict with the needs of a sensitive
species since listed species are at greater risk than sensitive species
and there is a statutory obligation to provide for the conservation of
listed species.
Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(4) would require management direction for
sensitive species to be established using the best information
available commensurate with the decision being made. This idea is also
echoed in paragraph (e) of this section. In addition, paragraph
(b)(5)(ii)(B)(4) would make clear that determinations of whether the
habitat needs of sensitive species are adequately met and the degree of
protection needed are inherently dependent on professional judgment.
Paragraph (b)(5)(iii) proposes procedures for handling newly
identified sensitive species. The categories and rankings of sensitive
species would be reviewed annually as part of monitoring and
evaluation, and if additions to the listings have occurred, the
adequacy of existing forest plan management direction to meet the needs
of those species would be assessed. This paragraph also would make
clear that even though the rankings and categories are required to be
reviewed on an annual basis, this does not relieve the agency of its
obligation to consider new information at any time a project is under
consideration that affects the habitat capability of a sensitive
species.
Option II. As an alternative to the regulatory text proposed in
Option I of Sec. 219.4(b)(5), the agency has set forth alternative
regulatory text, which is almost identical to the existing rule at
Sec. 219.19; however, a few nonsubstantive edits have been made to
assure consistency of terminology and coding with the remainder of the
proposed rule.
There are five key differences between the Option I approach to
sensitive species and the alternative text of Option II which is based
on Sec. 219.19 of the existing rule. These are (1) use of the term
``viability''; (2) establishment of clear analytical expectations that
are reasonable to implement; (3) scope of species protected; (4) goal
of protective measures; and (5) role of management indicator species.
First, in Option I the proposed rule does not use the term
``viability''. NFMA does not use the term ``viability,'' nor is there
anything in the statute or legislative history that indicates the
agency was expected to insure viable species or pursue the type of
viability analyses described in current scientific literature (for
example, M.E. Soule, Viable Populations for Conservation (Cambridge,
1989), 189pp.) Rather, the statute requires that the Secretary of
Agriculture promulgate regulations to guide the Forest Service
development and revision of Forest Plans. One of the statutory
requirements is ``specifying guidelines for land management plans
developed to achieve the goals of the Program which * * * (B) provide
for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability
and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall
multiple use objectives * * *.'' 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(B).
Translating the statutory language to provide for diversity of
plant and animal communities through regulations, plans and actions has
been and continues to be a formidable challenge, as the Committee of
Scientists who provided scientific advice to the Forest Service on the
crafting of the current regulation accurately predicted at the time of
their promulgation. The Committee stated that, ``it is impossible to
write specific regulations to `provide for' diversity: and that ``there
remains a great deal of room for honest debate on the translation of
policy into management planning requirements and into management
programs'' (44 FR 26,6000-01 & 26,608).
The Forest Service has found that the term ``viability'' has been
subject to continuously evolving scientific interpretation and no
longer meets the agency's expectations at the time the rule was
written. When the existing rule was finalized, ``viability'' was a
general concept not associated with specific scientific
interpretations. Since 1982, however, the concept of viability has
become the object of intense discussion and varying interpretation
within the scientific community. The extensive and expensive amount of
scientific expertise, data, and technology needed for conducting
species viability assessments as currently described in the scientific
literature is far beyond what was originally envisioned by the
Committee of Scientists when developing the planning rule.
Even when addressing the overall topic of diversity, the Committee
of Scientists clearly had not envisioned the type of highly
quantitative analysis which has come to be associated with viability
assessments. The Committee stated, ``We analyzed the issue in our
report and stressed that, in our opinion, Congress used the term
diversity to refer to biological variety rather than any of the
quantitative expressions now found in the biological literature.''
(Rules and Regulations, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix
E--Supplementary Final Report of the Committee of Scientists (August
17, 1979), 44 FR 53967 (September 17, 1979)).
Furthermore, the current regulatory requirement is ``to insure
viable populations will be maintained.'' As a practical matter, there
is a growing recognition that a requirement to ``insure'' viable
populations, if interpreted literally, envisions an outcome impossible
to be guaranteed by any agency, regardless of the analytical resources
marshalled.
Rather than continuing use of a regulatory term which is subject to
such varying interpretations and expectations, Option I would define
more precisely what is required for species protection. This approach
in Option I is consistent not only with the original intent of the
regulation, but also with the underlying statute.
Second, the analysis needed to meet the requirements of Option I is
better defined, more meaningful, and more capable of accomplishment
than the analysis some associate with the existing rule. Species
viability analysis has evolved to where it currently involves such
information as species habitat needs, trends in habitat capability,
trends in other factors affecting population (e.g.--disease, predation,
overutilization), relationship of habitat capability to population
numbers, population demographics (e.g.--reproductive success, sex
ratios, mortality rates), effective population size, genetic
measurements, and development of risk assessments. The
[[Page 18896]]
technology, data, and scientific expertise to conduct and maintain
numerous scientifically sound viability analyses given current
scientific interpretations is far beyond what is available to any
agency or scientific institution. Although the agency's position has
been upheld in court that the requirements of Sec. 219.19 of the
existing rule can be met without such complex analyses, the proposed
rule offers a timely opportunity to clarify analytical expectations.
In addition, it is expected that for most sensitive species, the
requirements of (b)(5)(ii)(B) of Option I of the proposed rule can be
met using habitat capability information. Analyses involving population
demographics and prediction of population trends, which requires far
more extensive and costly data, would likely only be needed when a
continuing downward trend in habitat capability is predicted to be
leading toward the listing or extirpation of the species. In addition,
it is intended that there be no circumstances where Option I of the
proposed rule would trigger the need for studies of long-term genetic
diversity, in contrast to the case if thorough viability assessments
were to be required.
Furthermore, Option I of the proposed rule recognizes that
individual sensitive species may often be able to be grouped into
assemblages of sensitive species with similar habitat needs. By
focusing on assemblages of sensitive species rather than individual
species whenever possible, analytical burden and costs are reduced
without impairment to species protection.
The third key difference between the proposed approach to sensitive
species in Option I and that in Option II is the scope of the species
addressed. In contrast to Sec. 219.19 of the existing rule which
addresses only native and desired non-native vertebrate species, Option
I the proposed rule would include vertebrates, invertebrates, vascular
plants, bryophytes, fungi, and lichens. This is appropriate since
species other than vertebrates play an important role in ecosystems and
merit protection when at risk.
The scope of proposed Option I also varies from the existing rule
in that it would include as sensitive species only those species at
risk range-wide; that is, those species imperiled throughout their
range. For example, a plant species abundant in several States, but
very limited in a particular plan area, would not be of range-wide
concern and thus would not be identified as a sensitive species under
Option I of the proposed rule.
The agency believes the focus on species on range-wide concern is
appropriate in order to address the two underlying reasons for
protecting sensitive species: (1) To address how the agency will meet
the NFMA goal of providing a diversity of plant and animal communities,
and (2) to attempt to preclude the listing of species under ESA. Both
are achieved by proposed Option I without expanding the scope of
sensitive species to include those of only local concern.
Option I of the proposed rule puts considerable emphasis on
providing a diversity of plant and animal communities. For example, the
provisions of proposed Sec. 219.4 address establishing forest plan
direction for sustainable ecosystem conditions, soil and water
protection, protection of rare natural communities, protection of
threatened and endangered species, and protection of sensitive species
in order to attempt to prevent extirpation from the plan area or
listing under ESA. These all work together to provide a diversity of
plant and animal communities within the plan area.
Under the ``coarse filter/fine filter'' concept, the ecological
conditions which will occur as a result of these various provisions for
providing diversity should meet the needs of many species of local, but
not range-wide, concern. For example, many species of local concern,
but not at risk range-wide, are associated with rare natural
communities addressed in the proposed rule at Sec. 219.4(b)(3). The
agency believes that adding yet another ``fine flter'' layer of
protection, by including as sensitive species those not at risk range-
wide, and the extensive additional analysis this would require, goes
beyond what is necessary to meet the two underlying reasons for
protecting sensitive species. It should be noted, however, that nothing
in the proposed rule precludes the Forest Service from working with
State agencies and organizations to determine whether to protect
species of local concern even though such protection would be beyond
the requirements of Option I of the proposed rule.
The fourth key difference between the approach to sensitive species
in Option I and the alternative text in Option II is the goal of
protective measures. Under the existing rule, the goal is to ensure
that viable populations are maintained. But, as explained previously,
the concept of a ``viable population'' has been subject to evolving
interpretations. Option I of the proposed rule would make the goal much
more explicit; that is, for sensitive species, to prevent their listing
under the ESA and to prevent their extirpation from the plan area. This
second goal is deemed appropriate because, for species of range-wide
concern, the agency feels it is undesirable to lose their
representation from the plan area due to their contribution to
providing a diversity of plant and animal communities. Under some
circumstances the first goal, to prevent listing of a sensitive
species, may not be adequate to prevent extirpation of a sensitive
species from the plan area because a species extirpated from one plan
area may not necessarily be more prone to listing as threatened or
endangered.
The final key difference is the Option I of the proposed rule would
not require the identification of management indicator species. As
noted in the 1991 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, there is
diminishing scientific support for focusing solely on individual
species as indicators of the welfare of a group of associated species.
Instead of requiring management indicator species, the monitoring and
evaluation provisions of the proposed rule would allow for establishing
whatever measurable indicators are appropriate in order to determine
progress towards achieving goals. In some cases, individual species may
be an appropriate measure of whether ecosystem goals are being achieved
and can be used as indicators.
Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems. Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 219.4
recognizes the dynamic nature of ecosystems and the importance of
evaluating ecosystem disturbances in the context of ecological
processes and resilience. Ecosystem disturbances are those events that
significantly change the existing pattern of an ecological system.
Examples of such disturbances include both natural or human-induced
phenomena such as wildfires, floods, or oil spills. Resilience is a
term used to describe the ability of an ecological system to maintain
its functions despite disturbance.
Paragraph (c) recognizes that disturbances are a natural and
sometimes even essential part of many ecosystems. Similarly, other
changes may be naturally occurring within an ecosystem, such as the
progression of vegetation from one seral stage to another over time.
Therefore, sustaining an ecosystem does not imply reaching or
maintaining a static condition, but rather managing in such a way that
naturally occurring disturbances and changes allow the ecosystem to
retain the characteristics which provide resiliency.
Some examples of ecosystems in which disturbance is required for
[[Page 18897]]
sustainability are the fire-adapted pine forests. Lodgepole pine and
sand pine communities require stand replacement fire (or some
surrogate) to sustain those communities through time. Ponderosa pine
and longleaf pine communities require recurring, low intensity fires to
sustain the structure and functioning of the ecosystem.
Paragraph (c) would assure that forest plan direction intended to
maintain or restore sustainable ecosystems was developed with
recognition of the dynamic nature of ecosystems and natural role of
disturbances. It should be noted that this provision does not
specifically require analysis of the ``range of natural variability''
or require that future conditions stay within historic ranges of
variability. The value of the ``range of natural variability'' in
gaining a better understanding of sustainable ecosystem conditions is
recognized, but the agency does not intend to mandate that all forest
plans must provide for conditions within such a range.
Multiple Spatial Scales. Paragraph (d) recognizes that ecosystems
exist at multiple scales and are infinite in number. For example, the
span of ecosystems can range from the microscopic world of life
occurring on the trunk of a fallen tree to the range of a migratory
bird that travels annually from the tropics to the arctic. It is
impossible and unnecessary to expect a forest plan to address all of
the ecosystems which occur within a plan area. Therefore, paragraph (d)
would establish that the forest plan should address those ecosystems of
most relevance to forest plan decisionmaking, with the intent being to
limit efforts to a practical number and scope.
Role of Lands Outside the Plan Area. Consideration of conditions
outside the plan area is an integral part of the concept that Federal
lands should be managed from an ecological perspective rather than one
limited by jurisdictional boundaries. This consideration must occur,
however, without detriment to the rights of private landowners or the
authorities of other government jurisdictions. Paragraph (a) of this
section of the proposed rule would, in part, direct consideration of
the contribution of lands outside the plan area when establishing
forest plan direction. For example, when evaluating the habitat
capability of a sensitive species, the quality, quantity, and
distribution of habitat within the species' range would be considered
in the context of the plan area. However, this consideration does not
mean that the forest plan would in any way address how to manage these
other lands. Instead, the responsible official might choose to alter
decisions in the forest plan regarding management of National Forest
System lands due to conditions on these other lands, if that should be
determined to be desirable to help maintain or restore sustainable
ecosystems.
Protection of soil and water resources. Paragraph (b)(2) would
address soil and water resources. This paragraph of the proposed rule
would not only provide for forest plans to address the protection of
soil and water resources, but also the restoration of existing
conditions harmful to soil and water quality.
Section 219.5 Framework for Resource Decisionmaking
Paragraph (a) explains that the agency uses a staged decisionmaking
process, with forest plans being used to allocate the lands and
resources of the plan area through management prescriptions, and
project decisionmaking being the point at which site-specific
activities are authorized. Paragraph (a) also explains that forest plan
and project decisions must adhere to legal requirements and that an
additional source of direction guiding management of the National
Forest System is direction issued through the agency's Directive
System.
The staged decisionmaking process described in the proposed rule is
consistent with a series of administrative appeal decisions. These
include the Chief's appeal decision on the Idaho Panhandle Land and
Resource Management Plan (Appeal No. 2130, August 15, 1988); the
Chief's appeal decisions on the Flathead National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan (Appeals No. 1467 and No. 1513, August 31,
1988). For court decisions upholding the staged decisionmaking approach
of forest plan and project levels, see Cronin v. USDA, 919 F.2d 439,
447-49 (7th Cir. 1990); Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d
1508, 15511-12 (9th Cir. 1992); Resources Ltd Inc. v. Robertson, 789 F.
Supp. 1529 (D.Mt. 1991) aff'd in part (NEPA, NFMA) and reversed in part
(ESA), 8 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1993) (amended July 5, 1994); Swan View
Coalition v. Turner, 824 F.Supp. 923 (D. Mt. 1992); Sierra Club v.
Robertson, 810 F.Supp. 1021 (W.D. Ark 1992); Eighth Circuit found no
standing and alternatively affirmed lower court on the merits, 23 F.3d.
753 (8th Cir. 1994).
There is currently a conflict between the Eighth and Ninth Circuits
as whether the forest plans without a project decision present a
justiciable controversy. ``We are aware that on several occasions the
Ninth Circuit has entertained challenges to forest plans similar to the
Plan here in issue. [citations deleted] * * * we decline to apply them
[Ninth Circuit decisions] as a basis for finding that the appellants
have standing to attack the Plan outside the context of a proposed
site-specific action that causes or threatens to cause injury in
fact.'' Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753, 759-60 (8th Cir. 1994).
See also, Wilderness Society v. Alcock, F. Supp. (N.D. Ga. September
30, 1994) finding the Eighth Circuit reasoning more persuasive and
holding that plaintiffs' claims against approval of the Cherokee forest
plan did not present a justiciable controversy.
Even the Ninth Circuit recognizes that forest plan EIS's are ``an
early stage, where the EIS is `merely' programmatic.'' Idaho
Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d at 1523. The Ninth Circuit has
also held that when a programmatic EIS ``is prepared, site-specific
impacts need not be fully evaluated until a `critical decision' has
been made to act on site development.'' Salmon River Concerned Citizens
v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1357 (9th Cir. 1994).
Paragraph (a)(1) describes the first stage of the agency's staged
decisionmaking process--forest plans. Forest plans allocate the land
and resources of the plan area through management prescriptions which
consist of goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines.
Paragraph (a)(1) would also establish a key point essential to
understanding the nature of a forest plan; i.e., that forest plans do
not compel the agency to plan for or undertake any specific projects,
but do establish limitations on actions that may be authorized later
during project decisionmaking. This concept is central to understanding
the role of a forest plan and is addressed in more detail under the
preamble discussion of Sec. 219.6.
Paragraph (a)(1) also would clarify that forest plans must not
conflict with laws or regulations and should not conflict with policy
and procedure issued through the Forest Service Directive System.
Although it has generally been understood that forest plans must not
conflict with laws or regulations, there is not such common
understanding of the relationship of directives issued through the
Directive System to forest plan direction. The proposed rule seeks to
end this misunderstanding. As noted in paragraph (b)(1), any conflict
with an agency directive should be identified and the rationale for not
complying with such a directive provided at the time of forest plan
amendment or revision. The relationship between forest plans and
[[Page 18898]]
directives is addressed in further detail under the preamble discussion
of Sec. 219.5(b)(2).
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) would limit the area covered by a
forest plan to one or more National Forests and/or other units of the
National Forest System within the jurisdiction of a single Forest
Supervisor. One forest plan can be developed, however, when a single
National Forest is administered by several Forest Supervisors.
Currently, the Tongass National Forest in Alaska is the only National
Forest administered by more than one Forest Supervisor. These
provisions are not substantively different from the requirements of the
existing rule at Sec. 219.4(b)(3).
Establishing a plan area based on administrative boundaries may
appear to conflict with the principles of ecosystem management. Some
may argue that resource planning should occur based on areas with
shared ecological conditions rather than on boundaries established for
administrative purposes. The agency recognizes the benefits that can be
gained from taking a more ecological approach to establishing the area
to be encompassed by a forest plan. In the long run, a realignment of
plan boundaries should be considered. In the short-run, however, there
are practical considerations for continuing the current approach.
First, NFMA does not clearly articulate the area to be covered by a
forest plan. Although Section 6(f)(1) of NFMA directs ``one integrated
plan for each unit of the National Forest System,'' a unit is not
specifically defined. The determination of the unit for planning is
complicated by provisions of Section 13 of NFMA, which require certain
limitations on timber removal to be determined on a National Forest
basis. Provided such timber-related requirements could be met, the
agency believes it does have discretion under the statute to redefine,
through a new rule, the geographic area to be covered by a forest plan.
However, realigning the entire National Forest System into a new
set of plan areas for forest planning introduces significant new and
immediate challenges. For example, where should new boundaries be
drawn? Ecosystems exist at a variety of scales, and ecological units
can be defined variously. Determining the best boundaries for planning
purposes is not a simple process. How can the public be involved in
delineating the new plan area? How might a change in boundaries of the
plan area affect the public's interest and ability to participate in
the planning process? Might the change be perceived to be more
advantageous to some segments of the public than others? How would such
a change effect National Forests where revision efforts are already
underway or scheduled to begin in the near future? How should such a
realignment be coordinated with the planning efforts of other agencies
and governments? These are questions which the agency is currently not
prepared to answer, but which merits careful examination before changes
in plan area boundaries should occur.
This agency also recognizes that roughly two-thirds of all forest
plans are or will be undergoing either significant amendment or
revision in the next 1-2 years. Redefining plan areas would delay
revision, which would be detrimental to the public interest and to
resource management, as well as increase the risk of exceeding the 15-
year period between revisions. Rather than introducing a complex and
time-consuming new decision to be made before initiating the planning
process, the agency expects to take various administrative actions to
mitigate the disadvantages of planning based on administrative
boundaries.
For example, planning efforts can be synchronized among those
National Forests that share ecological characteristics through the use
of joint planning teams and development of parallel schedules.
Similarly, the mechanism for simultaneous plan amendment or revision,
as addressed at proposed Sec. 219.5(a)(1)(ii), is intended to
facilitate achieving such coordination across plan area boundaries.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would permit forest plan direction to
be established for more than one plan area by simultaneously amending
or revising the appropriate forest plans. Since this occurs through the
amendment or revision of forest plans, NEPA procedures would still
apply. For example, if the Regional Forester wanted to establish a
forest plan standard for all lands within the range of a particular
wildlife species, and the range encompassed three plan areas, the
Regional Forester could establish a new standard by simultaneously
amending those three forest plans, with associated NEPA disclosure of
effects.
The concept of simultaneous amendment or revision is an essential
part of integrating ecosystem management into the agency's resource
decisionmaking framework. Ecosystem management necessitates a flexible
approach to the spatial scale for planning and decisionmaking; the
proposed approach allows resource decisions to be made at whatever
scale is appropriate. Even though a forest plan document itself is
limited to administrative boundaries, the forest plan direction it
contains can be derived from analysis and decisions at any appropriate
scale or land area regardless of administrative boundaries.
The proposed rule would discontinue regional guides as required by
the existing rule. As noted in the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, agency experience has shown that regional guides may no
longer be the most effective and efficient means for providing regional
direction. In reality, most regional guides did not fully achieve the
role of being the meaningful or effective documents originally
envisioned. Moreover, the rigorous requirements of Secs. 219.8 and
219.9 in the existing rule siphoned a significant investment of
staffing and funds from forest or project planning efforts. The
provision for simultaneous amendment or revision would provide a means
to establish resource direction at a regional scale, or any other
appropriate scale, and, therefore, is believed to be a more effective
approach to providing multi-forest direction than a regional guide.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would identify project decisions as the
second stage of the agency's decisionmaking process. The proposed rule
would make clear that it is at the project level that the authorization
is made to conduct resource activities, not at the forest plan level.
Paragraph (a)(2) would also make clear that NEPA procedures must be
followed when approving a project, and projects must be consistent with
the forest plan.
As discussed previously, various court decisions have upheld the
staged decision approach of forest plans and project decisionmaking.
One important basis for this staged approach and the relationship
between forest plans and projects rests largely upon the requirements
for compliance with NEPA. In a landmark court case (State of California
v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982)), the Ninth Circuit stated that
``the critical inquiry in considering the adequacy of an EIS prepared
for a large scale, multi-step project is not whether the project's
site-specific impact should be evaluated in detail, but when such
detailed evaluation should occur.'' The court determined that ``[t]his
threshold is reached when, as a practical matter, the agency proposes
to make an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the
availability of resources to a project at a particular site.''
As a practical matter, it is impossible for a forest plan to
identify all of the projects to be implemented for a 10-year period,
adequately disclose their site-
[[Page 18899]]
specific environmental effects in an accompanying environmental impact
statement, and comply with the multitude of statutes and regulations
applicable to project activities. Furthermore, new information
regarding the relationship among proposed projects and effects of
proposed actions within a forest is constantly being developed. No
matter how sophisticated forest models become, it is doubtful that the
order and relationship of possible activities can ever be forecast with
enough precision at the forest plan approval stage to meet the
requirements of environmental laws or correspond to the realities of a
changing world. In addition, many activities occurring on a forest are
initiated by forest users and not the Forest Service. The relationship
of projects initiated by others and projects planned by the Forest
Service is continuously changing. Thus, the forest plan is best viewed
as a dynamic management system that provides the framework for further
decisionmaking at the project level.
Under the existing rule, project decisions can be made in a forest
plan provided they are identified in the Record of Decision and
adequately disclosed in associated NEPA documents. The proposed rule
would eliminate this Option in order to clarify the distinction between
the two stages of decisionmaking and because this option has not been
commonly used in the past.
The two-stage decisionmaking process described in the proposed rule
does not preclude multiple steps at the project level. Examples include
some multi-stage recreational development decisions such as for ski
areas (Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 322, 336-
37 (1989)), or the multiple decision points in oil and gas leasing,
exploration, and development where a series of decisions is made over
time (see 36 CFR 228, 228.102 (55 FR 10423, March 21, 1990)). In most
cases, however, project decisions are not of this complexity, and the
project decision occurs in a single step.
Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 219.5 would explain how forest plans
are to be reconciled with changing legal requirements, new agency
directives, or new information from other planning efforts. In
accordance with proposed paragraph (b)(1), if a change in law or
regulation conflicts with forest plan direction, the Regional Forester
must direct that the plan be brought into compliance following the
procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10 and specify the timing for
doing so. The proposed provision to permit nondiscretionary changes at
Sec. 219.9(e) provides a mechanism for quickly changing forest plan
direction to respond to changes in legal requirements for which there
is no discretion in the manner of compliance.
Proposed Sec. 219.5(b)(2) (i) and (ii) address responsibilities
regarding reconciliation of forest plans with changes in agency
direction issued through the Directive System. As described at
paragraph (b)(2)(i), an official issuing a directive must determine if
forest plans are to be made consistent with a newly issued directive
when it appears that the directive would conflict with forest plan
direction. If so, the official must specify that plans be changed
following the procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10 and the timing
for doing so. In the event of conflict between an agency resource
directive and direction in a forest plan, the forest plan takes
precedence. Accordingly, the agency maintains discretion to determine
when a forest plan should be amended to be consistent with agency
directives. As stated at Sec. 219.5(a) of the proposed rule, agency
directives are subject to NEPA procedures, as is the process for forest
plan amendment.
Reconciliation of forest plans and agency directives as described
at paragraph (b)(2)(ii) addresses those situations where a directive
has been issued, but it was not readily apparent at the time that it
might conflict with forest plans. To address such situations, the
Forest Supervisor is responsible for periodically reviewing resource
management amendments or supplements to the Directive System as part of
the monitoring and evaluation process. If a conflict occurs between
forest plan direction and a newly issued directive, the Forest
Supervisor must either amend the forest plan so that it no longer
conflicts with the directive, or notify the Regional Forester why such
an amendment is not deemed appropriate. Consistent with agency policy
at FSM 1103, if the directive had been issued at the National level,
the Regional Forester would be expected to notify the Chief of the
concerns with the newly issued directive.
