18886 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Parts 215, 217, and 219

RIN 0596–AB20

National Forest System Land and

Resource Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service requests

comment on a proposed rule to guide

land and resource management

planning for the 191-million acre

National Forest System. This proposed

rule, which would revise and streamline

the existing planning rule, describes the

agency’s framework for National Forest

System resource decisionmaking;

incorporates principles of ecosystem

management into resource planning;

and establishes requirements for

implementation, monitoring, evaluation,

amendment, and revision of forest

plans. The intended effect is to simplify,

clarify, and otherwise improve the

planning process; reduce burdensome

and costly procedural requirements; and

strengthen relationships with the public

and other government entities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted in

writing and received by July 12, 1995.

The agency will provide briefings to

assist the public in understanding the

proposed rule on April 24 at the

locations and times listed under

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Director, Ecosystem Management (1920;

3 CEN), Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box

96090, Washington, DC 20090–6090.

The public may inspect comments

received on this proposed rule in the

Office of the Director, Third Floor,

Central Wing, Auditor’s Building, 14th

and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC, between the hours of

8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Those wishing to

inspect comments are encouraged to call

ahead (202–205–1034) to facilitate entry

into the building.

Briefings will be held at the addresses

set out under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION of this notice for proposed

rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann

Christensen, Land Management

Planning Specialist (202–205–1034).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Briefings and Locations

The Forest Service will hold public

briefings on April 24 in the following

cities at the addresses and times shown:

1. Washington, DC—April 24, 1995,

9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Crystal City

Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia, 22202.

2. Missoula, Montana—April 24,

1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., 4B’s Inn and

Conference Center, 3803 Brooks Street,

Missoula, Montana, 59801.

3. Denver, Colorado—April 24, 1995,

6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., USDA Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Regional

Auditorium, 740 Simms Street, Golden,

Colorado, 80401.

4. Grand Junction, Colorado—April

24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Grand

Junction Ranger District, 764 Horizon

Drive, Grand Junction, Colorado, 81506.

5. Durango, Colorado—April 24, 1995,

6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., San Juan Forest

Supervisor’s Office, 701 Camino del

Camino, Durango, Colorado, 81301.

6. Chadron, Nebraska—April 24,

1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Nebraska

National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 125

N. Main Street, Chadron, Nebraska,

69337.

7. Rapid City, South Dakota—April

24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Pactola

Ranger District Office, 800 Soo San

Drive, Rapid City, South Dakota, 81506.

8. Casper, Wyoming—April 24, 1995,

6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Holiday Inn, 300

‘‘F’’ Street, Casper, Wyoming, 82601.

9. Albuquerque, New Mexico—April

24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.,

Southwestern Regional Office, 517 Gold

Avenue, S.W., Albuquerque, New

Mexico, 87102.

10. Phoenix, Arizona—April 24, 1995,

9 a.m. to 11 a.m., Tonto National Forest

Supervisor’s Office, 2234 East

McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona,

85010.

11. Boise, Idaho—April 24, 1995, 2

p.m. to 4 p.m., National Interagency Fire

Center, Training Building Auditorium,

3833 Development Avenue, Boise,

Idaho, 83705.

12. Salt Lake City, Utah—April 24,

1995, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Federal Building,

Room 2404, 125 South State Street, Salt

Lake City, Utah, 84138.

13. Sacramento, California—April 24,

1995, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Radisson Hotel

Sacramento, 500 Leisure Lane,

Sacramento, California, 95815.

14. Portland, Oregon—April 24, 1995,

9 a.m. to 11 a.m., USDA Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Regional Office,

Robert Duncan Plaza, 333 S.W. First

Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97208.

15. Atlanta, Georgia—April 24, 1995,

12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., USDA Forest

Service Southern Region Office, 1720

Peachtree Road, N.W., room 199,

Atlanta, Georgia, 30367.

16. Brookfield, Wisconsin—April 24,

1995, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Brookfield

Marriott Hotel, 375 South Moorland

Road, Brookfield, Wisconsin, 53005.

17. Juneau, Alaska—April 24, 1995, 1

p.m. to 3 p.m., Alaska Native

Brotherhood Hall, 320 Willoughby

Avenue, Juneau, Alaska, 99801.

Public comments will not be taken at

these briefings, which will consist of

video presentations prepared by the

Chief’s Office. As of May 1, one copy of

this video material will also be available

at the Chief’s Office, each Regional

Office, each Forest Supervisor’s Office,

each Research or Experiment Station,

the Forest Products Laboratory, the

Northeastern Area State and Private

Forestry Office, and the International

Institute of Tropical Forestry. The video

may be borrowed by interested parties

on a reservation basis by contacting

their local Forest Service office or

calling the telephone number listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT earlier in this notice.

Background

The Forest Service is responsible for

managing the land and resources of the

National Forest System. It is headed by

the Chief of the Forest Service and

includes 191 million acres of lands in

42 States, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto

Rico. The National Forest System

consists of 155 National Forests, 20

National Grasslands, and various other

lands under the jurisdiction of the

Secretary of Agriculture. Under the

Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of

1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) and the National

Forest Management Act of 1976 (16

U.S.C. 1600), these lands are managed

for a variety of uses on a sustained basis

to ensure a continued supply of goods

and services to the American people in

perpetuity.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA)

(88 Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the

National Forest Management Act of

1976 (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 USC

1601–1614) (hereafter, NFMA), specifies

that land and resource management

plans shall be developed for units of the

National Forest System. Regulations to

implement NFMA are set forth at 36

CFR part 219.

A forest plan has been approved for

every National Forest except the

Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Mendocino,

and Six Rivers National Forests, all

located in California. It remains the

agency’s intent that these National

Forests complete their plans under the

requirements for forest plan

development described by the existing

regulation, adopted September 30, 1982

(47 FR 43026), as amended June 24,

1983 (48 FR 29122), and September 7,

1983 (48 FR 40383), and as set out in the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18887

Code of Federal Regulations as of July

1, 1993.

During the 18 years since enactment

of NFMA, much has been learned about

planning for management of National

Forest System lands. The original vision

of NFMA raised many varied

expectations, some of which remain

unfulfilled. Although forest planning

efforts to date have produced notable

accomplishments in addressing forest

management issues and fostering public

participation in public land

management, many controversies linger.

For each National Forest, difficult

resource management choices must be

made among competing interests, often

where there are no universally accepted

answers. In such a setting, forest

planning cannot be expected to revolve

all differences; however, improvements

in forest planning requirements and

procedures can help better focus the

issues and choices and lead to better,

more informed decisions.

This proposed rule is the culmination

of a systematic and comprehensive

review of forest planning rules and

processes. The nature of this review and

its findings were described in detail in

the Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking published on February 15,

1991 (56 FR 6508), along with a history

of forest planning and an overview of

the existing planning rule.

Critique of Land Management Planning

Of particular note in development of

this proposed rule is the Critique of

Land Management Planning. The Forest

Service initiated this comprehensive

review of its land management planning

process in March 1989. Conducted with

the help of The Conservation

Foundation, the Department of Forestry

and Natural Resources at Purdue

University, and others, the purpose of

the Critique was to document what had

been learned since passage of the

National Forest Management Act and to

determine how best to respond to the

planning challenges of the future.

The Critique involved over 3,500

people both within and outside the

Forest Service. Workshops and

interviews were conducted involving

over 2,000 people who had participated

in or had responsibilities for forest

planning. These participants

represented a broad cross-section of all

those who were involved in planning,

including members of the general

public, interest groups, representatives

of other agencies, elected officials,

representatives of Indian tribal

governments, Forest Supervisors,

Regional Foresters, resource specialists,

and members of interdisciplinary

planning teams. Additionally, there

were written comments received from

1,500 interested people. The Critique

was completed in May 1990. The results

of the Critique are documented in a

summary report, ‘‘Synthesis of the

Critique of Land Management Planning’’

(Vol. 1) and 10 other more detailed

reports. In the interest of economy and

brevity, the findings of the Critique and

other material are not repeated here but

should be considered as the foundation

and background for this proposed rule.

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

An Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking was published on February

15, 1991 (56 FR 6508). The public

comment period closed May 16, 1991.

The Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking included preliminary

regulatory text completely revising the

existing regulation, based largely on the

findings of the Critique. Four public

informational meetings were held to

stimulate public interest in and

comment on the proposal in the

Advance Notice and to assist the public

in understanding the ideas presented in

the Notice. Meetings were held as

follows: Washington, DC, February 26,

1991; Portland, Oregon, April 8, 1991;

Denver, Colorado, April 10, 1991; and

Atlanta, Georgia, April 12, 1991.

Altogether, approximately 50 people

attended these meetings.

In addition to publishing the Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the

Federal Register, the Forest Service

mailed approximately 20,000 copies to

known interested parties and invited

comment on the rule. Over 600 groups

and individuals provided nearly 4,700

comments. Approximately 10 percent

were from business and industry

groups; 11 percent from Federal, State,

and local government agencies; 11

percent from environmental and

conservation groups; 2 percent from

recreation and user groups; 1 percent

from academia; 1 percent from civic

organizations; 9 percent from agency

employees; and the remaining 55

percent from individual citizens.

As stated in the Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, the agency

received a petition on November 1,

1990, from the National Forest Products

Association and 79 other organizations

‘‘to engage in a rulemaking to amend the

regulations set out at 36 CFR Part 219

to improve the implementation of land

and resource management plans (‘forest

plants’), provide for prompt

amendment, establish specific

environmental documentation

requirements, and for related reasons.’’

This petition for rulemaking included

proposed regulatory text and the

rationale for it. It represented an

alternative approach to changing the

NFMA planning regulation at 36 CFR

Part 219. The specific recommendations

in the petition, along with supplemental

comments received from the National

Forest Products Association during the

public comment period, were

considered as part of the public

comment associated with the Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Basic Conclusions Underlying This

Proposal

The proposed rule now being

published rests on many of the same

basic conclusions as the Advance Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking, which are

highlighted here.

1. Many Recommendations of the

Critique of Land Management Planning

can and Should be Adopted by Revising

the Planning Rule

Although a number of specific

recommendations have been used in

developing this proposed rule, the

following major recommendations

identified by the Critique are

particularly important:

(a) Simplify, Clarify, and Shorten the

Planning Process

The Critique found that the

complexity of the forest planning

process was so overwhelming that few

people really fully understood it.

Further, the Critique found that this

complexity often inhibited meaningful

communication with the public and

other governments, reduced agency

credibility, and increased the time and

cost needed to complete plans.

The Critique also identified the

problems associated with trying to

resolve socio-political issues through a

highly technical and systematic set of

planning procedures. The importance of

balancing technical information with

the values and concerns of the public

was highlighted in the Critique reports.

Finally, the planning process is so

lengthy and complex that the process of

completing forest plans is frustrating for

the public and agency employees alike.

In addition, the financial expenditure

required for such a lengthy and complex

process has had a major impact on the

agency and diverted funds and

personnel from project decisionmaking

and other activities.

While endorsing the need to simplify,

clarify, and shorten the planning

process, the Forest Service also

recognizes that forest planning is

inherently complex due to the

multitude of resources and statutory

responsibilities involved. Sound, yet

often complex, technical analyses serve
18888 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

a critical role in evaluating resource

trade-offs and ensuring that resource

decisions are based on the best possible

information. A balance must be found

between the simplicity most people

desire and the complex reality of forest

planning.

(b) Clarify the Decision Framework

The existing regulation does not

precisely address the nature of forest

plan decisions and the appropriate

scope of environmental analysis. During

development of the existing forest plans,

many people believed that forest plans

would make irretrievable resource

commitments for all projects necessary

to fully implement the goals and

objectives of the plan. Confusion over

the nature of forest plan decisions has

been a principal source of controversy

for many plans. Most of the

administrative appeals of forest plans

challenge whether forest plans and

accompanying environmental impact

statements satisfy particular

requirements of NFMA, NEPA, the

Endangered Species Act, the Clean

Water Act, and other environmental

laws. Forest plan appellants frequently

argue that forest plans irretrievably

commit the agency to individual

projects but fail to provide the analysis

and documentation required by these

statutes.

In fact, the environmental impact

statements accompanying forest plans

do not attempt to identify, evaluate, and

decide every individual project that may

be permissible during the normal 10-

year period of a forest plan. It would be

practically impossible to satisfy these

obligations in one single set of decisions

or in a single environmental impact

statement. Court decisions as well as

administrative appeal decisions by the

Chief of the Forest Service and the

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture have

explained the content of forest plan

decisions and the scope of

environmental analysis. To avoid

confusion, the existing rule should be

revised accordingly.

(c) Provide for an Incremental Approach

to Revising Forest Plans

The Critique firmly endorsed an

incremental approach to forest plan

revision. It was considered a key

element to achieving the major

recommendations of the Critique to

‘‘Simplify, clarify, and shorten the

planning process.’’ In Volume 2 of the

Critique report, the merits of

incremental planning are addressed:

Wiping the slate clean and beginning anew

allows the entire universe to alternatives to

be examined, unprejudiced by directions and

choices that have gone before. In fact,

however, change is incremental when the

alternatives available are heavily

influenced—and circumscribed—by the

choices made in the past. Examining the

entire universe of alternatives in great detail

may be both interesting and informative, but

it imposes a tremendous demand for analysis

that may go largely unused in the real

decision process * * *. Federal regulations

should be revised to permit an explicitly

incremental approach to the revision of forest

plans.’’ (p. 61)

2. While NFMA Has Some Limitations,

It Remains Basically Sound

Such NFMA principles as integrated

resource planning, public participation,

and an interdisciplinary approach to

planning continue to provide a solid

foundation for agency planning efforts.

The Act also provides flexibility to

make needed improvements through

rulemaking or agency directives.

Many of the problems with forest

planning are not directly associated

with the provisions of NFMA. Public

land management is complicated by a

long series of laws and regulations

enacted over many years. This has

resulted in a situation once described by

Federal District Court Judge Lawrence

K. Karlton as a ‘‘crazy quilt of

apparently mutually incompatible

statutory directives.’’ (United States v.

Brunskill, Civil S–82–666–LKK (E.D.

Cal. Nov. 8, 1984) unpublished opinion,

aff’d, 792 F.2d 9938 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Thus, the controversy which often has

surrounded forest planning must be

viewed in light of the many

requirements imposed by statutory and

regulatory requirements other than the

National Forest Management Act (e.g.,

the National Environmental Policy Act,

Endangered Species Act, Clean Water

Act, Clean Air Act). It is often the

interaction of these other laws and

regulations that has increased the

controversy surrounding forest planning

and land use.

Some of the dissatisfaction with

NFMA can be traced to unrealistic

expectations. One of the major findings

of the Critique of Land Management

Planning was the need for adjustments

in the public’s expectations of forest

planning. Volume 2 of the report of the

Critique explicitly addressed this as

follows:

Expectations for forest planning are high in

some cases, unrealistically so. Some

workshop participants expected forest

planning would lead to establishment of

‘‘reasonable and sustainable’’ production

goals. Others thought it would free resource

allocation from politics while building a

powerful case for budgets and appropriations

sufficient to accomplish plan goals. And

many apparently thought that forest planning

would be a way to influence the political

process and sway management to their

purposes. Probing more deeply, we found

that it was not so much the process to which

people objected, but the results of that

process. In retrospect, it was inevitable that

this would occur. When the law was enacted,

representatives of both the Sierra Club and

the National Forest Products Association

returned to their constituents and proclaimed

victory. Obviously, both had different

expectations of outcomes under the law. (p.3)

3. Many Opportunities Exist to

Streamline the Existing Regulatory Text

In addition to finding numerous

opportunities to streamline the

substantive procedural requirements for

forest planning, one of the findings of

the review of the existing regulation was

that much could be done to simplify the

regulatory text itself and to enhance its

readability regardless of major

substantive changes. For example, there

were numerous opportunities to

simplify language, shorten definitions,

eliminate similar or duplicative

provisions, improve structural

organization, and reduce overlap with

other laws, regulations, or Executive

orders. In addition, language without

real substance should be removed. The

composite effect of such changes can be

a significant reduction in the length of

the regulation, an enhancement of its

readability, and a positive step forward

towards better understanding and

simplification of forest planning.

In reviewing the existing regulation,

the agency also has considered the

relative roles of the planning regulation

at 36 CFR part 219 and the Forest

Service Directive System. The review

indicated that the rule is better suited

for defining the purpose and desired

results of planning and the minimum

standards for planning than for giving

detailed procedural guidelines. As a

result, some streamlining has been

achieved in the proposed rule by

shifting detailed procedural direction to

agency directives. To implement the

revised regulation, the agency plans to

reorganize and revise its directives

related to forest planning. Subject to

procedures in 36 CFR part 216,

substantive revisions to planning

direction in Forest Service Manual

Chapter 1920 will be made available for

public review and comment prior to

being adopted.

4. The Solution to Some Problems With

the Planning Process Are Not Within the

Scope of the Planning Regulation

Only about one-third of the 232

Critique recommendations concern

changes that are appropriate to

implement through revision of the

planning regulation or issuance of

related guidance through the Forest
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18889

Service Directive System. The

remaining two-thirds of the

recommendations must be addressed

through other actions or channels, such

as increasing accountability for

performance or improving training.

In addition, even though some aspects

of planning are within the scope of the

regulation, the real success or failure of

some endeavors will depend on the

commitment and understanding of

agency personnel and the public. A

good example of this is public

involvement. No amount of regulatory

detail can guarantee effective and open

communication. Certain expectations

can be defined and minimum

procedures established, but ultimately

the success or failure of the

communication between the agency and

public depends upon the people

involved. As a result, the agency

recognizes that even though modifying

the planning regulation is a major and

essential step towards improving the

effectiveness of forest planning, such

improvements must occur in concert

with other changes and commitments in

order for the full potential of forest

planning to be realized.

In addition to the preceding four

conclusions which had been addressed

in the Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, one additional finding has

guided development of this proposed

rule which were not reflected in the

Advance Notice.

5. Principles of Ecosystem Management

Need to be Reflected in the Planning

Regulation

In the decade following promulgation

of the existing planning rule, the

concept of ecosystem management has

slowly and steadily evolved, and the

agency has made clear its intention to

move toward an ecosystem management

approach to National Forest System

management. In recent years, the agency

has actively promoted implementation

of ecosystem management principles

within existing legal requirements.

Other Federal agencies are proceeding

similarly. Additionally, the spotted owl

controversy in the Pacific Northwest has

become a focal point for exploring ways

to implement the principles of

ecosystem management. The validity of

an ecosystem approach was recently

upheld when the Record of Decision

(ROD) for the Range of the Northern

Spotted Owl was sustained from

programmatic challenge (SAS v. Lyons,

No. C92–479WD (W.D. WA, Dec. 21,

1994)). In that decision, Judge Dwyer

stated, ‘‘Given the current condition of

the forests, there is no way the agencies

could comply with environmental laws

without planning on an ecosystem

basis’’ (slip. Op. @ 32).

In light of the experience in the

Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, there

is much interest in finding ways for

Federal land management agencies to

better incorporate the principles of

ecosystem management when

conducting resource planning and

decisionmaking activities. The existing

NFMA planning regulation was

promulgated in 1982, long before the

concept of ecosystem management had

begun to be widely recognized. By

contrast, the proposed rule has been

promulgated with recognition of the role

of ecosystem management and

represents a significant step toward

incorporating ecosystem management

into the planning process to the extent

permitted by current law.

While basic principles of NFMA

remain sound, there are questions as to

whether statutory changes may be

appropriate if ecosystem management is

to become a fully operational concept

for the management of National Forest

System lands. A related consideration is

the interaction of NFMA requirements

with numerous other relevant statutes,

such as the National Environmental

Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321), the

endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), or the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat. 770).

Experience to date has shown that the

existing ‘‘crazy quilt’’ framework of

statutes creates some limitations and

uncertainties regarding implementation

of ecosystem management concepts.

Although progress can be made within

the existing legal framework, the agency

believes that a review of NFMA and

other relevant statutes may be

appropriate before the concept of

ecosystem management can be

transformed from an evolving vision

into a fully operational reality.

Moreover, it must be recognized that

ecosystem management is a

continuously evolving concept. There is

still much to be learned regarding how

best to implement the principles of

ecosystem management when fulfilling

the agency’s responsibilities for

management of National Forest System

lands. As a result, the proposed rule

should not be viewed as the agency’s

ultimate vision for implementing

ecosystem management, but rather as a

transitional step for beginning to

incorporate the concepts of ecosystem

management into land and resource

management planning procedures and

to do so in a manner consistent with the

requirements of NFMA.

In summary, as the first generation of

forest plans prepared under NFMA is

coming due for revision, the Forest

Service proposes a substantially

streamlined planning rule that builds on

15 years of planning experience and

evolving concepts of resource

management. The primary outcomes

anticipated from the proposed rule

include: forest plans and forest planning

procedures that are simpler, more

understandable, and less costly; stronger

relationships with the public and other

government entities; the incorporation

of ecosystem management principles

into forest planning; and clarification of

the nature of forest plan decisions and

their relationship to other planning and

decisionmaking processes.

Comparison of Outlines of Proposed

Rule to Existing Rule

The following table allows

comparison of the existing table of

contents for 36 CFR part 219, subpart A

to that in the proposed rule:

Proposed rule Existing rule

219.1 Purpose and principles ....................................................................................................... 219.1 Purpose and principles.

219.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 219.2 Scope and applicability.

219.3 Relationships with the public and government entities ...................................................... 219.3 Definitions and terminology.

219.4 Sustainability of escosystems ............................................................................................ 219.4 Planning levels.

219.5 Framework for resource decisionmaking ........................................................................... 219.5 Interdisciplinary approach.

219.6 Forest plan direction ........................................................................................................... 219.6 Public participation.

219.7 Ecosystem analysis ............................................................................................................ 219.7 Coordination with other public planning

efforts.

219.8 Interdisciplinary teams and information needs ................................................................... 219.8 Regional planning—general procedure.

219.9 Forest plan amendments .................................................................................................... 219.9 Regional guide content.

219.10 Forest plan revision .......................................................................................................... 219.10 Forest planning—general procedure.

219.11 Forest plan implementation .............................................................................................. 219.11 Forest plan content.

219.12 Monitoring and evaluation ................................................................................................ 219.12 Forest plan process.
18890 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Proposed rule Existing rule

219.13 Statutory timber management requirements .................................................................... 219.13 Forest planning—resource integration

requirements.

219.14 Special designations ......................................................................................................... 219.14 Timber resource land suitability.

219.15 Applicability and transition ................................................................................................ 219.15 Vegetative management practices.

219.16 Timber resource sale schedule.

219.17 Wilderness designation.

219.18 Wilderness management.

219.19 Fish and wildlife resource.

219.20 Grazing resource.

219.21 Recreation resource.

219.22 Mineral resource.

219.23 Water and soil resource.

219.24 Cultural and historic resource.

219.25 Research natural areas.

219.26 Diversity.

219.27 Management requirements.

219.28 Research.

219.29 Transition period.

Section-by-Section Description

The principal features of the proposed

rule are summarized here, keyed to the

proposed CFR section numbers.

Section 219.1 Purpose and Principles

The proposed rule would: (1) Describe

the agency’s framework for National

Forest System resource decisionmaking;

(2) incorporate principles of ecosystem

management; (3) establish requirements

for the implementation, monitoring,

evaluation, amendment, and revision of

forest plans; and (4) articulate the

relationship between resource

decisionmaking and compliance with

the National Environmental Policy Act

(hereafter, NEPA). Unlike the existing

rule, the proposed rule would not

provide direction for development of

initial forest plans, because all but four

of those plans are in effect.

Paragraph (b) would identify 10

principles which provide the basis for

National Forest System resource

decisionmaking and management. The

existing rule contains 14 principles.

Although the 14 original principles are

basically sound in and of themselves,

the agency believes the new set of

principles better reflects the concepts of

ecosystem management and the

agency’s approach to resource

decisionmaking.

The first principle states the agency’s

commitment to managing for

sustainable ecosystems and the multiple

benefits which they can yield. The

second principle articulates a key aspect

of the agency’s approach to ecosystem

management—that people are part of

ecosystems and that meeting people’s

needs and desires within the capacities

of natural systems is a primary role of

resource decisionmaking.

The third principle reflects the

dynamic nature of ecosystems and that

they occur at a variety of spatial scales,

with the resulting need for flexible

planning processes that consider

ecological changes over time. The fourth

principle recognizes that ecosystems

often cross many ownerships and

jurisdictions, making it important to

coordinate planning efforts for National

Forest System lands with other

landowners, governments, and agencies.

This principle also addresses the need

to respect private property rights and

the jurisdictions of other government

entities.

The fifth principle notes the

importance of open, ongoing, and

equitable public involvement. This

embodies the agency’s belief that such

participation by all interested publics is

an important and integral part of

National Forest System management.

The sixth principle highlights the

vital role of scientists in gathering and

analyzing information for resource

decisionmaking.

The seventh principle recognizes that

a fundamental goal of managing

National Forest System lands is the

optimization of net public benefits,

which includes consideration of both

quantitative and qualitative criteria.

The eighth principle emphasizes the

importance of being able to efficiently

adjust forest plans in response to

changing conditions and new

information.

The ninth principle makes clear that

NEPA procedures define the scope and

level of analysis conducted for resource

decisionmaking and the need for

analysis to be commensurate with the

scope and nature of decisions being

made.

The last principle acknowledges the

uncertainty inherent in resource

decisionmaking, and the need for

resource decisionmaking to proceed

using an adaptive approach to resource

management.

The 10 principles highlight the

underlying concepts and assumptions

upon which the remaining sections of

the proposed rule are based and set out

many of the principles of ecosystem

management which are reflected in the

proposed rule.

Section 219.2 Definitions

The following words are defined in

the existing rule, but would not be

included in the definitions provided in

the proposed rule, because they are not

used or do not vary in meaning from

common or well-established use of the

term:

Base sale schedule

Biological growth potential

Capability

Corridor

Cost efficiency

Diversity

Even-aged management

Goods and services

Integrated pest management

Management concern

Management direction

Management intensity

Management practice

Planning horizon

Present net value

Public issue

Real dollar value

Receipt shares

Responsible line officer

Sale schedule

Silvicultural system

Suitability

Sustained-yield of products and services

Timber production

Uneven-aged management

The following terms are not defined

in the Definitions section of the existing

rule, but would be defined in the

proposed rule:

Catastrophic event

Category 1 candidate species

Category 2 candidate species
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18891

Chargeable timber volume

Conservation agreement

Culmination of mean annual increment

Decision document

Directive

Directive System

Ecosystem analysis

Ecosystem management

Environmental assessment

Environmental impact statement

Even-aged stand

Forest Supervisor

Guideline

Infrastructure

NEPA documents

NEPA procedures

Previous planning rule

Project

Proposed action

Regional Forester

RPA Program and Assessment

Resource conditions

Responsible official

Species and natural community

rankings

Standard

Station Director

Sustainability of ecosystems

Tribal governments

The following definitions appear in

the existing rule and would be modified

or retained unchanged in the proposed

rule:

Allowable sale quantity

Forested land (previously listed as

‘‘forest land’’)

Goal

Long-term sustained-yield timber

capacity

Management prescription

Objective

Multiple-use

Plan area (previously listed as

‘‘planning area’’)

Plan period (previously listed as

‘‘planning period’’)

Readers of this Supplementary

Information should refer to the

definitions section of the proposed rule

(§ 219.2) for definitions of terms used in

this preamble.

