[Federal Register: December 6, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 235)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72769-72816]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06de02-22]
[[Page 72769]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
36 CFR Part 219
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning; Proposed
Rules
[[Page 72770]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 219
RIN 0596-AAB86
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing changes to the National Forest
System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule adopted November 9,
2000. These proposed changes are a result of a review conducted by
Forest Service personnel at the direction of the Office of the
Secretary. The review affirmed much of the 2000 rule and the underlying
concepts of sustainability, monitoring, evaluation, collaboration, and
use of science. Although the 2000 rule was intended to simplify and
streamline the development and amendment of land and resource
management plans, the review concluded that the 2000 rule is neither
straightforward nor easy to implement. The review also found that the
2000 rule did not clarify the programmatic nature of land and resource
management planning. This proposed rule is intended to improve upon the
2000 rule by providing a planning process which is more readily
understood, is within the agency's capability to implement, is within
anticipated budgets and staffing levels, and recognizes the
programmatic nature of planning.
DATES: Comments must be received in writing by March 6, 2003. Comments
received after this date will be considered and placed in the record
only if practicable.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: USDA FS Planning Rule, Content
Analysis Team, PO Box 8359, Missoula, MT 59807; via email to planning--
rule@fs.fed.us; or by facsimile to Planning Rule Comments at (406) 329-
3556. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and
copying. The agency cannot confirm receipt of comments. Persons wishing
to inspect the comments need to call (801) 517-1023 to facilitate an
appointment. In addition, the Forest Service preliminary draft
directives on ecological, social, and economic sustainability, the
business model cost study done to estimate predicted costs to implement
the 2000 and proposed rules, the Civil Rights Impact Assessment, and
the cost-benefit analysis accompanying this proposed rule are expected
to be posted during the comment period on the World Wide Web/Internet
at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma. These materials, when available, also may be
obtained from the Director, Ecosystem Management and Coordination
Staff, Forest Service, USDA, Mail Stop 1104,1400 Independence Avenue,
SW, Washington, DC 20250-1104.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Sutton, Content Analysis Team
Program Coordinator, Forest Service, (801) 517-1023.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
[sbull] Background
[sbull] The 2000 Planning Rule
[sbull] Subsequent Reviews of the 2000 Planning Rule
[sbull] Provisions and Intent of the Proposed Rule
[sbull] Overview
[sbull] Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule
Proposed section 219.1--Purpose and applicability.
Proposed section 219.2--Nature and scope of a land and resource
management plan.
Proposed section 219.3--Levels of planning and planning
authority.
Proposed section 219.4--Decisions embodied in plans.
Proposed section 219.5--Indicators of need to amend or revise a
plan.
Proposed section 219.6--Compliance with National Environmental
Policy Act.
Proposed section 219.7--Amending a plan.
Proposed section 219.8--Revising a plan.
Proposed section 219.9--Developing a new plan.
Proposed section 219.10--Application of plan direction.
Proposed section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation.
Proposed section 219.12--Collaboration, cooperation, and
consultation.
Proposed section 219.13--Sustainability.
Options for Providing Diversity
Comparison of Option 1 and Option 2
Proposed section 219.14--The consideration of science in
planning.
Proposed section 219.15--Special designations.
Proposed section 219.16--Determination of lands available for
timber harvest and suitable for timber production.
Proposed section 219.17--Limitation on timber harvest.
Proposed section 219.18--Plan documentation, maintenance, and
availability.
Proposed section 219.19--Objections to new plans, plan
amendments, or plan revisions.
Proposed section 219.20--Appeals of plan amendments in site-
specific project decisions.
Proposed section 219.21--Notice of plan decisions and effective
dates.
Proposed section 219.22--Transition.
Proposed section 219.23--Definitions.
[sbull] Conclusion
[sbull] Regulatory Certifications
[sbull] Regulatory Impact
[sbull] Environmental Impacts
[sbull] Energy Effects
[sbull] Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
[sbull] Federalism
[sbull] Consultation with Tribal Governments
[sbull] No Takings Implications
[sbull] Civil Justice Reform
[sbull] Unfunded Mandates
[sbull] List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 219
[sbull] Part 219--Planning (text of proposed rule)
[sbull] Tables
[sbull] Table I--Section-by-Section Comparison of the 2000 Rule
with the Proposed Rule
[sbull] Table II--Side-by-Side Comparison of Options for
Ecological sustainability
Background
The Forest Service (the agency), an agency within the United States
Department of Agriculture (the Department), is responsible for managing
the lands and resources of the National Forest System, which include
192 million acres in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The System is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands,
1 national prairie, and other miscellaneous lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary).
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974
(88 Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the National Forest Management
Act of 1976 (NFMA) (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614),
requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations under the principles
of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 that set out the
process for the development and revision of land and resource
management plans (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)). The first planning rule, adopted
in 1979, was substantially amended on September 30, 1982 (47 FR 43026),
and was amended in part on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29122), and on
September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383). The 1982 rule, as amended, has guided
the development, amendment, and revision of the land and resource
management plans (LRMP or plans) that are now in place for all national
forests and grasslands, including an initial plan recently completed
for the Midewin National Tall Grass Prairie that was recently added to
the National Forest System (NFS).
The Forest Service has undertaken several reviews of the planning
process implemented under the 1982 rule. The first review took place in
1989, when the Forest Service, with the assistance of the Conservation
Foundation, conducted a comprehensive review of
[[Page 72771]]
the planning process and published the results in a summary report,
``Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management Planning'' (1990). The
critique concluded that the agency spent too much time on planning;
that planning costs too much; and, therefore, that the Forest Service
needed a more efficient planning process. These findings are still
considered valid and are a prime consideration in the development of
this proposed rule.
Subsequently, the Forest Service published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 6508; Feb. 15, 1991) regarding possible
revisions to the 1982 rule. A proposed rule was published in 1995 (60
FR 18886); however, the Secretary elected not to proceed with that
proposal.
In response to suggestions from persons who commented on the 1995
proposed rule, the Secretary convened a 13-member Committee of
Scientists (Committee or COS) in late 1997 to evaluate the Forest
Service's planning process and recommend changes. In 1998, the COS held
meetings across the country to invite public participation in their
discussions. The Committee's findings were issued in a final report,
``Sustaining the People's Lands'' (March 1999). A proposed rule based
on the COS report was published on October 5, 1999 (64 FR 54074), and a
final rule was adopted on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67514).
The 2000 Planning Rule
In response to many of the findings in the 1990 Critique of Land
Management Planning and the 1999 COS report, the Forest Service
attempted to prepare a planning rule that would provide a more
efficient planning process. The 2000 planning rule (also referred to as
the 2000 rule) changed the Forest Service planning process by: (1)
Establishing ecological, social, and economic sustainability as the
overall stewardship goal for managing the National Forest System; (2)
identifying maintenance and restoration of ecological sustainability as
the first priority for management of National Forest System lands; (3)
requiring collaboration with the general public, interested
organizations, Tribal, State and local governments, and Federal
agencies in all phases of the planning process; (4) expanding
monitoring and evaluation requirements; (5) specifying the use of
scientists and establishing detailed requirements for the application
of science in the planning process; and (6) providing a dynamic
planning framework for solving problems and addressing issues at the
appropriate scale. The 2000 rule applies not only to plan amendments
and revisions, but also to project-level planning and decisionmaking.
The general goals of the 2000 rule are laudable. A major
improvement achieved in that rule is the emphasis on sustainability,
which assists the Forest Service in providing for multiple uses over
time. The 2000 rule also promotes efficiency in that it eliminates
zero-based plan revisions as recommended in the 1990 critique, and it
removes some analytical requirements of the 1982 rule, such as the
requirements for developing benchmarks, which are no longer considered
helpful. The 2000 rule also emphasizes public involvement more than the
1982 rule. The 2000 rule gives explicit direction on the use of science
in the planning process, while the 1982 rule relied on knowledge shared
through an interdisciplinary team approach without procedural
requirements for the use of science. The 2000 rule replaces the post-
decisional administrative appeal process for challenging plans with a
pre-decisional objection process. The 2000 rule also delegates the
authority for plan decisions to the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie
Supervisor, rather than to the Regional Forester. The 2000 rule also
recognizes the plan as a dynamic document.
Despite the positive aspects of the 2000 rule, however, the number
of very detailed analytical requirements, the lack of clarity regarding
many of the requirements, the lack of flexibility, and the lack of
recognition of the limits of agency budgets and personnel led to a
reconsideration of this rule.
Subsequent Reviews of the 2000 Planning Rule
After adoption of the 2000 rule, the Secretary received a number of
comments from individuals, groups, and organizations expressing
concerns regarding the implementation of the 2000 rule. In addition,
lawsuits challenging promulgation of the rule were brought by a
coalition of 12 environmental groups from 7 states and by a coalition
of industry groups (Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, No. C-01-
0728-BZ-(N.D. Calif., filed February 16, 2001)) and (American Forest
and Paper Ass'n v. Veneman, No. 01-CV-00871 (TPJ) (D.D.C., filed April
23, 2001)). As a result of these lawsuits and concerns raised in
comments to the Secretary, the Department initiated a review of the
2000 rule focusing on its ``implementability.'' The ``NFMA Planning
Rule Review,'' completed in April 2001, concluded that many of the
concerns regarding implementability of the rule were serious and
required immediate attention.
In addition, the Forest Service developed a business analysis model
of the 2000 rule and conducted a workshop with field-level planners to
determine the implementability of the 2000 rule based on this business
model. The business model reflected business activities directly
applied from the 2000 rule and provided the basis for a systematic
evaluation of the rule for implementability.
The business model identified the following nine major categories
of planning activities and associated sections of the 2000 rule:
(1) Collaboration (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.12 through 219.18);
(2) Best Science/Science Consistency (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.22
through 219.25 with consideration of relative text in Sec. Sec. 219.11
and 219.20);
(3) Recommendations (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.3 through 219.9 with
consideration of relative text in Sec. Sec. 219.19, 219.20, 219.21,
219.26, and 219.27);
(4) Sustainability (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.19 through 219.21 with
consideration of relative text in Sec. 219.11);
(5) Developing/Revising Plan Decisions (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.6
through 219.9 and 219.11 with consideration of relative text in
Sec. Sec. 219.20, 219.26, 219.28, and 219.29);
(6) Write Plan Documentation (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.11 and
219.30);
(7) Maintain the Plan (primarily Sec. 219.31);
(8) Objections and Appeals (primarily Sec. 219.32); and
(9) Miscellaneous (public notifications and selected NEPA
activities).
Within the context of the nine categories defined, the facilitated
workshop centered on answering two questions: (1) Are the business
requirements clearly understood? (2) What is the agency's perceived
ability to execute the requirements?
An important consideration in this business model analysis was that
it was conducted by planning practitioners who have current field-level
experience. They are the agency experts in a variety of resource areas,
including assessing what can reasonably be accomplished, considering
existing knowledge and information, the issues relevant to planning
areas, and local staffing and funding situations.
This review and analysis found the following:
(1) The 2000 rule has both definitions and analytical requirements
that are very complex, unclear, and, therefore, subject to inconsistent
implementation
[[Page 72772]]
across the agency; for example, species viability, population
monitoring, and the range of variation within the current climatic
period;
(2) Compliance with the regulatory direction on such matters as
ecological sustainability and science consistency checks would be
difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish; and
(3) The complexity of the 2000 rule makes it difficult and
expensive to implement.
Sustainability. The planners particularly questioned whether or not
the agency could achieve the ecological, social, and economic
sustainability standards established in Sec. 219.19 of the 2000 rule.