The provisions of (b)(2)(i)-(ii) are closely related to the
provision of paragraph (a)(1) of this section which directs that where
there is substantial conflict between a resource management directive
and a forest plan amendment or revision, the responsible official is
expected to identify the conflict and include the rationale for the
departure in the decision document. In order to enhance understanding
of these provisions, a brief explanation of the Directive System is
provided as follows.
The Forest Service Directive System consists of the Forest Service
Manual and Handbooks in which the agency's policy, practice, and
procedure are codified. The system serves as the primary basis for the
internal management and control of all programs and as the primary
source of administrative direction to Forest Service employees. The
Forest Service Manual contains legal authorities, management
objectives, policies, responsibilities, delegations, general
instructions, and guidance needed on a continuous basis by Forest
Service line officers and staff at more than one unit to plan and
execute programs. New or revised direction is issued by amendment or
interim directive, whereas direction which expands on directives issued
by a higher level is issued by supplement. For example, a Regional
Forester may issue a regional supplement in order to expand on the
national direction issued by the Chief.
Directives issued through the Directive System are subject to NEPA
procedures. In addition, issuance of some Manual direction may be
subject to public notice and comment procedures in accordance with 16
USC 1612 and 36 CFR 216.6(a), which requires public notice and comment
for standards, criteria, and guidelines, when substantial public
interest in or controversy over a proposed Manual directive can be
expected. Reviewers are encouraged to study 16 USC 1612 and 36 CFR part
216 if further information is desired on public review and comment
related to changes in Manual direction.
As previously noted, there are two main reasons why it is important
to consider agency directives when amending or revising forest plans.
First, it would be unreasonable and illogical for forest plans to
substantially conflict with officially established agency objectives,
policy, and procedure. Although direction in an approved forest plan
would take precedence in case of a conflict, such conflicts should be
avoided when establishing forest plan direction to prevent conflicts in
performance expectations and potential loss of national or regional
consistency.
A second reason for identifying any substantial conflicts between
forest plans and agency directives at the time of amendment or revision
relates to the nature of agency directives. Some directives have been
established through extensive agency effort and adopted following
public review and comment procedures under 36 CFR part 216; for
example, the agency's policy and procedures for reauthorizing
recreation residences (FSM 2300 and
[[Page 18900]]
2700). Other policies are required to be published for comment under
other statutes; for example, the regulations implementing NEPA at 40
CFR parts 1500-1508 require the agency's NEPA policy and procedures, as
issued in FSM Chapter 1950 and FSH 1909.15, to be published. On the
other hand, not all agency directives are fully up-to-date, and some
inconsistencies may and often do exist within the Directive System.
Allowing the responsible official the flexibility to depart from agency
directives, provided a rationale is given, will prevent forest plans
from having to adhere to inappropriate or outdated agency directives
and also will help the agency identify where directive changes are
needed. The flexibility to be provided in the planning rule is
consistent with current policy in FSM 1103 which requires employees to
notify higher authorities when departure from direction is deemed
necessary or when directives need to be revised.
It is not anticipated, however, that there will often be
substantial conflict between forest plans and agency directives. First,
the proposed rule provides for greatly reducing the amount of
repetition between forest plans and directives (Sec. 219.6(b)(2)).
Second, the provision for simultaneous plan amendment or revision, as
addressed at Sec. 219.5(a)(1)(ii), provides a mechanism for
establishing direction known to affect more than one plan, thus
eliminating the need to establish such direction through the Directive
System. Third, directives are generally very broad and programmatic in
nature, thus leaving considerable discretion for forest plans and
project decisionmaking to establish more precise and site-specific
direction. As a result, there are generally ample opportunity to
establish more detailed direction at the forest plan or project stage
without substantially conflicting with directives. Fourth, paragraph
(a)(1) applies to resource management directives that would conflict
with forest plan direction. Directives which provide procedural
guidance on the process for amending or revising forest plans is not
encompassed by the requirement.
Paragraph (b)(3) would address the link between the RPA Program and
forest plans. Following adoption of a new RPA Program, the Chief would
determine those elements of the RPA Program that should be considered
in forest plan implementation, monitoring, and evaluation as well as
establish any necessary agency-wide procedures to achieve this. In
addition, Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(vii)(A) of the proposed rule would require
the monitoring and evaluation process to consider a newly issued RPA
Program. As a result, there would be a link established whereby each
new RPA Program would be reviewed to determine whether there is new
information which makes it appropriate to initiate forest plan
amendment procedures.
Paragraph (b)(4) would direct Forest Supervisors, as part of
monitoring and evaluation, to periodically review results of any
applicable ecosystem analyses that have been completed subsequent to
plan approval to determine if there is new information which would
indicate the need to consider changing the forest plan. Although
ecosystem analysis is not a decision process, it may generate
information that indicates a need to consider changing a resource
decision.
Section 219.6 Forest Plan Direction
Paragraph (a) of this section of the proposed rule would direct
that forest plans provide for integration and coordination of all
resources on a multiple-use and sustained-yield basis. This paragraph
lists the numerous resources to be addressed in a forest plan when such
resources occur within the plan area. It also would assure that forest
plans address infrastructure needs and land ownership and access
patterns to the extent appropriate. None of this would represent a
change from the scope of most current forest plans.
Although forest plans address the full range of resources found
within the plan area, this regulation does not attempt to provide
direction for management of individual resources except where necessary
to respond to specific requirements of NFMA. In contrast to the
existing rule which contained 13 sections on individual resources, the
proposed rule does not include such detailed direction. For example,
the proposed rule does not define goals and objectives for specific
resources nor prescribe requirements for how each resource will be
evaluated during amendment or revision of forest plans. It is the
agency's intent to provide through directive issuances any additional
direction necessary to specify how individual resources are addressed
in forest plans.
The agency believes this planning regulation should stay focused on
the specific requirements of NFMA, the authorizing statute. It would be
beyond the reasonable scope of any one regulation to address all of the
laws, regulations, and Executive orders under which National Forest
System resources are managed. In addition, the shift to an ecosystem
management orientation diminishes the relevance of focusing on
individual resources, and supports the need for the more holistic
approach taken in the proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (b) provides that a forest plan allocates the
land and resources of the plan area through management prescriptions
which consist of goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. These
four types of direction, and the maps or similar information
delineating where they are applicable, constitute forest plan
direction. It is important that the proposed rule clearly define what
constitutes forest plan direction, since plan direction can only be
changed by amendment. Other information within the forest plan document
is not forest plan direction and can be updated without going through
amendment procedures.
The existing rule is not explicit regarding the nature of forest
plan decisions, resulting in some confusion by both the public and
employees over the years. As noted in the preceding discussion of
proposed Sec. 219.5, the nature of a forest plan under the existing
rule has been articulated through a series of administrative appeal
decisions and court decisions. The proposed rule reflects many of these
decisions and explicitly defines forest plan direction and the contents
of the forest plan document.
In Citizens for Environmental Quality v. Lyng, 731 F. Supp. 970,
977-78 (D. Colo. 1989), the court upheld the agency's position under
the existing rule regarding the decisions made in forest plans. That
court decision confirmed that approval of a forest plan results in: (1)
Establishment of forest multiple-use goals and objectives; (2)
Establishment of forest-wide management requirements (standards and
guidelines) applying to future activities; (3) Establishment of
management areas and management area direction (management area
prescriptions) applying to future activities in that management area;
(4) Designation of suitable timber land and establishment of allowable
timber sale quantity; (5) Nonwilderness allocations or wilderness
recommendations; and (6) Establishment of monitoring and evaluation
requirements.
Forest plan direction, as defined at proposed paragraph (b), in
concert with other provisions of the proposed rule, overlap most, but
not all, of the six items identified as forest plan decisions in
Citizens for Environmental Quality v. Lyng. For example, goals,
objectives, standards, and guidelines--both on a forest-wide basis and
for specific portions of the plan area--are terms common to both the
existing rule and
[[Page 18901]]
the proposed rule. The definition of ``objectives'' has been modified
in the proposed rule, however, as explained at the preamble discussion
of Sec. 219.6(b)(1) and (d). Also, under both the existing and proposed
rule, management prescriptions are the means by which direction is
allocated to specific portions of the plan area. Similarly, although
designation of suitable timber land, nonwilderness allocations, and
wilderness recommendations are not individually identified in proposed
Sec. 219.6, they are encompassed by the management prescriptions
described at Sec. 219.6(b) and are addressed specifically at
Sec. 219.13(b)(2) and Sec. 219.14.
Although the term ``management area'' has not been used in the
proposed rule, nothing in the rule prohibits continuation of the
traditional use of the term, and some mechanism for delineating where
direction applies is required regardless of the terminology used. It is
anticipated that the term ``management area'' will continue to be used
in many forest plans. The proposed rule has not required the use of
this term in order to allow the flexibility to develop other terms, if
beneficial, to describe the areas to which specific management
prescriptions apply. This flexibility is desirable since ecosystem
management has heightened the likelihood of direction being established
at a variety of scales, and more effective ways may be possible to
delineate where a management prescription applies than the traditional
management area concept.
Although there is considerable overlap between the six decisions
resulting from forest plan approval under the existing rule and forest
plan decisions under the proposed rule, two points of notable
difference relate to forest plan objectives and monitoring and
evaluation requirements. These differences are addressed in this
preamble discussion of Secs. 219.6(b)(1), 219.6(d), and 219.12.
Under paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec. 219.6, projected levels of
goods and services or projected levels of management activities would
not constitute forest plan direction. In addition, the proposed rule
makes explicit that any projections of the rate of achieving desired
resource conditions would not be forest plan direction.
Based on the definition of ``objectives'' provided in the existing
rule, ``objectives'' as used in the existing rule would encompass the
types of projections addressed in proposed paragraph (b)(1). The
proposed rule would make clear that such predictions addressing the
rate of implementation are not forest plan direction. For example,
under the proposed rule the forest plan would define resource
conditions desirable to achieve, but would not address the rate at
which achievement should occur. Instead, any such projections of the
rate of achievement would be provided in an appendix in accordance with
Sec. 219.11(d).
These changes are proposed for two reasons. First, experience has
shown that the rate at which forest plans will be implemented cannot be
established for a 10-year period. As explained earlier, the agency's
decision framework provides for staged decisionmaking, with project
decisions, rather than the forest plan, being the point at which site-
specific activities are authorized. Decisions to approve and implement
individual projects are subject to many variables, such as the results
of project-level NEPA analysis, availability of funding, agency
priorities, administrative appeals, and litigation. Since the rate at
which forest plans can be implemented is based on decisions which occur
during the plan period rather than decisions that can be made at the
time of approving or revising a forest plan, it is important to make
clear that the rate of implementation is not a decision that can be
made in the forest plan.
Second, if rate-specific direction were to be included in a forest
plan, it increases the likelihood of creating a false expectation that
specific implementation rates, particularly levels of goods and
services, can be assured during the 10-year plan period. As already
noted, the agency cannot provide such guarantees. Elimination of rate-
specific projections from forest plan direction, in concert with the
provisions of Sec. 219.11(d), should enhance understanding of the
agency's staged decisionmaking process and produce more realistic
expectations of what may occur during the plan period.
While excluding any rate-specific objectives from forest plan
direction may appear to some to be a major change from the existing
rule, this approach is consistent with a variety of court decisions
which have affirmed the agency's staged decisionmaking process and
verified that the agency has no obligation to produce the goods and
services or to undertake the management activities identified in forest
plans. The most notable actual difference resulting from the proposed
rule would be that projections of implementation rates can be updated
during the plan period without amendment procedures.
The approach that would be taken under proposed paragraph (b)(1)
also represents an evolution in understanding of the relationship
between forest plans and the agency's process for formulating budgets.
In the past, there have been expectations that the objectives in forest
plans would drive the budget process; that is, that funds would be
requested at whatever level was necessary to achieve the objectives of
the forest plan over the course of a decade, and any lower funding
level was interpreted as less than full implementation of the forest
plan by many people. In addition, most forest plans were developed
without imposing budget constraints, so there was no attempt to
establish objectives at levels that reflected probable budget levels.
Over time, the agency has recognized the shortcomings of these earlier
expectations and approaches, and has been re-evaluating and clarifying
the link between forest plans and the budget process.
The proposed rule is consistent with the recommendations of a
national team of Forest Service personnel chartered to study the
linkage between budgets and forest plans. Rather than expecting the
forest plan to define a desired rate of implementation to guide the
budget process, the proposed rule would result in a process where
budgets are formulated by considering forest plan direction, the
results of monitoring and evaluation, and continuously updated
information regarding national and agency priorities. This approach
recognizes that annual program development and budgeting, rather than
the forest plan, is the most timely and effective mechanism for
responding to the continuously changing information which influences
the rate at which plan goals can be achieved.
Proposed Sec. 219.6(b)(2) would direct that forest plans focus on
management of the resources specific to the plan area. It would further
explain that forest plans should generally not provide direction on
procedural aspects of how future project decisions will be made nor
repeat other direction established through the Directive System,
regulation, Executive order, or law. The existing rule does not have a
comparable requirement, and this does represent a change from the way
most current forest plans have been developed.
A sample of forest plans has been reviewed to determine the amount
of overlap between direction in forest plans and direction already
established through the Directive System, regulation, Executive order,
or law. In one case, almost all of the forest-wide
[[Page 18902]]
goals and about half of the standards and guidelines overlapped
direction that was already established and applicable to almost any
National Forest in the country. Although the percentage of overlap
varies with each plan, this sample does not appear to be exceptional.
It seems there is a high degree of repetition in forest plans of
direction that has already been established and applicable to most plan
areas.
This repetition results, in part, from the desire to provide in one
document all the direction applicable to the plan area. The reality,
however, is that given the volume and breadth of laws, Executive
orders, regulations, and agency directives that apply to National
Forest lands, it is infeasible to consolidate all of that direction
into one document. While some forest plans may currently appear to
encompass all relevant direction, it is inevitable that one must still
refer to other sources to fully grasp all of the direction applicable
to the plan area.
There are four main sources of overlap which would be eliminated
under the proposed rule. First, forest plans would not restate goals or
policies that are already established by law, regulation, Executive
order, or agency directive. Secondly, forest plans would not repeat
procedural direction on how to conduct project analysis and
decisionmaking. This type of administrative procedure is appropriate to
issuance in the Directive System and not in forest plans. Under the
proposed rule, forest plans will be clearly focused on desired resource
conditions for the plan area, focusing on management of resources
rather than on management of the administrative processes used to make
decisions. For example, the Directive System is the definitive source
of agency guidance and information on how to conduct NEPA analysis and
should be the source of any guidance for conducting specific
evaluations or analyses required to make a resource decision.
Third, forest plans would not repeat instructions related to public
involvement and coordination with other government entities.
Considerable direction on these topics is already established by law,
regulation, Executive order, agency directive, and any additional
direction needed is appropriately issued through the Directive System.
Finally, procedural guidance on how to conduct routine professional
tasks would not be repeated in forest plans. For example, agency
directives describe how to locate hiking trails and factors to consider
when designing recreation sites. Such direction is applicable anywhere
in the country and, as a result, should not be repeated in a forest
plan. In contrast, if there are special circumstances in the plan area
that require establishment of specific standards or guidelines to
address local resource conditions, then such local direction would be
appropriate for the forest plan.
The agency anticipates several benefits from reducing the overlap
between forest plans and direction already established by law,
regulation, Executive order, or agency directives. First, forest plan
direction should be substantially shorter, making forest plans more
readable and easier to understand. Second, forest plans should be much
more focused on local conditions and management needs. Third, the
public should have a clearer understanding of the decisions that are
actually being made in the forest plan.
Paragraph (b)(3) of this proposed section would limit the main body
of the forest plan document to forest plan directionk. Other
information would appear in a brief preface or appendices. One benefit
is to make it easier for the reader to distinguish between forest plan
decisions and other information that may be found within the document.
Currently, it is often difficult for readers to quickly locate the
decisions made in the forest plan, and sometimes direction appears to
be repeated or intermingled in multiple locations. Another benefit of
this approach is that forest plans should be substantially shorter and
easier to understand.
Proposed paragraph (c) would describe the role and function of
forest plan goals. Goals would be concise statements that describe a
desired end result; they would normally be expressed in broad general
terms rather than quantitatively; and there would be no time period
specified for achievement. Forest plan goals would serve as the link
between broad agency goals already established through legal
requirements, agency directives, or the RPA Program and specific,
measurable desired resource conditions as defined by objectives in the
forest plan. As a result, they will help to translate national goals
into end results of more local relevance to the plan area. Pursuant to
paragraph (b)(2) of this proposed section, forest plan goals would not
repeat national goals, but would rather translate them into end results
more specific to the local conditions of the plan area.
Because forest plan goals are not quantitative in nature, progress
towards achieving goals is determined by monitoring achievement of the
measurable desired conditions established by forest plan objectives
and, if necessary, additional measurable indicators can be established
through the monitoring and evaluation process (Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(ii)).
Paragraph (d) describes the role of forest plan objectives.
Objectives would describe measurable desired resource conditions, or
ranges of conditions, intended to achieve forest plan goals. In many
cases, a range of conditions is likely to be a more desirable target
than a specific condition, because natural systems usually have ranges
within which some variation is typical and acceptable. In addition,
defining a desired range of conditions is appropriate when there is not
enough information to make a more precise statement, or when such
precision is not necessary, given the decision being made.
Paragraph (d) would make clear that objectives must be defined in a
manner that permits measurement of whether the objective is being
achieved. The ability to directly measure the achievement of an
objective, its greater degree of specificity, and its scope being
limited to resource conditions are the three features which help to
distinguish an objective from a goal. The proposed rule would explain
that objectives can be defined to encompass natural resource
conditions, conditions resulting from human influences, or the manner
in which resources are perceived. As further explained at the preamble
discussion of Sec. 219.6(b)(1), this use of the term ``objectives'' in
the proposed rule is not the same as use of the term in the existing
rule.
Paragraphs (e)(1)-(2) describe the role of forest plan standards.
These paragraphs would make explicit that standards are limitations on
management activities and that adherence to standards is mandatory.
They are the basis for determining if a project is consistent with the
forest plan (Sec. 219.11(a)).
One particularly important feature of standards is that they must
be defined in such a manner that they are clearly within the authority
or ability of the agency to enforce; that is, compliance must be within
the agency's control. This characteristic is essential, because under
the proposed rule standards it would be used for assessing project
consistency with the forest plan (Sec. 219.11). When undertaking a
project, the two things that the agency has the authority to control
are the specific activities authorized and how they are conducted. The
agency cannot control the actual results, however, since there are
usually various factors beyond the
[[Page 18903]]
agency's influence that can affect results. For example, usual weather
events or wildfires can affect actual on-the-ground results in
unpredictable and uncontrollable ways.
Proposed paragraph (f) describes the role forest plan guidelines
would play under the proposed rule. Guidelines would be used to
describe a preferred or advisable course of action. Unlike standards,
variation from a guideline does not trigger a forest plan amendment.
Guidelines would play two key roles.
First, guidelines would be used to describe a preferred or
advisable method of conducting resource activities. For example, a
guideline might recommend that shelters on hiking trails be located at
least one mile from trailheads. If terrain or other circumstances
related to a specific project made compliance infeasible, the
flexibility would exist to locate the shelter closer to a trailhead.
However, the guideline would have served to advise the responsible
official that construction of a shelter less than one mile to the
trailhead should not occur unless special circumstances exist.
Second, guidelines would be used to describe a preferred or
advisable sequence or priority for implementing various types of
projects when such guidance is useful in facilitating achievement of a
forest plan goal. For example, the forest plan might have a goal which
addresses the restoration of hydrologic processes in a particular
watershed. Various objectives could be defined describing resource
conditions associated with restoration of the hydrologic processes,
such as desired vegetative conditions within the watershed, the
presence of down woody material in the stream channel, stream
temperatures, or turbidity levels. Guidelines could be used if there is
a preferred sequence for implementing the types of projects that would
achieve these objectives and the ultimate goal. For example, if
revegetating exposed soils within the riparian area are needed more
urgently than soil restoration projects elsewhere in the watershed, a
guideline can indicate that priority. Such guidelines would not be used
to identify specific projects, but rather to specify if certain types
of projects should be implemented before others in order to achieve a
goal in the most timely manner.
Paragraph (g) would establish requirements for coordinating forest
plan direction across plan areas. The intent is to improve consistency
between forest plans. In many cases currently, it is difficult to
compare forest plan decisions for adjacent forests covered by different
forest plans, and direction often changes at an administrative boundary
even though the management situation appears to be identical. Paragraph
(g) recognizes that there may often be legitimate reason for
differences, but that, unless such reasons exist, forest plan decisions
within a Forest Service administrative Region and for plan areas
adjacent to the Region should be consistent in at least four ways.
First, management prescriptions for adjacent lands should be the
same. The direction for managing a specific area of land should not
change at the boundary between forest plan plan areas unless a good
reason exists for such change. In addiiton, maps used in the forest
plans should be consistent to facilitate review and comparison. For
example, this would mean using maps of the same scale and with the same
legends and formats.
Second, management prescriptions for specially designated areas
should be the same when they cross plan area boundaries, unless good
reason exists for change. For example, direction for managing a
wilderness area, scenic trail, or similar specially designated area
(Sec. 219.14) should not change simply because of a change in
administrative boundary.
Third, forest plan direction should be the same for adjacent areas
when findings of an ecosystem analysis or research used as a basis for
the direction are applicable to more than one plan area, unless local
circumstances justify variation. For example, if the research used as a
basis for establishing a habitat protection standard for a threatened
or endangered species applies to a broad area covered by several forest
plans, that standard should be the same in each of those plans, unless
valid reason existed to alter it.
Finally, consistency would be required in the use of terminology
and classification systems. The intent is to have the same terms and
classification systems used wherever feasible.
In summary, the provisions proposed in Sec. 219.6 would incorporate
the results of landmark administrative appeal decisions and court cases
which have clarified the nature and scope of decisions made in forest
plans. In addition, this section would establish a uniform approach to
what appears in the main body of the forest plan and what can be
presented in the preface and appendices. These changes to the contents
of a forest plan will result in shorter, simpler forest plans that are
easier to use and understand, as well as forest plans that are more
highly focused on direction specifically tailored for management of the
resources of the plan area.
Section 219.7 Ecosystem Analysis
This section would introduce the concept of ecosystem analysis to
the planning process, a topic not addressed in the existing rule.
Paragraph (a) would define ecosystem analysis as a broad term used to
denote various interdisciplinary studies conducted to provide
information on and enhance understanding of the physical, biological,
social, or economic aspects and interactions of an ecosystem. Because
the agency considers humans to be an integral part of ecosystems,
studies of social and economic aspects of ecosystems are within the
scope of these analyses. Ecoregion assessments and landscape-level
analyses are only two examples of the different types of studies that
are conducted at various scales which fall under the general umbrella
of ecosystem analysis.
Paragraph (a) would also address the geographic scope of ecosystem
analysis. It acknowledges that such analyses can be conducted at any
scale deemed appropriate, and emphasizes that areas subject to
ecosystem analyses should generally be delineated based on ecological
considerations rather than administrative or jurisdictional boundaries.
Reviewers are cautioned not to confuse the concept of ecosystem
analysis with the analysis and evaluation of environmental effects
which occurs as part of the NEPA process. The requirements associated
with NEPA procedures would be unchanged by the provisions of this
proposed section. The two documents used to disclose environmental
assessment, are distinct in nature and purpose from an ecosystem
analysis.
Proposed Sec. 219.7 would not require an ecosystem analysis to be
conducted as a precursor to resource decisionmaking. In fact, ecosystem
analyses are not mandatory, and it is left to agency discretion to
conduct them as appropriate. While the area covered by an ecosystem
analyses is defined by the ecosystem and not by jurisdictional or
administrative boundaries, the proposed rule would in no way impose
resource decisions of the Forest Service on private lands. However, in
order to make decisions for National Forest System lands, the agency
believes it is important to be knowledgeable of the conditions on non-
Forest Service lands within an ecosystem being studied. This is
considered an essential part of taking an ecological approach to
management of National Forest System lands.
[[Page 18904]]
Proposed paragraph (b) would make an important distinction between
an ecosystem analysis and resource decisionmaking. As noted earlier,
ecosystem analysis is not a decisionmaking effort and does not result
in a resource decision. Therefore, it does not trigger NEPA analysis
nor does the result of ecosystem analysis substitute for a NEPA
disclosure document. Rather, an ecosystem analysis is a process by
which information is gathered and synthesized in order to enhance and
understanding of ecosystems. This information is usually intended as
one--but not the only--source of information to be used later when
making resource decisions.