Section 219.3 Relationships With the

Public and Government Entities

This section focuses on building and

maintaining relationships with the

public and other government entities

and, in conjunction with numerous

provisions in other sections of the

proposed rule, would substantially

strengthen the role of public

participation and government

coordination compared to the existing

rule. This emphasis responds to

findings of the Land Management

Planning Critique, which highlighted

the critical role of ongoing and

meaningful public involvement and the

need to strengthen coordination with

other Federal agencies and State, local

and tribal governments. Although the

Federal Advisory Committee Act

imposes some limitations on how

involvement activities can be

conducted, a cornerstone of ecosystem

management and this proposed rule is

the recognition that the public and other

agencies and governments must work

closely together if resource management

issues are to be addressed effectively.

Although this section would

specifically address public participation

and government coordination, there are

numerous other sections of the

proposed rule that reflect the agency’s

recognition of the importance of people

in resource management and that reflect

the agency’s intent to expand

opportunities for public involvement in

agency planning and for public

comment. For example, six of the

principles in proposed § 219.1 highlight

the role of people in managing the

National Forest System (§ 219.1(b)(1),

(2), (4)–(7)). There would be two new

opportunities for public notice and

comment—a 30-day comment period for

some minor amendments

(§ 219.9(c)(2)(i)) and a 30-day comment

period prior to updating a monitoring

and evaluation strategy (§ 219.12(c)(2)).

In addition, three new provisions

designed to provide more information to

the public are proposed: (1) the

requirement for an annual monitoring

and evaluation report (§ 219.12(e)); (2)

the requirement to periodically update

estimated levels of goods and services

and management activities

(§ 219.11(d)(2)); and (3) the requirement

to conduct and make available the

results of a prerevision review when

initiating the revision process

(§ 219.10(c) and (d)). Involvement in the

revision process would also be

strengthened by a requirement to

provide opportunities for participation

in the prerevision review (§ 219.10(c)(2))

and in formulation of a communications

strategy for the prerevision review and

revision effort (§ 219.10(c)(2)(ii)).

Finally, the proposed rule provides

opportunities for involvement and

coordination in monitoring and

evaluation efforts (§ 219.12(a)(1)(x)).

Separate sections in the existing rule

for Public Participation (§ 219.6) and

Coordination With Other Public

Planning Efforts (§ 219.7), would be

combined into one section in the

proposed rule. Combining the two

sections is not intended to diminish the

distinctive roles and importance of the

public and cooperating agencies and

governments; rather, combining these

sections allows the agency to avoid

repeating the many provisions that are

applicable to both the public and

cooperating agencies and governments

while still providing the ability to

address their specific and unique needs.

Proposed paragraph (a) asserts that

building and maintaining relationships

with the public and other Federal

agencies and State, local, and tribal

governments is an essential and ongoing

part of National Forest System planning

and management. Paragraphs (a) (1)–(5)

would expand on this statement by

further describing five purposes for

establishing and maintaining

communication with parties interested

in forest planning.

The first purpose is to develop a

shared understanding of the variety of

needs, concerns, and values held by the

public. In the past, public involvement

efforts have too often promoted

polarization of parties and interests. The

agency believes communication and

understanding of needs, concerns, and

values is essential if polarization is to be

replaced with cooperative problem

solving and a genuine desire to move

towards consensus.

A second purpose is to coordinate

planning efforts with other Federal

agencies and State, local, and tribal

governments. This reflects the agency’s

desire to strengthen working

relationships with other agencies and

governments as well as an awareness of

the distinct roles and jurisdictions that

must be recognized during resource

planning efforts. This purpose also is

consistent with the emphasis in

ecosystem management that all parties

interested in an ecosystem work

together rather than approaching

resource planning efforts in isolation.

The provision would encourage

coordination of planning efforts

between the Forest Service and other

government entities. However, the

Forest Service recognizes that the

Federal Advisory Committee Act is an

important consideration that can

influence the extent to which such

coordinated efforts can occur.

The third purpose is to improve the

information base influencing decisions

and to promote a shared understanding

of the validity of this information. If the

public is to have confidence in resource

decisions made by the agency, there

must be confidence in the information

used in making those decisions. The

public and other agencies and

governments can play an integral part in

improving the information base used

and in helping to assess its validity. For

example, this could mean working

together with the public, scientific

community, and other agencies to

conduct an ecoregion assessment, or

development of joint data bases with
18892 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

other agencies. This could also involve

providing more opportunities for the

public to review the information being

used early in the decision process so

that concerns about its validity can be

identified and resolved in a cooperative

and ongoing manner.

The fourth purpose is to strengthen

the scientific basis for resource

management decisions through

involvement of members of the

scientific community. Although the

agency has always considered the

scientific community as part of the

public, the proposed rule would

highlight the particular importance of

the involvement of scientists in resource

planning. This emphasis is appropriate

because the concept of ecosystem

management recognizes and validates

the important role of science and the

need to integrate scientific expertise

more effectively into resource planning

and management.

The fifth and final purpose is to

resolve conflicts associated with

resource decisionmaking. The first four

goals, if achieved, lay the groundwork

for conflict resolution. Although the

Forest Service recognizes that resource

management issues are often highly

controversial and consensus may not be

achievable, agency involvement and

coordination efforts, nevertheless,

should strive to promote the kind of

communication and understanding that

helps diminish differences and

encourages parties with varying

interests to work through issues

together.

Paragraph (b) of proposed § 219.3

would require the Forest Supervisor to

maintain and periodically update a

mailing list of interested individuals,

organizations, scientists, and

government agencies and officials. This

provision is intended to assure a means

by which anyone who so desires can be

informed of planning activities.

Proposed paragraph (c) would require

the maintenance of planning records

that document forest plan amendments,

revisions, and monitoring and

evaluation and would ensure public

access to these records. This is generally

comparable to § 219.10(h) of the existing

rule.

Proposed paragraph (d) would require

copies of forest plans and monitoring

and evaluation strategies to be

accessible to the public at designated

locations and is generally comparable to

§ 219.6(i)(3) of the existing rule.

Paragraph (e) of this section would

direct Regional Foresters to seek to

establish a memorandum of

understanding or other form of

agreement to guide coordination of

planning efforts when desired by State

officials or affected tribal governments.

Paragraph (1) (i)–(ii) set forth the

content requirements for such

agreements, and paragraphs (1) (iii)–(iv)

indicate when Forest Supervisors may

execute such agreements and when a

memorandum of understanding can be

jointly executed by two Regional

Foresters. This new provision is

intended to help strengthen

communication and cooperation

between the Forest Service and State

and tribal governments. This provision

would supplement Forest Service

authority to enter into such agreements

with other Federal agencies or local

governments.

Proposed paragraph (f) highlights the

need for public involvement and

government coordination procedures to

conform with NEPA requirements and

other applicable laws, Executive orders,

or regulations. This is included as a

reminder that there are numerous

requirements already in place with

which the agency must comply. Perhaps

the two most notable are public

involvement requirements associated

with NEPA procedures and the Federal

Advisory Committee Act. The Federal

Advisory Committee Act has been

increasingly recognized as having a

substantial impact on how public

involvement activities are to be

conducted.

Section 219.4 Sustainability of

Ecosystems

This section is the central focus of the

agency’s shift toward an ecosystem

approach to resource management. The

fundamental premise is that the

principal goal of managing the National

Forest System is to maintain or restore

the sustainability of ecosystems and that

this is essential because sustained yield

of benefits for present and future

generations is more likely to occur when

the ecosystems from which those

benefits are produced are in a

sustainable condition.

This section is also based on the

premise that a diversity of plant and

animal communities is an inherent

feature of sustainable ecosystems.

Therefore, this proposed regulation is

premised on the assumption that

maintaining or restoring the

sustainability of ecosystems

simultaneously meets the NFMA

provision to, ‘‘provide for diversity of

plant and animal communities’’ (16

U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).

Seven key themes are woven

throughout this section.

1. Adoption of Sustainable

Ecosystems As a Goal. This proposed

section explicitly establishes the

maintenance or restoration of the

sustainability of ecosystems as a goal

and recognizes that the agency has the

discretion to determine what processes

and information will be used to work

toward this goal. Under the proposed

rule, the agency would retain the

discretion to determine for each plan

area which conditions are indicative of

sustainable ecosystems and how the

plan area could be managed to promote

achievement of those conditions. There

is nothing in the proposed rule that

establishes a concrete standard

regarding ecosystem sustainability or

diversity.

This discretionary, goal-oriented

approach to diversity and maintenance

of sustainable ecosystems is consistent

with the statutory basis for forest

planning and the NFMA diversity

provision which has been interpreted by

court rulings to be a goal within the

context of multiple use. ‘‘Diversity is

not the controlling principle in forest

planning, although it is an important

goal to be pursued in the context of

overall multiple-use objectives.’’ Sierra

Club v. Robertson, 845 F. Supp. 485,

502 (S.D. Ohio, 1994). The

interpretation of the NFMA diversity

provision as a goal rather than a

concrete standard is supported by the

legislative history of the Act and has

been upheld to date in a number of

court cases. In Sierra Club v. Espy, No.

93–5050 (5th Cir. Nov. 15, 1994) the

court recognized that the Forest Service

has discretion to determine how it

provides for diversity. See also, Sierra

Club v. Robertson, 784 F. Supp. 593,

609 (W.D. Ark. 1991); ONRC v. Lowe,

836 F. Supp. 727 (D. Ore. 1993); Glisson

v. USFS (S.D. Ill. August 26, 1993);

Sierra Club v. Marita, 843 F. Supp. 1526

(E.D. Wisc. 1994); Krichbaum v. Kelly,

844 F. Supp. 1107 (W.D. Va. 1994);

Sierra Club v. Marita (Robertson), 845 F.

Supp. 1317 (E.D. Wisc 1994); in which

courts have upheld Forest Service

decisions based on NFMA diversity

grounds.

In addition, the goal statement in

paragraph (a) of proposed § 219.4 is

consistent with Section 4(a) of the

Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of

1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) which calls for

‘‘* * * harmonious and coordinated

management of the various resources,

each with the other, without

impairment of the productivity of the

land * * *.’’ Similarly, Section 2(B) of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended, (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.,

hereafter, ESA), states that one of the

purposes of the Act is to ‘‘provide a

means whereby the ecosystems upon

which endangered species and

threatened species depend may be

conserved * * *.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18893

The premise is that by maintaining or,

where needed, restoring the

sustainability of ecosystems, the

productivity of the land will not be

impaired and the ecosystems upon

which plant and wildlife species

depend will be functioning properly.

Thus, the ecological foundation is in

place from which multiple benefits can

be derived over time. Without those

natural systems functioning properly,

the ability to provide multiple benefits

would be at risk.

The goal in proposed paragraph (a)

also is consistent with the multiple-use

mission of the National Forest System as

mandated by Section 2 of the MultipleUse, Sustained-Yield Act, which directs

the Secretary to ‘‘* * * develop and

administer the renewable surface

resources of the national forests for

multiple-use and sustained-yield of the

several products and services obtained

therefrom.’’ The Act specifically

identifies recreation, range, timber,

watershed, wildlife, and fish as values

for which national forests are

administered. Later, at § 219.6(a), the

proposed rule would make clear that

forest plans address the full range of

multiple-uses in an integrated manner

and on a sustained-yield basis.

2. Recognition of the Relationship

between Sustainable Ecosystems and

Meeting the Needs of People. The goal

statement of § 219.4(a), which is the

foundation for this proposed section,

clearly links the sustainability of

ecosystems to the ability to provide

multiple benefits to present and future

generations. As stated at § 219.1(b)(2) of

the proposed rule, people are

considered part of ecosystems, and

meeting people’s needs and desires

within the capacities of natural systems

is a primary role of resource

decisionmaking. The proposed rule is

based on the premise that National

Forests are managed to provide multiple

benefits to people in a manner that is

sustainable over time, and that those

benefits which people need and desire

will only be sustained when the

ecosystems from which they are derived

are sustained.

Although proposed section § 219.4 is

focused on the biological and physical

aspects of sustainable ecosystems, the

proposed rule would make clear that

forests plans address the full range of

multiple-uses (§ 219.6(a)). In addition,

proposed § 219.8(c) would make clear

that the social and economic effects of

resource decisions must be considered

when amending or revising the forest

plan. Thus, the proposed rule provides

a holistic approach to National Forest

management by assuring that the needs

of people and the capacities of natural

systems in both the near and long-term

are considered when making resource

decisions.

3. Adoption of ‘‘Coarse Filter/Fine

Filter’’ Approach. This section of the

proposed rule incorporates the ‘‘coarse

filter/fine filter’’ concept of conservation

biology, which holds that a strategy

focused on maintaining the function,

composition, and structure of an

ecosystem as a whole will be adequate

to meet the needs of most species. In

essence, most species’ needs are

‘‘caught’’ by the mesh of the ‘‘coarse

filter.’’ In contrast, some species have

additional needs or more narrow habitat

requirements that are not adequately

met by focusing solely on the ecosystem

as a whole. Under these circumstances,

additional ‘‘fine filter’’ measures are

needed to ‘‘catch’’ and support the

special needs of species whose needs

otherwise would have gone unmet.

The proposed rule provides the

‘‘coarse filter’’ by requiring that forest

plan goals and objectives address the

desired composition, function, and

structure of ecosystems. These three

aspects are generally considered to be

integral to understanding and describing

sustainable natural systems. Ecosystem

structure includes the distribution and

pattern of ecosystem elements such as

forest openings and riparian corridors at

a landscape scale, and the amount and

arrangement of special habitat features

such as seeps, snags and down woody

material at smaller scales. Ecosystem

composition includes the plant and

animal species which make up an

ecosystem. Ecosystem function includes

processes and the relationships among

processes, such as nutrient cycling in a

system. In many cases, these three

aspects of ecosystems will be described

in the forest plan for ecosystems at fairly

large scales, such as for ecosystems

encompassing sizable portions of the

plan area.

The ‘‘coarse filter’’ can be provided at

a variety of spatial scales, however. For

example, proposed paragraph (b)(3)

would direct that forest plans are to

provide for the protection of rare natural

communities. In many cases, these areas

provide the ‘‘coarse filter’’ even though

they may only be a fraction or an acre

in size. By protecting rare natural

communities, many individual species

that are dependent on those habitats and

communities are protected, thereby

exemplifying the ‘‘coarse filter/fine

filter’’ concept.

The ‘‘fine filter’’ safeguard is provided

in the proposed rule through the

requirements to protect threatened and

endangered species. For example,

proposed § 219.4(b)(4) would require

that forest plans provide for the

conservation of species listed as

threatened and endangered, or proposed

for listing, under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). It also would make

explicit that once a species is listed or

proposed for listing, management

activities on National Forest System

lands which affect the habitat of the

species must comply with the

requirements of ESA. Additional ‘‘fine

filter’’ protection is provided by the

requirements of Option I to protect

sensitive species, and the requirements

of Option II to address viability of

species which are addressed later in this

section.

4. Clear Intent to Seek to Prevent

Listing of Species Under the Endangered

Species Act. This proposed rule would

send a clear signal that forest plan

direction should seek to prevent the

need for a species being listed under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA

addresses the conservation of species

that have been listed as threatened or

endangered, but does not address

protection of those species for which

there is evidence of a trend toward

listing but which are not yet listed.

Option I of the proposed rule would

target and treat as sensitive those

species for which there is some

evidence of risk but which are not yet

imperiled to the point of being listed as

threatened or endangered.

5. Emphasis on Strengthening

Cooperation and Sharing of Professional

Expertise. Another theme of the

proposed rule is strengthened

cooperation and coordination with other

resource professionals. For example,

Option I of the proposed rule utilizes

the expertise of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the Network of

Natural Heritage Programs and

Conservation Data Centers in the

identification of sensitive species and

natural communities. In addition, this

section of Option I of the proposed rule

parallels both the spirit and application

of a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) recently signed by the Forest

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

National Marine Fisheries Service, and

other government agencies (94–SMU–

058; January 25, 1994) to guide

cooperation and participation in the

conservation of species toward listing.

Like this Memorandum of

Understanding, the proposed rule

(Option I) focuses on those species

tending toward listing in order to

preclude their designation as threatened

or endangered, stresses interagency

cooperation to address this goal, and

recognizes the value of addressing

species conservation within an

ecosystem approach.
18894 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

6. Focus on Habitat Rather Than

Populations. Option I of the proposed

rule would emphasize the management

of habitat for fish and wildlife species,

and not the management of populations

as some would interpret the existing

rule. As used in this section, habitat

capability includes the quantity, quality,

and distribution of habitats needed by a

species. A focus on habitat capability is

more appropriate than a focus on

populations because there are many

factors affecting populations that are not

under the agency’s direct control. These

may include disease, predation, hunting

or fishing pressures, natural cyclical

changes and conditions occurring or

actions being taken outside the plan

area.

The proposed rule would not alter the

current cooperative relationship with

State fish and wildlife agencies. The

Forest Service role has traditionally

been to provide habitat rather than

manage numbers of species. States

generally exercise jurisdiction over

hunting and fishing on National Forest

System lands.

7. Use of Best Available Information.

The agency recognizes that there are

many uncertainties regarding how to

maintain or restore sustainable

ecosystems and that scientific

knowledge will always be incomplete

and evolving. The terms ‘‘sustainable,’’

‘‘restoration,’’ ‘‘maintenance,’’ or

‘‘deteriorated ecosystem’’ are all subject

to varying and evolving interpretations.

Furthermore, there is an infinite number

of ecosystems, and realistically,

planning efforts must be allowed to

focus on only those ecosystem

considerations of most relevance to

decisionmaking. Therefore, in concert

with the principle that the agency must

retain discretion in its approach to

maintaining or restoring sustainable

ecosystems, the proposed rule

(§ 219.4(e)) also recognizes the

inevitable need to use the best available

information in making the various

decisions associated with approval of a

forest plan. The proposed rule makes

clear that there is no expectation that

there will ever be a precise and

universally accepted understanding or

measure of what sustainable ecosystems

are and the actions appropriate to

maintain or restore them; rather, the

expectation established by this

proposed rule is that the agency will use

the best information available and an

adaptive management approach in its

efforts to maintain or restore sustainable

ecosystems and to manage the National

Forest System toward that outcome.

Adaptive management is considered

one of the cornerstones of ecosystem

management. This concept

acknowledges that our understanding of

ecosystems is always changing, that we

learn by observing how natural systems

respond to actual situations, and that we

should adapt our actions accordingly.

Adaptive resource management

recognizes that decisions cannot always

be halted until research is complete,

especially since, at times, inaction can

have far-reaching consequences.

Proposed paragraph § 219.4(e) not

only would establish the use of an

adaptive management approach for

dealing with incomplete and changing

information, but also would clearly

signal that resource decisionmaking

need not be halted if there is uncertainty

or incomplete knowledge. In accordance

with NEPA procedures (40 CFR

1502.22), decisionmaking is expected to

proceed using the best information

available commensurate with the

decision being made, and monitoring

and evaluation is to be used to assess

the effects of those decisions and to

identify new information which may

come available. Since project decisions

for the decade of the forest plan are

approved incrementally during the plan

period, the opportunity exits to adapt

those decisions as needed to respond to

new information.

Options for Providing Diversity

In addition to the provisions of

§ 219.4(b)(1)–(4), this proposed rule sets

out two options for providing diversity.

Proposed Option I would provide for

diversity by addressing sensitive

species. By contrast, Option II which is

basically the requirements of the current

regulation would provide for diversity

by addressing viability of species.

Option I. Proposed § 219.4(b)(5)

creates a system for protection of habitat

capability for sensitive species in order

to prevent the need for listing the

species as threatened or endangered

under ESA and to preclude extirpation

of the sensitive species from the plan

area.

Paragraph (b)(5)(i) describes how

sensitive species would be identified.

First, sensitive species can encompass

species, subspecies, populations, or

stocks of vertebrates, invertebrates,

vascular plants, bryophytes, fungi, and

lichens. Second, the species must be

known to occur or to be likely to occur

on National Forest System lands. Third,

the species must meet one of the criteria

described at (b)(5)(i)(A)–(C). These

criteria utilize a combination of

information derived from the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service and the Network of

Natural Heritage Programs and

Conservation Data Centers.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is

the Federal agency with primary

responsibility for administering ESA.

The Network of Natural Heritage

Programs and Conservation Data Centers

is generally considered to have one of

the most comprehensive and accurate

compilations of information on species

that are imperiled in the United States.

The Network consists of approximately

85 data centers, including at least one in

each State. Each data center is

established within a local institution,

most frequently as part of a government

agency responsible for natural resource

management and protection, and each

center functions in support of Natural

Heritage Programs. The Nature

Conservancy is involved in the

establishment and operation of the data

centers by providing technical,

scientific, and administrative support

and training. The Conservancy also

makes available the computer

technology, data inventory and

management methodology, and

procedural manuals used.

Natural Heritage Programs and the

Conservation Data Centers provide

continuously updated, computerassisted inventories of the biological

and ecological features and biodiversity

preservation of the region in which they

are located. Most data centers use the

Biological and Conservation Data

System as the basis for operation, a

system developed and refined by The

Nature Conservancy since 1974.

Proposed paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) (A) and

(B) would establish the process for

ensuring that forest plan direction is

responsive to the needs of sensitive

species. The first step is to identify the

sensitive species for the plan area using

the rankings and listings and to identify

their habitat needs. Second, the habitat

needs for the sensitive species, or

assemblages of sensitive species, are

compared against current forest plan

direction with consideration of the

likely contribution of lands outside the

plan area. When the forest plan is being

revised, habitat needs are compared to

the tentatively proposed revisions to

forest plan direction. This provides for

consideration of sensitive species

habitat needs throughout the forest plan

revision process and inclusion of this

direction in the draft environmental

impact statement and proposed revised

forest plan when they are released for

public comment.

In accordance with (b)(5)(ii)(B)(1),

forest plan direction must be modified

if a continuing downward trend in

habitat capability is predicted to occur

within the plan area and that downward

trend is predicted to result in the need

for Federal listing of the species or if it

is predicted that the sensitive species

will be extirpated from the plan area.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18895

Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(2) would

establish that if a conservation

agreement has been approved by the

Forest Service and either the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service or the National

Marine Fisheries Service, and if relevant

direction from that agreement has been

incorporated by amendment into the

forest plan, the requirement to establish

direction to protect the habitat

capability of the species is met. The

forest plan amendment requires full

NEPA analysis and disclosure.

Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(3) would affirm

that the needs of a threatened or

endangered species take precedence

over a sensitive species should a

conflict occur relative to protective

measures needed. Although it is not

anticipated such a conflict would

happen often, it is important that the

rule provide for such circumstances

because the proposed rule’s

requirements for protection of both

sensitive species and threatened and

endangered species could theoretically

be in conflict. It is reasonable that the

rule provide that listed species be given

priority in the event of conflict with the

needs of a sensitive species since listed

species are at greater risk than sensitive

species and there is a statutory

obligation to provide for the

conservation of listed species.

Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(4) would

require management direction for

sensitive species to be established using

the best information available

commensurate with the decision being

made. This idea is also echoed in

paragraph (e) of this section. In

addition, paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(4)

would make clear that determinations of

whether the habitat needs of sensitive

species are adequately met and the

degree of protection needed are

inherently dependent on professional

judgment.

Paragraph (b)(5)(iii) proposes

procedures for handling newly

identified sensitive species. The

categories and rankings of sensitive

species would be reviewed annually as

part of monitoring and evaluation, and

if additions to the listings have

occurred, the adequacy of existing forest

plan management direction to meet the

needs of those species would be

assessed. This paragraph also would

make clear that even though the

rankings and categories are required to

be reviewed on an annual basis, this

does not relieve the agency of its

obligation to consider new information

at any time a project is under

consideration that affects the habitat

capability of a sensitive species.

Option II. As an alternative to the

regulatory text proposed in Option I of

§ 219.4(b)(5), the agency has set forth

alternative regulatory text, which is

almost identical to the existing rule at

§ 219.19; however, a few nonsubstantive

edits have been made to assure

consistency of terminology and coding

with the remainder of the proposed rule.

There are five key differences between

the Option I approach to sensitive

species and the alternative text of

Option II which is based on § 219.19 of

the existing rule. These are (1) use of the

term ‘‘viability’’; (2) establishment of

clear analytical expectations that are

reasonable to implement; (3) scope of

species protected; (4) goal of protective

measures; and (5) role of management

indicator species.

First, in Option I the proposed rule

does not use the term ‘‘viability’’.

NFMA does not use the term

‘‘viability,’’ nor is there anything in the

statute or legislative history that

indicates the agency was expected to

insure viable species or pursue the type

of viability analyses described in

current scientific literature (for example,

M.E. Soule, Viable Populations for

Conservation (Cambridge, 1989),

189pp.) Rather, the statute requires that

the Secretary of Agriculture promulgate

regulations to guide the Forest Service

development and revision of Forest

Plans. One of the statutory requirements

is ‘‘specifying guidelines for land

management plans developed to achieve

the goals of the Program which * * *

(B) provide for diversity of plant and

animal communities based on the

suitability and capability of the specific

land area in order to meet overall

multiple use objectives * * *.’’ 16 USC

1604(g)(3)(B).

Translating the statutory language to

provide for diversity of plant and

animal communities through

regulations, plans and actions has been

and continues to be a formidable

challenge, as the Committee of

Scientists who provided scientific

advice to the Forest Service on the

crafting of the current regulation

accurately predicted at the time of their

promulgation. The Committee stated

that, ‘‘it is impossible to write specific

regulations to ‘provide for’ diversity:

and that ‘‘there remains a great deal of

room for honest debate on the

translation of policy into management

planning requirements and into

management programs’’ (44 FR 26,6000–

01 & 26,608).

The Forest Service has found that the

term ‘‘viability’’ has been subject to

continuously evolving scientific

interpretation and no longer meets the

agency’s expectations at the time the

rule was written. When the existing rule

was finalized, ‘‘viability’’ was a general

concept not associated with specific

scientific interpretations. Since 1982,

however, the concept of viability has

become the object of intense discussion

and varying interpretation within the

scientific community. The extensive

and expensive amount of scientific

expertise, data, and technology needed

for conducting species viability

assessments as currently described in

the scientific literature is far beyond

what was originally envisioned by the

Committee of Scientists when

developing the planning rule.