Similar concerns were noted regarding the viability provisions for the
diversity of plant and animal communities, also in Sec. 219.19 of the
rule. The reviewers found that the ecological sustainability
requirements in the rule are not only complex, but needlessly so.
Although the 2000 rule was intended to increase the focus on ecosystem-
level analyses for addressing the diversity of plant and animal
communities and, thereby, reducing the far more costly species-by-
species approach, the means to accomplish the intent of the rule are
not clear. There was disagreement among the reviewers about the degree
of potential reduction in the species-by-species analysis burden in the
2000 rule.
The role of science. The reviewers affirmed the importance of using
the best available science in planning. However, the detailed
provisions of the 2000 rule for the use of science and scientists in
the planning process raised many concerns.
(1) Field-level planners believed the 2000 rule includes
unnecessarily detailed procedural requirements for scientific peer
reviews, broad-scale assessments, monitoring, and science advisory
boards.
(2) Moreover, these requirements do not recognize the limits of
budgets for use of science, nor does the 2000 rule clearly relate use
of science to the scope of issues in the planning process.
(3) The 2000 rule also does not recognize limitations on the
availability of scientists. The reviewers believed it to be unwise to
place such detailed requirements on the use of scientists in the rule
given the ambiguities of the rule text and the limited availability of
scientists. Although science is needed to inform the Responsible
Official, the reviewers concluded that the 2000 rule anticipates a
level of involvement by scientists that may or may not be needed
considering the planning issues or the anticipated amount of project
activities during on-the-ground implementation of the plan.
Monitoring. Reviewers identified three major issues arising from
the monitoring requirements of the 2000 rule. First, the unnecessarily
detailed requirements for monitoring and evaluation in the 2000 rule
are likely beyond the capacity of many units to perform. Second, it was
considered to be generally confusing throughout the rule to mix
programmatic and project level planning direction. Third, the
monitoring requirements in the 2000 rule are overly prescriptive and do
not provide the Responsible Official sufficient discretion to decide
how much information is needed.
Also, during development of this revised proposed planning rule, it
became apparent that monitoring should be focused on whether on-the-
ground management is achieving desired conditions identified in the
plan. This focus was not clear in the 2000 rule, as its monitoring
direction primarily required a broad array of techniques intended to
measure indicators of sustainability. This conceptual change reflects a
fundamental difference in philosophy between the 2000 rule and this
proposed rule. The 2000 rule tends to be highly prescriptive regarding
a variety of aspects of planning. This proposed rule tends to focus
more on results, rather than on techniques for achieving results. The
Responsible Official is guided by a very large body of law, regulation,
and policy that helps ensure responsible management on the ground. The
much lower amount of procedural detail in this new proposed rule
reflects the agency's assumption that the Responsible Officials will
discharge planning duties responsibly and will conduct planning within
the bounds of authority.
Transition from the 1982 to the 2000 rule. The reviewers also
identified concerns with the transition requirements of the 2000 rule.
There is a lack of clarity about how projects are to be compliant with
the 2000 rule and how the entire rule is to be used in the more limited
scope of plan amendments. Planners expressed uncertainty about how
transition to the 2000 rule would occur, particularly for site-specific
decisions. Finally, to fully implement the 2000 rule the planners felt
the relatively short transition period provided is unrealistic given
the complexities and uncertainties identified.
Having considered the reports of the review teams, the Acting
Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment requested
that the Chief of the Forest Service develop a proposed rule to revise
the 2000 rule.
Provisions and Intent of the Proposed Rule
Overview
The Forest Service is now proposing changes to the planning rule at
36 CFR part 219, adopted November 2000, to address issues and concerns
raised in the various reviews. The proposed rule retains many of the
basic concepts in the 2000 rule, namely sustainability, public
involvement and collaboration, use of science, and monitoring and
evaluation. The agency has attempted to substantially improve these
aspects of the 2000 rule by eliminating unnecessary procedural detail,
clarifying intended results, and streamlining procedural requirements
consistent with agency staffing, funding, and skill levels.
Because of the concerns identified regarding the 2000 rule and
because this proposed rule changes the 2000 rule, it is necessary to
explain exactly how and why the 2000 rule has been adjusted in this
proposal. However, the agency believes it is productive to begin this
overview with a vision of the planning process and the contents of
resource management plans. The Forest Service believes the direction of
many aspects of current planning activities and the basic concepts of
the 2000 rule are very valuable and reflect the expectations of the
American people for planning on their public lands.
Planning
The agency expects programmatic planning to be accomplished in the
following ways:
[sbull] The extent of a plan analysis will be proportional to the
kinds of decisions being made.
[sbull] Plans will be kept up to date, because planning will be
simpler and thus, plans will be more efficiently amended.
[sbull] Plan revision will be based on a ``need for change.''
[sbull] Plan monitoring and evaluation will be emphasized more and
will measure the success of adaptive management efforts, and the
attainment of, or progress toward, desired conditions. This monitoring
and evaluation will provide key information to help keep plans current
and will help inform project-level decisionmaking. States, other
Federal agencies, local governments, Tribes, and the public will be
more closely involved in monitoring efforts.
[sbull] Public involvement is expected to be collaborative,
vigorous, and focused
[[Page 72773]]
on consensus-based identification of and reasonable choices for desired
conditions.
[sbull] Planning will continue to actively involve our Federal,
State, county, and Tribal partners.
[sbull] Science will be integrated throughout the planning process,
from initial data collection and interpretation, through issue
identification, to the analysis process, to development and design of
monitoring, and later to evaluation of monitoring results.
[sbull] The agency's strategic plan, national assessments, and
monitoring results will provide useful information for the development
of land and resource management plans and a national context for
planning.
[sbull] Planning analysis will be more focused on desired
conditions rather than speculative and detailed examination of future
project effects.
[sbull] Planning will continue to focus on addressing baseline
conditions and trends applicable to the planning issues. Baseline
condition and trend analysis will clearly display anticipated progress
toward desired conditions if active management occurs and also what may
happen if active management is restricted.
[sbull] Planning analysis will focus on reasonable choices for
zoning the landscape.
[sbull] Planning will recognize budget limitations in order to help
the Responsible Official prioritize and balance competing planning
activities, such as choosing the appropriate approach for monitoring
watersheds.
Plan Contents
The agency's vision of planning expects a land and resource
management plan to contain:
[sbull] Broad, programmatic direction for a forest, grassland, or
prairie. Plans will make such key strategic decisions as identification
of priority areas for wildfire hazard reduction; designating major
utility corridors; identification of areas of especially high
diversity, or areas containing rare or unique species, ecosystems, or
biotic communities that need certain protections; identification of
lands at the broad-scale (not an acre-by-acre determination) suitable
for timber harvest or grazing, or other consumptive uses;
identification of areas suitable for motorized use; and identification
of areas where certain types of recreation use may be emphasized.
[sbull] More specific statements of desired conditions for such
resources as vegetation, recreation, cultural and heritage resources,
and watersheds, developed within the context of ecological, economic,
and social systems.
[sbull] More specific outcome-based objectives (i.e., measurable
standards of performance).
[sbull] A set of standards that set appropriate limitations on
activities to help achieve desired conditions. Standards will be fewer,
simpler, and better allow for adaptive management than existing plans.
[sbull] Identified special areas, such as areas recommended for
wilderness or wild and scenic river status. Plans will continue to
include specific direction for these areas.
[sbull] As needed, associated materials such as maps or other
documents necessary to make plan decisions.
[sbull] Plans will be brief and will refer to, rather than repeat,
what is already in the Forest Service Directive System, existing law,
regulation, or policy.
[sbull] Collaborative work with the public and emphasis on
consensus building should lead to fewer unresolved issues and,
therefore, fewer plan alternatives.
The goal of the agency is to have a planning rule that is simpler
and easier to implement than the 2000 rule and that allows the agency
to more easily adapt to changing issues and opportunities. Available
agency budgets, personnel availability, and other resource limitations
are recognized as important because they help provide a framework for
the Responsible Official to make decisions such as the following: What
issues can the Responsible Official reasonably address? What method
will be used to solicit meaningful public involvement? What are the
pressing resource needs? What data needs to be collected? Does the unit
need to hire specialists to support the planning action? Are contracts
needed to obtain various kinds of information? Recognition of budget
availability and limitations helps the Responsible Official make
choices about how to weigh and balance competing needs and to consider
the costs and benefits of various actions for optimal results.
The proposed rule retains the important improvements of the 2000
rule. These include:
[sbull] Emphasis on sustainability;
[sbull] Strong public involvement and collaboration;
[sbull] Use of science throughout the planning process;
[sbull] An emphasis on monitoring and evaluation as fundamental to
adaptive management;
[sbull] Need-for-change planning;
[sbull] Use of the objection process;
[sbull] The identification of the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie
Supervisor as the Responsible Official; and
[sbull] The concept of planning as a dynamic process.
The Forest Service believes the proposed rule will apply these
important improvements more efficiently than does the 2000 rule. The
Forest Service believes that the proposed rule provides as efficient a
planning process as possible within the scope of the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) requirements. In addition to retention of the key
improvements, the agency also looked to earlier versions of published
and unpublished proposed planning rules as sources of ideas in revising
specific sections. Finally, the Forest Service has applied over 20
years of planning experience to craft this proposed rule.
It is also useful at this point to discuss in more detail one
important component of the body of direction that governs the
Responsible Official's actions. The Forest Service Directive System
consists of the Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Handbook (FSH), which
codify the agency's policy, practice, and procedure. The system serves
as the primary basis for the internal management and control of all
programs and the primary source of administrative direction to Forest
Service employees.
The FSM contains legal authorities, objectives, policies,
responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing
basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff in more than
one unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. The FSH
is the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for
carrying out the direction issued in the FSM. Examples include
Handbooks on land management planning and environmental analysis.
As discussed throughout this proposed rule, the Directive System
plays and will continue to play an important role in directing field
employees on how to conduct planning.
Section 219.5 of the 2000 rule is a specific example of direction
better included in the agency's Directive System. The agency believes
that much of the process direction, such as potential uses of an
assessment (e.g., identification of additional research needs), or who
has responsibility for a broad-scale assessment (Regional Foresters and
Station Directors), or examples of what a local analysis should
describe (e.g. likely future conditions, characterizations of the area
of analysis) are more appropriately addressed in the Directive System,
not
[[Page 72774]]
a codified rule. Pursuant to NFMA, the Forest Service will provide
notice and give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed
Forest Service Manual direction for this proposed rule because of the
substantial public interest in this direction (36 CFR 216.4).
The agency must improve its planning processes so that direction
and resources will be in place to manage the National Forest System
(NFS) lands more effectively. The trend in planning over the past 20
years has been towards more complexity with the result that limited
funds and personnel available to the agency are being
disproportionately spent on planning and analysis. With this proposal,
the agency seeks to produce a planning rule that sets the stage for
planning to be done in a reasonable manner, at reasonable costs, in a
reasonable amount of time, and thus provide a sound and rational
framework for managing National Forest System lands.
The agency has evaluated the entire cost of planning for both the
2000 rule and proposed rule. The evaluation shows that there will be
efficiencies and reduced costs associated with implementation of the
proposed rule.
Increasing efficiency and reducing costs are important. The Forest
Service believes that the public's primary expectation is that the
agency do a good job of land management. The agency needs to balance
its planning efforts with its efforts to actually manage the land
through the application of plan direction to subsequent actions. There
is urgency to make planning more efficient, as there are issues,
activities, and resource concerns that are not halted during the
planning process and which may pose increased concerns when planning
occurs over excessively long timeframes. There is a growing population
that will recreate on National Forest System lands whether the agency
is prepared to deal with these uses or not. There are growing needs for
watershed restoration for such purposes as prevention of flooding and
the attendant adverse effects on people, property, and resource health.