One key provision of paragraph (b) intended to help draw the
distinction between ecosystem analysis and resource decisionmaking is
the requirement that the findings of ecosystem analysis not be used as
a substitute for forest plan goals, objectives, standards, or
guidelines. The proposed rule would make clear that the findings of an
ecosystem analysis may indicate the need to change forest plan
direction, but that such changes must occur through amendment or
revision procedures. The agency does not intend ecosystem analysis to
be used to identify any preferred or desired alternatives or outcomes.
Identification of such preferences would reflect value judgments on the
part of those conducting the ecosystem analysis without the benefit of
utilizing NEPA procedures. The agency also hopes such a requirement
will reduce any confusion regarding the expected results of ecosystem
analysis and diminish the risk that such analyses might be mistaken for
decisionmaking processes.
The proposed rule would make clear that ecosystem analysis may be
used to identify opportunities for achieving goals and objectives that
have already been established by law, Executive order, regulation,
agency directive, or the forest plan. For example, this could include
identifying various management options or scenarios that might meet
established goals and assessing the results if such options were chosen
or scenarios were to occur. This kind of assessment can be helpful in
determining the potential to resolve issues given existing forest plan
direction, or in evaluating the probable effects if current direction
were to remain unchanged. In addition, paragraph (b) would make clear
that an ecosystem analysis may be used to provide information that
indicates a need to initiate forest plan amendment procedures. It will
be incumbent upon the agency official responsible for the ecosystem
analysis to ensure that such findings are properly utilized and that
any consideration of options or strategies is conducted in a manner
complementary to using the information for subsequent compliance with
NEPA procedures associated with resource decisionmaking.
Paragraph (c) would list various possible results of ecosystem
analysis, depending upon the scope and specific purpose of each
analysis. Eleven examples are provided of the type of information which
might result from an ecosystem analysis. This is not intended to be an
all-inclusive list, but rather to represent the type of results that
might be expected. All eleven items are informational in nature and do
not represent resource decisions or a narrowing of options to be
considered in future decisionmaking efforts.
Section 219.8 Interdisciplinary Teams and Information Needs
Paragraph (a) would require the use of an interdisciplinary team
when preparing amendments, revisions, and monitoring and evaluation
strategies and reports and when conducting ecosystem analysis. Although
the proposed rule would clearly identify when interdisciplinary teams
must be used, it would be less specific than Sec. 219.5 of the existing
rule, which addresses in more detail the functioning and selection of
interdisciplinary teams. Such detail is in excess of what is
appropriate to this regulation, especially since NEPA procedures
already provide guidance on the use of interdisciplinary teams. The
proposed rule would limit interdisciplinary team membership to Forest
Service and other Federal personnel. This limitation is primarily due
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which imposes extensive
requirements on the creation and use of committees that include non-
Federal personnel for the purpose of advising Federal agencies.
Paragraph (b) would direct that the responsible official must
strive to obtain and keep updated inventory data needed for
decisionmaking. This is intended to emphasize the importance of
maintaining data on a continuous basis rather than allowing inventories
to become outdated. This is of particular importance in implementing an
adaptive approach to resource management. The ability to know if and
how management should be adjusted depends on ongoing analysis of
information throughout the plan period.
Maintaining inventory data is also critical to avoiding delays in
the revision process. Some forests took as much as two years or more to
gather the inventory data needed to develop their initial forest plans.
As envisioned under the proposed rule, such information would be
maintained throughout the plan period, with little delay needed at the
time of revision to obtain new data. Realistically, many forests do not
have fully updated inventories at this time, so, regrettably, such
delays must still be expected in some cases when forest plans are
revised. The updating process would occur prior to or during the
prerevision review, however.
In addition, paragraph (b) would clarify that the information
compiled should be commensurate with the decisions being made. It is
wasteful to try to obtain highly precise estimates if the decision
being made does not require such precision. The proposed rule would
make clear that the precision of the data should be commensurate with
the precision needed to make the decision (see also Sec. 219.4(e)).
Paragraph (b) also emphasizes the need for carefully focused analysis
efforts, a noteworthy change from the existing rule. The proposed rule
intends that analytical efforts will be focused on the critical
questions relevant to specific decisionmaking needs rather than
dispersed across a wide range of standardized analytical requirements
that may not be relevant to local conditions, issues, and concerns.
Although paragraph (b) would provide enhanced flexibility to tailor
analysis to meet local needs, this should not be interpreted as
deemphasizing the importance of sound analyses. While the proposed rule
is certainly intended to better focus the analysis, there may or may
not be a reduction in the overall quantity of analysis conducted on any
given forest. For example, the extensive benchmark analyses required by
the existing rule at Sec. 219.12(e) would no longer be required in the
proposed rule. In many cases, the effort invested in these benchmark
analyses has often diverted too much time and energy from more critical
analyses needed for decisionmaking. However, in other cases, the data
derived from some of the benchmark analyses proved very helpful. The
proposed rule would not require that standardized benchmark analyses be
conducted for all resources on all forests, but it would also signal
the expectation that such analyses should occur if and when needed for
informed decisionmaking.
This focused approach to analysis is also intended to enhance
understanding of and confidence in the agency's analytical procedures.
Findings of the Critique of Land Management Planning clearly indicated
that many people distrust analytical procedures and view
[[Page 18905]]
computer models as mysterious ``black boxes'' that produce
incomprehensible and unverifiable answers. The approach in paragraph
(b) would keep analytical procedures highly focused and relevant to
local decisionmaking needs and thus should help increase public and
employee confidence in methodologies and results. Although computer
models will still be used, analytical efforts should be better tailored
to local needs. Under this provision, forest analysts could devote more
time and effort to understanding the data relevant to the specific
decisions to be made and to improving ways of communicating that
information to the public and decisionmakers.
Paragraph (c) would assure that social and economic effects are
considered when amending or revising the forest plan. As stated at
Sec. 219.1(b)(2), meeting people's needs and desires within the
capacities of natural systems is a primary role of resource
decisionmaking. The forest plan addresses management of land and
resources, but decisions as to how those lands and resources should be
managed is inherently dependent on considering the effects on people as
well as on the resources themselves. Paragraph (c) would assure that
commensurate with the decision being made, appropriate indicators of
social and economic change, such as changes in community stability or
employment, are evaluated during amendment and revision.
Paragraph (d) would require Forest Supervisors to identify the
research needed for decisionmaking, including, but not limited to, the
research needed to help resource managers ensure that management
practices do not produce substantial impairment of the productivity of
the land. This latter requirement responds to Section 6(g)(3)(C) of
NFMA. Comparable provisions of Sec. 219.28 of the existing rule are
more detailed. By contrast, the proposed rule focuses more directly on
making sure that research needs are identified, but would leave to
normal agency administrative processes the task of directing
formulation of budgets and reporting procedures.
Section 219.9 Forest Plan Amendment
Paragraph (a) would provide for three types of amendments to forest
plans--major, minor, and interim. It also would make explicit that: (1)
only those elements defined as forest plan direction are subject to
amendment, and (2) that amendment is the only method by which forest
plan direction can be changed between revisions, unless the changes are
nondiscretionary as described at Sec. 219.9(e).
The term ``major amendment'' in the proposed rule would replace the
term ``significant amendment'' as used in the existing rule. This
change in terminology should help avoid confusion with the term
``significance'' as it is used in the context of NEPA compliance.
Criteria for determining significance for NEPA compliance differ from
the criteria for distinguishing the significance of amendments under
NFMA. These differences have caused considerable confusion both within
and outside the agency with regard to ``significant'' plan amendments.
Under the proposed rule, the term ``minor amendment'' would be used to
refer to amendments which do not meet the criteria for a ``major'' or
``interim'' amendment.
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses major amendments. Paragraph (b)(1)
would define the only three circumstances which trigger a major
amendment. The existing rule does not define specific criteria for
triggering a significant amendment, stating simply that ``if the change
resulting from the proposed amendment is determined to be significant,
the Forest Supervisor shall follow the same procedure as that required
for development and approval of a forest plan'' (Sec. 219.10(f)).
In the absence of criteria in the existing rule, the agency has
issued, at FSM 1922.52, two examples indicative of circumstances that
may cause a significant change to the forest plan. In addition, FSH
1909.12 describes four factors to be used in helping to determine
significance. The two circumstances described at FSM 1922.52 are: (1)
Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship
between levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected,
and (2) changes that may have an important effect on the entire forest
plan or affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the
planning area during the plan period. Both of these examples are
subject to varying interpretation.
In reassessing the circumstances that should trigger a major
amendment, the agency has focused on two key provisions of Section
6(f)(4) of NFMA. First, this section recognizes that some amendments
may result in a significant change in the plan. Second, it establishes
special requirements for those amendments that would result in a
significant change to the forest plan--a three-month comment period and
associated requirements for public involvement.
With these provisions of NFMA in mind, the agency proposes
establishing in the proposed rule at Sec. 219.9(b)(1), rather than in
the Forest Service Manual, three criteria for triggering a major
amendment. The first trigger would be a change to a forest plan
standard. The second would be when the chargeable timber volume that
can be sold for a decade is amended in such a manner that it exceeds
the long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of a proclaimed National
Forest within the plan area. The third circumstance would be if the
forest plan is changed to permit harvest of even-aged stands that have
not reached culmination of mean annual increment of growth.
The first criterion, changing a forest plan standard, reflects the
heightened importance of forest plan standards under the proposed rule.
As explained earlier in this preamble, adherence to forest plan
standards would be mandatory, and standards would be used to assure
compliance with legal requirements and to provide environmental
safeguards. As a result, standards would have a distinctly stronger
role in the forest plan than goals, objectives, or guidelines.
Subsequently, the proposed rule would consider a change to a standard
or where a standard is applied as a significant change to the forest
plan, which thus would trigger a major amendment unless the exceptions
identified at Sec. 219.9(c) (4) and (5) apply. The exceptions are when
a standard is changed to accommodate a particular site-specific
project, or the allocation of a management prescription, which
typically includes some standards, to newly acquired lands and the
prescription is consistent with the purposes for which the land was
acquired.
The other two circumstances that would trigger a major amendment
derive directly from NFMA. In the case of the decadal chargeable volume
that can be sold from a proclaimed National Forest exceeding the long-
term sustained yield timber capacity of that Forest, Section 13 of NFMA
requires that such a variation be made following the same public
involvement requirements as those for a major amendment or revision;
i.e., a 90-day comment period. Similarly, Section 6(m)(2) of NFMA
requires a 90-day comment period if stands are to be harvested before
reaching culmination of mean annual increment of growth. As a result,
the proposed rule would require that such changes be considered major
amendments.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would provide that the Regional Forester
is the responsible official for major amendments. This delegation of
[[Page 18906]]
authority is the same as that under the existing rule.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would describe the procedural
requirements associated with major amendment. These differ from those
of the existing rule in two main ways. First, there is no automatic
requirement to develop an EIS for a major amendment. The intent is to
allow NEPA procedures to guide the determination of whether an EIS or
an environmental assessment is appropriate for the decision being made.
Second, the proposed rule would drop the requirement to use the same
process for a major amendment as for development of initial forest
plans and revisions (Sec. 219.12(a) of the existing regulation).
Instead, the proposed rule would rely on established NEPA procedures to
guide the process for major amendment.
Both changes are expected to help focus and streamline analyses. As
described at proposed Sec. 219.8(b), one intent of the proposed rule is
to focus analyses on the information needed for decisionmaking and thus
to ensure that the nature, scope; and complexity of analyses are
commensurate with the nature, scope and impact of the decisions to be
made. Relying on NEPA procedures to determine the type of disclosure
that is appropriate is a sound means of assuring that analysis and
documentation match the nature of the decision.
Similarly, the requirement in the existing rule to repeat the same
steps for a significant amendment as for a revision has proven
excessively burdensome. This existing requirement has often resulted in
a variety of analysis efforts, such as developing benchmarks or
reevaluating the suitability of lands for timber production, which
proved to be of little benefit or utility and which diverted energy and
focus from more critical factors related to the decision.
Paragraph (b)(3) of the proposed rule also would state the
requirement to provide a 90-day period for public review and comment on
a major amendment. This paragraph also specifies the minimum actions
the Regional Forester would be required to take to provide for public
participation in the major amendment process.
Paragraph (b)(4) would require publication of legal notice of
adoption of a major amendment. Paragraph (b)(5) provides that the
effective date of an approved major amendment is the eighth calendar
day following publication of legal notice of the decision in accordance
with administrative appeal rules at 36 CFR 217.10.
Proposed paragraph (c) would establish requirements for a minor
amendment, which is triggered whenever a change is being made to the
forest plan which does not meet the circumstances for triggering a
revision, major amendment, or interim amendment.
Paragraph (c)(1) would designate the Forest Supervisor as the
responsible official for minor amendments, unless that authority is
retained by the Regional Forester.
Paragraph (c)(2) addresses public comment periods for minor
amendments. As is the case with major amendments, the proposed rule
does not specify what type of NEPA documentation must accompany a minor
amendment. Instead, NEPA procedures would provide this guidance.
Although NEPA procedures require a 45-day comment period for review of
a draft EIS, there is no requirement under NEPA procedures for public
comment on a draft environmental assessment. Nevertheless, the agency
believes that the public should have an opportunity to comment on a
minor amendment to a forest plan when an environmental assessment is
prepared. Therefore, the proposed rule requires at least a 30-day
comment period when an environmental assessment is prepared and at
least a 45-day comment period when an EIS is prepared.
Paragraph (c)(3) indicates that 36 CFR part 217 provides for
administrative appeal of forest plan amendments and revisions and
guides public notice of decisions to adopt a minor amendment, as well
as their effective date. This is further clarified in a conforming
amendment to 36 CFR 217.3(a).
Proposed paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) describe two circumstances
where a minor amendment, not a major amendment, is the appropriate
mechanism for changing a forest plan even though such an amendment
involves changing a standard or changing where a standard applies.
Under paragraph (c)(4), a minor amendment would be appropriate when a
management prescription is extended to apply to newly acquired land and
the prescription is compatible with the purposes for which it was
acquired. Without this provision, such a change would trigger a major
amendment since management prescriptions include standards, and
allocating lands to a management prescription changes where those
standards are applied.
Paragraph (c)(5) provides instructions for handling a proposed
site-specific project that would conflict with a forest plan standard.
As required at Sec. 219.11(a) of the proposed rule, a project cannot be
approved if it conflicts with a forest plan standard. If the
responsible official has determined that the project merits an
exception to a forest plan standard, but wishes the exception to apply
only to the site-specific project rather than changing the standard for
all future projects, the proposed rule would specify that the change be
made by minor amendment. This is appropriate because of the limited,
site-specific scope of the change in the standard(s). However, a minor
amendment cannot be used when the circumstances described at
(b)(1)(ii)-(iii) apply, since NFMA requires a 90-day comment period on
changes of that nature.
Under the proposed rule, the public could review and comment on a
proposed site-specific amendment as part of the project decisionmaking
process rather than as disjointed decisions. The disclosure of effects
associated with changing the standard would be addressed as part of the
NEPA documentation associated with the site-specific project decision.
One intent of this integrated approach is to avoid duplicating analysis
and documentation. It would be burdensome and confusing for both the
public and the agency if a project decision had to be made separately
from the forest plan amendment needed to authorize the site-specific
exception from the standard.
The length of the comment period under these circumstances would
vary, depending on the nature of the decision being made. If the
project decision or amendment required an EIS, then at least a 45-day
comment period would be provided in accordance with NEPA procedures. If
an environmental assessment would be adequate, then at least a 30-day
comment period would be provided in accordance with 36 CFR 215.5.
A minor amendment associated with a site-specific project would not
be subject to administrative appeal under the provisions of 36 CFR part
217, but instead would be appealable under 36 CFR part 215 which
already governs appeal procedures when a project decision includes a
plan amendment. Similarly, the time period between the decision and
project implementation is also governed by 36 CFR part 215.
Paragraph (d)(1) of this proposed section introduces the concept of
``interim amendment.'' The agency believes there is a clear need to
provide streamlined procedures for updating forest plan direction when
there is new information that indicates a compelling need to promptly
change the forest plan in order to provide resource protection,
[[Page 18907]]
or when a catastrophic even has occurred, and the process for major
amendment, minor amendment, or revision would result in an unacceptable
delay.
Due to the length of time it often takes to fully analyze new
information and to complete appropriate amendment procedures, there can
be quite a gap between the time the agency is aware that it needs to
address a problem and the time normal procedures can be completed. In
the meantime, environmental damage may be occurring as a result of
these procedural delays. The interim amendment would be a means of
addressing those situations where such delay is unacceptable, but would
still assure that a thorough analysis of the new information is
conducted and possible alternative responses are considered while such
interim measures are in place.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would designate the Regional Forester as
the responsible official for interim amendments, unless such authority
is reserved by the Chief. Placing approval authority at the Regional
Forester level should help to ensure that interim amendments are used
and developed in a consistent manner and that they are not used when
the needed changes can be made within the normal amendment process.
Paragraph (d)(3) describes the requirements for public notice of an
interim amendment and the information that must be disclosed at the
time an interim amendment is issued.
Paragraph (d)(4) establishes an explicit finding that an
environmental impact statement is not required for interim amendment.
Any change to a forest plan made by interim amendment will be limited
in scope and duration and made only to respond to catastrophic events
or to ensure resource protection. Given the limited circumstances where
it could be used, an interim amendment would never meet the criteria
for preparing an EIS as required by NEPA procedures. Nothing in
paragraph (d)(4) would limit the preparation of an environmental
assessment for an interim amendment.
As specified in paragraph (d)(5), the effective date for interim
amendments is the eighth calendar day after legal notice of the
decision is published in a newspaper of general circulation or, if the
Chief is the responsible official, in the Federal Register.
Paragraph (d)(6) provides for a 45-day comment period starting upon
issuance of legal notice of the interim amendment. Unlike most comment
periods which occur prior to making a decision, this 45-day comment
period would occur after the interim amendment is in effect. Based on
the comments received, the responsible official may decide to modify
the interim amendment or have it remain in effect unchanged. Under
either circumstance, the public must be notified and rationale
provided. Since an interim amendment is designed to respond to those
circumstances where a quick change is necessary, it is not reasonable
to delay issuance of the interim amendment until a comment period can
occur. However, the provision of paragraph (d)(6) assures the
opportunity to public review and comment as soon as possible, provides
the responsible official an opportunity to change the interim amendment
in a timely manner based on those comments, and ensures that the public
is notified of whether the interim amendment is retained without change
or is modified and why.
The duration of an interim amendment would be limited by paragraph
(d)(7) to two years. If an interim amendment has not been superseded by
an approved amendment or revision within two years, the responsible
official would have the option of reissuing the interim amendment or
issuing a modified interim amendment. Under such circumstances, all of
the limitations and notice and comment requirements for use of interim
amendments would still apply. This limit on the duration of an interim
amendment is intended to assure that direction established using these
procedures is indeed interim in nature.
Paragraph (d)(8) would expressly prohibit including an interim
amendment in a decision document for a specific project. As discussed,
the provisions of Sec. 219.9(c)(5) address those circumstances where a
forest plan needs to be amended to permit one specific project.
Paragraph (d)(9) would make clear that under 36 CFR part 217 an
interim amendment is not subject to administrative appeal. Since
neither the existing planning rule nor the appeals rule address interim
amendments, a conforming amendment to 36 CFR part 217 is proposed to
exclude interim amendments from the administrative appeals process.
Such an exclusion is appropriate due to the short duration of an
interim amendment and the circumstances for its use. The 45-day public
comment period should provide an effective way for the public and other
government entities to communicate with the responsible official about
any potential concerns.
Paragraph (e) would permit nondiscretionary changes to forest plan
direction under specified circumstances. There is no similar provision
in the existing rule. This provision would allow forest plan direction
to be changed without completion of the more rigorous amendment and
public comment procedures when the change is needed to comply with a
law or regulation and the agency has no discretion in the manner in
which it complies. Under such a circumstance, NEPA procedures would not
need to be completed and there would be no public comment period.
However, the public would be given notice through the annual monitoring
and evaluation report that such changes had been made. Examples of such
nondiscretionary changes include designating an area as wilderness
after passage of wilderness legislation. Paragraph (f) would make clear
that the Forest Supervisor may, at any time, make certain changes to a
forest plan without amendment procedures. Such changes would be
identified in the monitoring and evaluation report. Circumstances
allowing such an approach include when changes do not alter forest plan
management direction or when the changes are non-substantive in nature,
such as correcting typographical errors.
In addition, corrections to maps which delineate where a management
prescription is applied can be made without amendment, provided such
changes are due to improved on-the-ground information about the
condition to which the management prescription was described to apply.
For example, if a management prescription were to apply to all areas
visible from a scenic highway but the visible area had not been
precisely mapped, the mapped boundaries of where the prescription would
apply could be adjusted after a detailed field survey is completed. It
is essential that the forest plan state that the prescription is
intended to apply to the visible area, however, so that it is clear
what attributes the land must have if the map is to be changed in this
manner. If, for example, the prescription were to be extended to apply
to lands other than those visible from the scenic highway, amendment
procedures would have to be followed.
Section 219.10 Forest Plan Revision
This section would significantly revise the procedures for forest
plan revision. The existing rule (Sec. 219.12) requires the agency to
use the same process for forest plan revision as for developing initial
forest plans. The
[[Page 18908]]
proposed rule offers a new process specifically tailored to revision.
Proposed paragraph (a) retains the provision of the existing rule
that revision of a forest plan should occur about every 10 years, and
no later than 15 years, after approval of the original plan or latest
plan revision. Additionally, revisions must occur whenever conditions
over most or all of the plan area have changed significantly, for
example, to address catastrophic events that have substantially altered
resource conditions over most or all of the plan area. These criteria
for initiating revisions are based on requirements of Section 6(f)(5)
of the National Forest Management Act.
Proposed paragraph (b) would designate the Regional Forester as the
responsible official for revision, as is the case in the existing rule.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) would establish an important new
element--the prerevison review of a forest plan, which would be
conducted prior to initiating scoping. The purpose of the prerevision
review is to identify changed conditions and/or other new information
which appear to indicate a need to change direction in the current plan
using the results of monitoring and evaluation.
This requirement for a prerevision review is somewhat comparable to
the requirement in the existing rule for completing an Analysis of the
Management Situation (hereafter, AMS) (Sec. 219.12(e)), but there are
some important differences. The main similarity is that both the AMS
and the proposed prerevison review culminate in a determination of the
need to change direction in the forest plan. However, a key difference
between the AMS and prerevision review is the source of the information
and type of analysis required for making such determinations. The
existing rule imposes extensive analytical requirements to be met when
developing the AMS. As explained earlier in the preamble discussion for
proposed Sec. 219.8, these analyses have not always proven relevant to
the local situation or helpful to decisionmakers. In fact, the existing
requirements have often diverted time and energy from more critical
analyses needed for decisionmaking.
In contrast, the proposed rule focuses on using the results of
monitoring and evaluation of making such determinations. As part of the
prerevision review, the Regional Forester would be responsible for
reviewing the cumulative results of monitoring and evaluation, as well
as conducting whatever associated analysis is needed in order to
propose the scope of the revision process. In some cases, the type of
analysis now required as part of the AMS may be appropriate. However,
the proposed rule does not impose such specific analytical
requirements; instead, the provisions of Sec. 219.8 (Interdisciplinary
teams and information needs) and Sec. 219.12 (Monitoring and
evaluation) provide sufficient guidance for obtaining appropriate
information for the prerevision review.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require the Forest Supervisor to
formulate a communications strategy that describes how the public and
other government entities may participate on an ongoing basis in both
the prerevision review and revision process. As noted earlier in regard
to proposed Sec. 219.3, the agency is stressing the importance of
building and maintaining strong relationships based on open and ongoing
communication. One purpose of these communications efforts is to
improve the information base on which decisions are based and to
promote a shared understanding of the validity of this information (see
Sec. 219.3(a)(3)). Proposed Sec. 219.10(c)(2) is specifically designed
to help achieve these aims by encouraging the public to be involved
while these initial prerevision analyses are occurring and data is
being gathered in addition to involvement during the revision process
itself.
By participating in the prerevision review, the public and other
government entities will have an opportunity to see the data and
analytical methods being developed for the revision and to provide
improved information or suggest better approaches. This should enhance
public confidence in the data and analysis upon which decisions about
revising the forest plan will be made. The results of the prerevision
review provide the basis for the Notice of Intent to revise the forest
plan and to prepare an environmental impact statement for the revision.
The prerevision review also provides the public with a thorough
analysis of monitoring and evaluation results, and identifies the
direction in the forest plan that the Regional Forester believes may
need to be changed.
Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require a meeting with interested
representatives of other Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal
governments in order to establish procedures for coordination and
ongoing communication. These provisions reflect the importance which
the Forest Service places on establishing a strong working relationship
with other agencies and governments as well as on coordinating with
them during the prerevision review and revision process.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would provide the public and representatives
of other government entities the opportunity to express their ideas and
suggestions on the communications strategy as it is being formulated.