Even when addressing the overall

topic of diversity, the Committee of

Scientists clearly had not envisioned the

type of highly quantitative analysis

which has come to be associated with

viability assessments. The Committee

stated, ‘‘We analyzed the issue in our

report and stressed that, in our opinion,

Congress used the term diversity to refer

to biological variety rather than any of

the quantitative expressions now found

in the biological literature.’’ (Rules and

Regulations, Final Environmental

Impact Statement, Appendix E—

Supplementary Final Report of the

Committee of Scientists (August 17,

1979), 44 FR 53967 (September 17,

1979)).

Furthermore, the current regulatory

requirement is ‘‘to insure viable

populations will be maintained.’’ As a

practical matter, there is a growing

recognition that a requirement to

‘‘insure’’ viable populations, if

interpreted literally, envisions an

outcome impossible to be guaranteed by

any agency, regardless of the analytical

resources marshalled.

Rather than continuing use of a

regulatory term which is subject to such

varying interpretations and

expectations, Option I would define

more precisely what is required for

species protection. This approach in

Option I is consistent not only with the

original intent of the regulation, but also

with the underlying statute.

Second, the analysis needed to meet

the requirements of Option I is better

defined, more meaningful, and more

capable of accomplishment than the

analysis some associate with the

existing rule. Species viability analysis

has evolved to where it currently

involves such information as species

habitat needs, trends in habitat

capability, trends in other factors

affecting population (e.g.—disease,

predation, overutilization), relationship

of habitat capability to population

numbers, population demographics

(e.g.—reproductive success, sex ratios,

mortality rates), effective population

size, genetic measurements, and

development of risk assessments. The
18896 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

technology, data, and scientific

expertise to conduct and maintain

numerous scientifically sound viability

analyses given current scientific

interpretations is far beyond what is

available to any agency or scientific

institution. Although the agency’s

position has been upheld in court that

the requirements of § 219.19 of the

existing rule can be met without such

complex analyses, the proposed rule

offers a timely opportunity to clarify

analytical expectations.

In addition, it is expected that for

most sensitive species, the requirements

of (b)(5)(ii)(B) of Option I of the

proposed rule can be met using habitat

capability information. Analyses

involving population demographics and

prediction of population trends, which

requires far more extensive and costly

data, would likely only be needed when

a continuing downward trend in habitat

capability is predicted to be leading

toward the listing or extirpation of the

species. In addition, it is intended that

there be no circumstances where Option

I of the proposed rule would trigger the

need for studies of long-term genetic

diversity, in contrast to the case if

thorough viability assessments were to

be required.

Furthermore, Option I of the proposed

rule recognizes that individual sensitive

species may often be able to be grouped

into assemblages of sensitive species

with similar habitat needs. By focusing

on assemblages of sensitive species

rather than individual species whenever

possible, analytical burden and costs are

reduced without impairment to species

protection.

The third key difference between the

proposed approach to sensitive species

in Option I and that in Option II is the

scope of the species addressed. In

contrast to § 219.19 of the existing rule

which addresses only native and

desired non-native vertebrate species,

Option I the proposed rule would

include vertebrates, invertebrates,

vascular plants, bryophytes, fungi, and

lichens. This is appropriate since

species other than vertebrates play an

important role in ecosystems and merit

protection when at risk.

The scope of proposed Option I also

varies from the existing rule in that it

would include as sensitive species only

those species at risk range-wide; that is,

those species imperiled throughout their

range. For example, a plant species

abundant in several States, but very

limited in a particular plan area, would

not be of range-wide concern and thus

would not be identified as a sensitive

species under Option I of the proposed

rule.

The agency believes the focus on

species on range-wide concern is

appropriate in order to address the two

underlying reasons for protecting

sensitive species: (1) To address how

the agency will meet the NFMA goal of

providing a diversity of plant and

animal communities, and (2) to attempt

to preclude the listing of species under

ESA. Both are achieved by proposed

Option I without expanding the scope of

sensitive species to include those of

only local concern.

Option I of the proposed rule puts

considerable emphasis on providing a

diversity of plant and animal

communities. For example, the

provisions of proposed § 219.4 address

establishing forest plan direction for

sustainable ecosystem conditions, soil

and water protection, protection of rare

natural communities, protection of

threatened and endangered species, and

protection of sensitive species in order

to attempt to prevent extirpation from

the plan area or listing under ESA.

These all work together to provide a

diversity of plant and animal

communities within the plan area.

Under the ‘‘coarse filter/fine filter’’

concept, the ecological conditions

which will occur as a result of these

various provisions for providing

diversity should meet the needs of many

species of local, but not range-wide,

concern. For example, many species of

local concern, but not at risk rangewide, are associated with rare natural

communities addressed in the proposed

rule at § 219.4(b)(3). The agency believes

that adding yet another ‘‘fine flter’’ layer

of protection, by including as sensitive

species those not at risk range-wide, and

the extensive additional analysis this

would require, goes beyond what is

necessary to meet the two underlying

reasons for protecting sensitive species.

It should be noted, however, that

nothing in the proposed rule precludes

the Forest Service from working with

State agencies and organizations to

determine whether to protect species of

local concern even though such

protection would be beyond the

requirements of Option I of the

proposed rule.

The fourth key difference between the

approach to sensitive species in Option

I and the alternative text in Option II is

the goal of protective measures. Under

the existing rule, the goal is to ensure

that viable populations are maintained.

But, as explained previously, the

concept of a ‘‘viable population’’ has

been subject to evolving interpretations.

Option I of the proposed rule would

make the goal much more explicit; that

is, for sensitive species, to prevent their

listing under the ESA and to prevent

their extirpation from the plan area.

This second goal is deemed appropriate

because, for species of range-wide

concern, the agency feels it is

undesirable to lose their representation

from the plan area due to their

contribution to providing a diversity of

plant and animal communities. Under

some circumstances the first goal, to

prevent listing of a sensitive species,

may not be adequate to prevent

extirpation of a sensitive species from

the plan area because a species

extirpated from one plan area may not

necessarily be more prone to listing as

threatened or endangered.

The final key difference is the Option

I of the proposed rule would not require

the identification of management

indicator species. As noted in the 1991

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, there is diminishing

scientific support for focusing solely on

individual species as indicators of the

welfare of a group of associated species.

Instead of requiring management

indicator species, the monitoring and

evaluation provisions of the proposed

rule would allow for establishing

whatever measurable indicators are

appropriate in order to determine

progress towards achieving goals. In

some cases, individual species may be

an appropriate measure of whether

ecosystem goals are being achieved and

can be used as indicators.

Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems.

Paragraph (c) of proposed § 219.4

recognizes the dynamic nature of

ecosystems and the importance of

evaluating ecosystem disturbances in

the context of ecological processes and

resilience. Ecosystem disturbances are

those events that significantly change

the existing pattern of an ecological

system. Examples of such disturbances

include both natural or human-induced

phenomena such as wildfires, floods, or

oil spills. Resilience is a term used to

describe the ability of an ecological

system to maintain its functions despite

disturbance.

Paragraph (c) recognizes that

disturbances are a natural and

sometimes even essential part of many

ecosystems. Similarly, other changes

may be naturally occurring within an

ecosystem, such as the progression of

vegetation from one seral stage to

another over time. Therefore, sustaining

an ecosystem does not imply reaching

or maintaining a static condition, but

rather managing in such a way that

naturally occurring disturbances and

changes allow the ecosystem to retain

the characteristics which provide

resiliency.

Some examples of ecosystems in

which disturbance is required for
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18897

sustainability are the fire-adapted pine

forests. Lodgepole pine and sand pine

communities require stand replacement

fire (or some surrogate) to sustain those

communities through time. Ponderosa

pine and longleaf pine communities

require recurring, low intensity fires to

sustain the structure and functioning of

the ecosystem.

Paragraph (c) would assure that forest

plan direction intended to maintain or

restore sustainable ecosystems was

developed with recognition of the

dynamic nature of ecosystems and

natural role of disturbances. It should be

noted that this provision does not

specifically require analysis of the

‘‘range of natural variability’’ or require

that future conditions stay within

historic ranges of variability. The value

of the ‘‘range of natural variability’’ in

gaining a better understanding of

sustainable ecosystem conditions is

recognized, but the agency does not

intend to mandate that all forest plans

must provide for conditions within such

a range.

Multiple Spatial Scales. Paragraph (d)

recognizes that ecosystems exist at

multiple scales and are infinite in

number. For example, the span of

ecosystems can range from the

microscopic world of life occurring on

the trunk of a fallen tree to the range of

a migratory bird that travels annually

from the tropics to the arctic. It is

impossible and unnecessary to expect a

forest plan to address all of the

ecosystems which occur within a plan

area. Therefore, paragraph (d) would

establish that the forest plan should

address those ecosystems of most

relevance to forest plan decisionmaking,

with the intent being to limit efforts to

a practical number and scope.

Role of Lands Outside the Plan Area.

Consideration of conditions outside the

plan area is an integral part of the

concept that Federal lands should be

managed from an ecological perspective

rather than one limited by jurisdictional

boundaries. This consideration must

occur, however, without detriment to

the rights of private landowners or the

authorities of other government

jurisdictions. Paragraph (a) of this

section of the proposed rule would, in

part, direct consideration of the

contribution of lands outside the plan

area when establishing forest plan

direction. For example, when evaluating

the habitat capability of a sensitive

species, the quality, quantity, and

distribution of habitat within the

species’ range would be considered in

the context of the plan area. However,

this consideration does not mean that

the forest plan would in any way

address how to manage these other

lands. Instead, the responsible official

might choose to alter decisions in the

forest plan regarding management of

National Forest System lands due to

conditions on these other lands, if that

should be determined to be desirable to

help maintain or restore sustainable

ecosystems.

Protection of soil and water resources.

Paragraph (b)(2) would address soil and

water resources. This paragraph of the

proposed rule would not only provide

for forest plans to address the protection

of soil and water resources, but also the

restoration of existing conditions

harmful to soil and water quality.

Section 219.5 Framework for Resource

Decisionmaking

Paragraph (a) explains that the agency

uses a staged decisionmaking process,

with forest plans being used to allocate

the lands and resources of the plan area

through management prescriptions, and

project decisionmaking being the point

at which site-specific activities are

authorized. Paragraph (a) also explains

that forest plan and project decisions

must adhere to legal requirements and

that an additional source of direction

guiding management of the National

Forest System is direction issued

through the agency’s Directive System.

The staged decisionmaking process

described in the proposed rule is

consistent with a series of

administrative appeal decisions. These

include the Chief’s appeal decision on

the Idaho Panhandle Land and Resource

Management Plan (Appeal No. 2130,

August 15, 1988); the Chief’s appeal

decisions on the Flathead National

Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan (Appeals No. 1467 and No. 1513,

August 31, 1988). For court decisions

upholding the staged decisionmaking

approach of forest plan and project

levels, see Cronin v. USDA, 919 F.2d

439, 447–49 (7th Cir. 1990); Idaho

Conservation League v. Mumma, 956

F.2d 1508, 15511–12 (9th Cir. 1992);

Resources Ltd Inc. v. Robertson, 789 F.

Supp. 1529 (D.Mt. 1991) aff’d in part

(NEPA, NFMA) and reversed in part

(ESA), 8 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1993)

(amended July 5, 1994); Swan View

Coalition v. Turner, 824 F.Supp. 923 (D.

Mt. 1992); Sierra Club v. Robertson, 810

F.Supp. 1021 (W.D. Ark 1992); Eighth

Circuit found no standing and

alternatively affirmed lower court on the

merits, 23 F.3d. 753 (8th Cir. 1994).

There is currently a conflict between

the Eighth and Ninth Circuits as

whether the forest plans without a

project decision present a justiciable

controversy. ‘‘We are aware that on

several occasions the Ninth Circuit has

entertained challenges to forest plans

similar to the Plan here in issue.

[citations deleted] * * * we decline to

apply them [Ninth Circuit decisions] as

a basis for finding that the appellants

have standing to attack the Plan outside

the context of a proposed site-specific

action that causes or threatens to cause

injury in fact.’’ Sierra Club v. Robertson,

28 F.3d 753, 759–60 (8th Cir. 1994). See

also, Wilderness Society v. Alcock, F.

Supp. (N.D. Ga. September 30, 1994)

finding the Eighth Circuit reasoning

more persuasive and holding that

plaintiffs’ claims against approval of the

Cherokee forest plan did not present a

justiciable controversy.

Even the Ninth Circuit recognizes that

forest plan EIS’s are ‘‘an early stage,

where the EIS is ‘merely’

programmatic.’’ Idaho Conservation

League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d at 1523.

The Ninth Circuit has also held that

when a programmatic EIS ‘‘is prepared,

site-specific impacts need not be fully

evaluated until a ‘critical decision’ has

been made to act on site development.’’

Salmon River Concerned Citizens v.

Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1357 (9th Cir.

1994).

Paragraph (a)(1) describes the first

stage of the agency’s staged

decisionmaking process—forest plans.

Forest plans allocate the land and

resources of the plan area through

management prescriptions which

consist of goals, objectives, standards,

and guidelines.

Paragraph (a)(1) would also establish

a key point essential to understanding

the nature of a forest plan; i.e., that

forest plans do not compel the agency

to plan for or undertake any specific

projects, but do establish limitations on

actions that may be authorized later

during project decisionmaking. This

concept is central to understanding the

role of a forest plan and is addressed in

more detail under the preamble

discussion of § 219.6.

Paragraph (a)(1) also would clarify

that forest plans must not conflict with

laws or regulations and should not

conflict with policy and procedure

issued through the Forest Service

Directive System. Although it has

generally been understood that forest

plans must not conflict with laws or

regulations, there is not such common

understanding of the relationship of

directives issued through the Directive

System to forest plan direction. The

proposed rule seeks to end this

misunderstanding. As noted in

paragraph (b)(1), any conflict with an

agency directive should be identified

and the rationale for not complying with

such a directive provided at the time of

forest plan amendment or revision. The

relationship between forest plans and
18898 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

directives is addressed in further detail

under the preamble discussion of

§ 219.5(b)(2).

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) would

limit the area covered by a forest plan

to one or more National Forests and/or

other units of the National Forest

System within the jurisdiction of a

single Forest Supervisor. One forest

plan can be developed, however, when

a single National Forest is administered

by several Forest Supervisors. Currently,

the Tongass National Forest in Alaska is

the only National Forest administered

by more than one Forest Supervisor.

These provisions are not substantively

different from the requirements of the

existing rule at § 219.4(b)(3).

Establishing a plan area based on

administrative boundaries may appear

to conflict with the principles of

ecosystem management. Some may

argue that resource planning should

occur based on areas with shared

ecological conditions rather than on

boundaries established for

administrative purposes. The agency

recognizes the benefits that can be

gained from taking a more ecological

approach to establishing the area to be

encompassed by a forest plan. In the

long run, a realignment of plan

boundaries should be considered. In the

short-run, however, there are practical

considerations for continuing the

current approach.

First, NFMA does not clearly

articulate the area to be covered by a

forest plan. Although Section 6(f)(1) of

NFMA directs ‘‘one integrated plan for

each unit of the National Forest

System,’’ a unit is not specifically

defined. The determination of the unit

for planning is complicated by

provisions of Section 13 of NFMA,

which require certain limitations on

timber removal to be determined on a

National Forest basis. Provided such

timber-related requirements could be

met, the agency believes it does have

discretion under the statute to redefine,

through a new rule, the geographic area

to be covered by a forest plan.

However, realigning the entire

National Forest System into a new set of

plan areas for forest planning introduces

significant new and immediate

challenges. For example, where should

new boundaries be drawn? Ecosystems

exist at a variety of scales, and

ecological units can be defined

variously. Determining the best

boundaries for planning purposes is not

a simple process. How can the public be

involved in delineating the new plan

area? How might a change in boundaries

of the plan area affect the public’s

interest and ability to participate in the

planning process? Might the change be

perceived to be more advantageous to

some segments of the public than

others? How would such a change effect

National Forests where revision efforts

are already underway or scheduled to

begin in the near future? How should

such a realignment be coordinated with

the planning efforts of other agencies

and governments? These are questions

which the agency is currently not

prepared to answer, but which merits

careful examination before changes in

plan area boundaries should occur.

This agency also recognizes that

roughly two-thirds of all forest plans are

or will be undergoing either significant

amendment or revision in the next 1–2

years. Redefining plan areas would

delay revision, which would be

detrimental to the public interest and to

resource management, as well as

increase the risk of exceeding the 15-

year period between revisions. Rather

than introducing a complex and timeconsuming new decision to be made

before initiating the planning process,

the agency expects to take various

administrative actions to mitigate the

disadvantages of planning based on

administrative boundaries.

For example, planning efforts can be

synchronized among those National

Forests that share ecological

characteristics through the use of joint

planning teams and development of

parallel schedules. Similarly, the

mechanism for simultaneous plan

amendment or revision, as addressed at

proposed § 219.5(a)(1)(ii), is intended to

facilitate achieving such coordination

across plan area boundaries.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would

permit forest plan direction to be

established for more than one plan area

by simultaneously amending or revising

the appropriate forest plans. Since this

occurs through the amendment or

revision of forest plans, NEPA

procedures would still apply. For

example, if the Regional Forester

wanted to establish a forest plan

standard for all lands within the range

of a particular wildlife species, and the

range encompassed three plan areas, the

Regional Forester could establish a new

standard by simultaneously amending

those three forest plans, with associated

NEPA disclosure of effects.

The concept of simultaneous

amendment or revision is an essential

part of integrating ecosystem

management into the agency’s resource

decisionmaking framework. Ecosystem

management necessitates a flexible

approach to the spatial scale for

planning and decisionmaking; the

proposed approach allows resource

decisions to be made at whatever scale

is appropriate. Even though a forest plan

document itself is limited to

administrative boundaries, the forest

plan direction it contains can be derived

from analysis and decisions at any

appropriate scale or land area regardless

of administrative boundaries.

The proposed rule would discontinue

regional guides as required by the

existing rule. As noted in the Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, agency

experience has shown that regional

guides may no longer be the most

effective and efficient means for

providing regional direction. In reality,

most regional guides did not fully

achieve the role of being the meaningful

or effective documents originally

envisioned. Moreover, the rigorous

requirements of §§ 219.8 and 219.9 in

the existing rule siphoned a significant

investment of staffing and funds from

forest or project planning efforts. The

provision for simultaneous amendment

or revision would provide a means to

establish resource direction at a regional

scale, or any other appropriate scale,

and, therefore, is believed to be a more

effective approach to providing multiforest direction than a regional guide.

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would

identify project decisions as the second

stage of the agency’s decisionmaking

process. The proposed rule would make

clear that it is at the project level that

the authorization is made to conduct

resource activities, not at the forest plan

level. Paragraph (a)(2) would also make

clear that NEPA procedures must be

followed when approving a project, and

projects must be consistent with the

forest plan.

As discussed previously, various

court decisions have upheld the staged

decision approach of forest plans and

project decisionmaking. One important

basis for this staged approach and the

relationship between forest plans and

projects rests largely upon the

requirements for compliance with

NEPA. In a landmark court case (State

of California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th

Cir. 1982)), the Ninth Circuit stated that

‘‘the critical inquiry in considering the

adequacy of an EIS prepared for a large

scale, multi-step project is not whether

the project’s site-specific impact should

be evaluated in detail, but when such

detailed evaluation should occur.’’ The

court determined that ‘‘[t]his threshold

is reached when, as a practical matter,

the agency proposes to make an

irreversible and irretrievable

commitment of the availability of

resources to a project at a particular

site.’’

As a practical matter, it is impossible

for a forest plan to identify all of the

projects to be implemented for a 10-year

period, adequately disclose their site-
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18899

specific environmental effects in an

accompanying environmental impact

statement, and comply with the

multitude of statutes and regulations

applicable to project activities.

Furthermore, new information regarding

the relationship among proposed

projects and effects of proposed actions

within a forest is constantly being

developed. No matter how sophisticated

forest models become, it is doubtful that

the order and relationship of possible

activities can ever be forecast with

enough precision at the forest plan

approval stage to meet the requirements

of environmental laws or correspond to

the realities of a changing world. In

addition, many activities occurring on a

forest are initiated by forest users and

not the Forest Service. The relationship

of projects initiated by others and

projects planned by the Forest Service is

continuously changing. Thus, the forest

plan is best viewed as a dynamic

management system that provides the

framework for further decisionmaking at

the project level.

Under the existing rule, project

decisions can be made in a forest plan

provided they are identified in the

Record of Decision and adequately

disclosed in associated NEPA

documents. The proposed rule would

eliminate this Option in order to clarify

the distinction between the two stages

of decisionmaking and because this

option has not been commonly used in

the past.

The two-stage decisionmaking process

described in the proposed rule does not

preclude multiple steps at the project

level. Examples include some multistage recreational development

decisions such as for ski areas

(Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens

Council, 490 U.S. 322, 336–37 (1989)),

or the multiple decision points in oil

and gas leasing, exploration, and

development where a series of decisions

is made over time (see 36 CFR 228,

228.102 (55 FR 10423, March 21, 1990)).

In most cases, however, project

decisions are not of this complexity, and

the project decision occurs in a single

step.

Paragraph (b) of proposed § 219.5

would explain how forest plans are to

be reconciled with changing legal

requirements, new agency directives, or

new information from other planning

efforts. In accordance with proposed

paragraph (b)(1), if a change in law or

regulation conflicts with forest plan

direction, the Regional Forester must

direct that the plan be brought into

compliance following the procedures of

§ 219.9 or § 219.10 and specify the

timing for doing so. The proposed

provision to permit nondiscretionary

changes at § 219.9(e) provides a

mechanism for quickly changing forest

plan direction to respond to changes in

legal requirements for which there is no

discretion in the manner of compliance.

Proposed § 219.5(b)(2) (i) and (ii)

address responsibilities regarding

reconciliation of forest plans with

changes in agency direction issued

through the Directive System. As

described at paragraph (b)(2)(i), an

official issuing a directive must

determine if forest plans are to be made

consistent with a newly issued directive

when it appears that the directive would

conflict with forest plan direction. If so,

the official must specify that plans be

changed following the procedures of

§ 219.9 or § 219.10 and the timing for

doing so. In the event of conflict

between an agency resource directive

and direction in a forest plan, the forest

plan takes precedence. Accordingly, the

agency maintains discretion to

determine when a forest plan should be

amended to be consistent with agency

directives. As stated at § 219.5(a) of the

proposed rule, agency directives are

subject to NEPA procedures, as is the

process for forest plan amendment.

Reconciliation of forest plans and

agency directives as described at

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) addresses those

situations where a directive has been

issued, but it was not readily apparent

at the time that it might conflict with

forest plans. To address such situations,

the Forest Supervisor is responsible for

periodically reviewing resource

management amendments or

supplements to the Directive System as

part of the monitoring and evaluation

process. If a conflict occurs between

forest plan direction and a newly issued

directive, the Forest Supervisor must

either amend the forest plan so that it

no longer conflicts with the directive, or

notify the Regional Forester why such

an amendment is not deemed

appropriate. Consistent with agency

policy at FSM 1103, if the directive had

been issued at the National level, the

Regional Forester would be expected to

notify the Chief of the concerns with the

newly issued directive.

The provisions of (b)(2)(i)–(ii) are

closely related to the provision of

paragraph (a)(1) of this section which

directs that where there is substantial

conflict between a resource management

directive and a forest plan amendment

or revision, the responsible official is

expected to identify the conflict and

include the rationale for the departure

in the decision document. In order to

enhance understanding of these

provisions, a brief explanation of the

Directive System is provided as follows.

The Forest Service Directive System

consists of the Forest Service Manual

and Handbooks in which the agency’s

policy, practice, and procedure are

codified. The system serves as the

primary basis for the internal

management and control of all programs

and as the primary source of

administrative direction to Forest

Service employees. The Forest Service

Manual contains legal authorities,

management objectives, policies,

responsibilities, delegations, general

instructions, and guidance needed on a

continuous basis by Forest Service line

officers and staff at more than one unit

to plan and execute programs. New or

revised direction is issued by

amendment or interim directive,

whereas direction which expands on

directives issued by a higher level is

issued by supplement. For example, a

Regional Forester may issue a regional

supplement in order to expand on the

national direction issued by the Chief.

Directives issued through the

Directive System are subject to NEPA

procedures. In addition, issuance of

some Manual direction may be subject

to public notice and comment

procedures in accordance with 16 USC

1612 and 36 CFR 216.6(a), which

requires public notice and comment for

standards, criteria, and guidelines,

when substantial public interest in or

controversy over a proposed Manual

directive can be expected. Reviewers are

encouraged to study 16 USC 1612 and

36 CFR part 216 if further information

is desired on public review and

comment related to changes in Manual

direction.

As previously noted, there are two

main reasons why it is important to

consider agency directives when

amending or revising forest plans. First,

it would be unreasonable and illogical

for forest plans to substantially conflict

with officially established agency

objectives, policy, and procedure.

Although direction in an approved

forest plan would take precedence in

case of a conflict, such conflicts should

be avoided when establishing forest

plan direction to prevent conflicts in

performance expectations and potential

loss of national or regional consistency.

A second reason for identifying any

substantial conflicts between forest

plans and agency directives at the time

of amendment or revision relates to the

nature of agency directives. Some

directives have been established

through extensive agency effort and

adopted following public review and

comment procedures under 36 CFR part

216; for example, the agency’s policy

and procedures for reauthorizing

recreation residences (FSM 2300 and
18900 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

2700). Other policies are required to be

published for comment under other

statutes; for example, the regulations

implementing NEPA at 40 CFR parts

1500–1508 require the agency’s NEPA

policy and procedures, as issued in FSM

Chapter 1950 and FSH 1909.15, to be

published. On the other hand, not all

agency directives are fully up-to-date,

and some inconsistencies may and often

do exist within the Directive System.

Allowing the responsible official the

flexibility to depart from agency

directives, provided a rationale is given,

will prevent forest plans from having to

adhere to inappropriate or outdated

agency directives and also will help the

agency identify where directive changes

are needed. The flexibility to be

provided in the planning rule is

consistent with current policy in FSM

1103 which requires employees to

notify higher authorities when

departure from direction is deemed

necessary or when directives need to be

revised.

It is not anticipated, however, that

there will often be substantial conflict

between forest plans and agency

directives. First, the proposed rule

provides for greatly reducing the

amount of repetition between forest

plans and directives (§ 219.6(b)(2)).

Second, the provision for simultaneous

plan amendment or revision, as

addressed at § 219.5(a)(1)(ii), provides a

mechanism for establishing direction

known to affect more than one plan,

thus eliminating the need to establish

such direction through the Directive

System. Third, directives are generally

very broad and programmatic in nature,

thus leaving considerable discretion for

forest plans and project decisionmaking

to establish more precise and sitespecific direction. As a result, there are

generally ample opportunity to establish

more detailed direction at the forest

plan or project stage without

substantially conflicting with directives.