There are increasing demands for energy resources. Many NFS lands have
a critical wildfire problem. Spending disproportionate agency time and
money on planning and analysis that is not commensurate with the scope
and effect of the decision to be made reduces the agency's ability to
address serious land management issues.
Additionally, the Forest Service has seldom been able to revise its
plans prior to NFMA's 15-year deadline. There have been several reasons
for this delay, but one consistent cause has been the excessive length
of time needed to plan under existing procedures. Please refer to the
November 30, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 FR 59775), which
contains the agency's schedule to systematically approach the NFMA 15-
year revision deadline for NFS units, considering critical resource and
social/economic issues. Reviewers may also refer to the Forest Service
Ecosystem Management Coordination staff Web site at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma
for the latest update of the agency-wide land and resource
management plan (LRMP) revision schedule.
The Forest Service believes this proposed rule, if adopted, would
improve and streamline the planning process. In accordance NFMA, plans
are to be revised from time to time when the Secretary finds conditions
on a unit have significantly changed, but at least every 15 years. Plan
revisions that take four, five, or six or more years to complete are
not responsive to the vision of NFMA, are not responsive to changing
issues, and are in danger of exhausting public interest and
involvement. When plans cannot be easily amended, many people feel that
they need to have all their concerns resolved in a plan revision,
because that will be the direction in place for many years. This
viewpoint not only can increase contentiousness in planning, but also
result in unreasonably high expectations of what a plan does. Several
aspects of this proposed rule will improve the ability to not only
revise plans more easily, but also to amend them more easily.
As stated, the proposed rule is intended to reflect the
programmatic nature of planning and provide a process that is within
the agency's ability to implement. Fundamental to programmatic planning
is the premise that plans are permissive; that is, they allow, but do
not mandate, certain activities to take place within the plan area.
Consequently, the proposed rule emphasizes that plans themselves
generally are not actions that significantly affect the quality of the
human environment, nor do they dictate site-specific actions.
The agency must align its planning processes and performance
responsibly. This means targeting dollars spent on planning to those
activities that will yield clear benefits. Programmatic land and
resource management planning cannot do more than establish a framework
for management in an ever-changing environment. The Forest Service
believes that the proposed rule provides as efficient a planning
process as possible within the framework of NFMA direction.
A detailed explanation of the proposed rule that would amend the
rules at 36 CFR Part 219 follows.
Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule
Table I at the end of this document provides a section-by-section
comparison of the 2000 rule and the proposed rule.
Proposed section 219.1--Purpose and applicability. The Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) establishes that NFS lands must be
administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and
wildlife and fish values. The Act authorizes and directs the Secretary
to develop and administer these resources for multiple use and the
sustained yield of the several products and services that are obtained
from management of the surface resources. The Act defines multiple use
as the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the
NFS lands so that they are utilized in the combination that will best
meet the needs of the American people. The Act further provides that
sustained yield of the several products and services means the
achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or
regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the NFS
without impairment of the productivity of the land.
The Forest Service has embraced the concept of sustainability to
guide the agency in meeting requirements of MUSYA. Sustainability
addresses the ``sustained yield'' aspect of MUSYA because it requires
balancing resource management with the needs of current and future
generations ``in perpetuity.'' The concept of sustainability will
assist the Responsible Official in assuring that Forest Service
management of the various renewable resources will be administered
without impairment of the productivity of the land, as required by
MUSYA. Sustaining the productivity of the land and its renewable
resources means meeting present needs without compromising the ability
to meet the needs of future generations. Meeting present and future
needs does not imply all individual needs can be met at one time,
either now or in the future.
The concepts of multiple use and sustainability are addressed in
Sec. 219.1 of the 2000 rule. Because these concepts are so fundamental
to planning, they are retained in Sec. 219.1 of this proposed rule. As
does the 2000 rule, this proposed rule affirms the health of the land
and sustaining its resources within the
[[Page 72775]]
authority granted by MUSYA as the overall goal for managing the
National Forest System.
This section of the rule sets forth a clear process for
establishing, amending, and revising plans and for monitoring plan
implementation. As provided in Sec. 219.1 of the 2000 rule, this
proposed rule also recognizes that planning may consider many time
frames and geographic areas and that it is an ongoing process. However,
the proposed rule would not determine the selection or implementation
of site-specific actions. Rather, the proposed rule requires
documentation that a future project decision is consistent with the
plan. The agency believes that a rule which focuses solely on
programmatic-level planning will be better understood and more
consistently applied than a rule that includes direction on both
programmatic and project-level decisionmaking. Agency guidelines on
project-level planning are specified in FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15.
The USDA Office of General Counsel, Natural Resources Division
working paper entitled ``Overview of Forest Planning and Project Level
Decisionmaking,'' describes the nature of the agency's two-staged
decisionmaking process. The paper is available on the World Wide Web at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma. The relevant issues, levels and kinds of
analysis needed, and decisions to be made in a programmatic plan are
quite different from those required for development of site-specific
projects. The paragraph in this section regarding the applicability of
the proposed rule is the same as Sec. 219.34 of the 2000 rule, except
that it adds a reference to subsequent statutes in order to allow for
any future additions to the National Forest System.
Proposed section 219.2--Nature and scope of a land and resource
management plan. This section of the proposed rule establishes the
fundamental purpose of a plan and provides specific requirements on how
that purpose will be met. In contrast to Sec. Sec. 219.1-219.5 of the
2000 rule, this proposed section describes the nature of a land and
resource management plan concisely, and, thereby, sets the stage for a
planning process that is more flexible and efficient.
Proposed paragraph (a) of this section establishes that the
fundamental purpose of a plan is (1) to establish the desired
conditions to be achieved through the management of the lands and
various renewable resources of the National Forest System and (2) to
guide the Forest Service in fulfilling its responsibilities for
stewardship of the National Forest System to best meet the present and
future needs of the American people. This concept is central to the
planning vision. In contrast to the lengthy and non-regulatory
exposition of Sec. Sec. 219.1-219.5 of the 2000 rule, Sec. 219.2 of
this proposed rule concisely describes the nature of a land and
resource management plan.
Proposed paragraph (b) is somewhat similar to Sec. 219.2 of the
2000 rule in that it sets out principles on which that rule is based.
Rather than dwelling on principles modifying the rules, however,
paragraph (b) imposes core requirements for which the Responsible
Official will be held accountable in plan development, amendment, or
revision. While brief and concise, these requirements touch all the
major principles covered in Sec. 219.2 of the 2000 rule---
sustainability, use of science, consultation with government agencies
and Tribes, public participation, interdisciplinary planning, and
monitoring and evaluation.
Proposed paragraph (c) recognizes the role of plans in integrating
the various statutory authorities applicable to National Forest System
management. It also recognizes the Forest Service Directive System as
the primary source of agency-wide management direction relevant to
planning and management of National Forest System lands and resources.
Planning is conducted in the context of the body of environmental laws,
regulations, Executive orders, and policy. The plan itself does not
generally repeat existing law, regulation, Executive order, or policy
but rather interprets their requirements as they apply to the plan
area.
Although the proposed rule does not explicitly address integrating
statutory authorities, it does at Sec. 219.1(a) identify the principal
authorities applicable to National Forest System lands.
Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 219.2 describes the force and
effect of land and resource management plans, making clear that:
[sbull] These plans do not grant, withhold, or modify any contract,
permit, authorization, or other legal instrument;
[sbull] These plans do not subject anyone to civil or criminal
liability; and
[sbull] These plans create no legal rights.
This proposed paragraph better recognizes the programmatic nature
of plans than the 2000 rule, and therefore, more accurately describes
the nature of a land and resource management plan. Since a plan
provides only the framework for management, a plan normally does not
specifically authorize any ground-disturbing activities nor does it
specifically commit funding or resources. Therefore, the analysis
associated with a plan should be proportional to the level of decisions
made in a plan. Also, a plan focuses on desired conditions. It zones
the forest, grassland, or prairie into defined areas where activities
could occur to help meet those desired conditions and sets out a
program for monitoring progress toward desired conditions. This kind of
plan can be supported by an analysis that evaluates, on a broad level,
the areas' suitability for future potential activities.
The type of plan level analysis that the Forest Service has found
most useful for developing a plan, and for project analysis thereafter,
is baseline and general trend analysis, which gives as complete a
picture of the forest or grassland as possible at one time and provides
the best information of trends of natural processes and of uses in the
plan area and surrounding lands. The Forest Service will continue such
analyses in the planning process. The Forest Service believes that
environmental analyses are most useful when done in the development of
site-specific decisions that will execute on-the-ground management.
More specifically, while a plan guides project implementation,
extensive up-front effects disclosure is generally too speculative to
be useful for project analysis. Thus, the opportunity to ``tier'' a
project's NEPA analysis to a plan EIS, as provided in NEPA regulations
(40 CFR 1502.20), is useful only for certain aspects of analysis and in
practice has proven more theoretical than real. The Forest Service
therefore intends to conduct most detailed analysis on the site-
specific project level.
Plan management direction should be flexible and allow for adaptive
management. Monitoring should not only measure progress toward desired
conditions but also help measure the success of adaptive management
strategies and actions.
A plan is generally a zoning document. It may allow for later,
site-specific authorization of activities and may restrict activities
in specific areas. There are different ways this zoning is applied
depending on the type of existing or potential future activities. For
example, a plan may allow transportation development or motorized use
on some portions of the National Forest System unit, but not on others.
Such a plan decision does not immediately authorize road construction,
but rather identifies zones where road construction may occur in the
future, based on an appropriate project-specific NEPA analysis, public
involvement, and a future decision.
[[Page 72776]]
Another example of zoning-type direction in a plan is direction
that would restrict motorized access in areas where it has been allowed
in the past or that would restrict other recreation uses that are
currently allowed. The plan itself does not normally execute the
restriction. Rather, the restriction would have to be implemented with
a subsequent process, such as a closure order or other instrument.
It must be recognized that a plan is not the final word deciding
forever the fate of an area of land, determining that some actions will
certainly occur and others never will occur, over all or part of the
plan area. According to the Forest Service's vision of planning, plans
can and should be dynamic documents, which can and should be
reconsidered throughout their existence and readily amended when
circumstances call for change.
In summary, the plan is a framework for future on-the-ground
management decisions. Site-specific projects are proposed and developed
within the constraints of the plan, and are subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act and other applicable laws and regulations.
Proposed section 219.3--Levels of planning and planning authority.
This section of the proposed rule identifies three levels of planning--
national, regional, or unit (national forest, grassland, or prairie)
level. As in the 2000 rule, the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie
Supervisor is the Responsible Official for a land and resource
management plan, unless the Regional Forester or the Chief chooses to
act as the Responsible Official for a specific amendment or revision.
The key planning elements listed in Sec. 219.3(d) of the 2000 rule
are omitted from the proposed rule because they are unnecessary.
Proposed Sec. 219.5 provides direction on indicators or a need to
amend or revise a plan. Sec. Sec. 219.7-219.9 discuss the steps to
develop a new plan or amend or revise a plan. Sec. 219.10 discusses
application of plan direction and Sec. 219.11 provides for plan
monitoring or evaluating plans. It is not necessary to summarize these
planning elements in a single section. The 2000 rule Sec. 219.3 key
element number 7 is not needed because the proposed rule does not
provide direction for site-specific decisions. Additionally, in
contrast to the 2000 rule, Sec. 219.3 in this proposed rule does not
contain direction for site-specific actions. As noted previously, the
focus of this proposed rule is the development, amendment, and revision
of plans, not site-specific project planning. The Forest Service uses a
staged decisionmaking process in which land and resource management
plans establish the guidance that governs site-specific project
planning and decisionmaking.