There is no comparable requirement in the existing rule, and this
approach is not commonly practiced within the agency now. This new
requirement is intended to greatly improve the effectiveness of public
involvement efforts during revision. By providing the public an
opportunity to comment on how to develop the communications strategy,
involvement efforts should be more responsive to public needs and
desires, better timed to assure that the public is involved at those
points in the process of most interest, and better suited to
facilitating the type of interaction, mutual understanding, and
commitment necessary for success.
Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would assure that those who are on the
mailing list described at Sec. 219.3(b) are notified of the prerevision
review and formulation of the communications strategy.
Paragraph (d) addresses scoping, which is required by NEPA
procedures and is undertaken to identify important issues and determine
the extent of analysis necessary for an informed decision on a proposed
action. Scoping is used not only to identify significant environmental
issues deserving of study, but also to deemphasize insignificant
issues, thus narrowing the scope of the environmental impact statement
accordingly (40 CFR 1500.4(g)). A Notice of Intent to revise a forest
plan would be issued in the Federal Register, with a 60-day comment
period. The Notice would serve to notify the public of the start of the
revision process and would provide information on the anticipated scope
of the effort. The Notice would also identify opportunities for public
involvement in the revision process.
This process for initiating forest plan revision is a substantial
improvement over the existing rule, providing more and better
information to the public for use in commenting on the scope of the
revision process. In the existing rule, the process for forest plan
revision starts from ground zero, repeating the same steps used for
developing initial forest plans. Under this current approach, the
revision process assumes that the ``slate has been wiped clean;'' that
is, that no forest plan currently exists and that there is little
information available from which to launch the revision effort.
In contrast, the proposed rule recognizes that substantial
information
[[Page 18909]]
regarding the adequacy of the forest plan already exists as a result of
monitoring and evaluation. Just as importantly, the proposed rule
provides for making this information available to the public during the
scoping process so that the public has the best possible information
upon which to base its comments regarding the scope of the revision
effort.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(i)-(iii) identify three actions that the
Forest Supervisor would be required to take at the time of issuing the
Notice of Intent:
(1) giving notice to those on the mailing list required at
Sec. 219.3(b);
(2) giving more general notice through a press release; and
(3) promoting activities to foster ongoing participation in the
revision process pursuant to the communications strategy.
Proposed paragraph (e) specifies four required elements of the
revision process:
(1) Review of the identification of lands suited and not suited for
timber production;
(2) Evaluation of roadless areas for wilderness designation;
(3) Evaluation of rivers for eligibility as wild, scenic, or
recreation rivers under specified circumstances; and
(4) Update of the appendix information displaying projected levels
of goods and services and management activities for the next decade, as
required by Sec. 219.11(d)(1). These four requirements, along with the
requirements of Sec. 219.10(c), are the main factors which distinguish
forest plan revision from major amendment.
Paragraph (f) would require that a draft EIS be prepared for a
proposed forest plan revision. Unlike the existing rule, the proposed
rule would not provide additional guidance on how to develop or
evaluate alternatives. Rather, the range of alternatives would be
developed in accordance with NEPA procedures. Although it is possible
that the agency may decide to supplement NEPA procedures to address the
unique needs of draft EIS's associated with forest plan revisions, such
detailed instructions would be appropriately issued through the
Directive System, rather than in a regulation.
Paragraph (g) describes procedural requirements for public notice
and comment on the proposed revised forest plan, draft EIS, and draft
monitoring and evaluation strategy. These provisions are designed to
comply with the requirements of Section 6(d) of NFMA.
Paragraph (h) defines the role of the Regional Forester in
overseeing preparation of the final EIS and revised forest plan and
also directs that preparation of the final EIS and record of decision
be prepared and made public in accordance with NEPA procedures.
Approval of the final plan and determination of the effective date
is addressed in proposed Sec. 219.10(i). The final revised forest plan
would become effective 30 days after public notice, as required by
Section 6(j) of NFMA. Notice of a decision to revise a forest plan must
be provided in accordance with 36 CFR part 217, the regulation that
guides the process for administrative appeals of forest plans.
Section 219.11 Forest Plan Implementation
Section 6(i) of NFMA requires resource plans, permits, contracts,
and other instruments for use and occupancy of National Forest System
lands to be consistent with forest plans. This section describes how a
determination of consistency is made at the time of project approval,
prior to issuing permits or contracts to implement a project decision,
as well as how consistency is maintained after forest plan amendments
or revisions. This section also provides other direction relevant to
forest plan implementation.
Proposed Sec. 219.11(a) describes how the agency would determine
project consistency. A determination of consistency with the forest
plan would be based on whether a project adheres to forest plan
standards, and this determination must be documented at the time of
project approval.
Paragraphs (a)(1)-(3) list the options available to a responsible
official when faced with a project proposal inconsistent with the
forest plan. The options are to: modify the proposal to make it
consistent with the plan; reject the proposal, or amend the forest plan
to permit the proposal.
Paragraphs (a)(1)-(3) reflect the key role that forest plan
standards would play under the proposed rule. As noted earlier in the
discussion of proposed Sec. 219.6, standards would be the one component
of forest plan direction to which adherence would be mandatory. Unlike
goals, objectives, or guidelines, standards define the limitations
within which project activities must occur and are limited to those
constraints within the agency's authority or ability to enforce. As a
result, individual projects can be readily assessed for their
compliance with standards.
By contrast, achievement of forest plan goals and objectives would
typically be dependent on the cumulative results of individually
authorized projects and, in some cases, naturally occurring changes
over time. The impact of any specific project on achievement of a goal
or objective could be difficult to measure. Monitoring and evaluation
is a more meaningful way to account for progress towards goals and
objectives than using forest plan goals or objectives in project
consistency determinations.
Likewise, project consistency determinations would not be based on
guidelines. Guidelines describe a preferred or advisable course of
action. Therefore, it would be counter to their intended role if they
were used in determining project consistency. In addition, it would be
difficult to assess on a project-by-project basis whether a project was
consistent with those guidelines that describe specific resource
conditions desirable to achieve, just as was the case with forest plan
goals.
Paragraph (b) would require that permits, contracts, and other
instruments issued or approved for use and occupancy of National Forest
System lands be consistent with standards in the forest plan in effect
at the time of their issuance. Also, subject to valid existing rights,
they must be revised as soon as practicable after a forest plan is
amended or revised, if necessary, to be made consistent with the forest
plan. Both of these provisions are based on requirements of NFMA
(Section 6(i)) and are similar to provisions of the existing rule
(Sec. 219.10(e)), with the exception that the proposed rule would
expand this requirement to include amendment as well as revision.
Paragraph (c) would fill an omission existing in the current rule
by making clear that an approved forest plan remains in effect until
approval of an amendment or revision. The question of the status of
forest plans undergoing amendment or revision has arisen often and
would be answered definitively by this paragraph.
Paragraph (d) would address possible actions during the plan
period. Paragraph (d)(1) would require that a display be included in a
forest plan appendix predicting the major goods and services which may
be produced, as well as the management activities which may occur
during the plan period. Rather than displaying this information as
precise figures, paragraph (d)(1)(i) would provide for this information
to be expressed in terms of ranges reflecting, when practicable and
meaningful, some of the variables most likely to affect actual
accomplishment.
Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would allow a display of the rate of achieving
desired
[[Page 18910]]
resource conditions identified by forest plan objectives. Once again,
this prediction would reflect, to the extent practicable and
meaningful, some of the variables most likely to affect achievement.
This would not be a required display, but it may be a useful tool for
showing how long it would take to achieve the resource conditions
envisioned in the forest plan.
Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would clarify that the information in the
displays described at paragraph (d)(1)(i)-(ii) is not forest plan
direction and does not compel the agency to take any action.
Paragraph (d)(2) would require periodic updates of the estimated
levels of goods and services and management activities, but provides
for the intervals and timeframes to be determined as appropriate. It is
the agency's intent to utilize information from other ongoing agency
efforts rather than requiring the preparation of new or additional
information exclusively for the purposes of these updates. Therefore,
the agency believes it is important to retain the flexibility to adjust
the intervals and timeframes for which these estimates are provided in
order to keep synchronized with whatever agency procedures can be most
efficiently utilized. Development of these estimates does not require
NEPA analysis.
Section 219.12 Monitoring and Evaluation
This section is designed to greatly strengthen the role of
monitoring and evaluation and contains several changes from the
approach taken in the existing rule. The agency believes an expanded
and strenghened role for monitoring and evaluation is a cornerstone for
implementing the proposed rule and making adaptive resource management
a reality for National Forest System lands.
Paragraph (a) would establish the Forest Supervisor's
responsibility to conduct monitoring and evaluation and would require
development of a monitoring and evaluation strategy. This strategy
would be prepared by the Forest Supervisor simultaneously with revision
of a forest plan. In contrast to the existing rule, which provides for
monitoring and evaluation to be addressed in the forest plan, the
proposed rule would address monitoring and evaluation in a companion
strategy document, and it would not be part of the forest plan.
Paragraph (a) would also clarify that the strategy does not require
NEPA analysis. However, monitoring and evaluation activities are
subject to NEPA procedures at the time of implementation.
There are several reasons the agency is proposing to address
monitoring and evaluation in a companion document. First, the
requirement to develop a companion document should give considerably
more emphasis to monitoring and evaluation than at present and should
promote greater recognition of monitoring and evaluation as a critical
and integrated aspect of National Forest System management. As the
first generation of forest plans is facing revision and with the agency
shifting to an ecosystem management approach, monitoring and evaluation
is receiving greatly increased emphasis within the agency, and
considerably more effort is being invested in developing well-designed
and coordinated monitoring and evaluation procedures.
The agency also anticipates much more emphasis on joint monitoring
with other agencies, coordination of monitoring efforts across plan
area boundaries, and a shift from a forest-by-forest approach to a
corporate approach to monitoring and evaluation activities. All of this
will likely require a document that more easily allows for an expanded
length and different formats from what is typically found in most
forest plans now. Establishing a separate document for addressing
monitoring and evaluation activities allows more flexibility in how all
of this information can be aggregated and organized. Given the rapidly
expanding technologies and knowledge associated with monitoring and
evaluation, it is especially desirable to retain as much flexibility as
possible so that the most effective means can be found for structuring
and displaying relevant information.
Finally, separating the monitoring and evaluation strategy from
decisions in the forest plan should help to streamline the forest plan.
The Critique of Land Management Planning revealed that the public wants
shorter forest plans, and the agency agrees this is desirable. Yet,
circumstances could occur where the length of the monitoring and
evaluation strategy could approach the length of the forest plan
itself, depending on the monitoring and evaluation format used and the
amount of information incorporated from other sources. Therefore,
rather than adding to the size of forest plans or creating a
disincentive to include all relevant or useful information for
monitoring and evaluation in order to keep the forest plan at a
manageable size, the agency believes it is appropriate to treat
monitoring and evaluation information in a companion document.
In addition to addressing monitoring and evaluation in a companion
document, the proposed rule would make clear that the monitoring and
evaluation strategy is not considered forest plan direction. There are
distinct differences between forest plan direction and the information
in a monitoring and evaluation strategy. Unlike the forest plan
direction described at Sec. 219.6 (goals, objectives, standards, and
guidelines), monitoring and evaluation strategies do not address how to
manage resources. Rather than guiding how to manage resources, these
strategies guide how to determine if resource management activities are
resulting in the outcomes expected. In essence, they are part of the
quality control process for implementing the forest plan.
The exclusion of monitoring and evaluation from forest plan
direction creates two particularly notable changes. First, updates to
the monitoring and evaluation strategy would not be subject to
procedures for forest plan amendment. This exclusion is logical
because, as provided at proposed Sec. 219.12(a), the strategy does not
require NEPA analysis, yet the amendment process is focused on
evaluating alternatives following NEPA procedures. However, a second
important aspect of amendment procedures is the requirement for a
public comment period. In order to assure that the public has an
opportunity to comment on updates to the monitoring and evaluation
strategy, the proposed rule would require a 30-day comment period.
The second notable change is that the strategy would not be subject
to administrative appeal. The monitoring and evaluation strategy does
not make decisions about how resources will be managed, but rather
establishes procedures for assessing the effects of the forest plan.
Although the agency has received hundreds of appeals on forest plans,
very few of them involve monitoring and evaluation. Considering the
nature of a monitoring and evaluation strategy and the emphasis in the
rule on assuring on-going communication and accountability for
monitoring and evaluation, the appeals process does not appear to be
the most appropriate or effective means for addressing monitoring and
evaluation issues.
The proposed rule has established numerous safeguards to assure the
agency's accountability for monitoring and evaluation. Some of these
include: public review and comment on the strategy at the time of
revision (Sec. 219.12(b)(1)); public comment on proposed updates to the
strategy (Sec. 219.12(c)(2)); public notification of
[[Page 18911]]
updates to the strategy in the annual monitoring and evaluation report
(Sec. 219.12(e)(5)); involvement of the applicable Station Director in
the development and implementation of monitoring and evaluation
strategies (Sec. 219.12(d)(3)); and the availability of an annual
monitoring and evaluation report for public review (Sec. 219.12(e)). In
addition, Sec. 219.12(d)(1) and Sec. 219.3 promote ongoing involvement
and communication with the public and other agencies and governments
throughout all phases of resource planning and management, including
monitoring and evaluation.
Beyond establishing the monitoring and evaluation strategy as a
companion document not subject to administrative appeal, paragraph (a)
of proposed Sec. 219.12 also would address NEPA responsibilities
related to monitoring and evaluation. The monitoring and evaluation
strategy does not require NEPA analysis because it does not contain any
resource decisions. It is an operational guide that identifies
techniques and procedures for gathering relevant information; it does
not compel any specific action or prohibit any action. Therefore, due
to the nature of the information it contains, the criteria for
undertaking NEPA analysis and disclosure are not met and no NEPA
documentation is required.
In contrast to the monitoring and evaluation strategy, actual
monitoring and evaluation activities are subject to NEPA procedures at
the time of implementation. For example, if water quality monitoring
activities involve placing instrumentation in a stream or require
helicopter access into a remote mountain lake to collect water samples,
the environmental effects of such activities would have to be
considered. In most cases, monitoring and evaluation activities are
categorical exclusions under 7 CFR 1.b(3), which clearly excludes
``Inventories, research activities, and studies, such as resource
inventories and routine data collection when such actions are clearly
limited in scope and intensity.'' Such an exclusion does not apply,
however, if extraordinary circumstances exist. Extraordinary
circumstances might encompass monitoring and evaluation activities
affecting such features as inventoried roadless areas, wetlands, Native
American religious sites, and Congressionally designated areas (FSH
1909.15, Sec. 30.3, para. 2).
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) lists the types of instructions provided
in a monitoring and evaluation strategy and expands the role of
monitoring and evaluation from that in the existing rule. Under
paragraphs (a)(1) (i) and (ii), the monitoring and evaluation strategy
would provide guidance to make sure that projects are being implemented
in accordance with the project decision document, and that progress is
being made toward achieving plan goals. Since forest plan goals
normally are not expressed in quantitative terms, the rule would
require that measurable indicators be used to assess achievement. In
many cases, those measurable indicators will be desired resource
conditions defined by objectives.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) links the monitoring and evaluation
strategy for the plan area to monitoring and evaluation efforts needed
at scales larger than the plan area. This is a key new concept and
reflects how much of the coordination required of the Regional Forester
at paragraph (d)(2) of this section will be integrated into forest
activities. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) recognizes that an important
role of the monitoring and evaluation strategy is to provide for
validating the assumptions upon which plan decisions were based and
verifying the accuracy of the predicted effects.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) (v)-(x) substantially expand the role of
monitoring and evaluation beyond what is required by the existing rule.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(v), the monitoring and evaluation
strategy would include setting priorities for monitoring and evaluation
efforts, and it specifies that the highest priority for monitoring and
evaluation is those activities believed to have the greatest potential
risk to the environment.
Proposed provision (a)(1)(vi) would require the monitoring and
evaluation strategy to address compilation of information to serve as
reference points for future evaluations. Similarly, paragraph
(a)(1)(vii) would direct that monitoring and evaluation be used to
determine if new information exists which substantially affects the
validity of the forest plan, such as changes in legal requirements,
shifting social or economic trends, new scientific information, or
findings resulting from ecosystem analyses. This deliberate outreach
for new information is not generally recognized as part of monitoring
and evaluation under the existing rule.
Paragraph (a)(1)(viii) would expand the role of monitoring to
include the storage and dissemination of information for use in the
budget formulation process. A major source of this type of information
is expected to be various ecosystem analyses, as well as information
being gathered from various other sources. Although storing and
disseminating such information is a vital function, its importance is
not always recognized.
Tracking goods and services provided and management activities
conducted, as would be required at paragraph (a)(1)(ix), is
traditionally associated with monitoring and evaluation. The final
item, identifying problems and opportunities for resolution, is not
traditionally considered part of monitoring and evaluation. Under the
proposed rule, however, such efforts would be considered as part of
monitoring and evaluation and are considered an integral and critical
step whereby the monitoring and evaluation results are synthesized into
a clear problem statement and evaluation of opportunities for solution.
The decision as to whether a forest plan needs to be amended or
revised is a separate step and not included within the role of
monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation only goes as far
as providing the information which defines the problem and which
describes opportunities for solution. The subsequent determination as
to whether an amendment or revision is triggered is based on the
information provided through monitoring and evaluation. This
determination is made available to the public in the annual monitoring
and evaluation report that would be required by paragraph (e) of this
proposed section.
Paragraph (a)(2) provides additional instructions for developing
monitoring and evaluation strategies. The proposed rule would make
clear that strategies should be realistic and practicable to implement
and should recognize possible fluctuations in funding. This paragraph
also would assure that monitoring and evaluation efforts are designed
at appropriate spatial scales and for appropriate timeframes.
The agency recognizes that there will always be limitations on the
funds and staff available to conduct monitoring and evaluation. One
approach for enhancing efficiency is to assure that efforts are
designed at the appropriate scales for appropriate timeframes. This
will require close coordination of effort and careful planning, but
such coordination is essential to prevent redundant efforts and to
maximize the results obtained with limited funding.
The provision of paragraph (a)(2) to recognize funding limitations
is one of three provisions in this section which work together to
address the issue of funding. The first provision is (a)(1)(v), which
would require that priorities be set for monitoring and evaluation
efforts in the strategy in order to identify monitoring and evaluation
efforts
[[Page 18912]]
associated with the management activities having the greatest potential
risk to the environment. The second is paragraph (a)(2), which would
direct monitoring and evaluation strategies to be designed recognizing
that the type and intensity of efforts may need to vary depending on
the availability of funds. The third related provision is paragraph
(a)(3), which would require that, when funds are limited, the highest
priority monitoring and evaluation activities be implemented first.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require that the monitoring and
evaluation strategy be available for public review and comment along
with the proposed revised forest plan. This assures the public an
opportunity to review the strategy at the time of revision just as
would have been the case if it were contained in the forest plan. An
important safeguard for ensuring that a timely monitoring and
evaluation strategy is developed is the prohibition against approving a
revised forest plan prior to approval of the monitoring and evaluation
strategy. This provision would assure that there is no delay between
finalizing a revised forest plan and having an approved monitoring and
evaluation strategy. Finally, Station Director concurrence would be
required when approving the strategy. This provision would help ensure
that the monitoring and evaluation strategy is scientifically sound and
would promote the involvement of the scientific community in
development of these strategies.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) provides that updates may occur as needed
and lists circumstances which might trigger an update. Proposed
Sec. 219.12(c)(2) would make the Forest Supervisor responsible for
updating monitoring and evaluation strategies as needed and would make
clear that such updates do not require NEPA analysis. As previously
noted, paragraph (c)(2) would require a 30-day period for public review
and comment on proposed updates to a monitoring and evaluation
strategy.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would promote coordination of monitoring
and evaluation efforts, to the extent feasible, with other Federal
agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, interested private
landowners, the scientific community, and other interested parties.
Such coordination offers opportunities to enhance open and ongoing
communication, improve the information base for decisionmaking, reduce
costs through shared efforts, and promote an ecological approach to
resource management across jurisdictional boundaries.
Paragraph (d)(2) would require the Regional Forester to be
responsible for assuring that monitoring and evaluation needs which
extend beyond a plan area are addressed and coordinated. This expands
the role of the Regional Forester from that in the existing rule and
clearly establishes the agency's intent to address monitoring and
evaluation efforts at whatever scale is appropriate, rather than
focusing on efforts within a plan area simply because monitoring and
evaluation procedures have historically been forest plan decisions. The
proposed rule intentionally would not provide detailed instructions on
how this coordination is to be accomplished since the agency has not
had extensive experience addressing monitoring and evaluation
procedures at this scale and flexibility is needed in order to
determine the best way to approach this task.
Paragraph (d)(3) would create an integral and ongoing role for
Forest Service research personnel in all phases of monitoring and
evaluation. The intent is to provide a sound scientific basis for all
monitoring and evaluation activities and to help promote interaction
between researchers and land managers. Because the paragraph directs
that research personnel should be involved in monitoring and evaluation
to the extent practicable, there is recognition that there will be
limits to the extent research staff are available for such efforts.
Paragraph (e) of proposed Sec. 219.12 requires the Forest
Supervisor to prepare an annual monitoring and evaluation report to be
made available to the public, as well as transmitted to the Regional
Forester and Station Director. This provision is intended to increase
the accountability of the agency for conducting monitoring and
evaluation and to enhance communication and involvement of the public.
The seven items which would be included in the report assure that the
public, Regional Forester, and Station Director are aware of the
results of monitoring and evaluation efforts, the implications such
results have for needing to change the plan or how it is being
implemented, and any changes which have occurred during the year to the
plan or monitoring and evaluation strategy.
Paragraph (f) would limit implementation of projects if funds for
associated monitoring and evaluation activities are not reasonably
expected to be available. There is no comparable requirement in the
existing rule. This represents another means by which the agency
intends to increase its commitment to accomplishing monitoring and
evaluation efforts. This limitation applies to those monitoring and
evaluation activities specifically identified in a decision document
associated with authorizing a site-specific project. In addition to
assuring that monitoring and evaluation needs are considered at the
time of project implementation, this provision should be an incentive
to improve the manner in which monitoring and evaluation costs are
integrated into project planning.
The final paragraph of this section would make clear that none of
the requirements for conducting and reporting on monitoring and
evaluation preclude initiating an amendment or revision at any time.
Section 219.13 Statutory Timber Management Requirements
This section describes those statutory planning requirements that
affect the management and harvest of timber on National Forest System
lands. Although most of the provisions of this section are directly
responsive to specific requirements of NFMA, a few are discretionary.
Those of a discretionary nature are identified in this preamble.
With the agency's emphasis on integrating consideration of
resources as part of ecosystem management, devoting an entire section
of the proposed rule to the timber resource may seem inconsistent to
many reviewers. The attention given to timber in this section, while
possibly appearing to be out-of-balance with other resources, is
generally the minimum needed to respond to the highly prescriptive
requirements for timber management in NFMA. Enacted largely in response
to timber-related issues in the mid-1970's, NFMA contains extensive
specific direction regarding management of timber resources, much more
so than for any other resource.
Proposed Sec. 219.13(a) addresses reviews of timber suitability
determinations. Section 6(k) of NFMA requires that lands not suited for
timber production be identified in forest plans. Paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section address compliance with Section 6(k) of NFMA.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would address the NFMA requirement for
the 10-year suitability review, and states that the 10-year review
should normally occur as part of the revision process. When done as
part of the revision process, the entire land base would be considered.
In some case, however, it is possible that revision will not have
occurred by the time the 10-year period has elapsed. In these cases,
proposed
[[Page 18913]]
paragraph (a)(1) would require the 10-year review to consider only the
unsuitable lands, with all lands reviewed later at the time of
revision.
Although the statute does not require a review of the timber
suitability determination for all lands at the time of revision, the
agency believes it is appropriate to do so. This comprehensive review
will assure that suitable lands are considered for possible
reallocation to the unsuited land base rather than focusing only on
whether unsuited lands should remain so designated. Proposed paragraph
(a)(3) would clarify that the determination of timber suitability may
be changed at any time through forest plan amendment.
Proposed Sec. 219.13(b)(1) would direct that unsuited lands have a
fixed location and that they should be identifiable on maps or by other
readily recognizable means. This provision aims to assure that these
lands can be located during project planning and is also intended to
facilitate the 10-year review of unsuited lands. One of the problems
with the current approach is that unsuited lands are sometimes
designated on a forest-wide basis rather than identified with a
specific location. For example, 20,000 acres out of a total of 55,000
acres of a particular forest type may have been determined to be
unsuited lands, but there is no delineation of which lands within the
total are to be treated as unsuited. The location of the unsuited land
will be clear if this proposed provision is adopted.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require that management prescriptions be
established to ensure that unsuited lands are managed in accordance
with the three provisions of the proposed rule which are applicable to
them. These include the requirement to limit timber harvesting except
for salvage sales or other sales necessitated to protect other
multiple-use values (Sec. 219.13(b)(4)), the provision to continue to
reforest unsuited lands (Sec. 219.13(b)(5)), and the provision to allow
exceptions to the five-year reforestation requirement when long-term
openings are needed (Sec. 219.13(b)(3)(v)(B). All three of these
provisions are in response to requirements of NFMA.