Fourth, paragraph (a)(1) applies to

resource management directives that

would conflict with forest plan

direction. Directives which provide

procedural guidance on the process for

amending or revising forest plans is not

encompassed by the requirement.

Paragraph (b)(3) would address the

link between the RPA Program and

forest plans. Following adoption of a

new RPA Program, the Chief would

determine those elements of the RPA

Program that should be considered in

forest plan implementation, monitoring,

and evaluation as well as establish any

necessary agency-wide procedures to

achieve this. In addition,

§ 219.12(a)(1)(vii)(A) of the proposed

rule would require the monitoring and

evaluation process to consider a newly

issued RPA Program. As a result, there

would be a link established whereby

each new RPA Program would be

reviewed to determine whether there is

new information which makes it

appropriate to initiate forest plan

amendment procedures.

Paragraph (b)(4) would direct Forest

Supervisors, as part of monitoring and

evaluation, to periodically review

results of any applicable ecosystem

analyses that have been completed

subsequent to plan approval to

determine if there is new information

which would indicate the need to

consider changing the forest plan.

Although ecosystem analysis is not a

decision process, it may generate

information that indicates a need to

consider changing a resource decision.

Section 219.6 Forest Plan Direction

Paragraph (a) of this section of the

proposed rule would direct that forest

plans provide for integration and

coordination of all resources on a

multiple-use and sustained-yield basis.

This paragraph lists the numerous

resources to be addressed in a forest

plan when such resources occur within

the plan area. It also would assure that

forest plans address infrastructure needs

and land ownership and access patterns

to the extent appropriate. None of this

would represent a change from the

scope of most current forest plans.

Although forest plans address the full

range of resources found within the plan

area, this regulation does not attempt to

provide direction for management of

individual resources except where

necessary to respond to specific

requirements of NFMA. In contrast to

the existing rule which contained 13

sections on individual resources, the

proposed rule does not include such

detailed direction. For example, the

proposed rule does not define goals and

objectives for specific resources nor

prescribe requirements for how each

resource will be evaluated during

amendment or revision of forest plans.

It is the agency’s intent to provide

through directive issuances any

additional direction necessary to specify

how individual resources are addressed

in forest plans.

The agency believes this planning

regulation should stay focused on the

specific requirements of NFMA, the

authorizing statute. It would be beyond

the reasonable scope of any one

regulation to address all of the laws,

regulations, and Executive orders under

which National Forest System resources

are managed. In addition, the shift to an

ecosystem management orientation

diminishes the relevance of focusing on

individual resources, and supports the

need for the more holistic approach

taken in the proposed rule.

Proposed paragraph (b) provides that

a forest plan allocates the land and

resources of the plan area through

management prescriptions which

consist of goals, objectives, standards,

and guidelines. These four types of

direction, and the maps or similar

information delineating where they are

applicable, constitute forest plan

direction. It is important that the

proposed rule clearly define what

constitutes forest plan direction, since

plan direction can only be changed by

amendment. Other information within

the forest plan document is not forest

plan direction and can be updated

without going through amendment

procedures.

The existing rule is not explicit

regarding the nature of forest plan

decisions, resulting in some confusion

by both the public and employees over

the years. As noted in the preceding

discussion of proposed § 219.5, the

nature of a forest plan under the existing

rule has been articulated through a

series of administrative appeal decisions

and court decisions. The proposed rule

reflects many of these decisions and

explicitly defines forest plan direction

and the contents of the forest plan

document.

In Citizens for Environmental Quality

v. Lyng, 731 F. Supp. 970, 977–78 (D.

Colo. 1989), the court upheld the

agency’s position under the existing rule

regarding the decisions made in forest

plans. That court decision confirmed

that approval of a forest plan results in:

(1) Establishment of forest multiple-use

goals and objectives; (2) Establishment

of forest-wide management

requirements (standards and guidelines)

applying to future activities; (3)

Establishment of management areas and

management area direction

(management area prescriptions)

applying to future activities in that

management area; (4) Designation of

suitable timber land and establishment

of allowable timber sale quantity; (5)

Nonwilderness allocations or

wilderness recommendations; and (6)

Establishment of monitoring and

evaluation requirements.

Forest plan direction, as defined at

proposed paragraph (b), in concert with

other provisions of the proposed rule,

overlap most, but not all, of the six

items identified as forest plan decisions

in Citizens for Environmental Quality v.

Lyng. For example, goals, objectives,

standards, and guidelines—both on a

forest-wide basis and for specific

portions of the plan area—are terms

common to both the existing rule and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18901

the proposed rule. The definition of

‘‘objectives’’ has been modified in the

proposed rule, however, as explained at

the preamble discussion of § 219.6(b)(1)

and (d). Also, under both the existing

and proposed rule, management

prescriptions are the means by which

direction is allocated to specific

portions of the plan area. Similarly,

although designation of suitable timber

land, nonwilderness allocations, and

wilderness recommendations are not

individually identified in proposed

§ 219.6, they are encompassed by the

management prescriptions described at

§ 219.6(b) and are addressed specifically

at § 219.13(b)(2) and § 219.14.

Although the term ‘‘management

area’’ has not been used in the proposed

rule, nothing in the rule prohibits

continuation of the traditional use of the

term, and some mechanism for

delineating where direction applies is

required regardless of the terminology

used. It is anticipated that the term

‘‘management area’’ will continue to be

used in many forest plans. The

proposed rule has not required the use

of this term in order to allow the

flexibility to develop other terms, if

beneficial, to describe the areas to

which specific management

prescriptions apply. This flexibility is

desirable since ecosystem management

has heightened the likelihood of

direction being established at a variety

of scales, and more effective ways may

be possible to delineate where a

management prescription applies than

the traditional management area

concept.

Although there is considerable

overlap between the six decisions

resulting from forest plan approval

under the existing rule and forest plan

decisions under the proposed rule, two

points of notable difference relate to

forest plan objectives and monitoring

and evaluation requirements. These

differences are addressed in this

preamble discussion of §§ 219.6(b)(1),

219.6(d), and 219.12.

Under paragraph (b)(1) of proposed

§ 219.6, projected levels of goods and

services or projected levels of

management activities would not

constitute forest plan direction. In

addition, the proposed rule makes

explicit that any projections of the rate

of achieving desired resource conditions

would not be forest plan direction.

Based on the definition of

‘‘objectives’’ provided in the existing

rule, ‘‘objectives’’ as used in the existing

rule would encompass the types of

projections addressed in proposed

paragraph (b)(1). The proposed rule

would make clear that such predictions

addressing the rate of implementation

are not forest plan direction. For

example, under the proposed rule the

forest plan would define resource

conditions desirable to achieve, but

would not address the rate at which

achievement should occur. Instead, any

such projections of the rate of

achievement would be provided in an

appendix in accordance with

§ 219.11(d).

These changes are proposed for two

reasons. First, experience has shown

that the rate at which forest plans will

be implemented cannot be established

for a 10-year period. As explained

earlier, the agency’s decision framework

provides for staged decisionmaking,

with project decisions, rather than the

forest plan, being the point at which

site-specific activities are authorized.

Decisions to approve and implement

individual projects are subject to many

variables, such as the results of projectlevel NEPA analysis, availability of

funding, agency priorities,

administrative appeals, and litigation.

Since the rate at which forest plans can

be implemented is based on decisions

which occur during the plan period

rather than decisions that can be made

at the time of approving or revising a

forest plan, it is important to make clear

that the rate of implementation is not a

decision that can be made in the forest

plan.

Second, if rate-specific direction were

to be included in a forest plan, it

increases the likelihood of creating a

false expectation that specific

implementation rates, particularly levels

of goods and services, can be assured

during the 10-year plan period. As

already noted, the agency cannot

provide such guarantees. Elimination of

rate-specific projections from forest plan

direction, in concert with the provisions

of § 219.11(d), should enhance

understanding of the agency’s staged

decisionmaking process and produce

more realistic expectations of what may

occur during the plan period.

While excluding any rate-specific

objectives from forest plan direction

may appear to some to be a major

change from the existing rule, this

approach is consistent with a variety of

court decisions which have affirmed the

agency’s staged decisionmaking process

and verified that the agency has no

obligation to produce the goods and

services or to undertake the

management activities identified in

forest plans. The most notable actual

difference resulting from the proposed

rule would be that projections of

implementation rates can be updated

during the plan period without

amendment procedures.

The approach that would be taken

under proposed paragraph (b)(1) also

represents an evolution in

understanding of the relationship

between forest plans and the agency’s

process for formulating budgets. In the

past, there have been expectations that

the objectives in forest plans would

drive the budget process; that is, that

funds would be requested at whatever

level was necessary to achieve the

objectives of the forest plan over the

course of a decade, and any lower

funding level was interpreted as less

than full implementation of the forest

plan by many people. In addition, most

forest plans were developed without

imposing budget constraints, so there

was no attempt to establish objectives at

levels that reflected probable budget

levels. Over time, the agency has

recognized the shortcomings of these

earlier expectations and approaches,

and has been re-evaluating and

clarifying the link between forest plans

and the budget process.

The proposed rule is consistent with

the recommendations of a national team

of Forest Service personnel chartered to

study the linkage between budgets and

forest plans. Rather than expecting the

forest plan to define a desired rate of

implementation to guide the budget

process, the proposed rule would result

in a process where budgets are

formulated by considering forest plan

direction, the results of monitoring and

evaluation, and continuously updated

information regarding national and

agency priorities. This approach

recognizes that annual program

development and budgeting, rather than

the forest plan, is the most timely and

effective mechanism for responding to

the continuously changing information

which influences the rate at which plan

goals can be achieved.

Proposed § 219.6(b)(2) would direct

that forest plans focus on management

of the resources specific to the plan

area. It would further explain that forest

plans should generally not provide

direction on procedural aspects of how

future project decisions will be made

nor repeat other direction established

through the Directive System,

regulation, Executive order, or law. The

existing rule does not have a

comparable requirement, and this does

represent a change from the way most

current forest plans have been

developed.

A sample of forest plans has been

reviewed to determine the amount of

overlap between direction in forest

plans and direction already established

through the Directive System,

regulation, Executive order, or law. In

one case, almost all of the forest-wide
18902 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

goals and about half of the standards

and guidelines overlapped direction

that was already established and

applicable to almost any National Forest

in the country. Although the percentage

of overlap varies with each plan, this

sample does not appear to be

exceptional. It seems there is a high

degree of repetition in forest plans of

direction that has already been

established and applicable to most plan

areas.

This repetition results, in part, from

the desire to provide in one document

all the direction applicable to the plan

area. The reality, however, is that given

the volume and breadth of laws,

Executive orders, regulations, and

agency directives that apply to National

Forest lands, it is infeasible to

consolidate all of that direction into one

document. While some forest plans may

currently appear to encompass all

relevant direction, it is inevitable that

one must still refer to other sources to

fully grasp all of the direction

applicable to the plan area.

There are four main sources of

overlap which would be eliminated

under the proposed rule. First, forest

plans would not restate goals or policies

that are already established by law,

regulation, Executive order, or agency

directive. Secondly, forest plans would

not repeat procedural direction on how

to conduct project analysis and

decisionmaking. This type of

administrative procedure is appropriate

to issuance in the Directive System and

not in forest plans. Under the proposed

rule, forest plans will be clearly focused

on desired resource conditions for the

plan area, focusing on management of

resources rather than on management of

the administrative processes used to

make decisions. For example, the

Directive System is the definitive source

of agency guidance and information on

how to conduct NEPA analysis and

should be the source of any guidance for

conducting specific evaluations or

analyses required to make a resource

decision.

Third, forest plans would not repeat

instructions related to public

involvement and coordination with

other government entities. Considerable

direction on these topics is already

established by law, regulation,

Executive order, agency directive, and

any additional direction needed is

appropriately issued through the

Directive System.

Finally, procedural guidance on how

to conduct routine professional tasks

would not be repeated in forest plans.

For example, agency directives describe

how to locate hiking trails and factors to

consider when designing recreation

sites. Such direction is applicable

anywhere in the country and, as a

result, should not be repeated in a forest

plan. In contrast, if there are special

circumstances in the plan area that

require establishment of specific

standards or guidelines to address local

resource conditions, then such local

direction would be appropriate for the

forest plan.

The agency anticipates several

benefits from reducing the overlap

between forest plans and direction

already established by law, regulation,

Executive order, or agency directives.

First, forest plan direction should be

substantially shorter, making forest

plans more readable and easier to

understand. Second, forest plans should

be much more focused on local

conditions and management needs.

Third, the public should have a clearer

understanding of the decisions that are

actually being made in the forest plan.

Paragraph (b)(3) of this proposed

section would limit the main body of

the forest plan document to forest plan

directionk. Other information would

appear in a brief preface or appendices.

One benefit is to make it easier for the

reader to distinguish between forest

plan decisions and other information

that may be found within the document.

Currently, it is often difficult for readers

to quickly locate the decisions made in

the forest plan, and sometimes direction

appears to be repeated or intermingled

in multiple locations. Another benefit of

this approach is that forest plans should

be substantially shorter and easier to

understand.

Proposed paragraph (c) would

describe the role and function of forest

plan goals. Goals would be concise

statements that describe a desired end

result; they would normally be

expressed in broad general terms rather

than quantitatively; and there would be

no time period specified for

achievement. Forest plan goals would

serve as the link between broad agency

goals already established through legal

requirements, agency directives, or the

RPA Program and specific, measurable

desired resource conditions as defined

by objectives in the forest plan. As a

result, they will help to translate

national goals into end results of more

local relevance to the plan area.

Pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this

proposed section, forest plan goals

would not repeat national goals, but

would rather translate them into end

results more specific to the local

conditions of the plan area.

Because forest plan goals are not

quantitative in nature, progress towards

achieving goals is determined by

monitoring achievement of the

measurable desired conditions

established by forest plan objectives

and, if necessary, additional measurable

indicators can be established through

the monitoring and evaluation process

(§ 219.12(a)(1)(ii)).

Paragraph (d) describes the role of

forest plan objectives. Objectives would

describe measurable desired resource

conditions, or ranges of conditions,

intended to achieve forest plan goals. In

many cases, a range of conditions is

likely to be a more desirable target than

a specific condition, because natural

systems usually have ranges within

which some variation is typical and

acceptable. In addition, defining a

desired range of conditions is

appropriate when there is not enough

information to make a more precise

statement, or when such precision is not

necessary, given the decision being

made.

Paragraph (d) would make clear that

objectives must be defined in a manner

that permits measurement of whether

the objective is being achieved. The

ability to directly measure the

achievement of an objective, its greater

degree of specificity, and its scope being

limited to resource conditions are the

three features which help to distinguish

an objective from a goal. The proposed

rule would explain that objectives can

be defined to encompass natural

resource conditions, conditions

resulting from human influences, or the

manner in which resources are

perceived. As further explained at the

preamble discussion of § 219.6(b)(1),

this use of the term ‘‘objectives’’ in the

proposed rule is not the same as use of

the term in the existing rule.

Paragraphs (e)(1)–(2) describe the role

of forest plan standards. These

paragraphs would make explicit that

standards are limitations on

management activities and that

adherence to standards is mandatory.

They are the basis for determining if a

project is consistent with the forest plan

(§ 219.11(a)).

One particularly important feature of

standards is that they must be defined

in such a manner that they are clearly

within the authority or ability of the

agency to enforce; that is, compliance

must be within the agency’s control.

This characteristic is essential, because

under the proposed rule standards it

would be used for assessing project

consistency with the forest plan

(§ 219.11). When undertaking a project,

the two things that the agency has the

authority to control are the specific

activities authorized and how they are

conducted. The agency cannot control

the actual results, however, since there

are usually various factors beyond the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18903

agency’s influence that can affect

results. For example, usual weather

events or wildfires can affect actual onthe-ground results in unpredictable and

uncontrollable ways.

Proposed paragraph (f) describes the

role forest plan guidelines would play

under the proposed rule. Guidelines

would be used to describe a preferred or

advisable course of action. Unlike

standards, variation from a guideline

does not trigger a forest plan

amendment. Guidelines would play two

key roles.

First, guidelines would be used to

describe a preferred or advisable

method of conducting resource

activities. For example, a guideline

might recommend that shelters on

hiking trails be located at least one mile

from trailheads. If terrain or other

circumstances related to a specific

project made compliance infeasible, the

flexibility would exist to locate the

shelter closer to a trailhead. However,

the guideline would have served to

advise the responsible official that

construction of a shelter less than one

mile to the trailhead should not occur

unless special circumstances exist.

Second, guidelines would be used to

describe a preferred or advisable

sequence or priority for implementing

various types of projects when such

guidance is useful in facilitating

achievement of a forest plan goal. For

example, the forest plan might have a

goal which addresses the restoration of

hydrologic processes in a particular

watershed. Various objectives could be

defined describing resource conditions

associated with restoration of the

hydrologic processes, such as desired

vegetative conditions within the

watershed, the presence of down woody

material in the stream channel, stream

temperatures, or turbidity levels.

Guidelines could be used if there is a

preferred sequence for implementing

the types of projects that would achieve

these objectives and the ultimate goal.

For example, if revegetating exposed

soils within the riparian area are needed

more urgently than soil restoration

projects elsewhere in the watershed, a

guideline can indicate that priority.

Such guidelines would not be used to

identify specific projects, but rather to

specify if certain types of projects

should be implemented before others in

order to achieve a goal in the most

timely manner.

Paragraph (g) would establish

requirements for coordinating forest

plan direction across plan areas. The

intent is to improve consistency

between forest plans. In many cases

currently, it is difficult to compare

forest plan decisions for adjacent forests

covered by different forest plans, and

direction often changes at an

administrative boundary even though

the management situation appears to be

identical. Paragraph (g) recognizes that

there may often be legitimate reason for

differences, but that, unless such

reasons exist, forest plan decisions

within a Forest Service administrative

Region and for plan areas adjacent to the

Region should be consistent in at least

four ways.

First, management prescriptions for

adjacent lands should be the same. The

direction for managing a specific area of

land should not change at the boundary

between forest plan plan areas unless a

good reason exists for such change. In

addiiton, maps used in the forest plans

should be consistent to facilitate review

and comparison. For example, this

would mean using maps of the same

scale and with the same legends and

formats.

Second, management prescriptions for

specially designated areas should be the

same when they cross plan area

boundaries, unless good reason exists

for change. For example, direction for

managing a wilderness area, scenic trail,

or similar specially designated area

(§ 219.14) should not change simply

because of a change in administrative

boundary.

Third, forest plan direction should be

the same for adjacent areas when

findings of an ecosystem analysis or

research used as a basis for the direction

are applicable to more than one plan

area, unless local circumstances justify

variation. For example, if the research

used as a basis for establishing a habitat

protection standard for a threatened or

endangered species applies to a broad

area covered by several forest plans, that

standard should be the same in each of

those plans, unless valid reason existed

to alter it.

Finally, consistency would be

required in the use of terminology and

classification systems. The intent is to

have the same terms and classification

systems used wherever feasible.

In summary, the provisions proposed

in § 219.6 would incorporate the results

of landmark administrative appeal

decisions and court cases which have

clarified the nature and scope of

decisions made in forest plans. In

addition, this section would establish a

uniform approach to what appears in

the main body of the forest plan and

what can be presented in the preface

and appendices. These changes to the

contents of a forest plan will result in

shorter, simpler forest plans that are

easier to use and understand, as well as

forest plans that are more highly

focused on direction specifically

tailored for management of the

resources of the plan area.

Section 219.7 Ecosystem Analysis

This section would introduce the

concept of ecosystem analysis to the

planning process, a topic not addressed

in the existing rule. Paragraph (a) would

define ecosystem analysis as a broad

term used to denote various

interdisciplinary studies conducted to

provide information on and enhance

understanding of the physical,

biological, social, or economic aspects

and interactions of an ecosystem.

Because the agency considers humans to

be an integral part of ecosystems,

studies of social and economic aspects

of ecosystems are within the scope of

these analyses. Ecoregion assessments

and landscape-level analyses are only

two examples of the different types of

studies that are conducted at various

scales which fall under the general

umbrella of ecosystem analysis.

Paragraph (a) would also address the

geographic scope of ecosystem analysis.

It acknowledges that such analyses can

be conducted at any scale deemed

appropriate, and emphasizes that areas

subject to ecosystem analyses should

generally be delineated based on

ecological considerations rather than

administrative or jurisdictional

boundaries.

Reviewers are cautioned not to

confuse the concept of ecosystem

analysis with the analysis and

evaluation of environmental effects

which occurs as part of the NEPA

process. The requirements associated

with NEPA procedures would be

unchanged by the provisions of this

proposed section. The two documents

used to disclose environmental

assessment, are distinct in nature and

purpose from an ecosystem analysis.

Proposed § 219.7 would not require

an ecosystem analysis to be conducted

as a precursor to resource

decisionmaking. In fact, ecosystem

analyses are not mandatory, and it is left

to agency discretion to conduct them as

appropriate. While the area covered by

an ecosystem analyses is defined by the

ecosystem and not by jurisdictional or

administrative boundaries, the proposed

rule would in no way impose resource

decisions of the Forest Service on

private lands. However, in order to

make decisions for National Forest

System lands, the agency believes it is

important to be knowledgeable of the

conditions on non-Forest Service lands

within an ecosystem being studied. This

is considered an essential part of taking

an ecological approach to management

of National Forest System lands.
18904 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Proposed paragraph (b) would make

an important distinction between an

ecosystem analysis and resource

decisionmaking. As noted earlier,

ecosystem analysis is not a

decisionmaking effort and does not

result in a resource decision. Therefore,

it does not trigger NEPA analysis nor

does the result of ecosystem analysis

substitute for a NEPA disclosure

document. Rather, an ecosystem

analysis is a process by which

information is gathered and synthesized

in order to enhance and understanding

of ecosystems. This information is

usually intended as one—but not the

only—source of information to be used

later when making resource decisions.

One key provision of paragraph (b)

intended to help draw the distinction

between ecosystem analysis and

resource decisionmaking is the

requirement that the findings of

ecosystem analysis not be used as a

substitute for forest plan goals,

objectives, standards, or guidelines. The

proposed rule would make clear that the

findings of an ecosystem analysis may

indicate the need to change forest plan

direction, but that such changes must

occur through amendment or revision

procedures. The agency does not intend

ecosystem analysis to be used to

identify any preferred or desired

alternatives or outcomes. Identification

of such preferences would reflect value

judgments on the part of those

conducting the ecosystem analysis

without the benefit of utilizing NEPA

procedures. The agency also hopes such

a requirement will reduce any confusion

regarding the expected results of

ecosystem analysis and diminish the

risk that such analyses might be

mistaken for decisionmaking processes.

The proposed rule would make clear

that ecosystem analysis may be used to

identify opportunities for achieving

goals and objectives that have already

been established by law, Executive

order, regulation, agency directive, or

the forest plan. For example, this could

include identifying various management

options or scenarios that might meet

established goals and assessing the

results if such options were chosen or

scenarios were to occur. This kind of

assessment can be helpful in

determining the potential to resolve

issues given existing forest plan

direction, or in evaluating the probable

effects if current direction were to

remain unchanged. In addition,

paragraph (b) would make clear that an

ecosystem analysis may be used to

provide information that indicates a

need to initiate forest plan amendment

procedures. It will be incumbent upon

the agency official responsible for the

ecosystem analysis to ensure that such

findings are properly utilized and that

any consideration of options or

strategies is conducted in a manner

complementary to using the information

for subsequent compliance with NEPA

procedures associated with resource

decisionmaking.

Paragraph (c) would list various

possible results of ecosystem analysis,

depending upon the scope and specific

purpose of each analysis. Eleven

examples are provided of the type of

information which might result from an

ecosystem analysis. This is not intended

to be an all-inclusive list, but rather to

represent the type of results that might

be expected. All eleven items are

informational in nature and do not

represent resource decisions or a

narrowing of options to be considered in

future decisionmaking efforts.

Section 219.8 Interdisciplinary Teams

and Information Needs

Paragraph (a) would require the use of

an interdisciplinary team when

preparing amendments, revisions, and

monitoring and evaluation strategies

and reports and when conducting

ecosystem analysis. Although the

proposed rule would clearly identify

when interdisciplinary teams must be

used, it would be less specific than

§ 219.5 of the existing rule, which

addresses in more detail the functioning

and selection of interdisciplinary teams.

Such detail is in excess of what is

appropriate to this regulation, especially

since NEPA procedures already provide

guidance on the use of interdisciplinary

teams. The proposed rule would limit

interdisciplinary team membership to

Forest Service and other Federal

personnel. This limitation is primarily

due to the Federal Advisory Committee

Act, which imposes extensive

requirements on the creation and use of

committees that include non-Federal

personnel for the purpose of advising

Federal agencies.

Paragraph (b) would direct that the

responsible official must strive to obtain

and keep updated inventory data

needed for decisionmaking. This is

intended to emphasize the importance

of maintaining data on a continuous

basis rather than allowing inventories to

become outdated. This is of particular

importance in implementing an

adaptive approach to resource

management. The ability to know if and

how management should be adjusted

depends on ongoing analysis of

information throughout the plan period.

Maintaining inventory data is also

critical to avoiding delays in the

revision process. Some forests took as

much as two years or more to gather the

inventory data needed to develop their

initial forest plans. As envisioned under

the proposed rule, such information

would be maintained throughout the

plan period, with little delay needed at

the time of revision to obtain new data.

Realistically, many forests do not have

fully updated inventories at this time,

so, regrettably, such delays must still be

expected in some cases when forest

plans are revised. The updating process

would occur prior to or during the

prerevision review, however.

In addition, paragraph (b) would

clarify that the information compiled

should be commensurate with the

decisions being made. It is wasteful to

try to obtain highly precise estimates if

the decision being made does not

require such precision. The proposed

rule would make clear that the precision

of the data should be commensurate

with the precision needed to make the

decision (see also § 219.4(e)). Paragraph

(b) also emphasizes the need for

carefully focused analysis efforts, a

noteworthy change from the existing

rule. The proposed rule intends that

analytical efforts will be focused on the

critical questions relevant to specific

decisionmaking needs rather than

dispersed across a wide range of

standardized analytical requirements

that may not be relevant to local

conditions, issues, and concerns.

Although paragraph (b) would

provide enhanced flexibility to tailor

analysis to meet local needs, this should

not be interpreted as deemphasizing the

importance of sound analyses. While

the proposed rule is certainly intended

to better focus the analysis, there may or

may not be a reduction in the overall

quantity of analysis conducted on any

given forest. For example, the extensive

benchmark analyses required by the

existing rule at § 219.12(e) would no

longer be required in the proposed rule.