One new provision of Sec. 219.3 is the recognition of the need to
ensure that management direction for designated areas of experimental
forests is consistent with the research being conducted and concurred
in by the appropriate Station Director. The need for this direction
emerged from review by Forest Service Research and Development
employees.
Proposed section 219.4--Decisions embodied in plans. This proposed
section, in paragraphs (a)(1)-(6), retain the five types of plan
decisions found in the 2000 rule. Those decisions are ``desired
conditions,'' ``objectives,'' ``standards,'' ``the identification and
designation of suitable and unsuitable land uses,'' and ``the
identification of requirements for monitoring and evaluation.'' For
efficiency and clarity, Sec. 219.26 of the 2000 rule, which governs
identifying and designating suitable uses, has been incorporated into
Sec. 219.4 as proposed paragraph (a)(4). Overall, this section of the
proposed rule is similar to Sec. 219.7 of the 2000 rule, although
reorganized in this proposal. The proposed rule, however, more
explicitly tracks the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
In proposed paragraph (a)(3) of section 219.4, the rule states
``Standards generally should be adaptable and assess performance
measures.'' The following is an example of an adaptable standard that
assesses performance measures: ``No pre-commercial thinning is allowed
in lynx habitat unless at least three years of monitoring of snowshoe
hares shows that hares are present and are not a limiting factor for
lynx. In these cases, pre-commercial thinning may occur on no more than
20 percent of the hare habitat.''
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of section 219.4 addresses maximum
size openings. The 2000 rule does not provide for maximum size
openings. As in the 1982 rule, the proposed rule reinstates this
statutory requirement and uses the same maximum size limits, by forest
cover type.
An additional required standard is added at Sec. 219.4(a)(3)(vii)
on the use and application of culmination of mean annual increment
(CMAI). The addition of CMAI direction was added to the proposed rule
in order to clarify how this NFMA requirement is to be applied because
there has been some confusion in this area. This new requirement
specifies that CMAI considerations apply only to regeneration harvest
of even-aged tree stands on suitable lands that are harvested for
timber production purposes. This section allows for exceptions to the
application of CMAI to be made in the plan; for example, a plan could
provide exceptions for wildlife openings or for fuel reduction or fuel
breaks.
The 2000 rule provides that lands are not suited for a particular
use if law, regulation, or Executive order would prohibit the use, if
the use is incompatible with the mission or policies of the National
Forest System, or if the use would involve substantial and permanent
impairment of the productivity of the land. The proposed rule retains
the 2000 rule's criteria concerning laws, regulations or Executive
orders and the criteria concerning productivity of the land. However,
the proposed rule changes the provision of Sec. 219.7(d) of the 2000
rule in two ways. First, the proposed rule no longer uses the criteria
of incompatibility with the mission or policies of the National Forest
System, because this is so broad that it would not be a useful
criterion for the Responsible Official to consider. Instead, the
proposed rule adopts a much more explicit criterion to consider; that
is, ``If agency resource management directives prohibit the use.''
Second, the proposed rule adds a criterion for determining if lands are
not suited for a particular use: ``If the use is incompatible with the
desired conditions as established for the plan.'' This criterion was
added to clearly recognize that the decisions made in adopting a plan
may result in prohibiting some uses on all or parts of a plan area. In
addition, this proposed section adds a clarification in paragraph (b)
that assessments, surveys, and similar efforts are not plan decisions
nor do they constitute a proposed action. This regulatory finding is
essential to avoid public and employee confusion about what is a plan
decision and what is not.
Proposed section 219.5--Indicators of need to amend or revise a
plan. This section focuses on emerging issues and new information as
indicators of the need to amend or revise a plan. Paragraph (a) of this
proposed section is very similar to paragraph (a) of Sec. 219.4 of the
2000 rule in identifying a variety of sources from which issues or
problems may come to be addressed in planning. However, proposed
paragraph (a) differs from the 2000 rule in that the reference to
evaluation of collaboratively developed landscape goals has been
removed from this section because of confusion regarding the intent of
this provision in the 2000 rule. The concept of collaboratively
[[Page 72777]]
developed landscape goals is addressed in this preamble in the
discussion of proposed Sec. 219.12--Collaboration, cooperation and
consultation. Proposed Sec. 219.5 retains the concept of engaging the
public in development of desired conditions as a cornerstone of
planning. Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 219.5 also differs from the
2000 rule by including a specific requirement for obtaining inventory
data, as required by NFMA.
The 1982 rule used the term ``issues'' many times, and issue
identification was a cornerstone of how planning was done, but the 1982
rule was not specific concerning the sources from which an issue could
arise, except that public participation was a key element of issue
identification. In contrast, the 2000 rule specifies how issues
originate and gives detailed description of the Responsible Official's
consideration of issues.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) lists factors the Responsible Official
may use to determine if an issue or opportunity is timely. Like the
2000 rule, this section makes clear that the Responsible Official has
full discretion to make this determination. The requirements in Sec.
219.4(b)(2)(ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (vii) of the 2000 rule address
the extent to which ``consideration'' of the issues relate to
opportunities of the planning unit to contribute to various elements of
resource protection and sustainability. The proposed rule does not
include these specific criteria, because it may not be practicable to
consider these criteria at the initial stage of planning. There is
often a lack of information when issues arise, and it is not always
known how the issues relate to the National Forest System unit's
contribution to sustainability. For example, there may not be complete
information early in the issue identification stage related to
opportunities to contribute to recovery of threatened or endangered
species. This consideration may not be appropriate or efficient to
consider until later in the planning process when the best available
science may be assembled, when better inventory data may become
available, or when public involvement may help discover opportunities
that were not earlier known.
This proposed section does not retain the provision at Sec.
219.4(b)(2)(v) that the Responsible Official should consider the extent
to which addressing an issue relates to the potential for negative
environmental effects on minorities. Potential negative effects are
most meaningfully identified and addressed in the analysis phase of
planning. Executive Order 12898 and Departmental Regulation 43004-4
(1978) require the Forest Service to determine if proposed actions
would create disproportionate adverse effects on minority populations
and, if so, to mitigate those effects to the extent practicable. The
Forest Service complies with these requirements through its NEPA
procedures. Scoping, the process of accepting public comments on a
proposed action, should indicate whether environmental justice issues
exist and the social and economic effects analysis would display the
depth and range of those impacts and possible mitigation. The agency
affirms that any action it can affect that would cause a
disproportionate adverse effect on minority populations would be
addressed through a NEPA procedure, thus there would be no controllable
effects that the agency would not disclose, analyze, and mitigate to
the extent practicable.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of this section incorporates the intent
of Sec. 219.5 of the 2000 rule with regard to addressing information
needs and requires the Responsible Official to keep information
gathering within reasonable costs and timeframes. However, this
proposed paragraph does not carry forward the detailed provisions of
Sec. 219.5 of the 2000 rule for conducting broad-scale assessments and
local analysis. These provisions are considered unduly detailed and too
inflexible to apply to all National Forest System units, which have a
wide variety of issues and information needs as well as differences in
budgets and staffing levels. Needed direction on what constitutes
broad-scale assessments and local analyses and how the Responsible
Official should develop and use this information is more appropriately
described in the agency's Directive System.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) makes clear that a decision to consider
or not consider an issue or opportunity is not subject to
administrative objection.
Proposed section 219.6--Compliance with National Environmental
Policy Act. This proposed section is intended to replace Sec. 219.6 of
the 2000 rule, which defines proposed actions, requires compliance with
Forest Service NEPA procedures, and ties scoping to issue development.
Applicability of NEPA. NFMA section 6(g)(1) requires the Secretary
of Agriculture to specify ``procedures to insure that land management
plans are prepared in accordance with'' NEPA, including ``direction on
when and for what plans an environmental impact statement shall be
prepared'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). Thus, NFMA provides the statutory
authority for the Secretary to specify not only what should be included
in a plan, but also when and how the documentation of NEPA compliance
applies to the planning process. This includes determining whether a
plan decision's NEPA compliance is to be documented in an EIS, an EA
and FONSI, or whether a plan decision may be categorically excluded
from NEPA documentation.
The proposed rule maintains the planning process requirements
already familiar to the public. These include public notice, public
involvement, analysis, public comment on the draft plan, and an
objection process for contesting planning decisions. The proposed
planning process is intended to be open to all stakeholders and well-
informed regarding the environmental effects of the proposed plan and
appropriate alternatives.
Plan analysis and documentation: The 2000 rule at section 219.9
requires documentation of a plan revision in an EIS and allows the
Responsible Official to determine whether or not to prepare an EIS for
a plan amendment. The proposed rule at section 219.6, in contrast,
applies this authority in a different manner and outlines the
environmental analysis and documentation requirements for revisions. An
EIS at the planning stage will not be required if the decision to adopt
a plan revision or amendment is not an action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment or if a component of a plan does
not yet authorize an action that commits funding or resources that
could have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. In addition, all plans in revision were adopted with full
EIS analysis. Therefore, where the existing EIS and subsequent plan
and/or project level documentation have adequately evaluated the
significance of plan direction, no further supplementation is required.
Plans that only establish goals, objectives, standards, land
allocations, monitoring requirements, and desired resource conditions
do not authorize site-specific implementing actions and would not be
expected to have significant effects on the environment or effects that
have not been previously addressed in prior NEPA documents. As noted
above, the question with respect to NFMA planning is when and how--not
whether--to follow NEPA where it applies. NFMA specifically authorizes
the Secretary of Agriculture to decide how and when to do NEPA
environmental analysis for National Forest System plans. The agency
may, based on the implementation of the proposed rule, identify a
category of
[[Page 72778]]
plan decisions that do not individually or cumulatively have
significant effects and may be categorically excluded from NEPA
documentation through a subsequent rule-making process. However, plan
decisions including actions that may have significant effects on the
human environment must analyze and describe those effects in a more
detailed environmental document, including an EIS where relevant. The
following examples illustrate this principle.
[sbull] A plan decision revising or amending a plan's desired
conditions, objectives, and standards for rangeland conditions would
not ordinarily be an action with significant environmental effects.
However, plan direction substantially increasing or reducing livestock
grazing on a part or all of the plan area would be an action requiring
further NEPA documentation of the effects of such a decision prior to
plan approval.
[sbull] Plan direction revising or amending a plan's desired
vegetative conditions, objectives, and standards to achieve such
conditions would not ordinarily be an action with significant
environmental effects. However, if plan direction imposes a substantial
change in vegetative conditions, such as conversion of vegetation type,
or if the plan decision includes a specific project or set of projects
to reach those desired conditions, then further NEPA documentation for
those actions must occur prior to plan approval.
[sbull] A plan decision revising or amending a plan's objectives
for travel management within the plan area would not ordinarily
constitute an action with significant environmental effects. However,
when such a plan decision would substantially modify ongoing uses
within the plan area, then NEPA documentation would be required for
that proposed action prior to plan approval.
[sbull] Plan direction that revises or amends goals and objectives
for consumptive and non-consumptive National Forest water uses and for
special use authorizations would not ordinarily be an action with
significant environmental effects. However, if a plan would impose
substantial new or changed by-pass flows on current special use
authorizations for the diversion of water, then NEPA documentation of
the effects of that proposed action would be required prior to plan
approval.
[sbull] Plan direction that revises or amends goals and objectives
for oil and gas leasing would not ordinarily be an action with
significant environmental effects. However, when a plan specifies
stipulations for oil and gas leasing which have not been previously
analyzed, NEPA disclosure would be required prior to plan approval.