Paragraph (b)(3) describes the five types of lands that are not
suited for timber production. The first type is lands which have been
withdrawn from harvest by an Act of Congress, the Secretary of
Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service. This is comparable to
the requirement at Sec. 219.14(1)(a)(4) of the existing rule.
The second exclusion is lands on which timber harvesting would
violate statute, Executive order, or regulation. The third requirement
would continue the exclusion of non-forested land, as is currently
provided in Sec. 219.14(a)(1) of the existing rule.
The fourth exclusion would be those lands where technology is not
available for conducting timber harvesting without irreversible damage
to soil and watershed conditions. This parallels a requirement at
Section 6(g)(2)(E)(i) of NFMA and Sec. 219.14(a)(2) in the existing
rule.
The final exclusion would be those lands where there is not a
reasonable assurance of adequate reforestation within five years after
timber harvest. This parallels the requirement at Section
6(g)(2)(e)(ii) of NFMA and Sec. 219.14(a)(3) of the existing rule. The
proposed rule defines the five year period after final timber harvest
to mean five years after clearcutting, after the last overstory removal
of a shelterwood or seed tree cutting, or after selection cutting. In
shelterwood or seed tree cuts, the entire existing overstory may never
be removed, as trees may be left to provide for other considerations.
Therefore, the time period begins when the last planned overstory
removal is conducted. In selection cutting, the stand is left stocked
with trees of varying age and size classes.
There are two supplemental provisions associated with the five-year
reforestation criterion. First, the rule specifies that research and
experience are the basis for determining a reasonable assurance of
restocking. Secondly, the five-year reforestation requirement would not
prohibit creating openings for long-term purposes, such as wildlife
habitat improvements, scenic vistas, recreation sites, or other similar
uses.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would permit harvest from unsuitable
lands only for salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect other
multiple-use values. This requirement is based on the provisions of
Section 6(k) of NFMA.
Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would affirm that lands not suited for
timber production will continue to receive reforestation treatments to
protect other multiple-use values as required by Section 6(k) of NFMA.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6) would explicitly provide that the
unsuited land base should not vary among the alternatives at the time
of forest plan revision. This requirement is a major change from the
existing regulation, and provides a good focal point for comparing
differences in the determination of suitability under the proposed rule
and the existing rule.
The existing rule essentially has a three-step process. The first
step in the existing rule is closely paralleled in the proposed rule,
but the other two are not.
The first step, described at Sec. 219.14(a) of the existing rule,
defines four screening criteria fairly comparable to the six criteria
described in the proposed rule. Thus, under the proposed rule, the
unsuited land base would be quite similar to the land base identified
as unsuited under the first screening step of the existing rule. This
screening step does not differ substantially between alternatives,
because the criteria are based on conditions or attributes which remain
constant even if management objectives vary.
The second step of the existing rule (Sec. 219.14(b)) requires an
analysis which stratifies those lands not identified as unsuited in the
first step. The stratification identifies lands with similar management
costs and returns. Consistent with the intent of Sec. 219.8(b) to
reduce standardized analysis requirements, there is no comparable
requirement in the proposed rule.
The third step in the existing rule (Sec. 219.14 (c) and (d))
screens lands out of the suitable land base based on the objectives of
each alternative. More specifically, lands would be considered not
suited for timber production if the multiple-use objectives for the
alternative precluded timber production, if other management objectives
imposed such limitations on timber harvest that requirements of
Sec. 219.27 could not be met, or if the lands were not cost-efficient
over the planning horizon in meeting forest objectives.
This third step in the existing rule is also not paralleled in the
process for identifying unsuited lands under the proposed rule. The
proposed rule would address considerations comparable to the third step
in the existing rule at paragraph (c), which would make clear that
forest plan standards may be imposed on suited lands to prohibit or
limit timber harvesting. Economic considerations or an allocation of
land to uses incompatible with timber harvesting would be examples of
reasons for imposing such standards on suited lands. In essence,
paragraph (c) is fairly comparable to the third step of the process
under the existing rule, except that paragraph (c) would limit
harvesting by imposing standards on the suited land base rather than
declaring those lands to be unsuited for timber production.
[[Page 18914]]
In association with the change in determining unsuitable lands, the
proposed rule would alter the land base for calculating the allowable
sale quantity (ASQ) from that used in the existing rule. In the
existing rule, the entire suitable land base is used in calculating the
ASQ. Under the proposed rule, as described at Sec. 219.13(d)(1)(i),
only those suited lands on which planned periodic entry for timber is
allowed over time would be included in ASQ calculations; i.e., if
standards have been imposed which are incompatible with timber
harvesting over the long-term, then those lands are excluded from the
land base used to calculate the ASQ. For example, if a corridor along a
scenic hiking trail is allocated to a prescription that does not allow
timber harvesting in order to protect scenic values, then the lands
would be in the suited land base but would not be included in ASQ
calculations.
It is noteworthy that the proposed rule would limit the land base
for ASQ calculations to those lands available for planned periodic
entries. Lands would not be included in the ASQ calculations if only a
one-time harvest were planned but not planned periodic entries. For
example, if a salvage harvest was planned to occur during the plan
period in an area where harvest would not otherwise occur nor be
planned for future decades, then those lands would be excluded from ASQ
calculations.
Another notable change between the existing rule and proposed rule
as related to timber suitability is the rule of economics. In contrast
to the existing rule which addresses the economics of harvesting as
part of the timber suitability determination, the proposed rule would
address the economics of harvesting in the forest plan through
establishment of forest plan standards or guidelines.
Section 6(k) of NFMA states that unsuitable lands are to be
identified ``* * * considering physical, economic, and other pertinent
factors to the extent feasible, as determined by the Secretary * * *''
Although the agency agrees that economics is an important consideration
in determining whether lands should be harvested, experience has proven
that it is not feasible to effectively factor in economics as part of
the 10-year timber suitability determination. Therefore, in light of
the latitude provided by NFMA, the agency is proposing to address
economic considerations by means other than the timber suitability
process.
There are various reasons for this change. First, economic
conditions fluctuate greatly during the course of a plan period. One
year a certain area of land or species may be uneconomic to harvest,
and another year market conditions may have changed to where the same
area or species would be greatly in demand. This makes it difficult to
meaningfully assess the economics of harvesting a particular site over
a 10-year period.
Also, it is generally accepted that the net value of the timber
sale program must be considered as a whole rather than by only
evaluating individual timber sales in isolation, since some sales of
low value are offset by other higher value sales. The timber program
also must be viewed with consideration of non-market contributions,
such as enhanced hunting use, and not strictly timber sale costs and
receipts. These considerations further add to the difficulty of using
the process for identifying unsuited lands in forest plans as an
effective and timely means by which economic considerations are
addressed.
In contrast to using timber suitability determinations to address
economic considerations, the agency believes they can be adequately
addressed through other means. For example, forest plan standards can
be established to limit harvesting due to economic reasons. Therefore,
if harvest limitations are deemed appropriate due to economics, the
option exists to use them. In addition, economic considerations can be
considered as part of the program development and budget process. This
would allow timely adjustment of annual harvest programs, within the
limitations imposed by forest plan standards, based on such factors as
fluctuating economic conditions. Also, the economics of harvesting any
particular site can be considered as part of the project decision to
approve harvest of the area.
The agency believes there are four major advantages to the entire
set of changes being proposed to the process for determining timber
suitability. First, under the proposed rule, suitability determinations
are much simpler and more efficient to conduct, and yet there is no
compromise of the ability to exclude lands from timber harvest or from
calculation of the ASQ. Secondly, the 10-year review will be completed
more quickly, reducing the diversion of time and energy from revision
efforts which are generally expected to be occurring at the same time.
Third, it allows unsuited lands to be readily identifiable, making it
easier for both the public and agency personnel to locate those lands
when designing projects. Finally, it allows economic factors to be
considered in a more effective and timely manner while reducing an
analysis step that has not proven highly beneficial.
In order to assure that the availability of lands for timber
harvest is readily evident despite the proposed change in process for
determining suitability, proposed paragraph (c) would require an
appendix to display the number of acres of suitable lands where
standards have been imposed prohibiting or limiting timber harvest as
well as the number of acres where such limitations do not apply. This
is not part of the suitability determination, but does provide
information comparable to what is currently available in forest plans
as part of the timber suitability information.
Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the allowable sale quantity and
makes clear that the ASQ is neither a projection of future sale levels
nor a target to be achieved. Although this position is well supported
in case law, there has been widespread misunderstanding that the ASQ is
a target level for timber production from a National Forest. The
proposed rule would make clear this is not the case.
Proposed Sec. 219.13(d)(1) sets out procedures for calculating the
allowable sale quantity (ASQ). As stated at (d)(1)(i) of the proposed
rule, the land base for ASQ calculations would be limited to suitable
lands on which planned periodic timber harvest is allowed over time.
Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) explains the role of the long-term sustained
yield timber capacity (LTSYTC) when calculating the ASQ. The LTSYTC is
defined at Sec. 219.2 and represents the highest uniform wood yield
that may be sustained in perpetuity consistent with the forest plan.
Consistent with Section 13 of NFMA, the chargeable timber volume
which can be sold for a decade cannot exceed the LTSYTC except where
necessary to meet overall multiple-use objectives. An example of such a
departure may be in the case of a forest having severe forest health
problems, where accelerated silvicultural manipulations and accelerated
timber harvest are critical to its ecological restoration.
Under the proposed rule, the land base for calculating the LTSYTC
would be calculated using the same lands and forest plan standards used
to determine the ASQ. Where two or more proclaimed National Forests are
included in the forest plan, the proportionate contribution of each
National Forest to the total ASQ for the plan area cannot exceed the
LTSYTC for each corresponding proclaimed National Forest. In order to
assure this
[[Page 18915]]
would not happen, a non-interchangeable component could be defined in
accordance with (d)(3) of this section. This limitation on the
chargeable volume that can be sold for a decade from a proclaimed
National Forest does not apply where the proclaimed National Forest has
fewer than 200,000 acres of land suited for timber production. These
provisions are based on the requirements of Section 13 of NFMA, and do
not vary from the existing situation, although the existing rule does
not address this to the same degree of detail.
Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would continue a non-declining flow
requirement. When a new ASQ is determined, it may be higher, lower, or
the same as the current ASQ. Such fluctuations might be caused by such
factors as changes in the suitable land base, new standards, or revised
timber growth and yield projections. However, whatever level is
established for the decade of the plan must be capable of being
sustained or increased during subsequent decades, with exceptions only
to meet overall multiple-use goals. This limitation is intended to help
assure that harvesting will not occur at so high a rate in the short-
term that decline is inevitable in the future, unless such a decline is
recognized as being necessary to meet multiple-use goals. An example of
when such an exception might be appropriate would, once again, be in
the case of a forest having severe health problems, where higher levels
may be beneficial in the short-term in order to correct imbalances of
the forest structure and promote ecological restoration, but with lower
harvest levels planned once the restoration phase was complete.
Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) is a requirement of Section 6(g)(3)(D) of NFMA
and would require that, when the ASQ is being recalculated, any
predicted yields based on intensive management must be reduced if such
practices have not been successfully implemented or adequate funds have
not been received to continue substantially as planned. This statutory
limitation is intended to help safeguard against over-estimating the
ASQ due to faulty yield projections.
Paragraph (d)(2) would clarify that only the timber volume included
in the growth and yield projections to determine the ASQ is chargeable
to the ASQ. Excluded would be the volume from timber classes not
included in the projections, such as merchantable dead timber.
Paragraph (d)(3) would allow for the establishment of non-
interchangeable components (NIC's). NIC's allow for separating discrete
quantities of the ASQ into individually accountable categories. The
proposed rule would stipulate that chargeable timber volume from one
NIC cannot be substituted for the achievement of the volume limit of
another NIC. In addition, such components would be required where
management prescriptions for roadless areas allow planned periodic
entries over time for timber harvest. Establishment of NIC's is not
limited to roadless areas, however. On forests where the product or
species mix is deemed important, the use of NIC's provides a means to
maintain the intended balance.
The provision for roadless area NIC's is intended to help reduce
the pressure to over-harvest areas outside of roadless areas if
anticipated timber production from roadless areas does not materialize.
Although the proposed rule would make clear at paragraph (d) of this
section that the ASQ is not a target or projection of future harvest
levels, this requirement to establish NIC's for roadless areas is
intended to further reinforce this idea and to help to reduce erroneous
expectations regarding the role of the ASQ. In addition, other forest
plan standards serve to prevent over-harvesting anywhere in the plan
area.
Paragraph (d)(4) addresses a provision of Section 13(b) of NFMA and
clarifies that the ASQ may not be used to limit the harvesting of
timber for salvage or sanitation purposes or for harvesting timber
stands substantially damaged by fire, wind or other catastrophe, or
which are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack. If such
timber volume were included in the calculation of the ASQ, it may be
substituted for timber volume that would otherwise have been sold under
the plan. If the sanitation/salvage timber volume had not been included
in the calculation of ASQ, or if it had and it is infeasible to
substitute it for other volume, it can be sold over and above the ASQ.
Paragraph (e) responds to the requirements of Section 6(m) of NFMA
and would require that all even-aged stands scheduled for harvest
during the planning period will generally have reached the culmination
of mean annual increment (CMAI) of growth unless certain listed
exceptions apply. This paragraph is similar to the existing rule,
except that any change to a forest plan to permit exceptions must be
made through a major amendment or done at the time of plan revision
(see Sec. 219.9(b)(1)(iii)).
Proposed paragraph (f) would address the selection of cutting
methods. It would make clear that the determination of the appropriate
harvest method is to be made at the project level. This has been a
source of considerable confusion in the past, with many administrative
appeals received by the agency questioning the adequacy of the analysis
associated with a forest plan to support the selection of cutting
methods. The proposed rule is consistent with numerous court decisions
that confirm such decisions are made at the project level rather than
in the forest plan. (For example, Sierra Club v. Robertson, 810 F.
Supp. 1021, 1026 (W.D. Ark 1992) aff'd 28 F 3d 753, 760 (8th Cir.
1994)).
Paragraph (f) also responds to the requirement of NFMA at Section
6(g)(3)(F)(i) which limits the use of clearcutting to those cases where
it is determined to be the optimum method. The existing rule does not
address what was meant by optimum. Paragraph (f) would establish seven
purposes for which clearcutting can be used, provided it is the optimum
method and the only practical method for meeting one or more of the
purposes. These provisions reflect the agency's intent to continue to
reduce the amount of clearcutting from levels which have historically
occurred, tailoring its use to those situations which meet the purposes
listed. Over the past several years, the agency has already
substantially reduced its use of clearcutting.
Paragraph (g) would require that the forest plan establish the
maximum size of areas that can be clearcut in one harvest operation.
This is in response to Section 6(g)(3)(F)(iv) of NFMA. Exceptions are
allowed for natural catastrophes, or limits established by the Regional
Forester on a project basis after public notice. Currently, harvest
size limitations are found in the existing rule and regional guides,
but regional guides would no longer be maintained under the proposed
rule. In light of the fact that research findings on the effects of
harvest size have changed and are likely to continue to change over
time, it is not appropriate to include such prescriptive direction in
this proposed rule. By addressing such limitations in the forest plan,
even though they are not applied until the project level, the
constraints are integrated with other resource decisions for the plan
area and the public is assured the opportunity to review and comment
when they are adopted or changed.
Paragraph (h) would direct the shaping and blending of even-aged
harvest methods with the natural terrain to the extent possible in
order to ameliorate the visual impacts of such practices. It addresses
NFMA Section 6(g)(3)(F)(iii) and is less detailed than the requirements
of 219.27(d)(1) of the existing rule.
[[Page 18916]]
Paragraph (i) would assure that timber is only harvested where soil
and water can be adequately protected. This provision is based on
Section 6(g)(E)(iii) of NFMA.
Paragraph (j) would require certain displays of timber-related
information that must be included in forest plan appendices. This
information is expected to be of interest to the public and provides a
concise summary of various timber-related analyses or decisions. Items
(i)(1) and (i)(2) are intended to help summarize the availability of
lands for timber harvest, while (i)(3) and (i)(4) provide information
to assure NFMA requirements have been met. The proportion of probable
timber harvest methods forest-wide is required to be included by
Section 6(f)(2) of NFMA.
Section 219.14 Special Designations
The purpose of this section is to ensure that forest plans include
all of the relevant direction (goals, objectives, standards, and
guidelines as described at proposed Sec. 219.6) for lands within the
plan area, including those with special designations which may have
been evaluated through other planning processes as required by statute.
The existing rule addresses only two special designations, research
natural areas and wilderness. The proposed rule seeks to integrate
direction for all specially designated areas into forest plans to the
extent possible.
Paragraph (a) would explain that forest plan amendment or revision
is the mechanism to allocate specific areas to prescriptions for
special designations, or to recommend special designation by higher
authorities. Various examples of special designations are also
provided.
Paragraph (b) would require that roadless, undeveloped areas be
evaluated for wilderness designation during forest plan revision unless
Federal legislation directs otherwise. Roadless, undeveloped areas are
defined to be at least 5,000 acres in size unless contiguous to
existing or Administration-endorsed units of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. Due to the differing conditions in the eastern
part of the country, a provision is added so that the size limitation
would not apply east of the 100th meridian.
These provisions of the proposed rule differ somewhat from the
existing rule. Most notably, the proposed rule is more specific by
defining roadless areas in terms of a 5,000-acre minimum for areas in
the western part of the country. This size criterion has been agency
policy as described in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 7.11, but is not in the
existing rule. In contrast, the existing rule provides criteria for
evaluating roadless areas, whereas the proposed rule does not, because
the agency believes such detailed procedural instructions are better
suited for the Directive System.
It should be noted that nothing in paragraph (b) precludes
consideration of roadless areas for the full range of management
options. Although wilderness designation must be one of the options
considered, roadless areas are also subject to consideration for
various other uses or degrees of protection, not unlike the case for
most portions of the plan area.
Paragraph (c) of this section would provide for evaluation of a
river's eligibility for wild, scenic, or recreation river designation
during revision if legislation requires such an evaluation or if the
river was not evaluated under criteria set forth in July of 1987 in
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12. Although many forests have evaluated
their rivers under these criteria, many have not. This provision is
designed to assure that all potential wild, scenic, or recreation
rivers are evaluated under the same set of criteria. Although wild,
scenic, and recreation rivers were not addressed in the existing rule,
the proposed rule includes them since recommendations for river
designation, as is the case for wilderness, are made in forest plans
with the final decision made by the Congress.
Paragraph (d) would reinforce the central role of forest plans by
requiring that any requirements for additional planning for special
areas must be met through forest plans, unless certain identified
exceptions exist. This is comparable to Sec. 219.2(a) of the existing
rule and is intended to assure that special area planning is integrated
with forest plans.
The proposed rule would specifically require that goals,
objectives, standards, or guidelines from special area plans be
incorporated into forest plans to maintain the role of the forest plan
as the central source of local direction as well as to provide a basis
for determining project consistency.
Section 219.15 Applicability and Transition
This section provides for an orderly transition from the existing
rule adopted in 1982 to the proposed rule. Paragraph (a) would
establish that the proposed rule would apply to the entire National
Forest System. Although terms such as ``National Forest,'' ``forest''
or ``forest plan'' have been used within the proposed rule and
preamble, this does not limit applicability of the rule to only the
National Forest components of the National Forest System. For example,
the National Forest System includes National Forests, National
Grasslands, Purchase Units, Land Utilization Projects, Experimental
Forests, Experimental Range, Experimental Areas, and other areas. The
applicability of the proposed rule to the National Forest System does
not differ from the existing rule.
Paragraph (b) would address those situations where an initial
forest plan has not been approved at the time the new rule becomes
effective. At this time, there are four National Forests where a forest
plan has not yet been approved; these are the Klamath, Mendocino,
Shasta-Trinity, and Six Rivers National Forests, all in the Pacific
Southwest Region (R-5) (California). The new rule would not apply to
development of initial forest plans. Therefore, paragraph (b) provides
for unfinished forest plans to be completed under the previous planning
rule as adopted in 1982. As a result, there would be consistent
regulatory guidance for development of all initial forest plans and no
disruption of the planning process for any unfinished plans. Upon
approval of those forest plans, the provisions of the proposed rule
would then apply to future amendments and revisions.
Paragraph (c) would make clear that forest plans that are already
approved remain in effect until amended or revised. This provision is
intended to prevent any uncertainty as to the status of existing forest
plans.
Paragraph (d) would make clear that forest plans need not be
amended in order to comply with requirements of the new rule prior to
the forest plan being revised in accordance with the new rule. This
provision is included because the agency does not intend for the new
rule to immediately trigger either the amendment or revision of forest
plans. It would be disruptive, expensive, and impractical to
immediately undertake changes to every forest plan in order to adjust
to the newly effective rule.
Paragraph (e) allows development of the displays required at
Sec. 219.11(d)(1)-(2) and Sec. 219.13(j) to be delayed until the forest
plan is revised in accordance with the rules of this subpart.
Paragraph (f) makes clear that the first annual monitoring and
evaluation report would be required one fiscal year following adoption
of the final rule. This time period allows forests time to plan for and
organize work needed to produce the first annual monitoring and
evaluation report. Such reports would be developed using the results of
monitoring and evaluation activities
[[Page 18917]]
described in existing forest plans, since most Forests will not have
the newly required monitoring and evaluation strategies developed until
the forest plan is revised.
Paragraph (g) addresses how the transition process would occur
regarding usage of ``standards'' and ``guidelines'' as defined in the
proposed rule. Many existing forest plans do not distinguish between
``standards'' and ``guidelines'' in the same manner as described in the
proposed rule at Sec. 219.6 (e) and (f). In addition, it would not be
mandatory for each forest plan to be changed to distinguish between
``standards'' and ``guidelines'' until the time of revision. As a
result, it would be appropriate to implement the provision of proposed
Sec. 219.11(a), which would require project consistency determinations
to be based on adherence to ``standards,'' or the provision of
Sec. 219.9(b)(1)(i), which would require major amendment when modifying
forest plan standards, without recognizing and providing for the impact
of this proposed change in terminology.
Under the provisions of paragraph (g), until such time as a forest
plan were amended or revised to distinguish between ``standards'' and
``guidelines'' in accordance with the terminology defined in the
proposed rule, the words used in each existing ``standard'' or
``guideline'' in the current plan would be used to determine whether it
is mandatory. More specifically, many current forest plans contain a
mix of ``standards'' and ``guidelines,'' of which only some are
mandatory. For example, statements using ``must'' or ``shall'' are
mandatory in nature and would generally be comparable to a ``standard''
in the proposed rule. In contrast, statements using ``may,''
``should,'' or ``ought'' provide the flexibility comparable to a
``guideline'' in the proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (g)(1) continues existing agency policy that
project consistency determinations are based on whether project
decisions adhere to mandatory standards or guidelines. This should
provide a smooth transition to the new rule.
Paragraph (g)(2) describes instructions for determining if a future
amendment is considered ``major'' during the transitional period before
a forest plan has been revised. The triggers for a major amendment that
apply during the transition period differ somewhat from both the
existing rule and the provisions at Sec. 219.9(b)(1) of the proposed
rule. The provisions of proposed (219.9(b)(1) would apply only after
forest plans have been amended or revised to fully comply with the new
terminology. During the transition period before the plan has been
changed to be in full compliance with the new terminology, the
provisions of Sec. 219.15(g)(2) would apply.
In accordance with Sec. 219.15(g), two circumstances must exist
simultaneously for a major amendment to be triggered during the
transition period; i.e., prior to a forest plan being amended or
revised to be in full compliance with the new usage of standards.
First, the amendment must change standards or guidelines in the current
forest plan which are mandatory. Since many current forest plans do not
distinguish between standards and guidelines, there may be mandatory
requirements labelled as guidelines in current plans. Thus, the
determination during the transition period focuses on whether the
change is to a mandatory provision rather than whether it is labelled
as a standard or guideline. In accordance with Sec. 219.6(f), this
won't be necessary once a forest plan has been revised because there
would be no mandatory requirements labelled as guidelines. If, during
the transition period a new mandatory requirement was established, such
a change to the forest plan would trigger a major amendment.
The second circumstance which must also occur is that the proposed
change to a mandatory standard or guideline would result in a
significant change to the forest plan and those changes are predicted
to affect resources over a large portion of the plan area during the
remainder of the plan period. This is comparable to one of the
circumstances currently defined in FMS 1922.52 for significant
amendment.
If both of these circumstances occur, a major amendment would be
triggered during the transition period. This amendment would be
conducted in accordance with the procedures for major amendment in the
new rule, however. It should be noted that many changes to current
forest plan standards may not affect resources over a large portion of
the plan area during the remainder of the plan period. For example, if
the forest plan was scheduled to undergo revision soon, there might be
few, if any, changes that could affect resources over a large portion
of the plan area within a short period of time. Even though the new or
modified standard might apply over the entire plan area, resources on-
the-ground might not actually be affected if the standard was not going
to be in place very long before revision would be initiated. Thus, some
changes to standards might not meet the threshold of triggering a major
amendment during this transition period.