In many cases, the effort invested in

these benchmark analyses has often

diverted too much time and energy from

more critical analyses needed for

decisionmaking. However, in other

cases, the data derived from some of the

benchmark analyses proved very

helpful. The proposed rule would not

require that standardized benchmark

analyses be conducted for all resources

on all forests, but it would also signal

the expectation that such analyses

should occur if and when needed for

informed decisionmaking.

This focused approach to analysis is

also intended to enhance understanding

of and confidence in the agency’s

analytical procedures. Findings of the

Critique of Land Management Planning

clearly indicated that many people

distrust analytical procedures and view
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18905

computer models as mysterious ‘‘black

boxes’’ that produce incomprehensible

and unverifiable answers. The approach

in paragraph (b) would keep analytical

procedures highly focused and relevant

to local decisionmaking needs and thus

should help increase public and

employee confidence in methodologies

and results. Although computer models

will still be used, analytical efforts

should be better tailored to local needs.

Under this provision, forest analysts

could devote more time and effort to

understanding the data relevant to the

specific decisions to be made and to

improving ways of communicating that

information to the public and

decisionmakers.

Paragraph (c) would assure that social

and economic effects are considered

when amending or revising the forest

plan. As stated at § 219.1(b)(2), meeting

people’s needs and desires within the

capacities of natural systems is a

primary role of resource

decisionmaking. The forest plan

addresses management of land and

resources, but decisions as to how those

lands and resources should be managed

is inherently dependent on considering

the effects on people as well as on the

resources themselves. Paragraph (c)

would assure that commensurate with

the decision being made, appropriate

indicators of social and economic

change, such as changes in community

stability or employment, are evaluated

during amendment and revision.

Paragraph (d) would require Forest

Supervisors to identify the research

needed for decisionmaking, including,

but not limited to, the research needed

to help resource managers ensure that

management practices do not produce

substantial impairment of the

productivity of the land. This latter

requirement responds to Section

6(g)(3)(C) of NFMA. Comparable

provisions of § 219.28 of the existing

rule are more detailed. By contrast, the

proposed rule focuses more directly on

making sure that research needs are

identified, but would leave to normal

agency administrative processes the task

of directing formulation of budgets and

reporting procedures.

Section 219.9 Forest Plan Amendment

Paragraph (a) would provide for three

types of amendments to forest plans—

major, minor, and interim. It also would

make explicit that: (1) only those

elements defined as forest plan

direction are subject to amendment, and

(2) that amendment is the only method

by which forest plan direction can be

changed between revisions, unless the

changes are nondiscretionary as

described at § 219.9(e).

The term ‘‘major amendment’’ in the

proposed rule would replace the term

‘‘significant amendment’’ as used in the

existing rule. This change in

terminology should help avoid

confusion with the term ‘‘significance’’

as it is used in the context of NEPA

compliance. Criteria for determining

significance for NEPA compliance differ

from the criteria for distinguishing the

significance of amendments under

NFMA. These differences have caused

considerable confusion both within and

outside the agency with regard to

‘‘significant’’ plan amendments. Under

the proposed rule, the term ‘‘minor

amendment’’ would be used to refer to

amendments which do not meet the

criteria for a ‘‘major’’ or ‘‘interim’’

amendment.

Proposed paragraph (b) addresses

major amendments. Paragraph (b)(1)

would define the only three

circumstances which trigger a major

amendment. The existing rule does not

define specific criteria for triggering a

significant amendment, stating simply

that ‘‘if the change resulting from the

proposed amendment is determined to

be significant, the Forest Supervisor

shall follow the same procedure as that

required for development and approval

of a forest plan’’ (§ 219.10(f)).

In the absence of criteria in the

existing rule, the agency has issued, at

FSM 1922.52, two examples indicative

of circumstances that may cause a

significant change to the forest plan. In

addition, FSH 1909.12 describes four

factors to be used in helping to

determine significance. The two

circumstances described at FSM

1922.52 are: (1) Changes that would

significantly alter the long-term

relationship between levels of multipleuse goods and services originally

projected, and (2) changes that may

have an important effect on the entire

forest plan or affect land and resources

throughout a large portion of the

planning area during the plan period.

Both of these examples are subject to

varying interpretation.

In reassessing the circumstances that

should trigger a major amendment, the

agency has focused on two key

provisions of Section 6(f)(4) of NFMA.

First, this section recognizes that some

amendments may result in a significant

change in the plan. Second, it

establishes special requirements for

those amendments that would result in

a significant change to the forest plan—

a three-month comment period and

associated requirements for public

involvement.

With these provisions of NFMA in

mind, the agency proposes establishing

in the proposed rule at § 219.9(b)(1),

rather than in the Forest Service

Manual, three criteria for triggering a

major amendment. The first trigger

would be a change to a forest plan

standard. The second would be when

the chargeable timber volume that can

be sold for a decade is amended in such

a manner that it exceeds the long-term

sustained-yield timber capacity of a

proclaimed National Forest within the

plan area. The third circumstance

would be if the forest plan is changed

to permit harvest of even-aged stands

that have not reached culmination of

mean annual increment of growth.

The first criterion, changing a forest

plan standard, reflects the heightened

importance of forest plan standards

under the proposed rule. As explained

earlier in this preamble, adherence to

forest plan standards would be

mandatory, and standards would be

used to assure compliance with legal

requirements and to provide

environmental safeguards. As a result,

standards would have a distinctly

stronger role in the forest plan than

goals, objectives, or guidelines.

Subsequently, the proposed rule would

consider a change to a standard or

where a standard is applied as a

significant change to the forest plan,

which thus would trigger a major

amendment unless the exceptions

identified at § 219.9(c) (4) and (5) apply.

The exceptions are when a standard is

changed to accommodate a particular

site-specific project, or the allocation of

a management prescription, which

typically includes some standards, to

newly acquired lands and the

prescription is consistent with the

purposes for which the land was

acquired.

The other two circumstances that

would trigger a major amendment

derive directly from NFMA. In the case

of the decadal chargeable volume that

can be sold from a proclaimed National

Forest exceeding the long-term

sustained yield timber capacity of that

Forest, Section 13 of NFMA requires

that such a variation be made following

the same public involvement

requirements as those for a major

amendment or revision; i.e., a 90-day

comment period. Similarly, Section

6(m)(2) of NFMA requires a 90-day

comment period if stands are to be

harvested before reaching culmination

of mean annual increment of growth. As

a result, the proposed rule would

require that such changes be considered

major amendments.

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would

provide that the Regional Forester is the

responsible official for major

amendments. This delegation of
18906 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

authority is the same as that under the

existing rule.

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would

describe the procedural requirements

associated with major amendment.

These differ from those of the existing

rule in two main ways. First, there is no

automatic requirement to develop an

EIS for a major amendment. The intent

is to allow NEPA procedures to guide

the determination of whether an EIS or

an environmental assessment is

appropriate for the decision being made.

Second, the proposed rule would drop

the requirement to use the same process

for a major amendment as for

development of initial forest plans and

revisions (§ 219.12(a) of the existing

regulation). Instead, the proposed rule

would rely on established NEPA

procedures to guide the process for

major amendment.

Both changes are expected to help

focus and streamline analyses. As

described at proposed § 219.8(b), one

intent of the proposed rule is to focus

analyses on the information needed for

decisionmaking and thus to ensure that

the nature, scope; and complexity of

analyses are commensurate with the

nature, scope and impact of the

decisions to be made. Relying on NEPA

procedures to determine the type of

disclosure that is appropriate is a sound

means of assuring that analysis and

documentation match the nature of the

decision.

Similarly, the requirement in the

existing rule to repeat the same steps for

a significant amendment as for a

revision has proven excessively

burdensome. This existing requirement

has often resulted in a variety of

analysis efforts, such as developing

benchmarks or reevaluating the

suitability of lands for timber

production, which proved to be of little

benefit or utility and which diverted

energy and focus from more critical

factors related to the decision.

Paragraph (b)(3) of the proposed rule

also would state the requirement to

provide a 90-day period for public

review and comment on a major

amendment. This paragraph also

specifies the minimum actions the

Regional Forester would be required to

take to provide for public participation

in the major amendment process.

Paragraph (b)(4) would require

publication of legal notice of adoption

of a major amendment. Paragraph (b)(5)

provides that the effective date of an

approved major amendment is the

eighth calendar day following

publication of legal notice of the

decision in accordance with

administrative appeal rules at 36 CFR

217.10.

Proposed paragraph (c) would

establish requirements for a minor

amendment, which is triggered

whenever a change is being made to the

forest plan which does not meet the

circumstances for triggering a revision,

major amendment, or interim

amendment.

Paragraph (c)(1) would designate the

Forest Supervisor as the responsible

official for minor amendments, unless

that authority is retained by the

Regional Forester.

Paragraph (c)(2) addresses public

comment periods for minor

amendments. As is the case with major

amendments, the proposed rule does

not specify what type of NEPA

documentation must accompany a

minor amendment. Instead, NEPA

procedures would provide this

guidance. Although NEPA procedures

require a 45-day comment period for

review of a draft EIS, there is no

requirement under NEPA procedures for

public comment on a draft

environmental assessment.

Nevertheless, the agency believes that

the public should have an opportunity

to comment on a minor amendment to

a forest plan when an environmental

assessment is prepared. Therefore, the

proposed rule requires at least a 30-day

comment period when an

environmental assessment is prepared

and at least a 45-day comment period

when an EIS is prepared.

Paragraph (c)(3) indicates that 36 CFR

part 217 provides for administrative

appeal of forest plan amendments and

revisions and guides public notice of

decisions to adopt a minor amendment,

as well as their effective date. This is

further clarified in a conforming

amendment to 36 CFR 217.3(a).

Proposed paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5)

describe two circumstances where a

minor amendment, not a major

amendment, is the appropriate

mechanism for changing a forest plan

even though such an amendment

involves changing a standard or

changing where a standard applies.

Under paragraph (c)(4), a minor

amendment would be appropriate when

a management prescription is extended

to apply to newly acquired land and the

prescription is compatible with the

purposes for which it was acquired.

Without this provision, such a change

would trigger a major amendment since

management prescriptions include

standards, and allocating lands to a

management prescription changes

where those standards are applied.

Paragraph (c)(5) provides instructions

for handling a proposed site-specific

project that would conflict with a forest

plan standard. As required at § 219.11(a)

of the proposed rule, a project cannot be

approved if it conflicts with a forest

plan standard. If the responsible official

has determined that the project merits

an exception to a forest plan standard,

but wishes the exception to apply only

to the site-specific project rather than

changing the standard for all future

projects, the proposed rule would

specify that the change be made by

minor amendment. This is appropriate

because of the limited, site-specific

scope of the change in the standard(s).

However, a minor amendment cannot be

used when the circumstances described

at (b)(1)(ii)–(iii) apply, since NFMA

requires a 90-day comment period on

changes of that nature.

Under the proposed rule, the public

could review and comment on a

proposed site-specific amendment as

part of the project decisionmaking

process rather than as disjointed

decisions. The disclosure of effects

associated with changing the standard

would be addressed as part of the NEPA

documentation associated with the sitespecific project decision. One intent of

this integrated approach is to avoid

duplicating analysis and

documentation. It would be burdensome

and confusing for both the public and

the agency if a project decision had to

be made separately from the forest plan

amendment needed to authorize the

site-specific exception from the

standard.

The length of the comment period

under these circumstances would vary,

depending on the nature of the decision

being made. If the project decision or

amendment required an EIS, then at

least a 45-day comment period would be

provided in accordance with NEPA

procedures. If an environmental

assessment would be adequate, then at

least a 30-day comment period would be

provided in accordance with 36 CFR

215.5.

A minor amendment associated with

a site-specific project would not be

subject to administrative appeal under

the provisions of 36 CFR part 217, but

instead would be appealable under 36

CFR part 215 which already governs

appeal procedures when a project

decision includes a plan amendment.

Similarly, the time period between the

decision and project implementation is

also governed by 36 CFR part 215.

Paragraph (d)(1) of this proposed

section introduces the concept of

‘‘interim amendment.’’ The agency

believes there is a clear need to provide

streamlined procedures for updating

forest plan direction when there is new

information that indicates a compelling

need to promptly change the forest plan

in order to provide resource protection,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18907

or when a catastrophic even has

occurred, and the process for major

amendment, minor amendment, or

revision would result in an

unacceptable delay.

Due to the length of time it often takes

to fully analyze new information and to

complete appropriate amendment

procedures, there can be quite a gap

between the time the agency is aware

that it needs to address a problem and

the time normal procedures can be

completed. In the meantime,

environmental damage may be

occurring as a result of these procedural

delays. The interim amendment would

be a means of addressing those

situations where such delay is

unacceptable, but would still assure that

a thorough analysis of the new

information is conducted and possible

alternative responses are considered

while such interim measures are in

place.

Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would

designate the Regional Forester as the

responsible official for interim

amendments, unless such authority is

reserved by the Chief. Placing approval

authority at the Regional Forester level

should help to ensure that interim

amendments are used and developed in

a consistent manner and that they are

not used when the needed changes can

be made within the normal amendment

process.

Paragraph (d)(3) describes the

requirements for public notice of an

interim amendment and the information

that must be disclosed at the time an

interim amendment is issued.

Paragraph (d)(4) establishes an

explicit finding that an environmental

impact statement is not required for

interim amendment. Any change to a

forest plan made by interim amendment

will be limited in scope and duration

and made only to respond to

catastrophic events or to ensure

resource protection. Given the limited

circumstances where it could be used,

an interim amendment would never

meet the criteria for preparing an EIS as

required by NEPA procedures. Nothing

in paragraph (d)(4) would limit the

preparation of an environmental

assessment for an interim amendment.

As specified in paragraph (d)(5), the

effective date for interim amendments is

the eighth calendar day after legal notice

of the decision is published in a

newspaper of general circulation or, if

the Chief is the responsible official, in

the Federal Register.

Paragraph (d)(6) provides for a 45-day

comment period starting upon issuance

of legal notice of the interim

amendment. Unlike most comment

periods which occur prior to making a

decision, this 45-day comment period

would occur after the interim

amendment is in effect. Based on the

comments received, the responsible

official may decide to modify the

interim amendment or have it remain in

effect unchanged. Under either

circumstance, the public must be

notified and rationale provided. Since

an interim amendment is designed to

respond to those circumstances where a

quick change is necessary, it is not

reasonable to delay issuance of the

interim amendment until a comment

period can occur. However, the

provision of paragraph (d)(6) assures the

opportunity to public review and

comment as soon as possible, provides

the responsible official an opportunity

to change the interim amendment in a

timely manner based on those

comments, and ensures that the public

is notified of whether the interim

amendment is retained without change

or is modified and why.

The duration of an interim

amendment would be limited by

paragraph (d)(7) to two years. If an

interim amendment has not been

superseded by an approved amendment

or revision within two years, the

responsible official would have the

option of reissuing the interim

amendment or issuing a modified

interim amendment. Under such

circumstances, all of the limitations and

notice and comment requirements for

use of interim amendments would still

apply. This limit on the duration of an

interim amendment is intended to

assure that direction established using

these procedures is indeed interim in

nature.

Paragraph (d)(8) would expressly

prohibit including an interim

amendment in a decision document for

a specific project. As discussed, the

provisions of § 219.9(c)(5) address those

circumstances where a forest plan needs

to be amended to permit one specific

project.

Paragraph (d)(9) would make clear

that under 36 CFR part 217 an interim

amendment is not subject to

administrative appeal. Since neither the

existing planning rule nor the appeals

rule address interim amendments, a

conforming amendment to 36 CFR part

217 is proposed to exclude interim

amendments from the administrative

appeals process. Such an exclusion is

appropriate due to the short duration of

an interim amendment and the

circumstances for its use. The 45-day

public comment period should provide

an effective way for the public and other

government entities to communicate

with the responsible official about any

potential concerns.

Paragraph (e) would permit

nondiscretionary changes to forest plan

direction under specified

circumstances. There is no similar

provision in the existing rule. This

provision would allow forest plan

direction to be changed without

completion of the more rigorous

amendment and public comment

procedures when the change is needed

to comply with a law or regulation and

the agency has no discretion in the

manner in which it complies. Under

such a circumstance, NEPA procedures

would not need to be completed and

there would be no public comment

period. However, the public would be

given notice through the annual

monitoring and evaluation report that

such changes had been made. Examples

of such nondiscretionary changes

include designating an area as

wilderness after passage of wilderness

legislation. Paragraph (f) would make

clear that the Forest Supervisor may, at

any time, make certain changes to a

forest plan without amendment

procedures. Such changes would be

identified in the monitoring and

evaluation report. Circumstances

allowing such an approach include

when changes do not alter forest plan

management direction or when the

changes are non-substantive in nature,

such as correcting typographical errors.

In addition, corrections to maps

which delineate where a management

prescription is applied can be made

without amendment, provided such

changes are due to improved on-theground information about the condition

to which the management prescription

was described to apply. For example, if

a management prescription were to

apply to all areas visible from a scenic

highway but the visible area had not

been precisely mapped, the mapped

boundaries of where the prescription

would apply could be adjusted after a

detailed field survey is completed. It is

essential that the forest plan state that

the prescription is intended to apply to

the visible area, however, so that it is

clear what attributes the land must have

if the map is to be changed in this

manner. If, for example, the prescription

were to be extended to apply to lands

other than those visible from the scenic

highway, amendment procedures would

have to be followed.

Section 219.10 Forest Plan Revision

This section would significantly

revise the procedures for forest plan

revision. The existing rule (§ 219.12)

requires the agency to use the same

process for forest plan revision as for

developing initial forest plans. The
18908 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

proposed rule offers a new process

specifically tailored to revision.

Proposed paragraph (a) retains the

provision of the existing rule that

revision of a forest plan should occur

about every 10 years, and no later than

15 years, after approval of the original

plan or latest plan revision.

Additionally, revisions must occur

whenever conditions over most or all of

the plan area have changed

significantly, for example, to address

catastrophic events that have

substantially altered resource conditions

over most or all of the plan area. These

criteria for initiating revisions are based

on requirements of Section 6(f)(5) of the

National Forest Management Act.

Proposed paragraph (b) would

designate the Regional Forester as the

responsible official for revision, as is the

case in the existing rule.

Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) would

establish an important new element—

the prerevison review of a forest plan,

which would be conducted prior to

initiating scoping. The purpose of the

prerevision review is to identify

changed conditions and/or other new

information which appear to indicate a

need to change direction in the current

plan using the results of monitoring and

evaluation.

This requirement for a prerevision

review is somewhat comparable to the

requirement in the existing rule for

completing an Analysis of the

Management Situation (hereafter, AMS)

(§ 219.12(e)), but there are some

important differences. The main

similarity is that both the AMS and the

proposed prerevison review culminate

in a determination of the need to change

direction in the forest plan. However, a

key difference between the AMS and

prerevision review is the source of the

information and type of analysis

required for making such

determinations. The existing rule

imposes extensive analytical

requirements to be met when

developing the AMS. As explained

earlier in the preamble discussion for

proposed § 219.8, these analyses have

not always proven relevant to the local

situation or helpful to decisionmakers.

In fact, the existing requirements have

often diverted time and energy from

more critical analyses needed for

decisionmaking.

In contrast, the proposed rule focuses

on using the results of monitoring and

evaluation of making such

determinations. As part of the

prerevision review, the Regional

Forester would be responsible for

reviewing the cumulative results of

monitoring and evaluation, as well as

conducting whatever associated analysis

is needed in order to propose the scope

of the revision process. In some cases,

the type of analysis now required as part

of the AMS may be appropriate.

However, the proposed rule does not

impose such specific analytical

requirements; instead, the provisions of

§ 219.8 (Interdisciplinary teams and

information needs) and § 219.12

(Monitoring and evaluation) provide

sufficient guidance for obtaining

appropriate information for the

prerevision review.

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would

require the Forest Supervisor to

formulate a communications strategy

that describes how the public and other

government entities may participate on

an ongoing basis in both the prerevision

review and revision process. As noted

earlier in regard to proposed § 219.3, the

agency is stressing the importance of

building and maintaining strong

relationships based on open and

ongoing communication. One purpose

of these communications efforts is to

improve the information base on which

decisions are based and to promote a

shared understanding of the validity of

this information (see § 219.3(a)(3)).

Proposed § 219.10(c)(2) is specifically

designed to help achieve these aims by

encouraging the public to be involved

while these initial prerevision analyses

are occurring and data is being gathered

in addition to involvement during the

revision process itself.

By participating in the prerevision

review, the public and other

government entities will have an

opportunity to see the data and

analytical methods being developed for

the revision and to provide improved

information or suggest better

approaches. This should enhance public

confidence in the data and analysis

upon which decisions about revising the

forest plan will be made. The results of

the prerevision review provide the basis

for the Notice of Intent to revise the

forest plan and to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the

revision. The prerevision review also

provides the public with a thorough

analysis of monitoring and evaluation

results, and identifies the direction in

the forest plan that the Regional Forester

believes may need to be changed.

Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require a

meeting with interested representatives

of other Federal agencies and State,

local, and tribal governments in order to

establish procedures for coordination

and ongoing communication. These

provisions reflect the importance which

the Forest Service places on establishing

a strong working relationship with other

agencies and governments as well as on

coordinating with them during the

prerevision review and revision process.

Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would provide the

public and representatives of other

government entities the opportunity to

express their ideas and suggestions on

the communications strategy as it is

being formulated. There is no

comparable requirement in the existing

rule, and this approach is not commonly

practiced within the agency now. This

new requirement is intended to greatly

improve the effectiveness of public

involvement efforts during revision. By

providing the public an opportunity to

comment on how to develop the

communications strategy, involvement

efforts should be more responsive to

public needs and desires, better timed to

assure that the public is involved at

those points in the process of most

interest, and better suited to facilitating

the type of interaction, mutual

understanding, and commitment

necessary for success.

Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would assure that

those who are on the mailing list

described at § 219.3(b) are notified of

the prerevision review and formulation

of the communications strategy.

Paragraph (d) addresses scoping,

which is required by NEPA procedures

and is undertaken to identify important

issues and determine the extent of

analysis necessary for an informed

decision on a proposed action. Scoping

is used not only to identify significant

environmental issues deserving of

study, but also to deemphasize

insignificant issues, thus narrowing the

scope of the environmental impact

statement accordingly (40 CFR

1500.4(g)). A Notice of Intent to revise

a forest plan would be issued in the

Federal Register, with a 60-day

comment period. The Notice would

serve to notify the public of the start of

the revision process and would provide

information on the anticipated scope of

the effort. The Notice would also

identify opportunities for public

involvement in the revision process.

This process for initiating forest plan

revision is a substantial improvement

over the existing rule, providing more

and better information to the public for

use in commenting on the scope of the

revision process. In the existing rule, the

process for forest plan revision starts

from ground zero, repeating the same

steps used for developing initial forest

plans. Under this current approach, the

revision process assumes that the ‘‘slate

has been wiped clean;’’ that is, that no

forest plan currently exists and that

there is little information available from

which to launch the revision effort.

In contrast, the proposed rule

recognizes that substantial information
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18909

regarding the adequacy of the forest

plan already exists as a result of

monitoring and evaluation. Just as

importantly, the proposed rule provides

for making this information available to

the public during the scoping process so

that the public has the best possible

information upon which to base its

comments regarding the scope of the

revision effort.

Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(i)–(iii)

identify three actions that the Forest

Supervisor would be required to take at

the time of issuing the Notice of Intent:

(1) giving notice to those on the

mailing list required at § 219.3(b);

(2) giving more general notice through

a press release; and

(3) promoting activities to foster

ongoing participation in the revision

process pursuant to the communications

strategy.

Proposed paragraph (e) specifies four

required elements of the revision

process:

(1) Review of the identification of

lands suited and not suited for timber

production;

(2) Evaluation of roadless areas for

wilderness designation;

(3) Evaluation of rivers for eligibility

as wild, scenic, or recreation rivers

under specified circumstances; and

(4) Update of the appendix

information displaying projected levels

of goods and services and management

activities for the next decade, as

required by § 219.11(d)(1). These four

requirements, along with the

requirements of § 219.10(c), are the

main factors which distinguish forest

plan revision from major amendment.

Paragraph (f) would require that a

draft EIS be prepared for a proposed

forest plan revision. Unlike the existing

rule, the proposed rule would not

provide additional guidance on how to

develop or evaluate alternatives. Rather,

the range of alternatives would be

developed in accordance with NEPA

procedures. Although it is possible that

the agency may decide to supplement

NEPA procedures to address the unique

needs of draft EIS’s associated with

forest plan revisions, such detailed

instructions would be appropriately

issued through the Directive System,

rather than in a regulation.

Paragraph (g) describes procedural

requirements for public notice and

comment on the proposed revised forest

plan, draft EIS, and draft monitoring

and evaluation strategy. These

provisions are designed to comply with

the requirements of Section 6(d) of

NFMA.

Paragraph (h) defines the role of the

Regional Forester in overseeing

preparation of the final EIS and revised

forest plan and also directs that

preparation of the final EIS and record

of decision be prepared and made

public in accordance with NEPA

procedures.

Approval of the final plan and

determination of the effective date is

addressed in proposed § 219.10(i). The

final revised forest plan would become

effective 30 days after public notice, as

required by Section 6(j) of NFMA.

Notice of a decision to revise a forest

plan must be provided in accordance

with 36 CFR part 217, the regulation

that guides the process for

administrative appeals of forest plans.

Section 219.11 Forest Plan

Implementation

Section 6(i) of NFMA requires

resource plans, permits, contracts, and

other instruments for use and

occupancy of National Forest System

lands to be consistent with forest plans.

This section describes how a

determination of consistency is made at

the time of project approval, prior to

issuing permits or contracts to

implement a project decision, as well as

how consistency is maintained after

forest plan amendments or revisions.

This section also provides other

direction relevant to forest plan

implementation.

Proposed § 219.11(a) describes how

the agency would determine project

consistency. A determination of

consistency with the forest plan would

be based on whether a project adheres

to forest plan standards, and this

determination must be documented at

the time of project approval.

Paragraphs (a)(1)–(3) list the options

available to a responsible official when

faced with a project proposal

inconsistent with the forest plan. The

options are to: modify the proposal to

make it consistent with the plan; reject

the proposal, or amend the forest plan

to permit the proposal.

Paragraphs (a)(1)–(3) reflect the key

role that forest plan standards would

play under the proposed rule. As noted

earlier in the discussion of proposed

§ 219.6, standards would be the one

component of forest plan direction to

which adherence would be mandatory.

Unlike goals, objectives, or guidelines,

standards define the limitations within

which project activities must occur and

are limited to those constraints within

the agency’s authority or ability to

enforce. As a result, individual projects

can be readily assessed for their

compliance with standards.

By contrast, achievement of forest

plan goals and objectives would

typically be dependent on the

cumulative results of individually

authorized projects and, in some cases,

naturally occurring changes over time.