Plan and project analysis: In contrast to the 2000 rule, the
proposed rule at Sec. 219.6(b) requires the detail of analysis at the
plan and project level to be proportional to the decisions proposed.
The proposed rule requires plans to provide substantial baseline data
and trend analysis, which can include the description of direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects information at a broad scale
appropriate to planning, while requiring more detailed fine-scale NEPA
analysis, including the description of direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects, to be conducted when a site-specific action at the project
level is proposed to implement the plan. Experience has shown that
site-specific NEPA analysis, based upon more general plan-level
analysis, provides a more timely and accurate assessment of the effects
of Forest Service management actions than could otherwise be projected
under more hypothetical reasoning in more detailed NEPA analysis at the
plan level.
The proposed rule requires plans to be based on substantial
analysis of pertinent issues regardless of the level of NEPA analysis
and documentation. These plan analyses would: (1) Serve to help the
Responsible Official, the public, and others develop land allocations,
standards, desired conditions, and other plan decisions; (2) help limit
the effects of future projects by application of the plan allocations,
standards, desired conditions, and other plan decisions; and (3)
provide information useful for analyzing project effects.
For example, both options in proposed section 219.13, developed to
ensure that the NFMA diversity requirements are met, require ecological
analyses. Option 2 in this proposed rule contains very specific
analytical requirements. It focuses ecological analyses at both
ecosystem and species levels of ecological organization, requires
analyses of diversity across multiple geographic areas and timeframes,
and stresses the importance of analyses conducted over large geographic
areas or long timeframes. Option 2 requires description of the
influence of the ecological condition, structure, and land use history
of the surrounding landscape, as well as of natural and human-induced
disturbance regimes, and a discussion on how these factors influence a
forest's or grassland's ability to achieve biological diversity
objectives. These analyses are a key part of both the proposed planning
rule and the analysis of the ecological effects of proposals for plan
decisions. This analysis will also provide essential baseline and trend
data that will inform the analysis of the direct and indirect effects
of plan implementation at the project level.
Cumulative effects analysis: Cumulative effects analysis normally
involves analysis both at the plan level and at the project level.
Under the proposed rule, plan-level analysis would evaluate existing
conditions and broad trends at the geographic scale of the plan area.
For example, depending on applicable issues, plan analysis may examine
habitats for wide-ranging species at various geographic scales and
discuss trends for that habitat. Plan analysis may examine recreation
use and trends near a community. Plan analysis may also examine the
current distribution and likelihood of spread for noxious weeds and
whether existing roads may serve as vectors for that spread.
Analysis for site-specific projects will provide additional
information that, when combined with the plan-level analysis and
monitoring information collected and maintained on the plan's
monitoring requirements, would serve as a basis for evaluating the
cumulative effects of projects carried out under the plan. For example,
where plan analysis documents the quantity and quality of habitat that
is available for a wide-ranging species, that plan-level analysis,
combined with applicable monitoring data and other inventory
information, can provide much of the information needed to describe the
cumulative effects of project and other past, current, and reasonably
foreseeable projects upon the habitat available for that species.
Likewise, if plan analysis indicates that a particular recreation
use is high and increasing the risk of loss of a rare plant, then plan
direction may require particular measures for rare plant protection
near trails in the recreation use area and a closer and more detailed
examination for cumulative effects analysis associated with recreation
management decisions. If plan-level analysis indicates that uses of
existing roads are contributing to the spread of noxious weeds, and
monitoring indicates that open roads from nearby projects are
contributing to the spread, the project-level cumulative effects
analysis may be required to assess mitigation measures that may be
needed to restrict travel for the area.
Project level NEPA compliance: As stated elsewhere in this
preamble, agency guidelines on project-level planning are specified in
FSM 1950 and
[[Page 72779]]
FSH 1909.15. Whether a proposed project is categorically excluded from
NEPA documentation, or is considered in an EA or EIS depends upon
whether that project would have a significant effect on the
environment.
For those projects that the agency believes there may be
significant effects, an EIS will be prepared to display those effects.
Pursuant to the FSH requirements, EIS's are required for actions in
certain circumstances, for example, herbicide application, or road
construction in an inventoried roadless area. In addition, the Forest
Service typically documents other types of projects in an EIS. For
example, large timber sale projects are normally documented in an EIS.
Another example of a type of project that may be documented in an EIS
would be an approval of a plan of operation for a large hard-rock
mining operation.
The reason to do an EA is to determine whether or not an EIS is
necessary and to document agency NEPA compliance when an EIS is not
necessary. The EA will briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis
for determining whether to prepare an EIS or to reach a finding of no
significant impact for the proposed action.
Projects typically documented in an EA are those projects that, at
the time of the proposal, the Forest Service believes will not have
significant environmental effects. Examples of types of projects
typically documented in an EA include smaller timber sale projects,
road construction, campground construction, special use authorizations,
and fuels reduction.
The FSH also lists categories of actions that are excluded from
NEPA documentation because they do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment and have been found
to have no such effect in procedures adopted by the agency in
implementation of the regulations. Existing categories include road
maintenance, administrative site maintenance, or trail construction.
Whether a project is documented in an EIS or an EA or whether it is
categorically excluded from NEPA documentation, land and resource
management plan analyses will provide critical baseline and trend data
that will inform the site-specific analysis for the project. Project
level NEPA documentation will analyze project effects as needed,
depending on the nature of the project and the applicable issues, and
known information. Project analyses will supplement and use monitoring
data, pertinent assessments, inventories, research, and the plan
analysis information. This plan analysis information will be available
regardless of whether the plan is documented in an EA, EIS, or
categorically excluded from NEPA documentation.
Categorical exclusion for planning: If this proposed rule is
adopted, conforming changes would be required in FSH 1909.15, section
20.6. A new categorical exclusion pertaining to categories of plan
decisions may be adopted for plan decisions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effects on the human environment and
are found to have no such effect by the agency based on the
implementation of this proposed rule. A separate Federal Register
notice would be published to provide public notice of the proposed
category and request for comment.
Public comment: The agency recognizes that the manner in which the
proposed rule applies NEPA with respect to new plans, plan amendments,
and plan revisions is a departure from the approach taken in the 2000
rule and the 1982 rule requiring an EIS for plan revisions, significant
amendments, or new plans. This departure is based on the agency's
extensive experience with land and resource management planning over
the years. That experience indicates that attempting to draw precise
conclusions about the environmental effects of plan direction is
subject to analytical uncertainty and is ultimately of limited value
for purposes of informed decision-making in compliance with NEPA.
However, the agency recognizes that some level of NEPA documentation
for plan direction is warranted, and that there may be substantial
disagreement over the extent of NEPA analysis and documentation that is
appropriate. With this proposed rule, the Forest Service is attempting
to strike an appropriate balance between broad-scale plan-level
analysis and finer-scale project-level analysis with sufficient inter-
relationship between the two to ensure NEPA compliance for all
decisions. Therefore, the Forest Service specifically requests comments
and suggestions from the public regarding how the ``significance'' of
land and resource management plan direction is applied in this proposed
rule, what plan decisions authorize an action or commit funding or
resources that could have a significant effect on the environment and
the circumstances for which an EA or EIS for a plan would be
appropriate.
It is useful to summarize the differences between elements of NEPA
application in the 2000 rule and in this proposed rule. This summary
consolidates discussion present in other parts of this preamble.
Type of NEPA documentation: The 2000 rule requires preparation of
an EIS for a plan revision (36 CFR 219.9(d)). The proposed rule states
plans may be categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS
when the Responsible Official determines that the action fits an
established Categorical Exclusion category and no extraordinary
circumstances are present.
Public involvement: The 2000 rule has detailed requirements on who
should be involved in planning (Sec. Sec. 219.13-219.17). The proposed
rule has essentially the same requirements, although they are more
succinctly stated. These requirements would still apply for plans
categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS.
The Forest Service will ensure that categorically excluding land
and resource management plans from documentation in an EA or EIS does
not result in an adverse or disproportionate effect on groups of people
identified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Executive Order
12898--Environmental Justice or other civil rights laws, regulations,
and orders. These identified groups include minorities, seniors, women,
subsistence lifestyle populations, Tribes, and low income populations.
By definition in NEPA, a categorical exclusion address only those
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an EA
nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4). Pursuant to agency policy set
out in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 10, the Responsible
Official would still be required to identify potentially affected and
interested agencies, organizations, and individuals during the planning
process, regardless of which type of documentation is used.
Additionally, specific Forest Service guidance on scoping under NEPA
will still apply to categorical exclusions.
Issues: The 2000 rule has very detailed requirements for issue
identification. The proposed rule does not. While the proposed rule
would still require the Responsible Official to document a rationale
for issue identification in the proposed rule, it is likely that this
documentation would be briefer as he or she would not need to cross
reference an extensive list of issue sources (refer to Sec. 219.5 in
this preamble). The requirements in the proposed rule for issue
identification would still apply for plans categorically excluded from
documentation in an EA or EIS.
Analysis: The 2000 rule contains very detailed requirements for
what can be
[[Page 72780]]
termed ``analysis'' in Sec. Sec. 219.5, 219.9, and 219.20-219.25. The
proposed rule has much simpler requirements. In addition, as pointed
out previously in this preamble, the agency has a vision of an analysis
that is more proportional to the decisions being made and that the
analysis will be much briefer. The number and complexity of
requirements in the 2000 rule make it unlikely that a proportional
analysis effort would be successful.
Alternatives: The 2000 rule does not directly address alternatives
to consider in developing a new plan, revision, or amendment. This
proposed rule also does not directly address alternatives, but the
preamble does in the planning ``vision'' and signals the agency's
intention to work toward consensus with the public with an expected
result of fewer alternatives.
Neither the 2000 rule nor this proposed rule set out specific NEPA
requirements in the planning regulation, in accordance with the desire
not to repeat direction contained in law, regulation or Executive
order.
Proposed section 219.7--Amending a plan. As with the 2000 rule,
this section of the proposed rule characterizes an amendment to a plan
as an addition to, the modification of, or the rescission of one or
more of the plan decisions listed in Sec. 219.4. As with the 2000 rule
(at Sec. 219.18(b)), paragraph (a) of this proposed section
specifically excludes administrative corrections as amendments.
Paragraph (b) of this proposed section identifies issues or
opportunities as provided in Sec. 219.5 as potential sources for plan
amendments. Proposed paragraph (c) requires that the Responsible
Official provide opportunities for consultation and collaboration as
addressed in Sec. 219.12 during plan amendment. The process to produce
an amendment, including the identification of issues or opportunities,
the use of applicable information, an effects analysis, and provisions
for consultation opportunities for consultation are the same in the
2000 rule and the proposed rule. While the process steps are the same,
the rules are organized differently. The 2000 rule lists all the steps
for amendment in Sec. 219.8, while the proposed rule addresses issues
in Sec. 219.5, use of applicable information in Sec. 219.13, and
effects analysis in Sec. 219.6 by reference to NEPA. The two rules
differ in the specific requirements to accomplish the steps in the
amendment process. These differences are addressed in the discussion
for those individual sections in this proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (d) defines a significant amendment and requires
a 90-day comment period for a draft proposed significant amendment, as
referenced in Sec. 219.6 and as required by NFMA, (16 U.S.C. 1604 (f)
(4)).