The intent of this transition procedure is to begin shifting the
emphasis away from changes in output levels and towards recognizing the
important role of forest plan standards when determining if a change
triggers a major amendment. At the same time, it is designed to
recognize that the change in terminology between the existing rule and
proposed rule makes it unrealistic to implement the new approach
defined at Sec. 219(b)(1)(i) immediately.
In addition to the requirements related to changing a standard, a
major amendment would be triggered during the transition period if the
chargeable timber volume which can be sold for a decade from a
proclaimed National Forest were established that exceeded the long-term
sustained yield capacity of the Forest, or if harvest of even-aged
stands were permitted before culmination of mean annual increment. Both
of these provisions are identical to the provisions of Sec. 219.9(b)(1)
(ii) and (iii). They are applicable during the transition period to
ensure that the public involvement requirements of NFMA are met as
required by the statute for changes of this nature.
Proposed paragraph (h) would address how the new rule would be
applied when a significant amendment or revision is already in progress
as indicated by issuance of a Notice of Intent. At the time of adoption
of a final rule, one of two scenarios could occur. If a draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS) has not yet been published, the
new rule must be adopted. If a DEIS has been published, it is the
Regional Forester's option to decide whether to continue under the
previous planning rule or to apply the new rule. In those case where
the new rule is adopted, paragraph (h) also provides direction so that
the Regional Forester can avoid delaying ongoing processes.
Paragraph (h) is intended to promote prompt application of the new
rule. However, it would be unnecessarily disruptive and expensive to
impose a new regulation on ongoing significant amendment or revision
efforts nearing completion. Similarly, paragraph (h) is intended to
allow ongoing efforts which are subject to the new rule to proceed as
smoothly as possible. It would be largely redundant, time-consuming,
and confusing to the public to require various procedural steps in the
processes for amendment or revision to be repeated or accomplished in
accordance with the new rule when the effort has already proceeded past
the
[[Page 18918]]
point where those steps are in a logical sequence.
Paragraph (i) of the proposed rule would provide for the withdrawal
of regional guides within three years of adoption of the final rule.
The reasons for eliminating regional guides were explained earlier in
the discussion of proposed Sec. 219.5. Paragraph (i) also would require
that the Regional Guide for the Pacific Southwest Region (R-5) be
maintained in accordance with the requirements of the existing rule
until the remaining unfinished plans in that Region are approved. In
all other Regions, regional guides would be withdrawn within 3 years
from adoption of the final rule. The Pacific Southwest Region would
need to maintain its regional guide in order to direct development of
unfinished forest plans. The Pacific Southwest Regional Guide would be
withdrawn within 3 years from approval of the last forest plan in
Region 5. In addition, paragraph (i) would authorize the Chief of the
Forest Service to extend any regional guide beyond the 3-year period in
extenuating circumstances.
Paragraph (j) assures that forest plans address limitations on the
size of openings (Sec. 219.13(g)) prior to withdrawal of the regional
guide. The establishment of size limitations is a requirement of NFMA
and is currently addressed in regional guides and the existing rule.
This provision will assure that there is no gap in having such
direction in place during the transition to the new rule.
The transition procedures of this proposed rule reflect current
circumstances regarding the status of forest planning efforts
nationwide and the nature of proposed changes to the existing rule. To
the extent that these or other circumstances are different at the time
the final rule is adopted, the agency may have to adopt different
transitional procedures in order to assure the most practical,
efficient, and timely transition possible.
Conforming Amendments
The administrative appeal process for forest plans is set out in a
separate rule at 36 CFR part 217, and the administrative appeal process
for project decisions is set out at 36 CFR part 215. Due to the nature
of changes being proposed to 36 CFR part 219, amendments would need to
be made to these appeal rules in order for them to conform to the
changes proposed to part 219. First, the terms ``nonsignificant
amendment'' and ``significant amendment'' would be replaced by the
terms ``minor amendment'' and ``major amendment'' wherever they occur
in parts 215 and 217. Second, Sec. 217.3(b) would be removed to exclude
regional guides from being subject to administrative appeal since these
documents would not be retained under proposed revisions to part 219.
Third, the heading of part 217 would be amended to remove reference to
regional guides and read: Appeal of National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plans. Finally, Sec. 217.3(a)(1) and Sec. 217.4 would be
amended to exclude interim amendments from being subject to
administrative appeal.
Conclusion
The Forest Service invites individuals, organizations, and public
agencies and governments to comment on this proposed rule. To aid the
analysis of comments, it would be helpful if reviewers would key their
comments to specific proposed sections or topics. Respondents also
should know that in analyzing and considering comments, the Forest
Service will give more weight to substantive comments than to simple
``yes,'' ``no,'' or ``check off'' responses to form letter/
questionnaire-type submissions.
Regulatory Impact
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 on
Regulatory Planning and Review. The agency has determined that this
proposed rule is a significant regulatory action subject to Office of
Management and Budget review. However, this proposed rule does not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605 et seq).
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
This rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting
requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in
5 CFR 1320 and, therefore, imposes no paperwork burden on the public.
Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320
do not apply.
Environmental Impact
This proposed rule would establish procedures for land and resource
management planning for National Forest System lands. Section 31.1b of
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180; 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 instructions.'' The
agency's preliminary assessment is that this rule falls within this
category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which
would require preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement. A final determination will be made upon
adoption of the final rule.
Civil Justice Reform Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule were adopted, (1) all state
and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this proposed
rule or which would impede its full implementation would be preempted;
(2) no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and (3)
it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file
suite in court challenging its provisions.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 215
Administrative practice and procedure, and National forests.
36 CFR Part 217
Administrative practice and procedure, and National forests.
36 CFR Part 219
Environmental impact statements, Land and resource management
planning, and National forests.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is
proposed to amend parts 215, 217, and 219 of Title 36 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 215--NOTICE, COMMENT, AND APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
1. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 551; sec. 322, Pub. L. 102-381, 106
Stat. 1419 (16 U.S.C. 1612 note).
2. Amend Secs. 215.1(a) and 215.3(c) by removing the term
``nonsignificant amendments'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term
``minor amendments''.
2a. Amend Secs. 215.4(e) and 215.7(a) by removing the term
``nonsignificant amendment'' and adding the term ``minor amendment''.
3. Amend Sec. 215.8(a)(1) by removing the term ``significant
amendment'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term ``major
amendment''.
[[Page 18919]]
PART 217--APPEAL OF NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
PLANS
4. Revise the heading for part 217 to read as set out above.
5. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 551, 472.
6. Revise Sec. 217.3(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 217.3 Decisions subject to appeal.
(a) The decisions subject to appeal under this part are decisions
to approve, amend through major amendment or minor amendment, or revise
a National Forest Land and Resource Management plan, except when a
decision to authorize a specific project or activity includes a minor
amendment to the forest plan as described in 36 CFR 219.9(c)(5).
* * * * *
7. Amend Sec. 217.4(a) by removing the term ``non-significant
amendment'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term ``minor
amendment''.
Secs. 217.8 and 217.15 [Amended]
7a. Amend Secs. 217.8(a)(2) and 217.15(a) by removing the term
``non-significant amendments'' and adding the term ``minor
amendments''.
Sec. 217.10 [Amended]
8. Amend Sec. 217.10(i) by removing the term ``significant
amendment'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term ``major
amendment''.
Sec. 217.15 [Amended]
8a. Amend Sec. 217.15(a) by removing ``significant amendments'' and
adding ``major amendments''.
9. Add paragraph (d) to Sec. 217.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 217.4 Decisions not subject to appeal.
* * * * *
(d) Decisions to amend a forest plan by interim amendment.
10. Revise part 219 to read as follows:
PART 219--PLANNING
Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
Sec.
219.1 Purpose and principles.
219.2 Definitions.
219.3 Relationships with the public and government entities.
219.4 Sustainability of ecosystems.
219.5 Framework for resource decisionmaking.
219.6 Forest plan direction.
219.7 Ecosystem analysis.
219.8 Interdisciplinary teams and information needs.
219.9 Forest plan amendments.
219.10 Forest plan revision.
219.11 Forest plan implementation.
219.12 Monitoring and evaluation.
219.13 Statutory timber management requirements.
219.14 Special designations.
219.15 Applicability and transition.
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).
Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management
Planning
Sec. 219.1 Purpose and principles.
(a) This subpart describes the procedures for fulfilling the
requirements for land and resource management planning as set forth in
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974
(hereafter, ``RPA'') as amended by the National Forest Management Act
of 1976 (hereafter, ``NFMA'') (16 U.S.C. 1604 et seq.) Specifically,
the rules in this subpart are intended to:
(1) Describe the agency's framework for National Forest System
resource decisionmaking;
(2) Incorporate principles of ecosystem management;
(3) Establish requirements for implementation, monitoring,
evaluation, amendment, and revision of forest plans; and
(4) Articulate the relationship between resource decisionmaking and
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321) (hereafter ``NEPA'') and implementing NEPA procedures (see
definition at Sec. 219.2).
(b) The following principles guide National Forest System resource
decisionmaking and management:
(1) The National Forest System is managed to provide sustainable
ecosystems which yield multiple benefits to present and future
generations.
(2) People are a part of ecosystems; meeting people's needs and
desires within the capacities of natural systems is a primary role of
resource decisionmaking.
(3) Ecosystems occur at many spatial scales and are dynamic in
nature, creating a need for planning processes that are flexible in
geographic scope and that consider the ecological changes that occur
over time.
(4) Ecosystems cross land ownerships, jurisdictions, and
administrative boundaries. Therefore, planning efforts for National
Forest System lands should be coordinated with other landowners, other
Federal agencies, and State, local, and tribal governments in a manner
that respects private property rights and the jurisdictions of other
government entities.
(5) Involving the public in National Forest System planning and
decisionmaking on an ongoing, open, and equitable basis is essential.
(6) The scientific community, including Forest Service researchers,
should play a vital role in gathering and analyzing information for
resource decisionmaking.
(7) The National Forest System should be managed in a manner that
optimizes net public benefits, considering both qualitative and
quantitative criteria.
(8) The forest planning process should provide for efficient
adjustment of forest plans in response to changing conditions and new
information.
(9) NEPA procedures define the analysis process used for resource
decisionmaking; such analysis should be commensurate with the scope and
nature of the decisions being made.
(10) Knowledge of ecosystems will never be complete; therefore,
uncertainty is inherent in resource decisionmaking. Nevertheless,
decisionmaking must proceed using an adaptive management approach,
which incorporates applicable science and the best available
information.
Sec. 219.2 Definitions.
For purposes of this subpart, the following terms mean:
Allowable sale quantity. The maximum quantity of chargeable timber
volume that may be sold within a decade from the plan area.
Catastrophic event. A sudden event causing widespread or intense
destruction or devastation of resources, ecological conditions, or man-
made features. Catastrophic events include natural phenomena such as
wildfire, hurricanes, tornados, floods, or earthquakes as well as
events caused by human actions such as large chemical or oil spills.
Category 1 candidate species. Taxa:
(1) For which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has on
file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s)
to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species;
(2) Which appear in a notice of review containing the names of the
species considered to be candidates for listing under the Endangered
Species Act, which is published in the Federal Register by the USFWS,
in accordance with 50 CFR 424.15, and is available at the office of the
Forest Supervisor or the Regional Forester (36 CFR 200.2); and
(3) For which the USFWS has not yet published proposed rules to
list as
[[Page 18920]]
endangered or threatened species because such action is precluded at
present by other listing activity.
Category 2 candidate species. Taxa:
(1) For which information in the possession of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicates that proposing to list them as
endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which
persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threat are not
currently available to support publication of proposed rules; and
(2) Which appear in a notice of review containing the names of the
species considered to be candidates for listing under the Endangered
Species Act, which is published in the Federal Register by the USFWS,
in accordance with 50 CFR 424.15, and is available at the office of the
Forest Supervisor or the Regional Forester (36 CFR 200.2).
Chargeable timber volume. All volume included in the growth and
yield projections used to calculate the allowable sale quantity.
Conservation agreement. A formal written document agreed to by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
and another Federal agency, State, local, tribal government, or the
private sector to achieve the conservation of a species through
voluntary cooperation.
Culmination of mean annual increment. The age at which the average
annual growth is greatest for a stand of trees, with growth usually
expressed in terms of cubic foot measure and calculated to include
regeneration harvest yields and removals from intermediate stand
treatments.
Decision document. A Record of Decision, Decision Notice, or
Decision Memo which is signed by the responsible official and which, in
compliance with NEPA procedures, identifies the decision being made and
the rationale for the decision.
Directive. Policy, practice, and procedure issued through the
Forest Service Directive System to guide the work of agency employees.
Directive System. The administrative system composed of the Forest
Service Manual and Handbooks by which internal agency policy, practice,
and procedure are established, issued, and stored.
Ecosystem analysis. A broad term used to denote various
interdisciplinary studies conducted to provide information on and
enhance an understanding of the physical, biological, social, and/or
economic aspects and interactions of an ecosystem.
Ecosystem management. A concept of natural resources management
wherein National Forest activities are considered within the context of
economic, ecological, and social interactions within a defined area or
region over both short- and long-term.
Environmental assessment. A concise document prepared in compliance
with NEPA procedures that serves to briefly provide sufficient evidence
and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact
statement or for making a finding of no significant impact (40 CFR
1508.9).
Environmental impact statement. A detailed document prepared in
compliance with NEPA procedures when a Federal action will have a
significant impact on the human environment (40 CFR 1508.11).
Even-aged stand. A distinguishable group of trees of essentially
the same age. The difference in age among trees forming the main canopy
level of the stand usually does not exceed 20 percent of the age of the
stand at harvest rotation age.
Forest Supervisor. An individual responsible to the Regional
Forester for management of one or more National Forests, National
Grasslands, or other components of the National Forest System.
Forested land. Land not currently identified for non-forest use and
of which at least 10 percent is occupied by forest trees or which
formerly had such tree cover. Forest trees are those woody plants
having a well developed stem and which are usually more than 12 feet in
height at maturity.
Goal. A concise statement describing a desired end result and
normally expressed in broad general terms.
Guideline. A description of a preferred or advisable course of
action.
Infrastructure. The facilities, utilities, and transportation
systems needed to meet public and administrative needs.
Long-term sustained-yield timber capacity. A projection of the
maximum potential long-term average sale quantity representing the
highest uniform wood yield that may be sustained in perpetuity
consistent with the forest plan.
Management prescription. The set of forest plan goals, objectives,
standards, and guidelines that are applicable to a particular part of
the plan area, including both forest-wide direction as well as
direction applicable only to that specific part of the plan area.
Multiple-use. As defined by the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of
1960 (16 U.S.C. 528), multiple-use is the management of all the various
renewable surface resources of the National Forests so that they are
utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the
American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or
all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to
provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform
to changing needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less
than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of
the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the
productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the
relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the
combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the
greatest unit output.
NEPA documents. The terms used to refer to draft and final
environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, findings of
no significant impact, and notices of intent to publish an
environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1508.10).
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.
Objective. A statement describing measurable desired resource
conditions, or ranges of conditions, intended to achieve forest plan
goals.
Plan area. The geographically defined area of the National Forest
System covered by a forest plan, consisting of only those lands and
resources under National Forest System jurisdiction.
Plan period. The period of time between regularly scheduled
revisions of a forest plan, normally 10 years but no longer than 15
years.
Previous planning rule. The land and resource management planning
regulation, 36 CFR Part 219, adopted September 30, 1982 and amended on
June 24, 1983, and September 7, 1983 (see 36 CFR Part 200-End edition,
Revised July 1, 1994).
Project. A site-specific resources management activity or
combination of activities designed to accomplish a distinct on-the-
ground purpose or result.
Proposed action. A proposal made by the Forest Service to
authorize, recommend, or implement an action to meet a specific purpose
and need.
Regional Forester. The individual responsible to the Chief of the
Forest Service for management of an administrative region of the
National Forest System (36 CFR 200.2).
Resource conditions. The state of the physical and biological
components of
[[Page 18921]]
the environment, including both natural features and human influences.
Responsible official. The Forest Service employee who has the
delegated authority to make a specific decision.
RPA Assessment and Program. Documents required by Sections 3 and 4
of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). The RPA Assessment is prepared every 10
years and describes the potential of the nation's forests and
rangelands to provide a sustained flow of goods and services. The RPA
Program is prepared every five years to chart the long-term course of
Forest Service management of the National Forest System, assistance to
State and private forest landowners, and forest and range research.
Species or natural community ranking. A rating established and
maintained by the Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation
Data Centers which reflects the biological imperilment status of a
species or natural community. Rankings as used in this subpart are
defined as follows:
(1) G1--Species or community critically imperiled globally because
of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially
vulnerable to extinction; five or fewer occurrences, or less than 1,000
individuals, or very few acres remaining.
(2) G2--Species or community imperiled globally because of rarity
or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction;
six to twenty occurrences, or less than 3,000 individuals, or few acres
remaining.
(3) G3--Species or community vulnerable throughout range globally
and typically having 21 to 100 occurrences, or fewer than 10,000
individuals. May be very rare and local throughout its range or found
locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) is a restricted
range (e.g., a single western State, a physiographic region of the
East).
(4) N1, N2, and N3--Same as G1, G2, and G3 respectively, except
these listings refer to a national situation rather than global one.
(5) S1 and S2-- Same as G1 and G2 respectively, except these
listings refer to a State situation rather than global one.
(6) T1, T2, and T3--Same as G1, G2, and G3 respectively, except
these refer to subspecies or recognized varieties that are listable
entities under the Endangered Species Act.
Standard. A limitation on management activities that is within the
authority and ability to the agency to meet or enforce.
Station Director. An individual who is responsible to the Chief of
the Forest Service for administering research activities at an assigned
Research Station (36 CFR 200.2).
Sustainability of ecosystems. A concept which reflects the capacity
of a dynamic ecosystem to maintain its composition, function, and
structure over time, thus maintaining the productivity of the land and
a diversity of plant and animal communities.
Tribal governments. Federally recognized American Indian/Alaska
Native tribal governments.
Sec. 219.3 Relationships with the public and government entities.
(a) Building and maintaining relationships with the public and
other Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments is an
essential and ongoing part of National Forest System planning and
management. The responsible official shall strive to establish and
maintain communication with interested parties in order to:
(1) Develop a shared understanding of the variety of needs,
concerns, and values held by the public;
(2) Coordinate planning efforts with other Federal agencies and
State, local, and tribal governments, with recognition of the distinct
roles and jurisdictions of each;
(3) Improve the information base influencing decisions and to
promote a shared understanding of the validity of this information;
(4) Strengthen the scientific basis for resource management
decisions by involving members of the scientific community; and
(5) Resolve conflicts associated with resource decisionmaking.
(b) The Forest Supervisor shall maintain a list of individuals,
organizations, scientists, and government agencies and officials who
have indicated a desire to be informed about forest planning or project
activities on the Forest. The Forest Supervisor shall periodically
verify the continuing interest of parties on the list and provide
notice to the general public of the opportunity to be included on the
listing. The list should include the following:
(1) Representatives of other affected Federal agencies;
(2) The official or agency designated as a point of contact for the
affected State(s) agencies, including, if applicable, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico;
(3) Representatives of tribal governments;
(4) Representatives of county or municipal governments;
(5) Holders of permits, contracts, or other instruments providing
for the occupancy and use of the plan area; and
(6) Any citizen or organization expressing a desire to be included.
(c) The Forest Supervisor shall ensure that records documenting the
planning process and information used to amend, revise, or monitor and
evaluate implementation of the forest plan are maintained and are
available for public inspection at the Forest Supervisor's office
during normal working hours. Information in the planning records is
subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
(d) Copies of the current forest plan and monitoring and evaluation
strategy must be available for public inspection at each Forest Service
office on the Forest, in the respective Regional Office, and at least
one additional location, as determined by the Forest Supervisor, that
offers convenient access to the public.
(e) When desired by the State or affected tribal governments,
Regional Foresters should seek to establish a Memorandum of
Understanding or other form of agreement with the Governor of each
State in which National Forest System lands are located or with
affected tribal governments to guide coordination of planning efforts.
(1) The following apply to any such Memorandum of Understanding or
agreement;
(i) The document should describe how the State's or tribe's
positions on topics related to planning will be established,
communicated, and considered;
(ii) The document should address cooperation in forest plan
implementation, monitoring, evaluation, ecosystem analysis, amendment,
and revision;
(iii) The document may be executed by the Forest Supervisor rather
than the Regional Forester when all National Forest System lands within
the State are managed by one Forest Supervisor; and
(iv) The document may be jointly executed by the appropriate
Regional Foresters when one State encompasses two or more Forest
Service Regions.
(2) Nothing in this section precludes development of a Memorandum
of Understanding with other Federal agencies or local governments.
(f) Procedures for public participation and government coordination
must conform with NEPA requirements, the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(5 U.S.C. appendix), and any other applicable laws, Executive orders,
or regulations.
[[Page 18922]]
Sec. 219.4 Sustainability of ecosystems.
(a) Goal. The principal goal of managing the National Forest System
is to maintain or restore the sustainability of ecosystems, thereby
providing multiple benefits to present and future generations. The
level and flow of benefits from National Forest System lands should be
compatible with the restoration of deteriorated ecosystems and the
maintenance of ecosystem sustainability over the long-term. The forest
plan addresses this goal by:
(1) Providing for diversity of plant and animal communities and
other conditions indicative of sustainable ecosystems. This is
accomplished by establishing forest plan direction as specified in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. In establishing such forest
plan direction, the likely contribution or role of lands outside the
plan area should be considered.
(2) Providing for resource conditions which result in a flow of
benefits to present and future generations. This is accomplished as
specified at Sec. 219.6(a), and through the establishment of forest
plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines.
(b) Role of forest plan. The forest plan establishes goals and
objectives describing desired conditions, indicative of sustainable
ecosystems within the plan area and establishes standards and
guidelines that direct how to achieve those conditions.
(1) Scope. Forest plan goals and/or objectives should describe the
desired composition, function, and structure of ecosystems within the
plan area at appropriate spatial scales.
(2) Soil and water resources. The forest plan must provide for the
restoration, protection, and conservation of soil and water resources
including, but not limited to, streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes,
wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains. Where there are existing
conditions harmful to soil and water quality, the forest plan should
include standards and/or guidelines that provide for the restoration of
soil and water resources to achieve desired resource conditions. Forest
plans should also address the protection of current and future
consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses, including instream flow
needs.
(3) Rare natural communities. The forest plan should provide for
maintaining or restoring the sustainability of those natural
communities known to occur within the plan area that are identified by
the Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers
with rankings of G1, G2, G3, N1, N2, N3, S1, or S2 (Sec. 219.2).
(4) Threatened and endangered species. The forest plan must provide
for the conservation of species listed as threatened and endangered, or
proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). Once species are listed or proposed
for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act, management activities on National Forest System lands affecting
the habitat of the listed species must be in compliance with the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
Option I for Paragraph (b)(5)
(b)(5) Sensitive species. The forest plan must provide for the
protection of habitat capability for sensitive species in order to
preclude the need for listing these species as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act or their extirpation from the plan
area. For the purposes of this section, habitat capability refers to
the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitat.
(i) Identification. Sensitive species are those plant and animal
species, subspecies, populations, or stocks, including vertebrates,
invertebrates, vascular plants, bryophytes, fungi, and lichens, which
are known to occur or likely to occur on National Forest System lands
and which are included in one of the following:
(A) The species is identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as a Category 1 Candidate Species;
(B) The species is identified by the Network of Natural Heritage
Programs and Conservation Data Centers with global species rankings of
G1 (T1) or G2 (T2);
(C) The species is identified both by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as a Category 2 Candidate Species and by the Network of Natural
Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers with species rankings
of G3 (T3), N1, N2, or N3.
(ii) Process. In considering whether or not new or modified forest
plan direction is needed for sensitive species, the following must be
documented:
(A) Sensitive species for the plan area and their habitat needs
must be identified.
(B) The habitat needs of sensitive species and/or assemblages of
sensitive species shall be compared to existing forest plan direction
or, in the case of revision of a forest plan, the habitat needs shall
be compared against the tentatively proposed revisions to forest plan
direction.
(1) If a continuing downward trend in habitat capability is
predicted to occur and predicted to result in the need for Federal
listing of the species or if it is predicted that the sensitive species
will be extirpated from the plan area, forest plan direction shall be
modified to protect the habitat capability of the sensitive species in
an attempt to preclude the need for Federal listing or extirpation from
the plan ares.
(2) Where the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
or National Marine Fisheries Service have approved a conservation
agreement for a sensitive species and relevant direction from that
agreement is incorporated into the forest plan, the requirement to
establish direction to protect the habitat capability of the sensitive
species is met.