The impact of any specific project on

achievement of a goal or objective could

be difficult to measure. Monitoring and

evaluation is a more meaningful way to

account for progress towards goals and

objectives than using forest plan goals or

objectives in project consistency

determinations.

Likewise, project consistency

determinations would not be based on

guidelines. Guidelines describe a

preferred or advisable course of action.

Therefore, it would be counter to their

intended role if they were used in

determining project consistency. In

addition, it would be difficult to assess

on a project-by-project basis whether a

project was consistent with those

guidelines that describe specific

resource conditions desirable to

achieve, just as was the case with forest

plan goals.

Paragraph (b) would require that

permits, contracts, and other

instruments issued or approved for use

and occupancy of National Forest

System lands be consistent with

standards in the forest plan in effect at

the time of their issuance. Also, subject

to valid existing rights, they must be

revised as soon as practicable after a

forest plan is amended or revised, if

necessary, to be made consistent with

the forest plan. Both of these provisions

are based on requirements of NFMA

(Section 6(i)) and are similar to

provisions of the existing rule

(§ 219.10(e)), with the exception that the

proposed rule would expand this

requirement to include amendment as

well as revision.

Paragraph (c) would fill an omission

existing in the current rule by making

clear that an approved forest plan

remains in effect until approval of an

amendment or revision. The question of

the status of forest plans undergoing

amendment or revision has arisen often

and would be answered definitively by

this paragraph.

Paragraph (d) would address possible

actions during the plan period.

Paragraph (d)(1) would require that a

display be included in a forest plan

appendix predicting the major goods

and services which may be produced, as

well as the management activities which

may occur during the plan period.

Rather than displaying this information

as precise figures, paragraph (d)(1)(i)

would provide for this information to be

expressed in terms of ranges reflecting,

when practicable and meaningful, some

of the variables most likely to affect

actual accomplishment.

Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would allow a

display of the rate of achieving desired
18910 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

resource conditions identified by forest

plan objectives. Once again, this

prediction would reflect, to the extent

practicable and meaningful, some of the

variables most likely to affect

achievement. This would not be a

required display, but it may be a useful

tool for showing how long it would take

to achieve the resource conditions

envisioned in the forest plan.

Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would clarify that

the information in the displays

described at paragraph (d)(1)(i)–(ii) is

not forest plan direction and does not

compel the agency to take any action.

Paragraph (d)(2) would require

periodic updates of the estimated levels

of goods and services and management

activities, but provides for the intervals

and timeframes to be determined as

appropriate. It is the agency’s intent to

utilize information from other ongoing

agency efforts rather than requiring the

preparation of new or additional

information exclusively for the purposes

of these updates. Therefore, the agency

believes it is important to retain the

flexibility to adjust the intervals and

timeframes for which these estimates

are provided in order to keep

synchronized with whatever agency

procedures can be most efficiently

utilized. Development of these estimates

does not require NEPA analysis.

Section 219.12 Monitoring and

Evaluation

This section is designed to greatly

strengthen the role of monitoring and

evaluation and contains several changes

from the approach taken in the existing

rule. The agency believes an expanded

and strenghened role for monitoring and

evaluation is a cornerstone for

implementing the proposed rule and

making adaptive resource management a

reality for National Forest System lands.

Paragraph (a) would establish the

Forest Supervisor’s responsibility to

conduct monitoring and evaluation and

would require development of a

monitoring and evaluation strategy. This

strategy would be prepared by the

Forest Supervisor simultaneously with

revision of a forest plan. In contrast to

the existing rule, which provides for

monitoring and evaluation to be

addressed in the forest plan, the

proposed rule would address

monitoring and evaluation in a

companion strategy document, and it

would not be part of the forest plan.

Paragraph (a) would also clarify that the

strategy does not require NEPA analysis.

However, monitoring and evaluation

activities are subject to NEPA

procedures at the time of

implementation.

There are several reasons the agency

is proposing to address monitoring and

evaluation in a companion document.

First, the requirement to develop a

companion document should give

considerably more emphasis to

monitoring and evaluation than at

present and should promote greater

recognition of monitoring and

evaluation as a critical and integrated

aspect of National Forest System

management. As the first generation of

forest plans is facing revision and with

the agency shifting to an ecosystem

management approach, monitoring and

evaluation is receiving greatly increased

emphasis within the agency, and

considerably more effort is being

invested in developing well-designed

and coordinated monitoring and

evaluation procedures.

The agency also anticipates much

more emphasis on joint monitoring with

other agencies, coordination of

monitoring efforts across plan area

boundaries, and a shift from a forest-byforest approach to a corporate approach

to monitoring and evaluation activities.

All of this will likely require a

document that more easily allows for an

expanded length and different formats

from what is typically found in most

forest plans now. Establishing a separate

document for addressing monitoring

and evaluation activities allows more

flexibility in how all of this information

can be aggregated and organized. Given

the rapidly expanding technologies and

knowledge associated with monitoring

and evaluation, it is especially desirable

to retain as much flexibility as possible

so that the most effective means can be

found for structuring and displaying

relevant information.

Finally, separating the monitoring and

evaluation strategy from decisions in the

forest plan should help to streamline the

forest plan. The Critique of Land

Management Planning revealed that the

public wants shorter forest plans, and

the agency agrees this is desirable. Yet,

circumstances could occur where the

length of the monitoring and evaluation

strategy could approach the length of

the forest plan itself, depending on the

monitoring and evaluation format used

and the amount of information

incorporated from other sources.

Therefore, rather than adding to the size

of forest plans or creating a disincentive

to include all relevant or useful

information for monitoring and

evaluation in order to keep the forest

plan at a manageable size, the agency

believes it is appropriate to treat

monitoring and evaluation information

in a companion document.

In addition to addressing monitoring

and evaluation in a companion

document, the proposed rule would

make clear that the monitoring and

evaluation strategy is not considered

forest plan direction. There are distinct

differences between forest plan

direction and the information in a

monitoring and evaluation strategy.

Unlike the forest plan direction

described at § 219.6 (goals, objectives,

standards, and guidelines), monitoring

and evaluation strategies do not address

how to manage resources. Rather than

guiding how to manage resources, these

strategies guide how to determine if

resource management activities are

resulting in the outcomes expected. In

essence, they are part of the quality

control process for implementing the

forest plan.

The exclusion of monitoring and

evaluation from forest plan direction

creates two particularly notable

changes. First, updates to the

monitoring and evaluation strategy

would not be subject to procedures for

forest plan amendment. This exclusion

is logical because, as provided at

proposed § 219.12(a), the strategy does

not require NEPA analysis, yet the

amendment process is focused on

evaluating alternatives following NEPA

procedures. However, a second

important aspect of amendment

procedures is the requirement for a

public comment period. In order to

assure that the public has an

opportunity to comment on updates to

the monitoring and evaluation strategy,

the proposed rule would require a 30-

day comment period.

The second notable change is that the

strategy would not be subject to

administrative appeal. The monitoring

and evaluation strategy does not make

decisions about how resources will be

managed, but rather establishes

procedures for assessing the effects of

the forest plan. Although the agency has

received hundreds of appeals on forest

plans, very few of them involve

monitoring and evaluation. Considering

the nature of a monitoring and

evaluation strategy and the emphasis in

the rule on assuring on-going

communication and accountability for

monitoring and evaluation, the appeals

process does not appear to be the most

appropriate or effective means for

addressing monitoring and evaluation

issues.

The proposed rule has established

numerous safeguards to assure the

agency’s accountability for monitoring

and evaluation. Some of these include:

public review and comment on the

strategy at the time of revision

(§ 219.12(b)(1)); public comment on

proposed updates to the strategy

(§ 219.12(c)(2)); public notification of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18911

updates to the strategy in the annual

monitoring and evaluation report

(§ 219.12(e)(5)); involvement of the

applicable Station Director in the

development and implementation of

monitoring and evaluation strategies

(§ 219.12(d)(3)); and the availability of

an annual monitoring and evaluation

report for public review (§ 219.12(e)). In

addition, § 219.12(d)(1) and § 219.3

promote ongoing involvement and

communication with the public and

other agencies and governments

throughout all phases of resource

planning and management, including

monitoring and evaluation.

Beyond establishing the monitoring

and evaluation strategy as a companion

document not subject to administrative

appeal, paragraph (a) of proposed

§ 219.12 also would address NEPA

responsibilities related to monitoring

and evaluation. The monitoring and

evaluation strategy does not require

NEPA analysis because it does not

contain any resource decisions. It is an

operational guide that identifies

techniques and procedures for gathering

relevant information; it does not compel

any specific action or prohibit any

action. Therefore, due to the nature of

the information it contains, the criteria

for undertaking NEPA analysis and

disclosure are not met and no NEPA

documentation is required.

In contrast to the monitoring and

evaluation strategy, actual monitoring

and evaluation activities are subject to

NEPA procedures at the time of

implementation. For example, if water

quality monitoring activities involve

placing instrumentation in a stream or

require helicopter access into a remote

mountain lake to collect water samples,

the environmental effects of such

activities would have to be considered.

In most cases, monitoring and

evaluation activities are categorical

exclusions under 7 CFR 1.b(3), which

clearly excludes ‘‘Inventories, research

activities, and studies, such as resource

inventories and routine data collection

when such actions are clearly limited in

scope and intensity.’’ Such an exclusion

does not apply, however, if

extraordinary circumstances exist.

Extraordinary circumstances might

encompass monitoring and evaluation

activities affecting such features as

inventoried roadless areas, wetlands,

Native American religious sites, and

Congressionally designated areas (FSH

1909.15, Sec. 30.3, para. 2).

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) lists the

types of instructions provided in a

monitoring and evaluation strategy and

expands the role of monitoring and

evaluation from that in the existing rule.

Under paragraphs (a)(1) (i) and (ii), the

monitoring and evaluation strategy

would provide guidance to make sure

that projects are being implemented in

accordance with the project decision

document, and that progress is being

made toward achieving plan goals.

Since forest plan goals normally are not

expressed in quantitative terms, the rule

would require that measurable

indicators be used to assess

achievement. In many cases, those

measurable indicators will be desired

resource conditions defined by

objectives.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) links

the monitoring and evaluation strategy

for the plan area to monitoring and

evaluation efforts needed at scales larger

than the plan area. This is a key new

concept and reflects how much of the

coordination required of the Regional

Forester at paragraph (d)(2) of this

section will be integrated into forest

activities. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv)

recognizes that an important role of the

monitoring and evaluation strategy is to

provide for validating the assumptions

upon which plan decisions were based

and verifying the accuracy of the

predicted effects.

Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) (v)–(x)

substantially expand the role of

monitoring and evaluation beyond what

is required by the existing rule. Under

proposed paragraph (a)(1)(v), the

monitoring and evaluation strategy

would include setting priorities for

monitoring and evaluation efforts, and it

specifies that the highest priority for

monitoring and evaluation is those

activities believed to have the greatest

potential risk to the environment.

Proposed provision (a)(1)(vi) would

require the monitoring and evaluation

strategy to address compilation of

information to serve as reference points

for future evaluations. Similarly,

paragraph (a)(1)(vii) would direct that

monitoring and evaluation be used to

determine if new information exists

which substantially affects the validity

of the forest plan, such as changes in

legal requirements, shifting social or

economic trends, new scientific

information, or findings resulting from

ecosystem analyses. This deliberate

outreach for new information is not

generally recognized as part of

monitoring and evaluation under the

existing rule.

Paragraph (a)(1)(viii) would expand

the role of monitoring to include the

storage and dissemination of

information for use in the budget

formulation process. A major source of

this type of information is expected to

be various ecosystem analyses, as well

as information being gathered from

various other sources. Although storing

and disseminating such information is a

vital function, its importance is not

always recognized.

Tracking goods and services provided

and management activities conducted,

as would be required at paragraph

(a)(1)(ix), is traditionally associated with

monitoring and evaluation. The final

item, identifying problems and

opportunities for resolution, is not

traditionally considered part of

monitoring and evaluation. Under the

proposed rule, however, such efforts

would be considered as part of

monitoring and evaluation and are

considered an integral and critical step

whereby the monitoring and evaluation

results are synthesized into a clear

problem statement and evaluation of

opportunities for solution.

The decision as to whether a forest

plan needs to be amended or revised is

a separate step and not included within

the role of monitoring and evaluation.

Monitoring and evaluation only goes as

far as providing the information which

defines the problem and which

describes opportunities for solution.

The subsequent determination as to

whether an amendment or revision is

triggered is based on the information

provided through monitoring and

evaluation. This determination is made

available to the public in the annual

monitoring and evaluation report that

would be required by paragraph (e) of

this proposed section.

Paragraph (a)(2) provides additional

instructions for developing monitoring

and evaluation strategies. The proposed

rule would make clear that strategies

should be realistic and practicable to

implement and should recognize

possible fluctuations in funding. This

paragraph also would assure that

monitoring and evaluation efforts are

designed at appropriate spatial scales

and for appropriate timeframes.

The agency recognizes that there will

always be limitations on the funds and

staff available to conduct monitoring

and evaluation. One approach for

enhancing efficiency is to assure that

efforts are designed at the appropriate

scales for appropriate timeframes. This

will require close coordination of effort

and careful planning, but such

coordination is essential to prevent

redundant efforts and to maximize the

results obtained with limited funding.

The provision of paragraph (a)(2) to

recognize funding limitations is one of

three provisions in this section which

work together to address the issue of

funding. The first provision is (a)(1)(v),

which would require that priorities be

set for monitoring and evaluation efforts

in the strategy in order to identify

monitoring and evaluation efforts
18912 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

associated with the management

activities having the greatest potential

risk to the environment. The second is

paragraph (a)(2), which would direct

monitoring and evaluation strategies to

be designed recognizing that the type

and intensity of efforts may need to vary

depending on the availability of funds.

The third related provision is paragraph

(a)(3), which would require that, when

funds are limited, the highest priority

monitoring and evaluation activities be

implemented first.

Proposed paragraph (b) would require

that the monitoring and evaluation

strategy be available for public review

and comment along with the proposed

revised forest plan. This assures the

public an opportunity to review the

strategy at the time of revision just as

would have been the case if it were

contained in the forest plan. An

important safeguard for ensuring that a

timely monitoring and evaluation

strategy is developed is the prohibition

against approving a revised forest plan

prior to approval of the monitoring and

evaluation strategy. This provision

would assure that there is no delay

between finalizing a revised forest plan

and having an approved monitoring and

evaluation strategy. Finally, Station

Director concurrence would be required

when approving the strategy. This

provision would help ensure that the

monitoring and evaluation strategy is

scientifically sound and would promote

the involvement of the scientific

community in development of these

strategies.

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) provides

that updates may occur as needed and

lists circumstances which might trigger

an update. Proposed § 219.12(c)(2)

would make the Forest Supervisor

responsible for updating monitoring and

evaluation strategies as needed and

would make clear that such updates do

not require NEPA analysis. As

previously noted, paragraph (c)(2)

would require a 30-day period for

public review and comment on

proposed updates to a monitoring and

evaluation strategy.

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would

promote coordination of monitoring and

evaluation efforts, to the extent feasible,

with other Federal agencies, State, local,

and tribal governments, interested

private landowners, the scientific

community, and other interested

parties. Such coordination offers

opportunities to enhance open and

ongoing communication, improve the

information base for decisionmaking,

reduce costs through shared efforts, and

promote an ecological approach to

resource management across

jurisdictional boundaries.

Paragraph (d)(2) would require the

Regional Forester to be responsible for

assuring that monitoring and evaluation

needs which extend beyond a plan area

are addressed and coordinated. This

expands the role of the Regional

Forester from that in the existing rule

and clearly establishes the agency’s

intent to address monitoring and

evaluation efforts at whatever scale is

appropriate, rather than focusing on

efforts within a plan area simply

because monitoring and evaluation

procedures have historically been forest

plan decisions. The proposed rule

intentionally would not provide

detailed instructions on how this

coordination is to be accomplished

since the agency has not had extensive

experience addressing monitoring and

evaluation procedures at this scale and

flexibility is needed in order to

determine the best way to approach this

task.

Paragraph (d)(3) would create an

integral and ongoing role for Forest

Service research personnel in all phases

of monitoring and evaluation. The

intent is to provide a sound scientific

basis for all monitoring and evaluation

activities and to help promote

interaction between researchers and

land managers. Because the paragraph

directs that research personnel should

be involved in monitoring and

evaluation to the extent practicable,

there is recognition that there will be

limits to the extent research staff are

available for such efforts.

Paragraph (e) of proposed § 219.12

requires the Forest Supervisor to

prepare an annual monitoring and

evaluation report to be made available

to the public, as well as transmitted to

the Regional Forester and Station

Director. This provision is intended to

increase the accountability of the agency

for conducting monitoring and

evaluation and to enhance

communication and involvement of the

public. The seven items which would be

included in the report assure that the

public, Regional Forester, and Station

Director are aware of the results of

monitoring and evaluation efforts, the

implications such results have for

needing to change the plan or how it is

being implemented, and any changes

which have occurred during the year to

the plan or monitoring and evaluation

strategy.

Paragraph (f) would limit

implementation of projects if funds for

associated monitoring and evaluation

activities are not reasonably expected to

be available. There is no comparable

requirement in the existing rule. This

represents another means by which the

agency intends to increase its

commitment to accomplishing

monitoring and evaluation efforts. This

limitation applies to those monitoring

and evaluation activities specifically

identified in a decision document

associated with authorizing a sitespecific project. In addition to assuring

that monitoring and evaluation needs

are considered at the time of project

implementation, this provision should

be an incentive to improve the manner

in which monitoring and evaluation

costs are integrated into project

planning.

The final paragraph of this section

would make clear that none of the

requirements for conducting and

reporting on monitoring and evaluation

preclude initiating an amendment or

revision at any time.

Section 219.13 Statutory Timber

Management Requirements

This section describes those statutory

planning requirements that affect the

management and harvest of timber on

National Forest System lands. Although

most of the provisions of this section are

directly responsive to specific

requirements of NFMA, a few are

discretionary. Those of a discretionary

nature are identified in this preamble.

With the agency’s emphasis on

integrating consideration of resources as

part of ecosystem management, devoting

an entire section of the proposed rule to

the timber resource may seem

inconsistent to many reviewers. The

attention given to timber in this section,

while possibly appearing to be out-ofbalance with other resources, is

generally the minimum needed to

respond to the highly prescriptive

requirements for timber management in

NFMA. Enacted largely in response to

timber-related issues in the mid-1970’s,

NFMA contains extensive specific

direction regarding management of

timber resources, much more so than for

any other resource.

Proposed § 219.13(a) addresses

reviews of timber suitability

determinations. Section 6(k) of NFMA

requires that lands not suited for timber

production be identified in forest plans.

Paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section

address compliance with Section 6(k) of

NFMA.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would

address the NFMA requirement for the

10-year suitability review, and states

that the 10-year review should normally

occur as part of the revision process.

When done as part of the revision

process, the entire land base would be

considered. In some case, however, it is

possible that revision will not have

occurred by the time the 10-year period

has elapsed. In these cases, proposed
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18913

paragraph (a)(1) would require the 10-

year review to consider only the

unsuitable lands, with all lands

reviewed later at the time of revision.

Although the statute does not require

a review of the timber suitability

determination for all lands at the time

of revision, the agency believes it is

appropriate to do so. This

comprehensive review will assure that

suitable lands are considered for

possible reallocation to the unsuited

land base rather than focusing only on

whether unsuited lands should remain

so designated. Proposed paragraph (a)(3)

would clarify that the determination of

timber suitability may be changed at any

time through forest plan amendment.

Proposed § 219.13(b)(1) would direct

that unsuited lands have a fixed

location and that they should be

identifiable on maps or by other readily

recognizable means. This provision

aims to assure that these lands can be

located during project planning and is

also intended to facilitate the 10-year

review of unsuited lands. One of the

problems with the current approach is

that unsuited lands are sometimes

designated on a forest-wide basis rather

than identified with a specific location.

For example, 20,000 acres out of a total

of 55,000 acres of a particular forest type

may have been determined to be

unsuited lands, but there is no

delineation of which lands within the

total are to be treated as unsuited. The

location of the unsuited land will be

clear if this proposed provision is

adopted.

Paragraph (b)(2) would require that

management prescriptions be

established to ensure that unsuited

lands are managed in accordance with

the three provisions of the proposed

rule which are applicable to them.

These include the requirement to limit

timber harvesting except for salvage

sales or other sales necessitated to

protect other multiple-use values

(§ 219.13(b)(4)), the provision to

continue to reforest unsuited lands

(§ 219.13(b)(5)), and the provision to

allow exceptions to the five-year

reforestation requirement when longterm openings are needed

(§ 219.13(b)(3)(v)(B). All three of these

provisions are in response to

requirements of NFMA.

Paragraph (b)(3) describes the five

types of lands that are not suited for

timber production. The first type is

lands which have been withdrawn from

harvest by an Act of Congress, the

Secretary of Agriculture, or the Chief of

the Forest Service. This is comparable to

the requirement at § 219.14(1)(a)(4) of

the existing rule.

The second exclusion is lands on

which timber harvesting would violate

statute, Executive order, or regulation.

The third requirement would continue

the exclusion of non-forested land, as is

currently provided in § 219.14(a)(1) of

the existing rule.

The fourth exclusion would be those

lands where technology is not available

for conducting timber harvesting

without irreversible damage to soil and

watershed conditions. This parallels a

requirement at Section 6(g)(2)(E)(i) of

NFMA and § 219.14(a)(2) in the existing

rule.

The final exclusion would be those

lands where there is not a reasonable

assurance of adequate reforestation

within five years after timber harvest.

This parallels the requirement at

Section 6(g)(2)(e)(ii) of NFMA and

§ 219.14(a)(3) of the existing rule. The

proposed rule defines the five year

period after final timber harvest to mean

five years after clearcutting, after the last

overstory removal of a shelterwood or

seed tree cutting, or after selection

cutting. In shelterwood or seed tree cuts,

the entire existing overstory may never

be removed, as trees may be left to

provide for other considerations.

Therefore, the time period begins when

the last planned overstory removal is

conducted. In selection cutting, the

stand is left stocked with trees of

varying age and size classes.

There are two supplemental

provisions associated with the five-year

reforestation criterion. First, the rule

specifies that research and experience

are the basis for determining a

reasonable assurance of restocking.

Secondly, the five-year reforestation

requirement would not prohibit creating

openings for long-term purposes, such

as wildlife habitat improvements, scenic

vistas, recreation sites, or other similar

uses.

Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would

permit harvest from unsuitable lands

only for salvage sales or sales

necessitated to protect other multipleuse values. This requirement is based on

the provisions of Section 6(k) of NFMA.

Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would

affirm that lands not suited for timber

production will continue to receive

reforestation treatments to protect other

multiple-use values as required by

Section 6(k) of NFMA.

Proposed paragraph (b)(6) would

explicitly provide that the unsuited land

base should not vary among the

alternatives at the time of forest plan

revision. This requirement is a major

change from the existing regulation, and

provides a good focal point for

comparing differences in the

determination of suitability under the

proposed rule and the existing rule.

The existing rule essentially has a

three-step process. The first step in the

existing rule is closely paralleled in the

proposed rule, but the other two are not.

The first step, described at § 219.14(a)

of the existing rule, defines four

screening criteria fairly comparable to

the six criteria described in the

proposed rule. Thus, under the

proposed rule, the unsuited land base

would be quite similar to the land base

identified as unsuited under the first

screening step of the existing rule. This

screening step does not differ

substantially between alternatives,

because the criteria are based on

conditions or attributes which remain

constant even if management objectives

vary.

The second step of the existing rule

(§ 219.14(b)) requires an analysis which

stratifies those lands not identified as

unsuited in the first step. The

stratification identifies lands with

similar management costs and returns.

Consistent with the intent of § 219.8(b)

to reduce standardized analysis

requirements, there is no comparable

requirement in the proposed rule.

The third step in the existing rule

(§ 219.14 (c) and (d)) screens lands out

of the suitable land base based on the

objectives of each alternative. More

specifically, lands would be considered

not suited for timber production if the

multiple-use objectives for the

alternative precluded timber

production, if other management

objectives imposed such limitations on

timber harvest that requirements of

§ 219.27 could not be met, or if the

lands were not cost-efficient over the

planning horizon in meeting forest

objectives.

This third step in the existing rule is

also not paralleled in the process for

identifying unsuited lands under the

proposed rule. The proposed rule would

address considerations comparable to

the third step in the existing rule at

paragraph (c), which would make clear

that forest plan standards may be

imposed on suited lands to prohibit or

limit timber harvesting. Economic

considerations or an allocation of land

to uses incompatible with timber

harvesting would be examples of

reasons for imposing such standards on

suited lands. In essence, paragraph (c) is

fairly comparable to the third step of the

process under the existing rule, except

that paragraph (c) would limit

harvesting by imposing standards on the

suited land base rather than declaring

those lands to be unsuited for timber

production.
18914 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

In association with the change in

determining unsuitable lands, the

proposed rule would alter the land base

for calculating the allowable sale

quantity (ASQ) from that used in the

existing rule. In the existing rule, the

entire suitable land base is used in

calculating the ASQ. Under the

proposed rule, as described at

§ 219.13(d)(1)(i), only those suited lands

on which planned periodic entry for

timber is allowed over time would be

included in ASQ calculations; i.e., if

standards have been imposed which are

incompatible with timber harvesting

over the long-term, then those lands are

excluded from the land base used to

calculate the ASQ. For example, if a

corridor along a scenic hiking trail is

allocated to a prescription that does not

allow timber harvesting in order to

protect scenic values, then the lands

would be in the suited land base but

would not be included in ASQ

calculations.

It is noteworthy that the proposed

rule would limit the land base for ASQ

calculations to those lands available for

planned periodic entries. Lands would

not be included in the ASQ calculations

if only a one-time harvest were planned

but not planned periodic entries. For

example, if a salvage harvest was

planned to occur during the plan period

in an area where harvest would not

otherwise occur nor be planned for

future decades, then those lands would

be excluded from ASQ calculations.

Another notable change between the

existing rule and proposed rule as

related to timber suitability is the rule

of economics. In contrast to the existing

rule which addresses the economics of

harvesting as part of the timber

suitability determination, the proposed

rule would address the economics of

harvesting in the forest plan through

establishment of forest plan standards or

guidelines.

Section 6(k) of NFMA states that

unsuitable lands are to be identified

‘‘* * * considering physical, economic,

and other pertinent factors to the extent

feasible, as determined by the Secretary

* * *’’ Although the agency agrees that

economics is an important

consideration in determining whether

lands should be harvested, experience

has proven that it is not feasible to

effectively factor in economics as part of

the 10-year timber suitability

determination. Therefore, in light of the

latitude provided by NFMA, the agency

is proposing to address economic

considerations by means other than the

timber suitability process.