Under the 1982 planning rule, when amending the plan, the Forest
Service has to cope with two processes to determine significance for
two different statutes. First, under NFMA, the Forest Service had to
determine whether an amendment is a significant change to a plan. Even
if an amendment was determined not to be a significant change to the
plan, the amendment still required an EIS if it was determined under
NEPA to be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment. This direction has proven confusing to agency
personnel and to the public. The 2000 rule uses only the NEPA
definition for significance. This proposed rule defines a ``significant
amendment,'' as one that would have a significant affect on the quality
of the human environment. The proposed rule also provides for a new
category of interim amendments in Sec. 219.7(f) to enable the agency
to make more rapid adjustments to management direction when necessary,
such as when a threatened or endangered species is newly listed or
initially discovered to exist in a particular area. In fact, a rapid
response to the needs of threatened or endangered species is the prime
reason this category of amendment is included. In 1995, for example,
the Southern Region of the Forest Service amended their plans to
provide interim standards and guidelines for the federally listed red-
cockaded woodpecker. This interim direction was to remain in effect up
to three years until individual plans could be amended or revised with
longer term direction.
An interim amendment would expedite needed amendments to a plan,
while the agency initiates further analysis and decisionmaking for a
permanent amendment. The proposed rule would establish a maximum
duration of four years for an interim amendment; however, there are a
number of alternative views on the duration and process for these
interim amendments, and the agency would especially welcome public
comment concerning their use.
Proposed section 219.8--Revising a plan. The proposed rule requires
a description of the current management situation and an assessment of
the adequacy of existing plan direction, a summary of timely and
relevant issues to be addressed, and a summary of relevant information.
The proposed rule requires consultation with federally recognized
Indian Tribes, State and local governments and other Federal agencies
and contains requirements for public notice of intent to revise a plan.
These requirements are much simpler than either the 1982 or 2000 rules.
The 2000 rule and the proposed rule are fundamentally different
with regard to the amount of information and analysis required to
initiate a revision. At Sec. 219.20 of the 2000 rule, the Responsible
Official must develop or supplement extensive information to address
ecosystem sustainability and must provide comparable information at
Sec. 219.21 to address social and economic sustainability.
To initiate a revision of a plan, Sec. 219.9 of the 2000 rule
established requirements related to collaboration; identification of
issues; analyses and information; identification of special areas;
identification of specific watersheds in need of protective or
restoration measures; identification of lands classified as not
suitable for timber production; identification of and evaluation of
inventoried roadless and unroaded areas; and development of an estimate
of anticipated outcomes for the next 15 years. Each of these
requirements refers in turn to additional requirements elsewhere in the
planning regulations. For example, paragraph (b)(4)of Sec. 219.9 of
the 200 rule states in order to begin the revision process, the
Responsible Official must, ``Evaluate the effectiveness of the current
plan in contributing to sustainability (Sec. Sec. 219.20-219.21) based
on the information, analyses, and requirements described in Sec.
219.20 (a) and (b) and Sec. 219.21 (a) and (b), and provide for an
independent scientific peer review (Sec. 219.22) of the evaluation.''
As the agency launched the November 2000 rule, field-level planners
and resource professionals expressed uncertainty about the degree and
scope of analysis and information gathering required to initiate a plan
revision. They also were concerned about the potential controversy that
might be associated with a plan developed under these untested and
unclear requirements. Also questioned was the appropriateness of and
the agency's ability to conduct pre-revision analysis and presenting
some of this information at the revision initiation stage. For example,
identification of new proposals for special areas or wilderness
recommendations benefit from public involvement and input, which is
more fully developed later in the planning process, not at the pre-
revision stage.
The agency supports sharing as much known information as possible
with the public at the early stage of revision initiation, but it does
not believe the
[[Page 72781]]
extensive information and analysis requirements of the 2000 rule are
necessary. In fact, the extensive work required to initiate revision
will create further delays in revision of plans.
Both the proposed rule and the 2000 rule address the statutory
requirements for plan initiation; however, the 2000 rule includes more
extensive direction on the revision process than does the proposed
rule. Both also include public notice requirements. The 2000 rule
includes a 45-day public comment period. The proposed rule does not
include a specified comment period, although notice is required to
invite comment. This proposed change would allow the Responsible
Official to tailor the comment period for initiation of plan revision
to the scope and complexity of planning issues and opportunities for
the unit.
The proposed rule and 2000 rule have the same substantive
requirement for a 90-day public comment period of a draft proposed
revision.
Proposed section 219.9--Developing a new plan. This proposed
section recognizes that, over time, additional units may be added to
the National Forest System, such as occurred with the recently
established Midewin Prairie in Illinois. Should Congress establish a
new national forest, grassland, prairie, or other unit of the National
Forest System, the Responsible Official must determine whether a
separate plan is needed or whether an existing plan can be amended. If
a new plan is needed, the Responsible Official must follow the
requirements of this regulation. The 2000 rule did not address this
issue.
Proposed section 219.10--Application of plan direction. Paragraph
(a) of this proposed section addresses the statutory requirements of
the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(h)(3)(i)) that permits, contracts, and other
legal instruments must be consistent with the applicable plan. This
paragraph is similar to the provisions of the 2000 rule at Sec. 219.10
requiring all site-specific project decisions, permits, contracts, and
other authorizations to be consistent with the applicable plan, which
is required by NFMA.
However, unlike the 2000 rule, this proposed paragraph adds a
specific requirement that project decisions disclose the relationship
of the project to the plan desired conditions. While all project
decisions must be consistent with the plan, it is not practical to
require each project decision to be in strict compliance with all
aspects of a plan's desired conditions. Sometimes a project may have
positive effects on one aspect of desired conditions and negative
effects on another. It is also possible that a project may have short-
term negative effects that relate to a specific desired condition, with
predicted long-term positive effects. At other times a project may have
neutral effects related to desired conditions. These examples
illustrate the complexity of the relationship of a particular project
to the desired conditions in a plan. The agency therefore, has chosen
not to include a specific requirement that projects comply with the
plan's desired conditions, but rather a requirement that the project
decision disclose how the decision relates to the applicable plan
desired conditions.
Also in contrast to the 2000 rule, this proposed paragraph
specifically requires that a new plan, amendment, or revision decision
document consider the effects of the plan on occupancy and use already
authorized. This change is proposed to ensure that there will be an
orderly transition when a new plan, amendment, or revision is
authorized. This proposed section also acknowledges that modifications
of instruments authorizing ongoing occupancy and use of the plan area
necessary to make them consistent with the changes in the plan are
subject to any valid existing rights.
Paragraph (b) of this proposed section provides that direction in
plans undergoing amendment or revision would remain in effect until the
Responsible Official signs a decision document for a new amendment or
revision. This provision is the same as in Sec. 219.10 of the 2000
rule.
Paragraph (c) of this proposed section makes clear that nothing in
the rule itself requires a change of approved projects while new
information is being assessed. This provision is proposed to clarify
the effect of considering new information and fills a gap in both the
1982 rule and the 2000 rule.
Paragraph (d) of this proposed section retains the provisions of
Sec. 219.10 of the 2000 rule that lists options available to a
Responsible Official when a proposal for a project or activity would
not be consistent with plan direction.
Paragraph (e) of this proposed section recognizes the need for
testing and research projects to gain information and knowledge that
will assist the land manager. This paragraph makes clear that testing
and research projects are subject to all applicable laws, regulations,
and Executive orders and must be consistent with the plan. This is a
new paragraph developed to acknowledge the important role of research
in National Forest System land management and the role of NFS lands as
sites for research. This provision also further strengthens the
emphasis of this proposed rule on monitoring and evaluation.
Proposed section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation. As at Sec.
219.11 of the 2000 rule, this proposed section specifies that plans
must include requirements for monitoring and evaluation, although this
proposed rule does not refer to such requirements as a ``strategy.''
This proposed section provides direction on the purpose of monitoring
and evaluation, the data sources that may be used, the coordination of
monitoring that may occur, possible evaluation activities, and
direction on record keeping. Paragraph (a) provides that the
Responsible Official ensure that monitoring occurs and that monitoring
methods may be adjusted without plan amendment or revision. As with the
2000 rule, monitoring could be conducted jointly with other interested
parties such as other governmental agencies, Tribes, and scientific and
academic organizations.
Paragraph (b) lists situations where evaluation may be used to
determine, among other things: trend identification; information and
analysis validation; use of performance measures to assess the effects
of programs, projects, and activities; and the effectiveness of plan
standards. Paragraph (c) of this proposed section would require
information to be collected from any of a variety of sources to meet
the monitoring requirements. Paragraph (d) requires findings and
conclusions to be published annually in reports that are made available
to the public.
At Sec. 219.11(b), the 2000 rule requires that if there is a need
for monitoring and evaluation of site-specific actions, decision
documents must include a description of the monitoring and evaluation
and the Responsible Official must determine that funding is adequate to
conduct monitoring and evaluation before authorizing the site-specific
project. This provision is not retained in the proposed rule which is
limited to programmatic planning.
The monitoring and evaluation provisions of the proposed rule
differ from the monitoring provisions of the 2000 rule, which impose
far more detailed and specific requirements for monitoring
characteristics of sustainability, ecological conditions, and
populations of focal species/species-at-risk and for site-specific
activities. Monitoring is very important, but given the testing and
experimentation inherent in monitoring and evaluation, Responsible
Officials need considerable flexibility to design monitoring strategies
to fit local
[[Page 72782]]
situations. The specificity of the 2000 rule does not allow for such
flexibility and discretion. To the extent that guidance is needed on
who should do monitoring, how monitoring should be done, what
monitoring should be done, and how monitoring information should be
evaluated, that can best be provided through the agency's Directive
System rather than specified in a rule.
For example, the detailed provisions in Sec. 219.11(a)(1)(ii)(B)
and (C) of the 2000 rule are being evaluated for issuance in the Forest
Service Manual or Handbook. Some of these current regulatory
requirements will be made optional in order to be responsive to
variations in funding, staffing, and information needs among individual
National Forest System units.
Other monitoring and evaluation provisions of the 2000 rule that
are proposed to be removed from the rule are those for which there is
no corresponding provision elsewhere in the proposed rule. Also, at
Sec. 219.23(c), the 2000 rule requires that scientists play a
significant role in developing and evaluating monitoring strategies.
The agency certainly believes use of science is important in monitoring
and in evaluating results; however, the agency has determined upon
review that the degree of required participation of Forest Service
research scientists specified in the 2000 rule would overburden the
Research and Development mission area of the Forest Service. Moreover,
not every plan amendment or revision will require the same degree and
intensity of scientific review.
Monitoring may take many forms and include different requirements
for the understanding of science and involvement by scientists.
Different types of monitoring require different levels of scientific
rigor in their development and application. For example, if a plan has
a standard to keep fences repaired and gates closed to aid with the
restoration of certain degraded riparian systems, then monitoring to
assess the ability of the managers to keep the fences standing and the
gates closed requires little, if any, involvement of science. However,
to assess if keeping the fences closed and gates repaired was an
effective approach to reach the desired condition of a restored
riparian system may well require development and application of
particularly rigorous, scientifically valid monitoring protocols. The
consistency evaluation process described in Section 219.14 would
evaluate the likelihood that the designed monitoring plan would be able
to determine the effectiveness of the action (keeping the gates closed
and fences repaired) in achieving the objective of ecosystem
restoration.
As this proposed rule was being developed, a great deal of internal
discussion occurred regarding direction for, and decisions on, adaptive
management and on whether the proposed rule needed to specifically
address this concept. The term ``adaptive management'' has been used
formally and informally within the agency to describe the process of
continually adjusting management techniques in response to new
information, knowledge, or technologies. The Forest Service recognizes
that uncertainty and unknowns exist in the course of achieving any
natural resource management goal. The adaptive management process
relies on focused monitoring to measure success in achieving desired
conditions and to determine if there is the need to make further
changes in strategies and implementation. Whether such monitoring would
be scientifically rigorous would depend on the resource, the use, and
the specific situation.