(3) To the extent that protective measures for one sensitive
species conflict with the recovery of a threatened or endangered
species, the needs of the threatened or endangered species shall take
precedence.
(4) Management direction for sensitive species shall be established
using the best information available, commensurate with the decision
being made. Determinations of whether habitat needs of sensitive
species are adequately met as well as determinations of the degree of
protection needed are decisions that are inherently dependent on
professional judgment.
(iii) Responding to newly identified sensitive species. The
categories and rankings described at paragraphs (b)(5)(i) (A) through
(C) of this section shall be reviewed annually as part of monitoring
and evaluation to determine if there have been new additions subsequent
to the last review. If a new addition has occurred, the habitat needs
of the species shall be compared against forest plan direction to
determine if a change in that direction is needed. The annual review of
sensitive species categories and rankings does not remove the
obligation to consider new information relevant to a project decision
or, where appropriate, to analyze the effects of a proposed action on
habitat capability needs of a sensitive species within the project
area.
Option II for Paragraph (b)(5)
(5) Species viability. Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed
to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-
native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes,
a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated
numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure its
continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order
to ensure
[[Page 18923]]
that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to
support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and
that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can
interact with others in the planning area. The forest plan shall
establish guidelines for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for
management indicator species to the degree consistent with overall
multiple-use goals of the forest plan. In order to do this, management
planning for the fish and wildlife resource shall meet the requirements
set forth in paragraphs (b)(5) (i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) In order to estimate the effects of each alternative on fish
and wildlife populations, certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate
species present in the area shall be identified and selected as
management indicator species and the reasons for their selection will
be stated. These species shall be selected because their population
changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities.
In the selection of management indicator species, the following
categories shall be represented where appropriate: Endangered and
threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal
lists for the plan area; species with special habitat needs that may be
influenced significantly by planned management programs; species
commonly hunted, fished, or trapped; non-game species of special
interest; and additional plant or animal species selected because their
population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management
activities on other species of selected major biological communities or
on water quality. On the basis of available scientific information, the
interdisciplinary team shall estimate the effects of changes in
vegetation type, timber age classes, community composition, rotation
age, and year-long suitability of habitat related to mobility of
management indicator species. Where appropriate, measures to mitigate
adverse effects shall be prescribed.
(ii) Planning alternatives shall be stated and evaluated in terms
of both amount and quality of habitat and of animal population trends
of the management indicator species.
(iii) Biologists from State fish and wildlife agencies and other
Federal agencies shall be consulted in order to coordinate planning for
fish and wildlife, including opportunities for the reintroduction of
extirpated species.
(iv) Access and dispersal problems, of hunting, fishing, and other
visitor uses shall be considered.
(v) The effects of pest and fire management on fish and wildlife
populations shall be considered.
(vi) Population trends of the management indicator species will be
monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined. This
monitoring will be done in cooperation with State fish and wildlife
agencies, to the extent practicable.
(c) Dynamic nature of ecosystems. Ecosystems are dynamic.
Therefore, sustaining an ecosystem does not imply maintaining static
conditions. Disturbances to an ecosystem should be evaluated in the
context of ecological processes and resilience.
(d) Multiple spatial scales of ecosystems. Numerous ecosystems
exist at multiple spatial scales. In order to limit efforts to a
practicable number and scope, the forest plan should address the
ecosystems of most relevance to forest plan decisionmaking.
(e) Uncertainty and adaptive management. Understanding of the
attributes of sustainable ecosystems and of the environmental effects
of various management activities is subject to change as new
information becomes available. Resource decisionmaking need not be
halted because there is uncertainty or incomplete knowledge; rather,
resource decisions should be made in a timely manner using the best
information available commensurate with the decisions being made (40
CFR 1502.22). Monitoring and evaluation shall be used to assess the
effects of resource decisions and to determine if there is a need to
adapt resource management in light of new information. Project
decisionmaking provides an incremental means for accomplishing the
goals and objectives of the forest plan, thereby providing the
opportunity to evaluate the effects of on-the-ground activities at the
appropriate spatial scale as well as providing the opportunity to adapt
project proposals as new information becomes available during the plan
period.
Sec. 219.5 Framework for resource decisionmaking.
(a) Staged resource decisonmaking. National Forest System resource
allocation and management decisions are made in two stages. The first
stage is adoption of a forest plan, which allocates lands and resources
to various uses or conditions by establishing management prescriptions
for the land and resources within the plan area. The second stage is
approval of project decisions. Both forest plan and project decisions
are subject to the requirements of laws and regulations applicable to
National Forest System lands and resources. In addition, direction to
guide the management of lands and resources of the National Forest
System is issued as needed through the Directive System (36 CFR 200.4).
Pursuant to 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, agency directives are subject to
NEPA procedures, and, depending on their nature and scope, directives
also may be subject to the public notice and comment requirements of 36
CFR part 216.
(1) Forest plans. Forest plans do not compel the agency to plan for
or undertake any projects; rather, they establish limitations on what
actions may be authorized during project decisionmaking. Forest plan
direction must not conflict with applicable laws or regulations.
Additionally, forest plans should not conflict with applicable agency
directives issued through the Directive System. Where there is a
substantial conflict between a resource management directive and
direction in a forest plan revision or amendment prepared pursuant to
this subpart, the responsible official should identify the conflict and
include in the decision document the rationale for the plan's departure
from agency directives.
(i) Plan area. Each Regional Forester shall determine the area to
be covered by each forest plan. Options include a separate plan for
each National Forest or National Grassland, a plan that covers any
combination of National Forests or other National Forest System lands
within the responsibility of one Forest Supervisor, or a single plan
encompassing one National Forest but which is administered by several
Forest Supervisors.
(ii) Simultaneous amendment or revision. Forest plan goals,
objectives, standards, and guidelines that are applicable to more than
one plan area may be established through one decision document which
simultaneously amends or revises multiple forest plans.
(2) Project decisions. Authorization of site-specific activities
within a plan area occurs through project decisionmaking. Project
decisionmaking must comply with NEPA procedures and must include a
determination that the project is consistent with the forest plan
(Sec. 219.11(a)). Project decisionmaking includes decisions on
proposals received from outside the agency as well as those initiated
by the agency.
(b) Reconciling direction in forest plans with other resource
direction or planning efforts--(1) Laws and regulations. If, following
issuance of new laws or regulations affecting National Forest System
resource management, it is determined that the
[[Page 18924]]
direction in forest plans within the Region is in conflict with the new
direction, the Regional Forester shall direct that affected plans be
changed in accordance with the procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10
of this subpart and shall specify the timing for doing so.
(2) Agency directive. (i) If resource management direction in a new
agency directive appears to conflict with direction in forest plans,
the directive issuing official shall indicate as part of the directive
issuance whether affected forest plans are to be made consistent with
the new directive and, if so, shall direct that affected plans be
changed in accordance with the procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10
of this subpart and shall specify the timing for doing so.
(ii) In addition to adjusting forest plans as required by paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section, the Forest Supervisor, as part of monitoring
and evaluation, should periodically review recent resource management
directives to determine if the forest plan is in conflict with newly
issued resource directives. If so, the Forest Supervisor shall either
initiate a forest plan amendment to eliminate the conflict or give the
Regional Forester written notice of why the forest plan should not be
changed.
(3) RPA Program. Following adoption and issuance of each RPA
Program, the Chief determines those elements of the Program that should
be considered in forest plan implementation, monitoring, and evaluation
and establishes such agency-wide processes or procedures as may be
necessary to ensure consideration of these Program elements in forest
plans.
(4) Ecosystem analysis. As part of monitoring and evaluation, the
Forest Supervisor shall periodically review the results of any
applicable ecosystem analyses that have been completed or updated after
plan approval and determine if there is new information which would
indicate a need to initiate forest plan amendment procedures.
Sec. 219.6 Forest plan direction.
(a) Integrated resource management. Forest plans provide for
integration and coordination of all resources within the plan area on a
multiple-use and sustained-yield basis. To this end, forest plan
direction shall be established, as appropriate, to address management
of soil, water, fish and wildlife habitat, grazing, timber, oil, gas,
minerals, recreation, wilderness, cultural, historic, geologic,
vegetative, air, visual, and other relevant resources. In addition,
forest plans address management of infrastructure and land ownership
and access patterns relative to the plan area to the extent
appropriate.
(b) Scope. Forest plans allocate the land and resources of the plan
area to various uses or conditions by establishing management
prescriptions consisting of goals, objectives, standards, and
guidelines. Goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines may be
established to apply throughout a plan area (forest-wide direction)
and/or they may be established for only a part of the plan area. The
forest plan management prescription for any given site within the plan
area is the aggregate of all forest-wide direction and any other
direction that is applicable to only that specific part of the plan
area. The forest plan must identify where goals, objectives, standards,
and guidelines are applicable. Maps or similar information that
delineate where goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines are
applicable constitute forest plan direction.
(1) Projected levels of goods and services or projected levels of
management activities do not constitute forest plan direction.
Moreover, any projections of the rate at which objectives identified in
the forest plan might be achieved are not forest plan direction
(Sec. 219.11(d)).
(2) Forest plan direction should focus on resource management and
resource conditions specific to the plan area, not on the procedural
aspects of making future project decisions. Also, as a general rule,
forest plans should not repeat other applicable direction established
through the Directive System, regulation, Executive order, or law.
(3) The main body of the forest plan document is limited to forest
plan direction. Background information or other accompanying material
are not appropriate to the main body of the document but may be
presented as part of a brief forest plan preface or in the appendices.
(c) Goals. Goals are concise statements describing a desired end
result and are normally expressed in broad general terms. Forest plan
goals serve as the link between broad agency goals set forth in law,
Executive order, regulation, agency directives, and the RPA Program and
specific desired resource conditions relevant to the plan area as
defined by objectives. The forest plan does not specify a time period
for achievement of goals. Additionally, forest plan goals are generally
not expressed in quantitative terms; rather, evaluation of associated
measurable objectives or monitoring indicators assesses whether goals
are being achieved (Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(ii)).
(d) Objectives. Objectives are statements describing desired
resource conditions, or ranges of conditions, intended to achieve
forest plan goals. Objectives may describe the desired state of natural
resource conditions, such as soils and vegetation; the desired state of
resources resulting from human influences, such as infrastructure or
historic sites; or how resources are to be perceived, such as visual
quality or the nature of the wilderness visitor experience. An
objective must be defined in a manner that permits measurement of
whether the objective is being achieved. The forest plan does not
specify a time period for achievement of objectives.
(e) Standards. Standards are limitations to be placed on management
activities within the plan area to ensure compliance with applicable
laws and regulations or to limit the discretion to be permitted during
project decisionmaking. Standards are limited to those actions that are
within the authority and ability of the agency to meet or enforce.
(1) Standards are the basis for determining whether a project is
consistent with the forest plan as required by Sec. 219.11(a).
(2) Project compliance with relevant standards is mandatory. A
project that would vary from a relevant standard may not be authorized,
unless the forest plan is amended to modify, remove, or waive
application of the standard.
(f) Guidelines. Guidelines describe a preferred or advisable course
of action. Variation of a project from a guideline does not trigger a
forest plan amendment. Guidelines may be used for the following
purposes:
(1) To describe a preferred or advisable method for conducting
resource activities specific to the plan area; and
(2) To describe a preferred or advisable sequence or priority for
implementing various types of projects, when such guidance is deemed
useful in facilitating achievement of a forest plan goal.
(g) Coordination of forest plan direction across plan areas. The
Regional Forester is responsible for coordinating direction in forest
plans within the Region as well as with adjacent Regions to promote
consistent approaches to resource management. In many cases, variation
in direction is appropriate due to varying local circumstances; for
example, differing resource conditions, public preferences, or socio-
economic considerations. However, unless there is reasonable basis for
such variations, the Regional Forester shall provide for consistency
among forest plans within the Region, as well as consistency with those
forest plans in other Regions whose plan areas
[[Page 18925]]
are physically adjacent to plan areas within the Region. At a minimum,
the Regional Forester shall ensure that forest plans within the Region
include the following:
(1) Consistent management prescriptions for adjacent National
Forest System lands, including the use of consistent mapping scales,
symbols, and other elements to facilitate review and comparison of the
management prescriptions;
(2) Consistent management prescriptions for a specially designated
area (Sec. 219.14) that crosses plan area boundaries, such as a
national scenic trail extending through several National Forests;
(3) Consistent direction when findings of an ecosystem analysis or
research used as a basis for that direction are applicable to more than
one plan area, such as the establishment of a forest plan standard to
meet the habitat needs of a threatened or endangered species that
occurs on more than one plan area; and
(4) Consistent terminology and classification systems among or
between forest plans.
Sec. 219.7 Ecosystem analysis.
(a) Purpose and scope. Ecosystem analysis is a broad term used to
denote various interdisciplinary studies conducted to provide
information on and enhance an understanding of the physical,
biological, social, or economic aspects and interactions of an
ecosystem. For example, an ecosystem assessment and landscape-level
analysis are both forms of ecosystem analysis. Ecosystem analysis may
be conducted at whatever scale is appropriate in order to provide the
information desired. To the extent practicable, the area covered by an
ecosystem analysis should generally be delineated based on ecological
considerations, including social and economic factors, rather than on
administrative or jurisdictional boundaries. Ecosystem analyses are
conducted whenever deemed appropriate by the agency.
(b) Relationship to resource decisionmaking. An ecosystem analysis
is distinct from resource decisionmaking and does not trigger NEPA
analysis and disclosure. Findings resulting from ecosystem analysis are
not resource decisions and cannot be used as a substitute for forest
plan goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines. Ecosystem analysis
may provide information that indicates a need to change forest plan
direction; however, such changes would be evaluated and established
through forest plan amendment or revision procedures. Ecosystem
analysis also may be used to display various opportunities for
achieving the goals and objectives already established by law,
Executive order, regulation, agency directive, or the forest plan.
(c) Results. Results of ecosystem analysis vary depending on their
scope and specific purpose. Results of ecosystem analysis may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Identification of trends and historic conditions;
(2) Identification of anticipated effects if current management
continues;
(3) Identification of resource conditions that would satisfy legal
requirements;
(4) Identification of opportunities to improve monitoring and
evaluation strategies;
(5) Identification of research needs and recommended priorities;
(6) Identification of opportunities and recommended priorities for
project implementation in order to meet forest plan goals;
(7) Determination of resource capabilities;
(8) Compilation of a socio-economic overview or assessment; for
example, assessments of pertinent social, demographic, and economic
data, socioeconomic and cultural trends, or important relationships
among physical, biological, economic, and social aspects of resource
management;
(9) Compilation of information for use in monitoring and
evaluation;
(10) Compilation of information for use in NEPA documents; and
(11) Compilation of updated inventory data.
Sec. 219.8 Interdisciplinary teams and information needs.
(a) Interdisciplinary team. An interdisciplinary team must be used
to prepare amendments, revisions, and monitoring and evaluation
strategies and reports and to conduct ecosystem analysis. The team may
consist of whatever combination of Forest Service and other Federal
government personnel is necessary to achieve an interdisciplinary
approach.
(b) Analysis and inventory. Analytical efforts should be focused on
obtaining and using the information needed for decisionmaking
commensurate with the decisions being made. Each responsible official
shall strive to obtain and keep updated inventory data appropriate to
meet analytical needs for resource decisionmaking. In assessing the
environmental, social, and economic factors relevant to decisionmaking,
the responsible official shall consider the conclusions resulting from
applicable quantitative analytical methods as well as nonquantifiable
considerations.
(c) Social and economic effects. When amending or revising the
forest plan, the responsible official shall consider the effects of
each alternative on community stability, employment, or other
indicators of social and economic change commensurate with the decision
being made.
(d) Research needs. Each Forest Supervisor shall identify and
inform the Regional Forester of research needed for decisionmaking
including, but not limited to, the research needed to help resource
managers ensure that management practices do not produce substantial or
permanent impairment of the productivity of the land.
Sec. 219.9 Forest plan amendments.
(a) Purpose and type. Except as provided at Sec. 219.9(e),
amendment is the only method by which forest plan direction is changed
between revisions. Only forest plan direction as described at
Sec. 219.6 is subject to amendment. Amendments are categorized as
major, minor, or interim.
(b) Major amendment. (1) A major amendment is appropriate only
under one of the following circumstances:
(i) The proposed change would modify, remove, or add a standard, or
modify the geographic area to which a standard applies, except as
provided at paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this section or except when
such a change is made by interim amendment;
(ii) The proposed change would allow the amount of chargeable
timber volume which can be sold for a decade from a proclaimed National
Forest within the plan area to exceed the long-term sustained-yield
timber capacity of that proclaimed National Forest
(Sec. 219.13(d)(1)(ii)); or
(iii) The proposed change would permit harvest of even-aged stands
that have not reached culmination of mean annual increment of growth
(Sec. 219.13(e)).
(2) The Regional Forester is the responsible official for major
amendments.
(3) The public review and comment period on a proposed major
amendment and associated NEPA documents is 90 calendar days. During
this period, the Regional Forester shall take the following actions:
(i) Make the proposed amendment and associated NEPA documents
available for public inspection at convenient locations in the vicinity
of the lands covered by the plan;
(ii) Notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of the
opportunity for public review and comment; and
[[Page 18926]]
(iii) Provide opportunities for open communication with the public
and other government entities during the review of the proposed major
amendment.
(4) Legal notice of adoption of a major amendment shall be provided
in accordance with 36 CFR 217.5.
(5) A major amendment is not effective until the eighth calendar
day following date of publication of the legal notice of the decision
(36 CFR 217.10).
(c) Minor amendment. (1) Unless the authority is reserved by the
Regional Forester, the Forest Supervisor is the responsible official
for minor amendments.
(2)(i) For a proposed minor amendment for which an environmental
assessment has been prepared, the Forest Supervisor shall publish
notice of the proposed amendment and provide at least 30 calendar days
for public review of and comment on the proposed amendment and
environmental assessment. Such notice shall be published in newspapers
of general circulation within or near the Forest.
(ii) In the event that a draft environmental impact statement has
been prepared for a proposed minor amendment, public notice shall be
provided in accordance with NEPA procedures. At least 45 calendar days
must be provided for public review of and comment on the proposed
amendment and draft environmental impact statement.
(3) Legal notice of decisions to adopt a minor amendment must be
provided in accordance with 36 CFR 217.5. The effective date of minor
amendments is governed by 36 CFR 217.10.
(4) A minor amendment shall be used to allocate newly acquired land
to a management prescription, provided the prescription is consistent
with the purposes for which the land was acquired.
(5) If the responsible official concludes that a proposed project
should be implemented, but that the project would conflict with a
forest plan standard, the project may be approved only if the forest
plan standard is amended. If such an amendment is limited to apply to
only the specific project and the circumstances described at paragraphs
(b)(1) (ii) and (iii) of this section do not apply, then the change is
a minor amendment. By contrast, a change to a forest plan standard that
would apply to the specific project and to future projects or that
applies to one project but meets the circumstances described at
paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and (iii) of this section would be a major
amendment.
(i) The environmental effects of modifying or waiving application
of the forest plan standard for a specific project must be disclosed in
the NEPA documentation associated with the project decision.
(ii) A proposed minor amendment that applies only to a specific
project and that is accompanied by an environmental assessment is
subject to the notice and comment procedures of 36 CFR 215.5.
(iii) A proposed minor amendment that applies only to a specific
project and is accompanied by an environmental impact statement is
subject to notice and comment in accordance with NEPA procedures.
(iv) A decision to amend a forest plan for a specific project is
subject to the notice and appeal procedures of 36 CFR part 215, and the
time period between the decision and implementation is also governed by
36 CFR part 215.
(d) Interim amendment. (1) An interim amendment may be used only
when a catastrophic event has occurred or when new information
indicates there is a need to promptly change the forest plan in order
to provide resource protection and it is unacceptable to delay the
changes needed until procedures for major or minor amendment can be
completed.
(2) Unless the authority is subsequently reserved by the Chief, the
Regional Forester is the responsible official for interim amendments.
(3) The Regional Forester shall give notice of an interim amendment
to those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) and shall provide legal
notice of the decision in a newspaper of general circulation. In
addition, if the Chief is the responsible official, notice shall be
published in the Federal Register. The notice must concisely summarize
the following:
(i) The circumstances which warrant use of the interim amendment
procedure;
(ii) The changes being made in the forest plan;
(iii) The anticipated consequences associated with the interim
amendment;
(iv) The anticipated duration of the interim amendment, not to
exceed two years;
(v) The changes being made to the monitoring and evaluation
strategy in association with the interim amendment; and
(vi) The opportunity for public comment.
(4) An environmental impact statement is not required for an
interim amendment.
(5) The effective date of an interim amendment is the eighth
calendar day after legal notice of the decision is published in a
newspaper of general circulation pursuant to Sec. 219.9(d)(3) or, in
the case where the Chief is the responsible official, in the Federal
Register.
(6) A period of 45 calendar days must be provided for public
comment beginning on the date of publication of legal notice of an
interim amendment decision. On the basis of public comment, the
responsible official may decide to modify the interim amendment through
issuance of a new interim amendment or may decide that the interim
amendment remains in effect without change. In either circumstance, the
responsible official shall publish a notice of the decision and a brief
summary of the rationale, and also provide it to those on the list
described at Sec. 219.3(b).
(7) The duration of an interim amendment may not exceed two years.
If an approved amendment or revision has not superseded the interim
direction within two years of the effective date of the interim
amendment, then the responsible official may reissue the interim
amendment or issue a modified interim amendment, subject to the notice
and comment requirements of this section.
(8) An interim amendment may not be made through a decision
document for a specific project.
(9) Pursuant to 36 CFR part 217, an interim amendment is not
subject to administrative appeal.
(e) Nondiscretionary changes. If a change in applicable law or
regulation occurs which conflicts with forest plan direction and the
agency has no choice but to comply and no discretion in the manner in
which to comply, the forest plan may be modified to reflect such
changes without conducting amendment procedures. The Forest Supervisor
shall give public notice of such changes through the annual monitoring
and evaluation report (Sec. 219.12). Such nondiscretionary changes are
not subject to NEPA procedures.
(f) Other changes. The following changes to the content of a forest
plan may be made at any time, do not require amendment, and are not
subject to NEPA procedures. However, such changes are to be identified
and briefly described in the next annual monitoring and evaluation
report.
(1) Changes to information that is not forest plan direction
(Sec. 219.6), such as the information in forest plan appendices;
(2) Corrections to forest plan maps which delineate where a
management prescription is applicable, provided such changes are the
result of improved
[[Page 18927]]
information about the location of the on-the-ground conditions to which
the prescription was described in the forest plan to apply;
(3) Corrections of typographical errors or other non-substantive
changes.
Sec. 219.10 Forest plan revision.
(a) Initiation. Revision of a forest plan should occur about every
10 years, but no later than 15 years, from the date of approval of the
original plan or the latest plan revision. Revision also must occur
when the Regional Forester determines that conditions over most or all
of the plan area have significantly changed from those in place when
the forest plan was originally approved or last revised; for example,
if a catastrophic event has substantially altered resource conditions
over most or all of the planning area.
(b) Responsible official. The Regional Forester is the responsible
official for forest plan revision.
(c) Prerevision actions.--(1) Prerevision review of the forest
plan. Prior to initiating scoping pursuant to NEPA procedures, the
entire forest plan must be reviewed, using the cumulative results of
monitoring and evaluation. The purpose of the review is to identify
changed conditions and/or other new information which appear to
indicate a need to change direction in the current plan.
(2) Communications strategy. The Forest Supervisor shall formulate
a communications strategy that describes how the public and government
entities may participate in the prerevision review and revision of the
forest plan on an ongoing basis.
(i) The Forest Supervisor shall meet, or designate a representative
to meet, with interested representatives of other Federal agencies and
State, local, and tribal governments to establish procedures for
ongoing coordination and communication throughout the prerevision
review and the revision processes. These procedures should be
documented in the communications strategy.
(ii) The Forest Supervisor shall publish notice of the prerevision
review process and the formulation of a communications strategy in both
the Federal Register and newspapers of general circulation within or
near the plan area. The notice must include an invitation to the public
and representatives of government entities to express their ideas and
suggestions on formulation of a communications strategy.
(iii) The Forest Supervisor shall also give notice of the
prerevision review and formulation of the communications strategy to
those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b).
(d) Scoping. Upon completion of the prerevision review, the
Regional Forester shall initiate the forest plan revision process by
publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to revise the
forest plan and to prepare the associated draft environmental impact
statement. The Regional Forester shall allow 60 calendar days for
public comment. The purposes of the Notice of Intent are to notify the
public of the forest plan revision process, the anticipated scope of
the revision effort, and opportunities for the public to be involved in
the revision process, and also to begin the scoping process required by
NEPA procedures.
(1) In addition to the content requirements established by NEPA
procedures, the following apply to a Notice of Intent to revise a
forest plan:
(i) The statement of purpose and need for the proposed action
identifies specific opportunities to better achieve agency goals, as
set forth in law, Executive order, regulation, agency directives, and
the RPA Program, through changes in forest plan direction;
(ii) The proposed action identifies the direction in the current
forest plan which will be evaluated for change; and
(iii) Significant revision issues describe the topics of concern
related to changing forest plan direction and are used to help focus
revision analysis efforts on those concerns.