There are various reasons for this

change. First, economic conditions

fluctuate greatly during the course of a

plan period. One year a certain area of

land or species may be uneconomic to

harvest, and another year market

conditions may have changed to where

the same area or species would be

greatly in demand. This makes it

difficult to meaningfully assess the

economics of harvesting a particular site

over a 10-year period.

Also, it is generally accepted that the

net value of the timber sale program

must be considered as a whole rather

than by only evaluating individual

timber sales in isolation, since some

sales of low value are offset by other

higher value sales. The timber program

also must be viewed with consideration

of non-market contributions, such as

enhanced hunting use, and not strictly

timber sale costs and receipts. These

considerations further add to the

difficulty of using the process for

identifying unsuited lands in forest

plans as an effective and timely means

by which economic considerations are

addressed.

In contrast to using timber suitability

determinations to address economic

considerations, the agency believes they

can be adequately addressed through

other means. For example, forest plan

standards can be established to limit

harvesting due to economic reasons.

Therefore, if harvest limitations are

deemed appropriate due to economics,

the option exists to use them. In

addition, economic considerations can

be considered as part of the program

development and budget process. This

would allow timely adjustment of

annual harvest programs, within the

limitations imposed by forest plan

standards, based on such factors as

fluctuating economic conditions. Also,

the economics of harvesting any

particular site can be considered as part

of the project decision to approve

harvest of the area.

The agency believes there are four

major advantages to the entire set of

changes being proposed to the process

for determining timber suitability. First,

under the proposed rule, suitability

determinations are much simpler and

more efficient to conduct, and yet there

is no compromise of the ability to

exclude lands from timber harvest or

from calculation of the ASQ. Secondly,

the 10-year review will be completed

more quickly, reducing the diversion of

time and energy from revision efforts

which are generally expected to be

occurring at the same time. Third, it

allows unsuited lands to be readily

identifiable, making it easier for both

the public and agency personnel to

locate those lands when designing

projects. Finally, it allows economic

factors to be considered in a more

effective and timely manner while

reducing an analysis step that has not

proven highly beneficial.

In order to assure that the availability

of lands for timber harvest is readily

evident despite the proposed change in

process for determining suitability,

proposed paragraph (c) would require

an appendix to display the number of

acres of suitable lands where standards

have been imposed prohibiting or

limiting timber harvest as well as the

number of acres where such limitations

do not apply. This is not part of the

suitability determination, but does

provide information comparable to what

is currently available in forest plans as

part of the timber suitability

information.

Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the

allowable sale quantity and makes clear

that the ASQ is neither a projection of

future sale levels nor a target to be

achieved. Although this position is well

supported in case law, there has been

widespread misunderstanding that the

ASQ is a target level for timber

production from a National Forest. The

proposed rule would make clear this is

not the case.

Proposed § 219.13(d)(1) sets out

procedures for calculating the allowable

sale quantity (ASQ). As stated at (d)(1)(i)

of the proposed rule, the land base for

ASQ calculations would be limited to

suitable lands on which planned

periodic timber harvest is allowed over

time.

Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) explains the role

of the long-term sustained yield timber

capacity (LTSYTC) when calculating the

ASQ. The LTSYTC is defined at § 219.2

and represents the highest uniform

wood yield that may be sustained in

perpetuity consistent with the forest

plan.

Consistent with Section 13 of NFMA,

the chargeable timber volume which can

be sold for a decade cannot exceed the

LTSYTC except where necessary to

meet overall multiple-use objectives. An

example of such a departure may be in

the case of a forest having severe forest

health problems, where accelerated

silvicultural manipulations and

accelerated timber harvest are critical to

its ecological restoration.

Under the proposed rule, the land

base for calculating the LTSYTC would

be calculated using the same lands and

forest plan standards used to determine

the ASQ. Where two or more

proclaimed National Forests are

included in the forest plan, the

proportionate contribution of each

National Forest to the total ASQ for the

plan area cannot exceed the LTSYTC for

each corresponding proclaimed

National Forest. In order to assure this
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18915

would not happen, a noninterchangeable component could be

defined in accordance with (d)(3) of this

section. This limitation on the

chargeable volume that can be sold for

a decade from a proclaimed National

Forest does not apply where the

proclaimed National Forest has fewer

than 200,000 acres of land suited for

timber production. These provisions are

based on the requirements of Section 13

of NFMA, and do not vary from the

existing situation, although the existing

rule does not address this to the same

degree of detail.

Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would continue a

non-declining flow requirement. When

a new ASQ is determined, it may be

higher, lower, or the same as the current

ASQ. Such fluctuations might be caused

by such factors as changes in the

suitable land base, new standards, or

revised timber growth and yield

projections. However, whatever level is

established for the decade of the plan

must be capable of being sustained or

increased during subsequent decades,

with exceptions only to meet overall

multiple-use goals. This limitation is

intended to help assure that harvesting

will not occur at so high a rate in the

short-term that decline is inevitable in

the future, unless such a decline is

recognized as being necessary to meet

multiple-use goals. An example of when

such an exception might be appropriate

would, once again, be in the case of a

forest having severe health problems,

where higher levels may be beneficial in

the short-term in order to correct

imbalances of the forest structure and

promote ecological restoration, but with

lower harvest levels planned once the

restoration phase was complete.

Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) is a requirement

of Section 6(g)(3)(D) of NFMA and

would require that, when the ASQ is

being recalculated, any predicted yields

based on intensive management must be

reduced if such practices have not been

successfully implemented or adequate

funds have not been received to

continue substantially as planned. This

statutory limitation is intended to help

safeguard against over-estimating the

ASQ due to faulty yield projections.

Paragraph (d)(2) would clarify that

only the timber volume included in the

growth and yield projections to

determine the ASQ is chargeable to the

ASQ. Excluded would be the volume

from timber classes not included in the

projections, such as merchantable dead

timber.

Paragraph (d)(3) would allow for the

establishment of non-interchangeable

components (NIC’s). NIC’s allow for

separating discrete quantities of the

ASQ into individually accountable

categories. The proposed rule would

stipulate that chargeable timber volume

from one NIC cannot be substituted for

the achievement of the volume limit of

another NIC. In addition, such

components would be required where

management prescriptions for roadless

areas allow planned periodic entries

over time for timber harvest.

Establishment of NIC’s is not limited to

roadless areas, however. On forests

where the product or species mix is

deemed important, the use of NIC’s

provides a means to maintain the

intended balance.

The provision for roadless area NIC’s

is intended to help reduce the pressure

to over-harvest areas outside of roadless

areas if anticipated timber production

from roadless areas does not materialize.

Although the proposed rule would make

clear at paragraph (d) of this section that

the ASQ is not a target or projection of

future harvest levels, this requirement to

establish NIC’s for roadless areas is

intended to further reinforce this idea

and to help to reduce erroneous

expectations regarding the role of the

ASQ. In addition, other forest plan

standards serve to prevent overharvesting anywhere in the plan area.

Paragraph (d)(4) addresses a provision

of Section 13(b) of NFMA and clarifies

that the ASQ may not be used to limit

the harvesting of timber for salvage or

sanitation purposes or for harvesting

timber stands substantially damaged by

fire, wind or other catastrophe, or which

are in imminent danger from insect or

disease attack. If such timber volume

were included in the calculation of the

ASQ, it may be substituted for timber

volume that would otherwise have been

sold under the plan. If the sanitation/

salvage timber volume had not been

included in the calculation of ASQ, or

if it had and it is infeasible to substitute

it for other volume, it can be sold over

and above the ASQ.

Paragraph (e) responds to the

requirements of Section 6(m) of NFMA

and would require that all even-aged

stands scheduled for harvest during the

planning period will generally have

reached the culmination of mean annual

increment (CMAI) of growth unless

certain listed exceptions apply. This

paragraph is similar to the existing rule,

except that any change to a forest plan

to permit exceptions must be made

through a major amendment or done at

the time of plan revision (see

§ 219.9(b)(1)(iii)).

Proposed paragraph (f) would address

the selection of cutting methods. It

would make clear that the

determination of the appropriate harvest

method is to be made at the project

level. This has been a source of

considerable confusion in the past, with

many administrative appeals received

by the agency questioning the adequacy

of the analysis associated with a forest

plan to support the selection of cutting

methods. The proposed rule is

consistent with numerous court

decisions that confirm such decisions

are made at the project level rather than

in the forest plan. (For example, Sierra

Club v. Robertson, 810 F. Supp. 1021,

1026 (W.D. Ark 1992) aff’d 28 F 3d 753,

760 (8th Cir. 1994)).

Paragraph (f) also responds to the

requirement of NFMA at Section

6(g)(3)(F)(i) which limits the use of

clearcutting to those cases where it is

determined to be the optimum method.

The existing rule does not address what

was meant by optimum. Paragraph (f)

would establish seven purposes for

which clearcutting can be used,

provided it is the optimum method and

the only practical method for meeting

one or more of the purposes. These

provisions reflect the agency’s intent to

continue to reduce the amount of

clearcutting from levels which have

historically occurred, tailoring its use to

those situations which meet the

purposes listed. Over the past several

years, the agency has already

substantially reduced its use of

clearcutting.

Paragraph (g) would require that the

forest plan establish the maximum size

of areas that can be clearcut in one

harvest operation. This is in response to

Section 6(g)(3)(F)(iv) of NFMA.

Exceptions are allowed for natural

catastrophes, or limits established by

the Regional Forester on a project basis

after public notice. Currently, harvest

size limitations are found in the existing

rule and regional guides, but regional

guides would no longer be maintained

under the proposed rule. In light of the

fact that research findings on the effects

of harvest size have changed and are

likely to continue to change over time,

it is not appropriate to include such

prescriptive direction in this proposed

rule. By addressing such limitations in

the forest plan, even though they are not

applied until the project level, the

constraints are integrated with other

resource decisions for the plan area and

the public is assured the opportunity to

review and comment when they are

adopted or changed.

Paragraph (h) would direct the

shaping and blending of even-aged

harvest methods with the natural terrain

to the extent possible in order to

ameliorate the visual impacts of such

practices. It addresses NFMA Section

6(g)(3)(F)(iii) and is less detailed than

the requirements of 219.27(d)(1) of the

existing rule.
18916 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Paragraph (i) would assure that timber

is only harvested where soil and water

can be adequately protected. This

provision is based on Section 6(g)(E)(iii)

of NFMA.

Paragraph (j) would require certain

displays of timber-related information

that must be included in forest plan

appendices. This information is

expected to be of interest to the public

and provides a concise summary of

various timber-related analyses or

decisions. Items (i)(1) and (i)(2) are

intended to help summarize the

availability of lands for timber harvest,

while (i)(3) and (i)(4) provide

information to assure NFMA

requirements have been met. The

proportion of probable timber harvest

methods forest-wide is required to be

included by Section 6(f)(2) of NFMA.

Section 219.14 Special Designations

The purpose of this section is to

ensure that forest plans include all of

the relevant direction (goals, objectives,

standards, and guidelines as described

at proposed § 219.6) for lands within the

plan area, including those with special

designations which may have been

evaluated through other planning

processes as required by statute. The

existing rule addresses only two special

designations, research natural areas and

wilderness. The proposed rule seeks to

integrate direction for all specially

designated areas into forest plans to the

extent possible.

Paragraph (a) would explain that

forest plan amendment or revision is the

mechanism to allocate specific areas to

prescriptions for special designations, or

to recommend special designation by

higher authorities. Various examples of

special designations are also provided.

Paragraph (b) would require that

roadless, undeveloped areas be

evaluated for wilderness designation

during forest plan revision unless

Federal legislation directs otherwise.

Roadless, undeveloped areas are defined

to be at least 5,000 acres in size unless

contiguous to existing or

Administration-endorsed units of the

National Wilderness Preservation

System. Due to the differing conditions

in the eastern part of the country, a

provision is added so that the size

limitation would not apply east of the

100th meridian.

These provisions of the proposed rule

differ somewhat from the existing rule.

Most notably, the proposed rule is more

specific by defining roadless areas in

terms of a 5,000-acre minimum for areas

in the western part of the country. This

size criterion has been agency policy as

described in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 7.11,

but is not in the existing rule. In

contrast, the existing rule provides

criteria for evaluating roadless areas,

whereas the proposed rule does not,

because the agency believes such

detailed procedural instructions are

better suited for the Directive System.

It should be noted that nothing in

paragraph (b) precludes consideration of

roadless areas for the full range of

management options. Although

wilderness designation must be one of

the options considered, roadless areas

are also subject to consideration for

various other uses or degrees of

protection, not unlike the case for most

portions of the plan area.

Paragraph (c) of this section would

provide for evaluation of a river’s

eligibility for wild, scenic, or recreation

river designation during revision if

legislation requires such an evaluation

or if the river was not evaluated under

criteria set forth in July of 1987 in Forest

Service Handbook 1909.12. Although

many forests have evaluated their rivers

under these criteria, many have not.

This provision is designed to assure that

all potential wild, scenic, or recreation

rivers are evaluated under the same set

of criteria. Although wild, scenic, and

recreation rivers were not addressed in

the existing rule, the proposed rule

includes them since recommendations

for river designation, as is the case for

wilderness, are made in forest plans

with the final decision made by the

Congress.

Paragraph (d) would reinforce the

central role of forest plans by requiring

that any requirements for additional

planning for special areas must be met

through forest plans, unless certain

identified exceptions exist. This is

comparable to § 219.2(a) of the existing

rule and is intended to assure that

special area planning is integrated with

forest plans.

The proposed rule would specifically

require that goals, objectives, standards,

or guidelines from special area plans be

incorporated into forest plans to

maintain the role of the forest plan as

the central source of local direction as

well as to provide a basis for

determining project consistency.

Section 219.15 Applicability and

Transition

This section provides for an orderly

transition from the existing rule adopted

in 1982 to the proposed rule. Paragraph

(a) would establish that the proposed

rule would apply to the entire National

Forest System. Although terms such as

‘‘National Forest,’’ ‘‘forest’’ or ‘‘forest

plan’’ have been used within the

proposed rule and preamble, this does

not limit applicability of the rule to only

the National Forest components of the

National Forest System. For example,

the National Forest System includes

National Forests, National Grasslands,

Purchase Units, Land Utilization

Projects, Experimental Forests,

Experimental Range, Experimental

Areas, and other areas. The applicability

of the proposed rule to the National

Forest System does not differ from the

existing rule.

Paragraph (b) would address those

situations where an initial forest plan

has not been approved at the time the

new rule becomes effective. At this

time, there are four National Forests

where a forest plan has not yet been

approved; these are the Klamath,

Mendocino, Shasta-Trinity, and Six

Rivers National Forests, all in the

Pacific Southwest Region (R–5)

(California). The new rule would not

apply to development of initial forest

plans. Therefore, paragraph (b) provides

for unfinished forest plans to be

completed under the previous planning

rule as adopted in 1982. As a result,

there would be consistent regulatory

guidance for development of all initial

forest plans and no disruption of the

planning process for any unfinished

plans. Upon approval of those forest

plans, the provisions of the proposed

rule would then apply to future

amendments and revisions.

Paragraph (c) would make clear that

forest plans that are already approved

remain in effect until amended or

revised. This provision is intended to

prevent any uncertainty as to the status

of existing forest plans.

Paragraph (d) would make clear that

forest plans need not be amended in

order to comply with requirements of

the new rule prior to the forest plan

being revised in accordance with the

new rule. This provision is included

because the agency does not intend for

the new rule to immediately trigger

either the amendment or revision of

forest plans. It would be disruptive,

expensive, and impractical to

immediately undertake changes to every

forest plan in order to adjust to the

newly effective rule.

Paragraph (e) allows development of

the displays required at § 219.11(d)(1)–

(2) and § 219.13(j) to be delayed until

the forest plan is revised in accordance

with the rules of this subpart.

Paragraph (f) makes clear that the first

annual monitoring and evaluation

report would be required one fiscal year

following adoption of the final rule.

This time period allows forests time to

plan for and organize work needed to

produce the first annual monitoring and

evaluation report. Such reports would

be developed using the results of

monitoring and evaluation activities
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18917

described in existing forest plans, since

most Forests will not have the newly

required monitoring and evaluation

strategies developed until the forest

plan is revised.

Paragraph (g) addresses how the

transition process would occur

regarding usage of ‘‘standards’’ and

‘‘guidelines’’ as defined in the proposed

rule. Many existing forest plans do not

distinguish between ‘‘standards’’ and

‘‘guidelines’’ in the same manner as

described in the proposed rule at § 219.6

(e) and (f). In addition, it would not be

mandatory for each forest plan to be

changed to distinguish between

‘‘standards’’ and ‘‘guidelines’’ until the

time of revision. As a result, it would be

appropriate to implement the provision

of proposed § 219.11(a), which would

require project consistency

determinations to be based on

adherence to ‘‘standards,’’ or the

provision of § 219.9(b)(1)(i), which

would require major amendment when

modifying forest plan standards,

without recognizing and providing for

the impact of this proposed change in

terminology.

Under the provisions of paragraph (g),

until such time as a forest plan were

amended or revised to distinguish

between ‘‘standards’’ and ‘‘guidelines’’

in accordance with the terminology

defined in the proposed rule, the words

used in each existing ‘‘standard’’ or

‘‘guideline’’ in the current plan would

be used to determine whether it is

mandatory. More specifically, many

current forest plans contain a mix of

‘‘standards’’ and ‘‘guidelines,’’ of which

only some are mandatory. For example,

statements using ‘‘must’’ or ‘‘shall’’ are

mandatory in nature and would

generally be comparable to a ‘‘standard’’

in the proposed rule. In contrast,

statements using ‘‘may,’’ ‘‘should,’’ or

‘‘ought’’ provide the flexibility

comparable to a ‘‘guideline’’ in the

proposed rule.

Proposed paragraph (g)(1) continues

existing agency policy that project

consistency determinations are based on

whether project decisions adhere to

mandatory standards or guidelines. This

should provide a smooth transition to

the new rule.

Paragraph (g)(2) describes instructions

for determining if a future amendment

is considered ‘‘major’’ during the

transitional period before a forest plan

has been revised. The triggers for a

major amendment that apply during the

transition period differ somewhat from

both the existing rule and the provisions

at § 219.9(b)(1) of the proposed rule. The

provisions of proposed (219.9(b)(1)

would apply only after forest plans have

been amended or revised to fully

comply with the new terminology.

During the transition period before the

plan has been changed to be in full

compliance with the new terminology,

the provisions of § 219.15(g)(2) would

apply.

In accordance with § 219.15(g), two

circumstances must exist

simultaneously for a major amendment

to be triggered during the transition

period; i.e., prior to a forest plan being

amended or revised to be in full

compliance with the new usage of

standards. First, the amendment must

change standards or guidelines in the

current forest plan which are

mandatory. Since many current forest

plans do not distinguish between

standards and guidelines, there may be

mandatory requirements labelled as

guidelines in current plans. Thus, the

determination during the transition

period focuses on whether the change is

to a mandatory provision rather than

whether it is labelled as a standard or

guideline. In accordance with § 219.6(f),

this won’t be necessary once a forest

plan has been revised because there

would be no mandatory requirements

labelled as guidelines. If, during the

transition period a new mandatory

requirement was established, such a

change to the forest plan would trigger

a major amendment.

The second circumstance which must

also occur is that the proposed change

to a mandatory standard or guideline

would result in a significant change to

the forest plan and those changes are

predicted to affect resources over a large

portion of the plan area during the

remainder of the plan period. This is

comparable to one of the circumstances

currently defined in FMS 1922.52 for

significant amendment.

If both of these circumstances occur,

a major amendment would be triggered

during the transition period. This

amendment would be conducted in

accordance with the procedures for

major amendment in the new rule,

however. It should be noted that many

changes to current forest plan standards

may not affect resources over a large

portion of the plan area during the

remainder of the plan period. For

example, if the forest plan was

scheduled to undergo revision soon,

there might be few, if any, changes that

could affect resources over a large

portion of the plan area within a short

period of time. Even though the new or

modified standard might apply over the

entire plan area, resources on-theground might not actually be affected if

the standard was not going to be in

place very long before revision would be

initiated. Thus, some changes to

standards might not meet the threshold

of triggering a major amendment during

this transition period.

The intent of this transition procedure

is to begin shifting the emphasis away

from changes in output levels and

towards recognizing the important role

of forest plan standards when

determining if a change triggers a major

amendment. At the same time, it is

designed to recognize that the change in

terminology between the existing rule

and proposed rule makes it unrealistic

to implement the new approach defined

at § 219(b)(1)(i) immediately.

In addition to the requirements

related to changing a standard, a major

amendment would be triggered during

the transition period if the chargeable

timber volume which can be sold for a

decade from a proclaimed National

Forest were established that exceeded

the long-term sustained yield capacity

of the Forest, or if harvest of even-aged

stands were permitted before

culmination of mean annual increment.

Both of these provisions are identical to

the provisions of § 219.9(b)(1) (ii) and

(iii). They are applicable during the

transition period to ensure that the

public involvement requirements of

NFMA are met as required by the statute

for changes of this nature.

Proposed paragraph (h) would

address how the new rule would be

applied when a significant amendment

or revision is already in progress as

indicated by issuance of a Notice of

Intent. At the time of adoption of a final

rule, one of two scenarios could occur.

If a draft environmental impact

statement (DEIS) has not yet been

published, the new rule must be

adopted. If a DEIS has been published,

it is the Regional Forester’s option to

decide whether to continue under the

previous planning rule or to apply the

new rule. In those case where the new

rule is adopted, paragraph (h) also

provides direction so that the Regional

Forester can avoid delaying ongoing

processes.

Paragraph (h) is intended to promote

prompt application of the new rule.

However, it would be unnecessarily

disruptive and expensive to impose a

new regulation on ongoing significant

amendment or revision efforts nearing

completion. Similarly, paragraph (h) is

intended to allow ongoing efforts which

are subject to the new rule to proceed

as smoothly as possible. It would be

largely redundant, time-consuming, and

confusing to the public to require

various procedural steps in the

processes for amendment or revision to

be repeated or accomplished in

accordance with the new rule when the

effort has already proceeded past the
18918 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

point where those steps are in a logical

sequence.

Paragraph (i) of the proposed rule

would provide for the withdrawal of

regional guides within three years of

adoption of the final rule. The reasons

for eliminating regional guides were

explained earlier in the discussion of

proposed § 219.5. Paragraph (i) also

would require that the Regional Guide

for the Pacific Southwest Region (R–5)

be maintained in accordance with the

requirements of the existing rule until

the remaining unfinished plans in that

Region are approved. In all other

Regions, regional guides would be

withdrawn within 3 years from

adoption of the final rule. The Pacific

Southwest Region would need to

maintain its regional guide in order to

direct development of unfinished forest

plans. The Pacific Southwest Regional

Guide would be withdrawn within 3

years from approval of the last forest

plan in Region 5. In addition, paragraph

(i) would authorize the Chief of the

Forest Service to extend any regional

guide beyond the 3-year period in

extenuating circumstances.

Paragraph (j) assures that forest plans

address limitations on the size of

openings (§ 219.13(g)) prior to

withdrawal of the regional guide. The

establishment of size limitations is a

requirement of NFMA and is currently

addressed in regional guides and the

existing rule. This provision will assure

that there is no gap in having such

direction in place during the transition

to the new rule.

The transition procedures of this

proposed rule reflect current

circumstances regarding the status of

forest planning efforts nationwide and

the nature of proposed changes to the

existing rule. To the extent that these or

other circumstances are different at the

time the final rule is adopted, the

agency may have to adopt different

transitional procedures in order to

assure the most practical, efficient, and

timely transition possible.

Conforming Amendments

The administrative appeal process for

forest plans is set out in a separate rule

at 36 CFR part 217, and the

administrative appeal process for

project decisions is set out at 36 CFR

part 215. Due to the nature of changes

being proposed to 36 CFR part 219,

amendments would need to be made to

these appeal rules in order for them to

conform to the changes proposed to part

219. First, the terms ‘‘nonsignificant

amendment’’ and ‘‘significant

amendment’’ would be replaced by the

terms ‘‘minor amendment’’ and ‘‘major

amendment’’ wherever they occur in

parts 215 and 217. Second, § 217.3(b)

would be removed to exclude regional

guides from being subject to

administrative appeal since these

documents would not be retained under

proposed revisions to part 219. Third,

the heading of part 217 would be

amended to remove reference to

regional guides and read: Appeal of

National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plans. Finally, § 217.3(a)(1)

and § 217.4 would be amended to

exclude interim amendments from being

subject to administrative appeal.

Conclusion

The Forest Service invites

individuals, organizations, and public

agencies and governments to comment

on this proposed rule. To aid the

analysis of comments, it would be

helpful if reviewers would key their

comments to specific proposed sections

or topics. Respondents also should

know that in analyzing and considering

comments, the Forest Service will give

more weight to substantive comments

than to simple ‘‘yes,’’ ‘‘no,’’ or ‘‘check

off’’ responses to form letter/

questionnaire-type submissions.

Regulatory Impact

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866 on

Regulatory Planning and Review. The

agency has determined that this

proposed rule is a significant regulatory

action subject to Office of Management

and Budget review. However, this

proposed rule does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605

et seq).

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the

Public

This rule does not contain any

recordkeeping or reporting requirements

or other information collection

requirements as defined in 5 CFR 1320

and, therefore, imposes no paperwork

burden on the public. Accordingly, the

review provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507)

and implementing regulations at 5 CFR

part 1320 do not apply.

Environmental Impact

This proposed rule would establish

procedures for land and resource

management planning for National

Forest System lands. Section 31.1b of

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR

43180; September 18, 1992) excludes

from documentation in an

environmental assessment or impact

statement ‘‘rules, regulations, or policies

to establish Service-wide administrative

procedures, program processes, or

instructions.’’ The agency’s preliminary

assessment is that this rule falls within

this category of actions and that no

extraordinary circumstances exist which

would require preparation of an

environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement. A final

determination will be made upon

adoption of the final rule.

Civil Justice Reform Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule

were adopted, (1) all state and local

laws and regulations that are in conflict

with this proposed rule or which would

impede its full implementation would

be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect

would be given to this proposed rule;

and (3) it would not require

administrative proceedings before

parties may file suite in court

challenging its provisions.

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 215

Administrative practice and

procedure, and National forests.

36 CFR Part 217

Administrative practice and

procedure, and National forests.

36 CFR Part 219

Environmental impact statements,

Land and resource management

planning, and National forests.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in

the preamble, it is proposed to amend

parts 215, 217, and 219 of Title 36 of the

Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 215—NOTICE, COMMENT, AND

APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES

1. The authority citation for part 215

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 551; sec. 322,

Pub. L. 102–381, 106 Stat. 1419 (16 U.S.C.

1612 note).

2. Amend §§ 215.1(a) and 215.3(c) by

removing the term ‘‘nonsignificant

amendments’’ and substituting in lieu

thereof the term ‘‘minor amendments’’.