The 2000 rule uses the term ``adaptive management,'' and explains
adaptive management concepts and purposes, but it has no specific
requirements for how the concept and purposes were to be carried out.
Although the agency believes that adaptive management concepts are
valid, the agency maintains that it is not necessary for the planning
rule to specifically address these concepts beyond stating that
measurement of adaptive management results is one of the purposes of
monitoring and stating in Sec. 219.4 that the need to provide adaptive
management is one reason why plan standards should not be overly rigid.
A plan can allow for and address adaptive management without
specific direction to do so in the planning rule. Essentially, there is
no real difference between the 2000 rule and the proposed rule in the
area of adaptive management. Under both rules, plans can include
adaptive management strategies and methods in their direction.
In fact, both conceptually and operationally, adaptive management
is integral to the planning process laid out in this proposed rule, and
monitoring and evaluation represent a fundamental component of the
adaptive management process, as was the case in the 2000 rule. In this
context, an essential linkage exists between plan requirements for
monitoring and evaluation, discussed previously, and those for the
ecological component of sustainability, discussed later in this
preamble under proposed section 219.13. The ecological information and
analyses focused on assessing ecosystem and species diversity, as
specified in proposed Sec. 219.13(b)(1), contribute directly to
adoption of plan decisions that provide for ecosystem and species
diversity in the plan area within the multiple use objectives of the
plan. Results of monitoring and evaluation are among the information
and analyses that may contribute to the development of future plan
decisions affecting diversity. Moreover, monitoring and evaluation
provide an essential feedback loop to assess whether implementation of
plan direction is producing progress toward attainment of desired
conditions and plan objectives, as well as the basis for deciding
whether plan direction should be modified or changed through plan
amendments or revision.
As specified in Sec. 219.11(a), data and other information
pertinent to characteristics of ecosystem and species diversity, as
determined relevant by the Responsible Official, should be included in
the monitoring information to be collected. Evaluation of this
information should reveal whether progress toward achievement of
diversity objectives is being achieved, or whether plan direction or
plan implementation must be changed. In this sense, and with specific
reference to the ecological component of sustainability, monitoring and
evaluation complete the essential feedback loop of adaptive management
to assess whether plan direction is achieving the NFMA requirement that
plans provide for diversity in a multiple use context. Monitoring and
evaluation focused on the characteristics of diversity thus inform both
the development of plan decisions and the decision to undertake plan
amendments or revisions, thereby ensuring that adaptive management is
an integral part of this revised planning rule.
Proposed section 219.12--Collaboration, cooperation, and
consultation. This proposed section combines Sec. Sec. 219.12 through
219.17 of the 2000 rule. Paragraph (a) of this section is similar to
paragraph (a) of Sec. 219.12 of the 2000 rule in requiring the
Responsible Official to provide early and frequent opportunities for
the public to participate in the planning process, using any of several
specified roles, and to encourage such participation. Paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2) incorporate the provisions of Sec. Sec. 219.13, 219.14,
219.16 and 219.17 of the 2000 rule which address engaging Federal
agencies, State and local governments, interested individuals and
[[Page 72783]]
organizations, and private landowners in planning, and paragraph (a)(3)
incorporates the provisions of Sec. 219.15 of the 2000 rule, which
address engaging federally recognized Tribes in planning.
The 2000 rule at Sec. 219.12(b) requires Forest Service
participation with others in efforts to cooperatively develop landscape
goals. Although the cooperative development of landscape goals may be
of value in some planning efforts, this specific activity should not be
a requirement because it will not always be useful and may often be
unachievable with participating groups. The proposed rule does not
refer to collaboratively developed landscape goals; rather, at Sec.
219.12(b), the proposed rule clarifies that the Responsible Official
should consider participating in existing groups to address resource
management issues within the community. The agency also feels that the
list of objectives for collaboration in the 2000 rule are not necessary
as they are more appropriately defined under existing law or through
the collaboration process itself.
In contrast to the 2000 Rule at Sec. 219.18, this proposed section
on collaboration, cooperation, and consultation does not include a
provision for requiring advisory committees. That provision requires
that each national forest or grassland have access to an advisory
committee. Having considered employee concerns over this provision, the
agency now considers this provision to be inadvisable. There are many
valid methods for effectively engaging the public. An advisory
committee may be the most effective method in some circumstances, the
least effective in others.
Each Forest, Grassland, or Prairie Supervisor currently has the
option of requesting establishment of an advisory committee under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and implementing regulations
issued by the General Service Administration (GSA). The 2000 rule
requires that each Forest or Grassland Supervisor have access to an
advisory committee with knowledge of local conditions and issues. While
the rule does not require each planning unit to have its own committee,
many believe that the local conditions and issues requirement
effectively require a separate committee for most planning units.
The costs of establishing and administering FACA committees is high
in terms of Federal employee time and salaries to charter the
committees, manage the nomination and selection process, and to set up
meetings. There are also meeting facility costs as well as costs for
reimbursement of committee members for their transportation, meals, and
lodging. While these costs may well be justified to address issues for
some planning units, they might be an unwise use of funds on other
units. Also, the process for establishing committees can be a long one.
The Act and implementing GSA regulations require substantial
administrative work including drafting charters, nominating members,
checking nominees' backgrounds, giving Federal Register notice,
considering public input, and giving notice of the committee members
selected. By law, committees must be re-chartered every two years.
Requiring most units to undertake the expenditure of time and funds
for establishing and re-establishing FACA committees imposes a
significant continuing administrative responsibility. Instead of
mandating a ``one-size-fits-all'' national approach to public input,
the agency believes that it is better to provide Responsible Officials
flexibility to design public involvement strategies to best meet the
local needs the most cost effective way.
In summary, the proposed rule reduces the amount of process-related
descriptions of the public involvement processes. The agency's
intention is to continue and support vigorous and active public
interaction and involvement without mandating which process would most
effectively support this interaction. Consequently, this proposed rule
drops the non-substantive portions of the 2000 rule, such as detailed
examples of how people, groups, and organizations can contribute to the
planning effort.
Proposed section 219.13--Sustainability. This proposed section
contains direction for how the specific social, economic, and
ecological components of sustainability are to be applied. This section
of the proposed rule replaces Sec. 219.19 through Sec. 219.21 of the
2000 rule. This proposed rule emphasizes the interconnection between
the ecological, social, and economic components of sustainability and
requires consideration of each in the planning process.
However, the proposed rule departs from the 2000 rule on several
important points. Sustainability under this proposed rule is viewed as
a single objective with interdependent social, economic, and ecological
components. In contrast to the 2000 rule, this concept of
sustainability is linked more closely to the MUSYA in that economic and
social components are treated as interdependent with ecological aspects
of sustainability, rather than as secondary considerations. This change
in emphasis is not intended to downplay the importance of ecological
sustainability or of maintaining the health and productivity of the
land.
The proposed rule also affirms the commitment of the Forest Service
to meet the NFMA requirement that plans provide for the diversity of
plant and animal communities and tree species and retains the joint
focus of the 2000 rule by considering and evaluating both ecosystem
diversity and species diversity, in order to reach plan decisions that
provide for diversity within the multiple use objectives of the plan.
The proposed rule addresses social and economic sustainability at
Sec. 219.13(a). Even though social and economic issues are different
they are discussed together because both social and economic components
of sustainability address the well-being of communities that are
dependent on the National Forests. There are elements of analysis that
have implications for both economic and social sustainability. For
example, demographics (such as population, age, income, employment,
home ownership, school, growth) have implications for both economic and
social sustainability. Conversely, there are other elements of social
and economic analysis that are clearly distinct. For example, a social
analysis might help identify Native American use of medicinal plants to
ensure the agency considers how these plants may be protected. A social
analysis might also help identify what local people particularly value
about National Forest System lands. An economic analysis might identify
the interconnectedness between goods and services produced from NFS
lands and the economy in surrounding communities in terms of employment
and income; for example, the recreation use of NFS lands and service
industries. To assess social and economic sustainability, the Forest
Service proposes to require the Responsible Official to: (1) Identify
values that interested and affected persons want to see sustained; (2)
consider how human activities and social and economic conditions and
trends affect NFS lands; (3) identify the benefits NFS lands provide;
and (4) examine how land management decisions affect social and
economic conditions.
The Forest Service understands that sustainable social and economic
systems are very complex and that programmatic planning decisions form
only a part of the environment in which these systems operate. The
agency acknowledges that it cannot assure
[[Page 72784]]
sustainability of those systems. The Forest Service can, however,
engage the public in planning, identify social and economic issues, and
analyze the relationship of planning to social and economic systems,
and, thereby, make positive contributions to communities. As stated in
the preamble to proposed Sec. 219.1, plans consider the uses of
variable renewable resources within the context of multiple use so the
resources of the NFS lands are utilized in a combination that will best
meet the needs of the American people.
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 219.13 of the proposed rule incorporates the
social and economic components of sustainability in Sec. 219.21 of the
2000 rule, but removes the many highly detailed, discretionary elements
from the rule. This simplification is proposed in response to concerns
that many of the detailed requirements of Sec. 219.21 do not reflect
the variety of social and economic issues that arise across the range
of National Forest System lands; that available information may not be
sufficient to meet these requirements; and that the required level of
detail may not meet the needs of an agency whose administrative units
vary in funding and staffing levels. Processes for conducting social
and economic analysis are already in the agency's Directive System, are
most appropriately located there, and are currently being revised and
updated.
Two options for the ecological component of sustainability are
included in paragraph (b) of Sec. 219.13 of the proposed rule, which
incorporates the intent of Sec. 219.20 of the 2000 rule for the
ecological component of sustainability. The National Forest Management
Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(b)) requires that plans provide for
the diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability
and capability of the land area, and where appropriate and to the
extent practicable, provide for steps to preserve the diversity of tree
species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan,
within the multiple use objectives of the plan (referred to hereafter
as the NFMA diversity requirement). There has been extensive, ongoing
debate concerning how to meet the NFMA diversity requirement ever since
the Act was passed. The proposed rule includes two distinct options for
meeting the diversity requirement in Sec. 219.13(b).
The first option in this proposed rule was developed by modifying
the 2000 rule and establishes the viability of vertebrates and vascular
plants well distributed within their ranges in the plan area as the
primary basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity
requirement. This first option significantly streamlines the 2000 rule
by removing many of the prescriptive operational details and making
other changes described in this preamble.
Drawing heavily on the expertise of its research scientists, the
agency developed a second option on ecological sustainability that
provides a clear alternative to Option 1. In Option 2, the primary
basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement is the
requirement that plan decisions foster the maintenance and restoration
of biological diversity in the plan area, at ecosystem and species
levels, within the range of diversity characteristic of native
ecosystems in the larger landscape within which the plan area is
embedded.
In preparing two distinct options to meet the NFMA diversity
requirement, the agency seeks to stimulate meaningful public discussion
and input on this important topic so that the Secretary can make an
informed choice at the final rule stage. To ensure that the agency has
access to knowledgeable and diverse views on this topic, the Forest
Service also plans to host a workshop of subject matter specialists in
a variety of policy, management, and resource fields to discuss the
strengths and shortcomings of the two proposed options, or variations
of these options, for achieving the NFMA diversity requirement.
Information regarding this workshop will be provided in a separate
Federal Register notice.