(2) At the time of publication of the Notice of Intent, the Forest
Supervisor shall take the following additional actions to notify the
public of the revision process:
(i) Notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of the
revision effort and opportunities for involvement;
(ii) Distribute a press release on the revision effort to
newspapers of general circulation within or near the Forest;
(iii) Publicize and conduct activities designed to foster ongoing
participation by the public and government representatives in the
revision process pursuant to the communications strategy formulated
pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(3) The Regional Forester shall consider comments received in
response to the Notice of Intent and determine if there is a need to
adjust the scope of the revision effort.
(e) Required elements. The forest plan revision process requires
the following evaluations or updates:
(1) A review of the identification of lands suited and not suited
for timber production (Sec. 219.13(a));
(2) An evaluation of roadless areas for wilderness designation;
(Sec. 219.14(b));
(3) In accordance with Sec. 219.14(c), an evaluation of rivers for
eligibility as wild, scenic, and recreation rivers; and
(4) An update of the information in the appendix to the forest plan
which displays projected levels of goods and services and management
activities for the next decade (Sec. 219.11(d)(1)).
(f) Draft environmental impact statement. A draft environmental
impact statement must accompany a proposed revision of a forest plan.
(g) Public notice and comment. The Regional Forester shall give the
public notice and opportunity to comment as follows:
(1) The draft environmental impact statement, proposed revised
forest plan, and draft monitoring and evaluation strategy must be
available for public comment for at least 90 calendar days. Copies will
be made available for inspection at convenient locations in the
vicinity of the lands covered by the plan, beginning on the date of
publication of the notice of availability of the draft environmental
impact statement in the Federal Register;
(2) The Forest Supervisor shall give notice to those on the list
described at Sec. 219.3(b) of the opportunity for public review and
comment; and
(3) The Regional Forester shall either hold public meetings or,
alternatively, conduct other activities to foster public participation
in the review of the draft environmental impact statement, proposed
revised forest plan, and draft monitoring and evaluation strategy.
(h) Final environmental impact statement and revised forest plan.
Following public comment, the Regional Forester shall oversee
preparation of a final environmental impact statement and revised
forest plan. The final environmental impact statement and record of
decision documenting the selected alternative and adoption of the
revision shall be prepared and made public in accordance with NEPA
procedures.
(i) Approval. In addition to the Federal Register publication of
the notice of availability of the final environmental impact statement
and record of decision pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.10, legal notice of the
adoption of a revised forest plan shall be provided as required by 36
CFR 217.5. A revision becomes effective 30 calendar days after the date
of the notice published in the Federal Register.
Sec. 219.11 Forest plan implementation.
(a) Project consistency. Project decisions must be consistent with
the standards in a forest plan. Deviation of a project from compliance
with a guideline is not inconsistent with the
[[Page 18928]]
forest plan. A determination of consistency of a project with the
forest plan must be documented when the project is approved. If a
proposed project is not consistent with a standard in the forest plan,
the responsible official may, subject to valid existing rights, take
only one of the following actions:
(1) Modify the proposal to make it consistent with the forest plan;
(2) Reject the proposal; or
(3) Amend the forest plan to permit the proposal.
(b) Application of forest plan amendment or revision to existing
authorizations or previously approved projects. Permits, contracts, and
other instruments issued or approved for the use and occupancy of
National Forest System lands must be consistent with the forest plan in
effect at the time of their issuance. Subject to valid existing rights,
contracts, permits, and other instruments for occupancy and use that
are inconsistent with a new forest plan amendment or revision must be
revised as soon as practicable to be made consistent with the forest
plan.
(c) Implementation during amendment or revision process. An
approved forest plan, including all amendments as may be adopted,
remains effective until a new amendment or a revision is approved.
(d) Possible actions during the plan period. (1) At the time of
revision, an appendix to the forest plan shall be prepared displaying a
prediction of the major goods and services which may be produced during
the plan period, as well as a display of the management activities
which may occur during the plan period.
(i) The display should predict a realistic range of goods and
services and management activity levels reflecting, to the extent
practicable and meaningful, some of the variables which are most likely
to affect production or accomplishment of predicted levels.
(ii) The display may include a prediction of the rate of achieving
forest plan objectives reflecting, to the extent practicable and
meaningful, some of the variables most likely to affect achievement.
(iii) Such a display does not limit nor compel any action by the
agency and does not constitute forest plan direction.
(2) At periodic intervals following adoption of a revised forest
plan and for such time periods as is determined appropriate, the Forest
Supervisor shall make available to the public an updated estimate of
major goods and services and management activity levels that may be
produced or occur. Development of these estimates does not require NEPA
analysis.
Sec. 219.12 Monitoring and evaluation.
(a) Monitoring and evaluation strategy. The Forest Supervisor must
conduct monitoring and evaluation efforts and, simultaneously with any
revision of the forest plan, shall prepare a comprehensive monitoring
and evaluation strategy to guide such efforts. This strategy is not
forest plan direction, is not included in the forest plan, and does not
require NEPA analysis. However, monitoring and evaluation activities
are subject to NEPA procedures at the time of implementation.
(1) The monitoring and evaluation strategy provides instructions
for the following:
(i) Assessing if projects are being implemented in accordance with
the decision documents authorizing the projects;
(ii) Assessing, through the use of measurable indicators, if the
activities being implemented are effective in achieving forest plan
goals;
(iii) Conducting appropriate monitoring and evaluation efforts to
occur within the plan area to help meet monitoring and evaluation needs
at scales larger than the plan area;
(iv) Validating the assumptions upon which forest plan direction
was established and verifying the accuracy of predicted effects;
(v) Prioritizing monitoring and evaluation efforts by identifying
those monitoring and evaluation efforts that are of highest priority to
conduct because they assess the effects of those management activities
believed to have the greatest potential risk to the environment;
(vi) Collecting and compiling appropriate information to serve as
reference points for future evaluations;
(vii) Determining if there is new information or a change in
conditions which substantially affects the validity of the forest plan
including, but not limited to:
(A) Laws, Executive orders, regulations, RPA Program updates, or
agency directives issued subsequent to approval of the forest plan;
(B) Changes in biological, physical, social, or economic factors
influencing the plan area;
(C) Findings resulting from applicable scientific research or
experience;
(D) Findings resulting from ecosystem analysis;
(viii) Storing and disseminating information of use in the program
development and budget formulation process, such as updated information
on resource capabilities, project opportunities, activity costs, or
economic trends;
(ix) Tracking the goods and services produced and management
activities accomplished;
(x) Involving the public in monitoring and evaluation by
identifying opportunities for the public to participate, when
appropriate, in monitoring and evaluation efforts;
(xi) Identifying problems, and opportunities to resolve those
problems, for use in determining whether there is a need to amend or
revise the forest plan.
(2) The monitoring and evaluation strategy document should describe
procedures and identify planned intervals for implementing and
reporting monitoring and evaluation efforts. Because the type and
intensity of monitoring and evaluation efforts can vary depending on
the availability of funds, the monitoring and evaluation strategy
should be realistic and practicable. Monitoring and evaluation efforts
should be designed at the appropriate spatial scale and for appropriate
timeframes.
(3) The Forest Supervisor shall give priority to implementing those
monitoring and evaluation efforts that assess the effects of management
activities having the greatest potential risk to the environment.
(b) Notice and approval of monitoring and evaluation strategies.
(1) A monitoring and evaluation strategy must be made available for
public review and comment at the same time as a proposed revised forest
plan and in accordance with Sec. 219.10(g).
(2) The Regional Forester is responsible for approving the
monitoring and evaluation strategy in conjunction with approving the
revised forest plan. The Regional Forester shall obtain concurrence of
the applicable Station Director before approving a monitoring and
evaluation strategy. A final revised forest plan cannot be approved
before the associated monitoring and evaluation strategy is approved.
(c) Updating monitoring and evaluation strategies. (1) Updates may
occur whenever deemed necessary. Circumstances which might trigger an
update to the strategy include, but are not limited to, amendment of
the forest plan; consideration of comment from the public or government
entities in response to the annual monitoring and evaluation report;
availability of new information; emergence of new opportunities to
coordinate monitoring and evaluation with others; or
[[Page 18929]]
interdisciplinary team recommendations.
(2) The Forest Supervisor is responsible for updating the
monitoring and evaluation strategy as needed. The Forest Supervisor
shall obtain concurrences of the applicable Station Director before
approving an update to a monitoring and evaluation strategy. Updating
the monitoring and evaluation strategy does not trigger a forest plan
amendment or NEPA analysis. A proposed update to a monitoring and
evaluation strategy must be made available for public review and
comment for 30 calendar days. Those on the list described at
Sec. 219.3(b) shall be notified of the opportunity for public review
and comment.
(d) Coordination of monitoring and evaluation efforts. (1)
Monitoring and evaluation efforts should be coordinated, to the extent
feasible, with other Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal
governments, interested private landowners, the scientific community,
and other interested parties. The monitoring and evaluation strategy
should include identification of information to be gathered by other
entities.
(2) Monitoring and evaluation efforts should be coordinated across
Forest Service administrative boundaries. The Regional Forester shall
assure that monitoring and evaluation needs which extend beyond a plan
area are addressed and coordinated.
(3) To the extent practicable, the applicable Station Director
should provide for the involvement of Forest Service research personnel
in the development and updating of monitoring and evaluation
strategies, the implementation and evaluation of monitoring and
evaluation tasks, and preparation of the annual monitoring and
evaluation report.
(e) Monitoring and evaluation report. The Forest Supervisor shall
prepare a concise monitoring and evaluation report annually. This
report shall be transmitted to the Regional Forester and Station
Director and be made available to interested individuals,
organizations, government agencies, and public officials. The report
should include, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) A summary of the results of monitoring and evaluation efforts;
(2) Identification of any changes needed in how the forest plan is
being implemented;
(3) Identification of whether amendment or revision of the forest
plan is needed;
(4) A brief description of any amendments which have been initiated
or become effective since the previous report;
(5) A brief description of any updates made to the monitoring and
evaluation strategy;
(6) A brief description of any nondiscretionary changes made to the
forest plan pursuant to Sec. 219.9(e);
(7) A brief description of changes made to information in the
forest plan that does not constitute direction, such as changes to
appendices (Sec. 219.9(f)).
(f) Project implementation. When monitoring and evaluation
activities are essential to ensuring mitigation of possible
environmental effects of a project, such activities must be identified
in the project decision document. Moreover, in such case, that project
may not be initiated unless there is a reasonable expectation that
adequate funding will be available to conduct the monitoring and
evaluation activities.
(g) Initiating amendment or revision. Nothing in this section shall
be construed to preclude initiating a forest plan amendment or revision
at any time the Forest Supervisor or Regional Forester deems necessary.
Sec. 219.13 Statutory timber management requirements.
(a) Review of suitability determination. (1) Lands identified as
not suited for timber production must be reviewed at least every 10
years. Normally, this should occur as part of forest plan revision;
however, if a 10-year period elapses prior to forest plan revision,
then the review of unsuitable lands shall occur at the 10-year interval
as well as later during forest plan revision. The time period for the
10-year review begins upon the effective date of the original forest
plan, the effective date of any forest plan revision, or the effective
date of any amendment which included a review of all unsuitable lands.
(2) Notwithstanding the 10-year review, all lands must be reviewed
for their suitability for timber production at the time of forest plan
revision.
(3) The identification of lands as suited or not suited for timber
production may be changed at any time for forest plan amendment.
(b) Lands not suited for timber production. (1) Lands not suited
for timber production must have a fixed location and should be
identified on maps, either in the forest plan or the planning records,
or otherwise described in a manner in which they can be readily
recognized.
(2) Forest plan management prescriptions must be established to
ensure the management of unsuited lands is consistent with the
provisions of paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(B) and (b)(4) and (5) of this
section.
(3) Lands are identified as not suited for timber production if any
of the following conditions apply:
(i) The land has been withdrawn from timber harvest by an Act of
Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest
Service;
(ii) Timber harvest on these lands would violate statute, Executive
order, or regulation;
(iii) The land does not meet the definition of forested land as set
forth in Sec. 219.2 of this subpart;
(iv) Technology is not available for conducting timber harvesting
without irreversible damage to soil productivity or watershed
conditions;
(v) There is no reasonable assurance that such lands can be
adequately reforested within five years of final timber harvest.
Adequate reforestation means that the cut area contains the minimum
number, size, distribution, and species composition of regeneration as
identified in the forest plan. Five years after final harvest means
five years after clearcutting, after last overstory removal entry in
shelterwood or seed tree cutting, or after selection cutting.
(A) Research and experience are the basis for determining whether
the harvest and regeneration practices planned can be expected to
result in adequate reforestation.
(B) The reforestation requirement of paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this
section does not prohibit the harvesting of timber when openings are
created for wildlife habitat improvement, vistas, recreation uses, or
similar long-term purposes.
(4) Timber harvesting may occur on unsuitable lands only for
salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect other multiple-use
values.
(5) Lands not suited for timber production are to continue to be
treated for reforestation purposes, particularly with regard to the
protection of other multiple-use values.
(6) Identification of unsuitable lands should not vary among
alternatives at the time of forest plan revision.
(c) Lands suited for timber production. Lands that are not
identified as unsuitable for timber production shall be considered
suited for timber production. However, forest plan standards may be
established which prohibit or limit timber harvesting on suited lands.
For example, such standards could be imposed on lands otherwise suited
for timber production due to economic considerations or due to
allocation of the land to uses not compatible with timber harvesting.
Each forest plan must
[[Page 18930]]
include in the appendix a tabular summary displaying a listing of the
number of acres of suitable lands where standards have been imposed
which prohibit or limit timber harvesting and the number of acres where
such prohibitions or limitations do not apply. This summary is provided
as a convenient reference only and is not part of the suitability
determination.
(d) Allowable sale quantity. The amount of chargeable timber volume
which can be sold from a plan area for a decade cannot exceed the
allowable sale quantity standard established for the plan area. Each
forest plan which provides for a timber sale program must establish a
standard setting the allowable sale quantity. The allowable sale
quantity is a ceiling; it is not a future sale level projection or
target and does not reflect all of the factors that may influence
future sale levels.
(1) Calculation procedures. The allowable sale quantity is
calculated as follows:
(i) Land base. The only lands on which the allowable sale quantity
is based are those lands in the plan area suited for timber production
and on which planned periodic entries for timber harvest are allowed
over time. Only one allowable sale quantity can be established per plan
area.
(ii) Long-term sustained-yield timber capacity. The amount of
chargeable timber volume which can be sold for a decade from any
proclaimed National Forest within the plan area may not exceed the
long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of that proclaimed National
Forest except as provided by paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section or
as necessary to meet overall multiple-use goals as established in the
forest plan. Any change to the forest plan to permit a departure to
meet overall multiple-use goals must be made by a major amendment or
revision.
(A) The long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of a proclaimed
National Forest is calculated using the same suited land base and
forest plan standards as used for calculating the allowable sale
quantity.
(B) In those cases where a proclaimed National Forest has less than
two hundred thousand acres of lands suited for timber production, two
or more proclaimed National Forests may be used for purposes of
determining the long-term sustained-yield timber capacity.
(iii) Non-declining flow. When calculating a new allowable sale
quantity, the new allowable sale quantity may either decline, remain
constant, or increase relative to the current allowable sale quantity.
The new allowable sale quantity must be established at a level that is
predicted to be sustainable or capable of increasing during subsequent
decades, with exceptions permitted only to meet overall multiple-use
goals.
(iv) Intensified management practices. Whenever the allowable sale
quantity is changed through amendment or revision, predicted yields
that were dependent on implementation of intensified management
practices must be decreased if such intensified practices have not been
successfully implemented or funds have not been received to permit such
practices to continue substantially as previously planned.
(2) Chargeable timber volume. Only the timber volume that has been
included in the growth and yield projections used for the calculation
of the allowable sale quantity is attributable to the allowable sale
quantity when sold.
(3) Noninterchangeable components. The allowable sale quantity may
be divided into noninterchangeable components. Limits on the sale of
chargeable timber volume associated with each noninterchangeable
component cannot be exceeded, and chargeable timber volume from one
noninterchangeable component cannot be attributed to the volume limit
associated with another noninterchangeable component. Where management
prescriptions allow planned periodic entries for timber harvest over
time into roadless areas, the portion of the allowable sale quantity
derived from those roadless areas must be identified as a
noninterchangeable component.
(4) Exception to harvest limit. Nothing in this section prohibits
the 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. If the
volume from such harvests was included in the calculation of the
allowable sale quantity, it may either be substituted for timber that
would otherwise be sold under the plan or, if not feasible, sold over
and above the allowable sale quantity.
(e) Culmination of mean annual increment. All even-aged stands
scheduled to be harvested during the plan period must generally have
reached culmination of mean annual increment of growth. This
requirement does not apply to silvicultural practices such as thinning
or other stand improvement measures; to salvage or sanitation
harvesting of stands which are substantially damaged by fire,
windthrow, or other catastrophes, or which are in imminent danger from
insect or disease attacks; when uneven-aged methods are used; or to
cutting for experimental and research purposes. In addition, exceptions
to this requirement are permitted in the forest plan for the harvest of
particular species of trees if overall multiple-use goals would be
better attained. Any change to a forest plan to permit such exceptions
must be made through a major amendment or at the time of revision.
Cubic foot measure is used as the basis for calculating culmination of
mean annual increment of growth unless the Chief directs otherwise.
(f) Selection of cutting methods. The determination of the
appropriate cutting method is made at the project level. Clearcutting
may be permitted only when it is determined to be the optimum method of
timber cutting and the only practical method to accomplish one or more
of the following purposes:
(1) Establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of habitat for
threatened or endangered species;
(2) Enhancement of wildlife habitat or water yield values or to
provide for recreation, scenic vistas, utility lines, road corridors,
facility sites, reservoirs, fuel breaks, or similar developments;
(3) Rehabilitation of lands adversely impacted by events such as
fires, windstorms, or insect or disease infestations;
(4) Preclusion or minimization of the occurrence of potentially
adverse impacts of insect or disease infestations, windthrow, logging
damage, or other factors affecting forest health;
(5) Establishment and growth of desired tree or other vegetative
species that are shade intolerant;
(6) Rehabilitation of poorly stocked stands due to past management
practices or natural events; and
(7) Research needs.
(g) Maximum size of clearcuts. To provide for those cases where
clearcutting may be approved for a specific project, the forest plan
must establish the maximum size of areas that could be clearcut in one
harvest operation. These sizes do not apply to areas harvested by
clearcutting as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as
fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm. Exceptions to the
established limits also may be exceeded on a project basis after public
notice and approval by the Regional Forester.
(h) Blending of even-aged stands. Blocks, patches, or strips for
clearcutting, shelterwood cutting, seed tree cutting, and other methods
designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber shall be shaped and
[[Page 18931]]
blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain.
(i) Protection of soil and water. Forest plans must not permit
timber harvesting where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely
affect water conditions or fish habitat unless protection is provided
from detrimental changes in water temperature, blockages of water
courses, and deposits of sediment.
(j) Displays of Timber Information. The following information shall
be displayed in one or more appendices to the forest plan:
(1) Acreage designated as lands unsuitable and suitable for timber
production.
(2) Acreage of suitable lands subject to standards which prohibit
or limit timber harvesting and the acreage where such prohibitions or
limitations do not apply.
(3) the long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of each
proclaimed National Forest either fully or partially within the plan
area.
(4) The proportion of possible timber harvest methods forest-wide.
Sec. 219.14 Special designations.
(a) Special designations. Forest plan amendment or revision is the
mechanism for the agency to allocate specific areas to prescriptions
for special designations, or to recommend special designation by higher
authorities. Special designations may include, but are not limited to,
wilderness, research natural areas, geological areas, botanical areas,
scenic by-ways, national scenic areas, national recreation areas,
national natural landmarks, and wild, scenic, and recreation rivers.
(b) Wilderness areas. Unless Federal statute directs otherwise, all
roadless, undeveloped areas shall be evaluated for wilderness
designation during forest plan revision subject to the following
limitations:
(1) West of the 100th meridian, areas must be at least 5,000 acres
in size unless contiguous to existing units of the National Wilderness
Preservation System or contiguous to areas endorsed by the
Administration for wilderness designation.
(2) East of the 100th meridian, areas must be of sufficient size as
to make practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired
condition.
(c) Wild, scenic, and recreation rivers. The eligibility of rivers
for designation as wild, scenic, and recreation rivers shall be
evaluated during forest plan revision if any of the following apply:
(1) Federal legislation requires evaluation; or
(2) A river eligibility evaluation has not been conducted using the
criteria published in FSH 1909.12 in July, 1987.
(d) Role of forest plans. Where Acts designating special areas
within the National Forest System require planning beyond that required
for forest plans, the goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines in
special area plans shall be incorporated into the forest plan as forest
plan direction.
Sec. 219.15 Applicability and transition.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all units of
the National Forest System as defined by 16 U.S.C. 1609 including, but
not limited to, the National Grasslands.
(b) In those circumstances where a forest plan has not been
approved as of [effective date of the final rule], development and
approval of the forest plan continue to be subject to the previous
planning rule. After plan approval, the rules of this subpart apply.
(c) Forest plans adopted prior to [effective date of the final
rule] remain in effect until amended or revised pursuant to this
subpart.
(d) Prior to adoption of a revised forest plan prepared in
accordance with the rules of this subpart, forest plans need not be
amended in order to comply with the rules of this subpart.
(e) The displays required by Sec. 219.11(d)(1) and (2) and
Sec. 219.13(j) need not be prepared prior to development of a revised
forest plan prepared in accordance with the rules of this subpart.
(f) The requirement of Sec. 219.12(e) applies starting the first
full fiscal year after [effective date of the final rule].
(g) Until such time as forest plans are amended or revised to fully
conform to the definitions and usage of ``standards'' and
``guidelines'' as described at Sec. 219.6(e) and (f), the following
apply:
(l) Consistency determinations (Sec. 219.11) shall be based on
whether project decisions adhere to mandatory standards or guidelines
in current plans; and
(2) An amendment shall be considered major when one of the
following circumstances exist:
(i) One or more mandatory standards or guidelines in the current
forest plan would be amended in such a manner that the amendment would
result in significant change to the forest plan and that change is
predicted to affect resources over a large portion of the plan area
during the remainder of the plan period;
(ii) The forest plan would be amended in such a manner that the
amount of chargeable timber volume which can be sold for a decade from
a proclaimed National Forest in the plan area exceeds the long-term
sustained-yield timber capacity of that proclaimed National Forest,
except as provided at (Sec. 219.13(d)(1)(ii)(B)); or
(iii) Forest plan direction would be changed to permit harvest of
even-aged stands that have not reached culmination of mean annual
increment of growth (Sec. 219.13(e)), including when such a change is
made to accommodate a project.
(h) If a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement has been published for a significant amendment or revision of
a forest plan prior to [effective date of the final rule], the
following apply:
(1) If a draft environmental impact statement accompanying a
proposed significant amendment has not been issued, the Regional
Forester shall implement the rules of this subpart. In such case, a new
Notice of Intent need not be issued; rather, the Regional Forester
shall notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of any
changes in the amendment process resulting from compliance with the
rules of this subpart.
(2) If a draft environmental impact statement accompanying the
proposed significant amendment has been issued, the Regional Forester
may continue under the previous planning rule.
(3) If a draft environmental impact statement accompanying a
proposed revision has not been issued, the Regional Forester shall
implement the rules of this subpart. If a draft environmental impact
statement accompanying the proposed revision has been issued, the
Regional Forester may continue under the previous planning rule. If the
Regional Forester continues under the rules of this subpart, a new
Notice of Intent need not be issued, the scoping process need not be
repeated, and the prerevision actions required at Sec. 219.10(c) need
not specifically occur. However, the Regional Forester must document
other analyses or evaluations conducted as part of the revision process
which served to review the entire forest plan and to determine that
need to change forest plan direction. The Regional Forester shall
notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of any changes in
the process for revision resulting from compliance with the rules of
this subpart.
(i) Except for the Pacific Southwest Region (36 CFR 200.2),
regional guides prepared in accordance with the previous planning rule
shall be withdrawn no later than three years from [effective date of
the final rule], unless the Chief of the Forest Service determines that
delay is warranted. The Regional Guide for the Pacific Southwest Region
shall be maintained
[[Page 18932]]
until such time as all forest plans in the Region are approved. It
shall then be withdrawn no later than three years from the date of
approval of the last forest plan, unless the Chief of the Forest
Service determines that delay is warranted.
(j) A forest plan must meet the requirement of Sec. 219.13(g) prior
to withdrawal of the regional guide for that plan area.
Subpart B--[Reserved]
Dated: April 4, 1995.
Jack Ward Thomas,
Chief.
[FR Doc. 95-8594 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M