Comparison to 2000 Planning Rule
Both options in the proposed rule are considerably streamlined and
shorter as compared to Sec. 219.20 of the 2000 rule. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, the agency's review of the 2000 planning rule
judged the section on the ecological component of sustainability to be
needlessly complex and overly prescriptive and to lack the flexibility
needed to tailor or adapt the required ecological information and
analyses to the issues identified by the Responsible Official, the
risks to ecological sustainability, and the availability of information
relevant to the particular plan area. To respond to this criticism,
most of the operational details of the analyses of ecosystem and
species diversity in Sec. 219.20(a)(1)(i)(A)-(E), Sec.
219.20(a)(2)(i)(A)-(H), and Sec. 219.20(a)(2)(ii)(A)-(D), as well as
the qualifications regarding how plan decisions should be applied in
Sec. 219.20(b)(1)(i)-(v) and Sec. 219.20(b)(2)(ii)-(iv), will be
transferred, perhaps in modified form, to the Forest Service Directive
System or to other technical guidance documents (e.g., white papers),
sometimes as requirements but more often as optional methods for the
Responsible Official to consider and use as appropriate. Because this
shift in approach to sustainability represents a major change from the
2000 rule and because the specific operational details as to how to
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species
represent a controversial topic, the agency has posted this preliminary
draft material pertinent to both options on the World Wide Web/Internet
and made these documents available at the address listed earlier in
this document for consideration and review during the public comment
period.
Several concepts that were essential features of the required
ecological information and analyses in the 2000 rule are now treated as
optional elements of the analyses and will be covered in the Directive
System or other guidance documents. For example, neither of the
diversity options specifically requires broad-scale assessments as did
the 2000 rule, but each will make use of information from such
assessments, where they represent the best science available, and as
stepped down from the assessment area to the plan area. Similarly,
neither option specifically requires that focal species be identified
for the plan area and evaluated to provide insights concerning the
ecological integrity of the larger ecological system with which they
are associated. Again, however, both options permit such a use of focal
species on an optional basis. Option 2, in particular, states that
individual species may be identified for analysis in order to develop a
more complete understanding of the condition and trends of ecosystems,
which is conceptually equivalent to the manner in which focal species
were a required element of the diversity analyses in the 2000 rule. As
a final example, neither option specifically requires use of the
concept of the range of variability under the natural disturbance
regime of the current climatic period, but Option 1 identifies range of
variability as being among the approaches that may be used to evaluate
ecosystem diversity.
Both options also eliminate language concerning how plan decisions
must address federally listed threatened and endangered species because
consideration of federally listed species is integral to the
consideration of diversity under either option and because the planning
rule need not repeat existing requirements of law. The 2000 rule at
Sec. 219.20(b)(3) included requirements that plan decisions
[[Page 72785]]
promote the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered
species, provide for implementing conservation agreements, and address
requirements and recommendations from biological opinions. These
requirements are not included under either Option 1 or Option 2 of the
proposed rule. The agency reaffirms its commitment to comply with
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including conducting
programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species
consistent with the multiple use objectives of plans, but sees no
reason to specify this in the rule itself. The ESA is among the
relevant statutes listed under 219.2(c)(1).
Following adoption of a final new planning rule, and contingent on
which diversity option is selected, the agency fully intends to develop
detailed operational guidance on the means to implement the procedural
requirements of the new planning rule, particularly with reference to
procedures for meeting the NFMA diversity requirement. This will
include detailed guidance in the agency Directive System, as well as
``white papers'' and other documents.
Option 1--Sec. 219.13(b) Ecological Component of Sustainability
Option 1 of the proposed rule is most similar to corresponding
sections on ecological sustainability in the 2000 rule. In fact, Option
1 was developed from the 2000 rule by significantly streamlining the
rule and eliminating significant amounts of procedural detail, as
discussed earlier in this preamble. In this option, plan decisions
would be developed to provide a high likelihood of supporting, over
time, the viability of native and desired non-native vertebrates and
vascular plants well distributed within their ranges in the plan area.
This viability standard serves as the primary basis for judging
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement in Option 1. This option
also contains an ecosystem diversity standard, so that plan decisions
would be developed to provide measurable progress toward maintenance or
restoration of ecological conditions that support the desired
characteristics of ecosystem diversity. However, it is the species
viability standard that will provide the clearest measure of
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement under Option 1.
Under this option of the proposed rule, analysis of the ecological
component of sustainability follows a hierarchical, sequential
approach. This option requires ecosystem diversity to be evaluated
first, with the goal of ensuring that plan decisions provide measurable
progress toward maintaining or restoring ecological conditions that
support the diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species,
and other characteristics of ecosystem diversity. Species diversity
would be evaluated only after consideration of ecosystem diversity.
This hierarchical, sequential approach is based on the assumption that
conditions capable of supporting viability for most species are likely
to be met through provisions for ecosystem diversity. Where this is not
the case, species at risk would be identified and separate analyses of
species diversity performed. This approach provides the Responsible
Official flexible options for meeting the analytical requirements of
Option 1 as the Responsible Official determines the scope and scale of
the analysis. There are some required characteristics of ecosystem and
species diversity and accompanying evaluation factors, although far
fewer than in the 2000 rule. The Responsible Official is not limited to
only those characteristics or analytical processes if other information
or techniques are available or appropriate.
The desired conditions, objectives, standards, identification of
suitable and unsuitable land uses, and any special designations and
other management areas of a plan should provide the framework for
management that would maintain or restore ecological conditions that
the Responsible Official determines will provide a high likelihood of
supporting, over time, the viability of native and desired non-native
vertebrates and vascular plants well distributed within their ranges in
the plan area. Note that ``high likelihood'' is not necessarily a
statistical or mathematical determination. Rather, it is an application
of expert agency judgment based on a reasonable review and
consideration of available information.
Option 2--Sec. 219.13(b) Ecological Component of Sustainability
The second option for addressing the ecological component of
sustainability was developed initially by agency research scientists to
provide a clear and distinct alternative to Option 1. Several specific
objectives or perspectives influenced development of Option 2,
including: (1) Focus required ecological analyses, as well as the final
management standard against which plan decisions are to be judged, at
both ecosystem and species levels of ecological organization; (2)
require analyses of diversity across multiple geographic areas and
timeframes, and especially stress the importance of analyses conducted
over large geographic areas or long timeframes; (3) emphasize the
influence of the ecological condition, structure, and land use history
of the surrounding landscape, as well as of natural and human-induced
disturbance regimes, on the ability to manage NFS lands to achieve
biological diversity objectives; and (4) require a more rigorous and
structured set of analyses of diversity than contained in Option 1.
Option 2 focuses attention on the general objective of maintaining
and restoring ecological conditions that provide for biological
diversity in the plan area and on the more specific objective of
maintaining and restoring ecosystem diversity within landscapes, and
within the framework of larger-scale ecosystem analyses, of maintaining
and restoring species diversity within ecosystems. In this sense,
Option 2 adopts an explicitly hierarchical approach to analyses of
biological diversity, as does Option 1.
Option 2 focuses attention directly on evaluating and maintaining
biological diversity in the planning or assessment area. Biological
diversity is an inclusive concept employed in the scientific and
conservation literature to refer to the variety of living things
together with their interactions and processes. It is defined at
various levels of ecological organization, but especially three--genes,
species, and ecosystems. The general concept of biological diversity
incorporates the concept of the diversity of plant and animal
communities and tree species as originally used in the language of the
NFMA diversity requirement. However, the term ``biological diversity''
also reflects significant progress in the sciences of ecology and
conservation biology over the past 20-25 years. Scientific progress in
these fields has revealed substantial new information such as factors
that regulate biological diversity and the relationship between
biological diversity and ecosystem function and resilience. As a
consequence, and consistent with progress in scientific knowledge and
conservation practice, the overriding objective of the approach in
Option 2 is to focus planning analyses on factors that foster the
maintenance and restoration of biological diversity in the planning or
assessment area, at both ecosystem and species levels of ecological
organization.
Option 2 directs the Responsible Official, in the planning process,
to follow and fully disclose results of a structured approach to
considering and assessing biological diversity at two levels of
ecological organization: ecosystem and species. Analyses of
[[Page 72786]]
biological diversity at these two levels should be tailored to the
particular planning or assessment area, to the availability of
information, to the issues identified in the planning process, and to
the risks to ecological sustainability.
Consideration and evaluation of ecosystem diversity within the
framework of biological diversity constitutes the core approach of
Option 2 and is the primary focus of ecological information and
analyses. Option 2 focuses attention on similar characteristics of
ecosystem diversity as Option 1, but adds additional spatial attributes
to the list of characteristics to be considered. Similarly, in addition
to analyses specified in Option 1, Option 2 focuses evaluations on
identification of unique or rare ecosystems and ecosystems at risk,
specific threats to these systems, and measures required for their
conservation or restoration.
In Option 2, consideration and evaluation of species diversity is a
complementary approach that extends ecosystem analyses to provide a
more complete understanding of the effects of past, current, and
anticipated future management direction on biological diversity,
including the status of species and the ecosystems in which they occur.
This second option requires that species should be selected for
evaluation to develop a more complete understanding of the condition
and trends of ecosystems, or where substantive concerns exist regarding
the continued persistence of the particular species within the planning
or assessment area. In such cases, evaluations under Option 2 should
identify specific threats to these species and specific measures
required for their conservation or restoration.
In addition to the primary evaluations of biological diversity
specified at ecosystem and species levels, Option 2 also requires three
additional types of analyses of biological diversity at ecosystem and
species levels. First, this option requires that biological diversity
be evaluated across multiple geographic areas and time frames,
especially over large areas and long time frames, to assess the
dynamics of wide-ranging species and cumulative impacts of management
actions on, among other factors, biological diversity. Second, Option 2
requires that impacts of natural and human disturbance regimes on
biological diversity be evaluated, including consequences of altered
disturbance regimes for diversity. Third, this second option requires
evaluations of the effects of landscape context on biological
diversity, where landscape context refers to the ecological condition,
structure, and land use history of the planning or assessment area and
effects on biological diversity. Of special interest in these
evaluations are differences in ecological structure and condition
between NFS lands and surrounding or interspersed ownerships and the
consequence of such differences for options and opportunities to manage
NFS lands to achieve biological diversity objectives at ecosystem and
species levels.
In contrast to Option 1, Option 2 formulates a substantially
different and more general biological diversity standard for judging
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement. Specifically, this
option requires that plan decisions foster the maintenance and
restoration of biological diversity in the plan area at both ecosystem
and species levels within the range of biological diversity
characteristic of native ecosystems in the surrounding landscape within
which the plan area is embedded. When reaching plan decisions regarding
biological diversity, Option 2 requires the Responsible Official to
consider disturbance regimes and landscape context and the effects of
these factors on options and opportunities to manage NFS lands in order
to achieve biological diversity objectives.
The biological diversity standard embedded in Option 2 provides a
degree of flexibility in managing NFS lands to achieve biological
diversity objectives in a multiple use framework. However, this
flexibility is clearly bounded. Some amount of change in the abundance,
extent, and distribution of components of biological diversity at
ecosystem and species levels is acceptable within the intent of
fostering the maintenance and restoration of biological diversity in
the plan area at ecosystem and species levels within the range of
diversity characteristic of native ecosystems in the planning or
assessment area. The loss of an ecosystem type or species from all or a
significant portion of the plan area or a substantial reduction in
abundance, extent, or distribution within all or a substantial portion
of the plan area as a result of actions under the direct control of
Forest Service land managers, however, is not consistent with, and thus
outside the bounds of, the standard established for Option 2.
If Option 2 is selected for inclusion in a final rule, the agency
will need to develop detailed guidance in the Directive System and
other appropriate outlets (e.g., white papers) regarding how to
implement and apply the st