2a. Amend §§ 215.4(e) and 215.7(a) by

removing the term ‘‘nonsignificant

amendment’’ and adding the term

‘‘minor amendment’’.

3. Amend § 215.8(a)(1) by removing

the term ‘‘significant amendment’’ and

substituting in lieu thereof the term

‘‘major amendment’’.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18919

PART 217—APPEAL OF NATIONAL

FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT PLANS

4. Revise the heading for part 217 to

read as set out above.

5. The authority citation for part 217

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 551, 472.

6. Revise § 217.3(a) to read as follows:

§ 217.3 Decisions subject to appeal.

(a) The decisions subject to appeal

under this part are decisions to approve,

amend through major amendment or

minor amendment, or revise a National

Forest Land and Resource Management

plan, except when a decision to

authorize a specific project or activity

includes a minor amendment to the

forest plan as described in 36 CFR

219.9(c)(5).

* * * * *

7. Amend § 217.4(a) by removing the

term ‘‘non-significant amendment’’ and

substituting in lieu thereof the term

‘‘minor amendment’’.

§§ 217.8 and 217.15 [Amended]

7a. Amend §§ 217.8(a)(2) and

217.15(a) by removing the term ‘‘nonsignificant amendments’’ and adding

the term ‘‘minor amendments’’.

§ 217.10 [Amended]

8. Amend § 217.10(i) by removing the

term ‘‘significant amendment’’ and

substituting in lieu thereof the term

‘‘major amendment’’.

§ 217.15 [Amended]

8a. Amend § 217.15(a) by removing

‘‘significant amendments’’ and adding

‘‘major amendments’’.

9. Add paragraph (d) to § 217.4 to read

as follows:

§ 217.4 Decisions not subject to appeal.

* * * * *

(d) Decisions to amend a forest plan

by interim amendment.

10. Revise part 219 to read as follows:

PART 219—PLANNING

Subpart A—National Forest System Land

and Resource Management Planning

Sec.

219.1 Purpose and principles.

219.2 Definitions.

219.3 Relationships with the public and

government entities.

219.4 Sustainability of ecosystems.

219.5 Framework for resource

decisionmaking.

219.6 Forest plan direction.

219.7 Ecosystem analysis.

219.8 Interdisciplinary teams and

information needs.

219.9 Forest plan amendments.

219.10 Forest plan revision.

219.11 Forest plan implementation.

219.12 Monitoring and evaluation.

219.13 Statutory timber management

requirements.

219.14 Special designations.

219.15 Applicability and transition.

Subpart B—[Reserved]

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; and Secs. 6 and

15, 90 Stat. 2949, 2952, 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604,

1613).

Subpart A—National Forest System

Land and Resource Management

Planning

§ 219.1 Purpose and principles.

(a) This subpart describes the

procedures for fulfilling the

requirements for land and resource

management planning as set forth in the

Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974

(hereafter, ‘‘RPA’’) as amended by the

National Forest Management Act of

1976 (hereafter, ‘‘NFMA’’) (16 U.S.C.

1604 et seq.) Specifically, the rules in

this subpart are intended to:

(1) Describe the agency’s framework

for National Forest System resource

decisionmaking;

(2) Incorporate principles of

ecosystem management;

(3) Establish requirements for

implementation, monitoring, evaluation,

amendment, and revision of forest

plans; and

(4) Articulate the relationship

between resource decisionmaking and

compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321) (hereafter ‘‘NEPA’’) and

implementing NEPA procedures (see

definition at § 219.2).

(b) The following principles guide

National Forest System resource

decisionmaking and management:

(1) The National Forest System is

managed to provide sustainable

ecosystems which yield multiple

benefits to present and future

generations.

(2) People are a part of ecosystems;

meeting people’s needs and desires

within the capacities of natural systems

is a primary role of resource

decisionmaking.

(3) Ecosystems occur at many spatial

scales and are dynamic in nature,

creating a need for planning processes

that are flexible in geographic scope and

that consider the ecological changes that

occur over time.

(4) Ecosystems cross land ownerships,

jurisdictions, and administrative

boundaries. Therefore, planning efforts

for National Forest System lands should

be coordinated with other landowners,

other Federal agencies, and State, local,

and tribal governments in a manner that

respects private property rights and the

jurisdictions of other government

entities.

(5) Involving the public in National

Forest System planning and

decisionmaking on an ongoing, open,

and equitable basis is essential.

(6) The scientific community,

including Forest Service researchers,

should play a vital role in gathering and

analyzing information for resource

decisionmaking.

(7) The National Forest System should

be managed in a manner that optimizes

net public benefits, considering both

qualitative and quantitative criteria.

(8) The forest planning process should

provide for efficient adjustment of forest

plans in response to changing

conditions and new information.

(9) NEPA procedures define the

analysis process used for resource

decisionmaking; such analysis should

be commensurate with the scope and

nature of the decisions being made.

(10) Knowledge of ecosystems will

never be complete; therefore,

uncertainty is inherent in resource

decisionmaking. Nevertheless,

decisionmaking must proceed using an

adaptive management approach, which

incorporates applicable science and the

best available information.

§ 219.2 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart, the

following terms mean:

Allowable sale quantity. The

maximum quantity of chargeable timber

volume that may be sold within a

decade from the plan area.

Catastrophic event. A sudden event

causing widespread or intense

destruction or devastation of resources,

ecological conditions, or man-made

features. Catastrophic events include

natural phenomena such as wildfire,

hurricanes, tornados, floods, or

earthquakes as well as events caused by

human actions such as large chemical or

oil spills.

Category 1 candidate species. Taxa:

(1) For which the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) has on file

sufficient information on biological

vulnerability and threat(s) to support

proposals to list them as endangered or

threatened species;

(2) Which appear in a notice of review

containing the names of the species

considered to be candidates for listing

under the Endangered Species Act,

which is published in the Federal

Register by the USFWS, in accordance

with 50 CFR 424.15, and is available at

the office of the Forest Supervisor or the

Regional Forester (36 CFR 200.2); and

(3) For which the USFWS has not yet

published proposed rules to list as
18920 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

endangered or threatened species

because such action is precluded at

present by other listing activity.

Category 2 candidate species. Taxa:

(1) For which information in the

possession of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) indicates that

proposing to list them as endangered or

threatened is possibly appropriate, but

for which persuasive data on biological

vulnerability and threat are not

currently available to support

publication of proposed rules; and

(2) Which appear in a notice of review

containing the names of the species

considered to be candidates for listing

under the Endangered Species Act,

which is published in the Federal

Register by the USFWS, in accordance

with 50 CFR 424.15, and is available at

the office of the Forest Supervisor or the

Regional Forester (36 CFR 200.2).

Chargeable timber volume. All

volume included in the growth and

yield projections used to calculate the

allowable sale quantity.

Conservation agreement. A formal

written document agreed to by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and/or

National Marine Fisheries Service and

another Federal agency, State, local,

tribal government, or the private sector

to achieve the conservation of a species

through voluntary cooperation.

Culmination of mean annual

increment. The age at which the average

annual growth is greatest for a stand of

trees, with growth usually expressed in

terms of cubic foot measure and

calculated to include regeneration

harvest yields and removals from

intermediate stand treatments.

Decision document. A Record of

Decision, Decision Notice, or Decision

Memo which is signed by the

responsible official and which, in

compliance with NEPA procedures,

identifies the decision being made and

the rationale for the decision.

Directive. Policy, practice, and

procedure issued through the Forest

Service Directive System to guide the

work of agency employees.

Directive System. The administrative

system composed of the Forest Service

Manual and Handbooks by which

internal agency policy, practice, and

procedure are established, issued, and

stored.

Ecosystem analysis. A broad term

used to denote various interdisciplinary

studies conducted to provide

information on and enhance an

understanding of the physical,

biological, social, and/or economic

aspects and interactions of an

ecosystem.

Ecosystem management. A concept of

natural resources management wherein

National Forest activities are considered

within the context of economic,

ecological, and social interactions

within a defined area or region over

both short- and long-term.

Environmental assessment. A concise

document prepared in compliance with

NEPA procedures that serves to briefly

provide sufficient evidence and analysis

for determining whether to prepare an

environmental impact statement or for

making a finding of no significant

impact (40 CFR 1508.9).

Environmental impact statement. A

detailed document prepared in

compliance with NEPA procedures

when a Federal action will have a

significant impact on the human

environment (40 CFR 1508.11).

Even-aged stand. A distinguishable

group of trees of essentially the same

age. The difference in age among trees

forming the main canopy level of the

stand usually does not exceed 20

percent of the age of the stand at harvest

rotation age.

Forest Supervisor. An individual

responsible to the Regional Forester for

management of one or more National

Forests, National Grasslands, or other

components of the National Forest

System.

Forested land. Land not currently

identified for non-forest use and of

which at least 10 percent is occupied by

forest trees or which formerly had such

tree cover. Forest trees are those woody

plants having a well developed stem

and which are usually more than 12 feet

in height at maturity.

Goal. A concise statement describing

a desired end result and normally

expressed in broad general terms.

Guideline. A description of a

preferred or advisable course of action.

Infrastructure. The facilities, utilities,

and transportation systems needed to

meet public and administrative needs.

Long-term sustained-yield timber

capacity. A projection of the maximum

potential long-term average sale

quantity representing the highest

uniform wood yield that may be

sustained in perpetuity consistent with

the forest plan.

Management prescription. The set of

forest plan goals, objectives, standards,

and guidelines that are applicable to a

particular part of the plan area,

including both forest-wide direction as

well as direction applicable only to that

specific part of the plan area.

Multiple-use. As defined by the

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of

1960 (16 U.S.C. 528), multiple-use is the

management of all the various

renewable surface resources of the

National Forests so that they are utilized

in the combination that will best meet

the needs of the American people;

making the most judicious use of the

land for some or all of these resources

or related services over areas large

enough to provide sufficient latitude for

periodic adjustments in use to conform

to changing needs and conditions; that

some land will be used for less than all

of the resources; and harmonious and

coordinated management of the various

resources, each with the other, without

impairment of the productivity of the

land, with consideration being given to

the relative values of the various

resources, and not necessarily the

combination of uses that will give the

greatest dollar return or the greatest unit

output.

NEPA documents. The terms used to

refer to draft and final environmental

impact statements, environmental

assessments, findings of no significant

impact, and notices of intent to publish

an environmental impact statement (40

CFR 1508.10).

NEPA procedures. The term used to

refer to the requirements of 40 CFR parts

1500 through 1508, as supplemented by

Forest Service NEPA directives issued

in Forest Service Manual Chapter 1950

and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15,

which implement the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Objective. A statement describing

measurable desired resource conditions,

or ranges of conditions, intended to

achieve forest plan goals.

Plan area. The geographically defined

area of the National Forest System

covered by a forest plan, consisting of

only those lands and resources under

National Forest System jurisdiction.

Plan period. The period of time

between regularly scheduled revisions

of a forest plan, normally 10 years but

no longer than 15 years.

Previous planning rule. The land and

resource management planning

regulation, 36 CFR Part 219, adopted

September 30, 1982 and amended on

June 24, 1983, and September 7, 1983

(see 36 CFR Part 200-End edition,

Revised July 1, 1994).

Project. A site-specific resources

management activity or combination of

activities designed to accomplish a

distinct on-the-ground purpose or

result.

Proposed action. A proposal made by

the Forest Service to authorize,

recommend, or implement an action to

meet a specific purpose and need.

Regional Forester. The individual

responsible to the Chief of the Forest

Service for management of an

administrative region of the National

Forest System (36 CFR 200.2).

Resource conditions. The state of the

physical and biological components of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18921

the environment, including both natural

features and human influences.

Responsible official. The Forest

Service employee who has the delegated

authority to make a specific decision.

RPA Assessment and Program.

Documents required by Sections 3 and

4 of the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act

(RPA) of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.).

The RPA Assessment is prepared every

10 years and describes the potential of

the nation’s forests and rangelands to

provide a sustained flow of goods and

services. The RPA Program is prepared

every five years to chart the long-term

course of Forest Service management of

the National Forest System, assistance

to State and private forest landowners,

and forest and range research.

Species or natural community

ranking. A rating established and

maintained by the Network of Natural

Heritage Programs and Conservation

Data Centers which reflects the

biological imperilment status of a

species or natural community. Rankings

as used in this subpart are defined as

follows:

(1) G1—Species or community

critically imperiled globally because of

extreme rarity or because of some

factor(s) making it especially vulnerable

to extinction; five or fewer occurrences,

or less than 1,000 individuals, or very

few acres remaining.

(2) G2—Species or community

imperiled globally because of rarity or

because of some factor(s) making it very

vulnerable to extinction; six to twenty

occurrences, or less than 3,000

individuals, or few acres remaining.

(3) G3—Species or community

vulnerable throughout range globally

and typically having 21 to 100

occurrences, or fewer than 10,000

individuals. May be very rare and local

throughout its range or found locally

(even abundantly at some of its

locations) is a restricted range (e.g., a

single western State, a physiographic

region of the East).

(4) N1, N2, and N3—Same as G1, G2,

and G3 respectively, except these

listings refer to a national situation

rather than global one.

(5) S1 and S2— Same as G1 and G2

respectively, except these listings refer

to a State situation rather than global

one.

(6) T1, T2, and T3—Same as G1, G2,

and G3 respectively, except these refer

to subspecies or recognized varieties

that are listable entities under the

Endangered Species Act.

Standard. A limitation on

management activities that is within the

authority and ability to the agency to

meet or enforce.

Station Director. An individual who is

responsible to the Chief of the Forest

Service for administering research

activities at an assigned Research

Station (36 CFR 200.2).

Sustainability of ecosystems. A

concept which reflects the capacity of a

dynamic ecosystem to maintain its

composition, function, and structure

over time, thus maintaining the

productivity of the land and a diversity

of plant and animal communities.

Tribal governments. Federally

recognized American Indian/Alaska

Native tribal governments.

§ 219.3 Relationships with the public and

government entities.

(a) Building and maintaining

relationships with the public and other

Federal agencies and State, local, and

tribal governments is an essential and

ongoing part of National Forest System

planning and management. The

responsible official shall strive to

establish and maintain communication

with interested parties in order to:

(1) Develop a shared understanding of

the variety of needs, concerns, and

values held by the public;

(2) Coordinate planning efforts with

other Federal agencies and State, local,

and tribal governments, with

recognition of the distinct roles and

jurisdictions of each;

(3) Improve the information base

influencing decisions and to promote a

shared understanding of the validity of

this information;

(4) Strengthen the scientific basis for

resource management decisions by

involving members of the scientific

community; and

(5) Resolve conflicts associated with

resource decisionmaking.

(b) The Forest Supervisor shall

maintain a list of individuals,

organizations, scientists, and

government agencies and officials who

have indicated a desire to be informed

about forest planning or project

activities on the Forest. The Forest

Supervisor shall periodically verify the

continuing interest of parties on the list

and provide notice to the general public

of the opportunity to be included on the

listing. The list should include the

following:

(1) Representatives of other affected

Federal agencies;

(2) The official or agency designated

as a point of contact for the affected

State(s) agencies, including, if

applicable, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico;

(3) Representatives of tribal

governments;

(4) Representatives of county or

municipal governments;

(5) Holders of permits, contracts, or

other instruments providing for the

occupancy and use of the plan area; and

(6) Any citizen or organization

expressing a desire to be included.

(c) The Forest Supervisor shall ensure

that records documenting the planning

process and information used to amend,

revise, or monitor and evaluate

implementation of the forest plan are

maintained and are available for public

inspection at the Forest Supervisor’s

office during normal working hours.

Information in the planning records is

subject to the provisions of the Freedom

of Information Act.

(d) Copies of the current forest plan

and monitoring and evaluation strategy

must be available for public inspection

at each Forest Service office on the

Forest, in the respective Regional Office,

and at least one additional location, as

determined by the Forest Supervisor,

that offers convenient access to the

public.

(e) When desired by the State or

affected tribal governments, Regional

Foresters should seek to establish a

Memorandum of Understanding or other

form of agreement with the Governor of

each State in which National Forest

System lands are located or with

affected tribal governments to guide

coordination of planning efforts.

(1) The following apply to any such

Memorandum of Understanding or

agreement;

(i) The document should describe

how the State’s or tribe’s positions on

topics related to planning will be

established, communicated, and

considered;

(ii) The document should address

cooperation in forest plan

implementation, monitoring, evaluation,

ecosystem analysis, amendment, and

revision;

(iii) The document may be executed

by the Forest Supervisor rather than the

Regional Forester when all National

Forest System lands within the State are

managed by one Forest Supervisor; and

(iv) The document may be jointly

executed by the appropriate Regional

Foresters when one State encompasses

two or more Forest Service Regions.

(2) Nothing in this section precludes

development of a Memorandum of

Understanding with other Federal

agencies or local governments.

(f) Procedures for public participation

and government coordination must

conform with NEPA requirements, the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5

U.S.C. appendix), and any other

applicable laws, Executive orders, or

regulations.
18922 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

§ 219.4 Sustainability of ecosystems.

(a) Goal. The principal goal of

managing the National Forest System is

to maintain or restore the sustainability

of ecosystems, thereby providing

multiple benefits to present and future

generations. The level and flow of

benefits from National Forest System

lands should be compatible with the

restoration of deteriorated ecosystems

and the maintenance of ecosystem

sustainability over the long-term. The

forest plan addresses this goal by:

(1) Providing for diversity of plant

and animal communities and other

conditions indicative of sustainable

ecosystems. This is accomplished by

establishing forest plan direction as

specified in paragraphs (b) through (e)

of this section. In establishing such

forest plan direction, the likely

contribution or role of lands outside the

plan area should be considered.

(2) Providing for resource conditions

which result in a flow of benefits to

present and future generations. This is

accomplished as specified at § 219.6(a),

and through the establishment of forest

plan goals, objectives, standards, and

guidelines.

(b) Role of forest plan. The forest plan

establishes goals and objectives

describing desired conditions,

indicative of sustainable ecosystems

within the plan area and establishes

standards and guidelines that direct

how to achieve those conditions.

(1) Scope. Forest plan goals and/or

objectives should describe the desired

composition, function, and structure of

ecosystems within the plan area at

appropriate spatial scales.

(2) Soil and water resources. The

forest plan must provide for the

restoration, protection, and conservation

of soil and water resources including,

but not limited to, streams, streambanks,

shorelines, lakes, wetlands, riparian

areas, and floodplains. Where there are

existing conditions harmful to soil and

water quality, the forest plan should

include standards and/or guidelines that

provide for the restoration of soil and

water resources to achieve desired

resource conditions. Forest plans should

also address the protection of current

and future consumptive and

nonconsumptive water uses, including

instream flow needs.

(3) Rare natural communities. The

forest plan should provide for

maintaining or restoring the

sustainability of those natural

communities known to occur within the

plan area that are identified by the

Network of Natural Heritage Programs

and Conservation Data Centers with

rankings of G1, G2, G3, N1, N2, N3, S1,

or S2 (§ 219.2).

(4) Threatened and endangered

species. The forest plan must provide

for the conservation of species listed as

threatened and endangered, or proposed

for listing, under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended, (16

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). Once species are

listed or proposed for listing as

threatened or endangered under the

Endangered Species Act, management

activities on National Forest System

lands affecting the habitat of the listed

species must be in compliance with the

requirements of the Endangered Species

Act.

Option I for Paragraph (b)(5)

(b)(5) Sensitive species. The forest

plan must provide for the protection of

habitat capability for sensitive species

in order to preclude the need for listing

these species as threatened or

endangered under the Endangered

Species Act or their extirpation from the

plan area. For the purposes of this

section, habitat capability refers to the

quantity, quality, and distribution of

habitat.

(i) Identification. Sensitive species are

those plant and animal species,

subspecies, populations, or stocks,

including vertebrates, invertebrates,

vascular plants, bryophytes, fungi, and

lichens, which are known to occur or

likely to occur on National Forest

System lands and which are included in

one of the following:

(A) The species is identified by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a

Category 1 Candidate Species;

(B) The species is identified by the

Network of Natural Heritage Programs

and Conservation Data Centers with

global species rankings of G1 (T1) or G2

(T2);

(C) The species is identified both by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a

Category 2 Candidate Species and by the

Network of Natural Heritage Programs

and Conservation Data Centers with

species rankings of G3 (T3), N1, N2, or

N3.

(ii) Process. In considering whether or

not new or modified forest plan

direction is needed for sensitive species,

the following must be documented:

(A) Sensitive species for the plan area

and their habitat needs must be

identified.

(B) The habitat needs of sensitive

species and/or assemblages of sensitive

species shall be compared to existing

forest plan direction or, in the case of

revision of a forest plan, the habitat

needs shall be compared against the

tentatively proposed revisions to forest

plan direction.

(1) If a continuing downward trend in

habitat capability is predicted to occur

and predicted to result in the need for

Federal listing of the species or if it is

predicted that the sensitive species will

be extirpated from the plan area, forest

plan direction shall be modified to

protect the habitat capability of the

sensitive species in an attempt to

preclude the need for Federal listing or

extirpation from the plan ares.

(2) Where the Forest Service and the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or

National Marine Fisheries Service have

approved a conservation agreement for

a sensitive species and relevant

direction from that agreement is

incorporated into the forest plan, the

requirement to establish direction to

protect the habitat capability of the

sensitive species is met.

(3) To the extent that protective

measures for one sensitive species

conflict with the recovery of a

threatened or endangered species, the

needs of the threatened or endangered

species shall take precedence.

(4) Management direction for

sensitive species shall be established

using the best information available,

commensurate with the decision being

made. Determinations of whether

habitat needs of sensitive species are

adequately met as well as

determinations of the degree of

protection needed are decisions that are

inherently dependent on professional

judgment.

(iii) Responding to newly identified

sensitive species. The categories and

rankings described at paragraphs

(b)(5)(i) (A) through (C) of this section

shall be reviewed annually as part of

monitoring and evaluation to determine

if there have been new additions

subsequent to the last review. If a new

addition has occurred, the habitat needs

of the species shall be compared against

forest plan direction to determine if a

change in that direction is needed. The

annual review of sensitive species

categories and rankings does not remove

the obligation to consider new

information relevant to a project

decision or, where appropriate, to

analyze the effects of a proposed action

on habitat capability needs of a sensitive

species within the project area.

Option II for Paragraph (b)(5)

(5) Species viability. Fish and wildlife

habitat shall be managed to maintain

viable populations of existing native

and desired non-native vertebrate

species in the planning area. For

planning purposes, a viable population

shall be regarded as one which has the

estimated numbers and distribution of

reproductive individuals to ensure its

continued existence is well distributed

in the planning area. In order to ensure
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18923

that viable populations will be

maintained, habitat must be provided to

support, at least, a minimum number of

reproductive individuals and that

habitat must be well distributed so that

those individuals can interact with

others in the planning area. The forest

plan shall establish guidelines for the

maintenance and improvement of

habitat for management indicator

species to the degree consistent with

overall multiple-use goals of the forest

plan. In order to do this, management

planning for the fish and wildlife

resource shall meet the requirements set

forth in paragraphs (b)(5) (i) through (vi)

of this section.

(i) In order to estimate the effects of

each alternative on fish and wildlife

populations, certain vertebrate and/or

invertebrate species present in the area

shall be identified and selected as

management indicator species and the

reasons for their selection will be stated.

These species shall be selected because

their population changes are believed to

indicate the effects of management

activities. In the selection of

management indicator species, the

following categories shall be

represented where appropriate:

Endangered and threatened plant and

animal species identified on State and

Federal lists for the plan area; species

with special habitat needs that may be

influenced significantly by planned

management programs; species

commonly hunted, fished, or trapped;

non-game species of special interest;

and additional plant or animal species

selected because their population

changes are believed to indicate the

effects of management activities on

other species of selected major

biological communities or on water

quality. On the basis of available

scientific information, the

interdisciplinary team shall estimate the

effects of changes in vegetation type,

timber age classes, community

composition, rotation age, and year-long

suitability of habitat related to mobility

of management indicator species. Where

appropriate, measures to mitigate

adverse effects shall be prescribed.

(ii) Planning alternatives shall be

stated and evaluated in terms of both

amount and quality of habitat and of

animal population trends of the

management indicator species.

(iii) Biologists from State fish and

wildlife agencies and other Federal

agencies shall be consulted in order to

coordinate planning for fish and

wildlife, including opportunities for the

reintroduction of extirpated species.

(iv) Access and dispersal problems, of

hunting, fishing, and other visitor uses

shall be considered.

(v) The effects of pest and fire

management on fish and wildlife

populations shall be considered.

(vi) Population trends of the

management indicator species will be

monitored and relationships to habitat

changes determined. This monitoring

will be done in cooperation with State

fish and wildlife agencies, to the extent

practicable.

(c) Dynamic nature of ecosystems.

Ecosystems are dynamic. Therefore,

sustaining an ecosystem does not imply

maintaining static conditions.

Disturbances to an ecosystem should be

evaluated in the context of ecological

processes and resilience.

(d) Multiple spatial scales of

ecosystems. Numerous ecosystems exist

at multiple spatial scales. In order to

limit efforts to a practicable number and

scope, the forest plan should address

the ecosystems of most relevance to

forest plan decisionmaking.

(e) Uncertainty and adaptive

management. Understanding of the

attributes of sustainable ecosystems and

of the environmental effects of various

management activities is subject to

change as new information becomes

available. Resource decisionmaking

need not be halted because there is

uncertainty or incomplete knowledge;

rather, resource decisions should be

made in a timely manner using the best

information available commensurate

with the decisions being made (40 CFR

1502.22). Monitoring and evaluation

shall be used to assess the effects of

resource decisions and to determine if

there is a need to adapt resource

management in light of new

information. Project decisionmaking

provides an incremental means for

accomplishing the goals and objectives

of the forest plan, thereby providing the

opportunity to evaluate the effects of onthe-ground activities at the appropriate

spatial scale as well as providing the

opportunity to adapt project proposals

as new information becomes available

during the plan period.

§ 219.5 Framework for resource

decisionmaking.

(a) Staged resource decisonmaking.

National Forest System resource

allocation and management decisions

are made in two stages. The first stage

is adoption of a forest plan, which

allocates lands and resources to various

uses or conditions by establishing

management prescriptions for the land

and resources within the plan area. The

second stage is approval of project

decisions. Both forest plan and project

decisions are subject to the

requirements of laws and regulations

applicable to National Forest System

lands and resources. In addition,

direction to guide the management of

lands and resources of the National

Forest System is issued as needed

through the Directive System (36 CFR

200.4). Pursuant to 40 CFR parts 1500–

1508, agency directives are subject to

NEPA procedures, and, depending on

their nature and scope, directives also

may be subject to the public notice and

comment requirements of 36 CFR part

216.

(1) Forest plans. Forest plans do not

compel the agency to plan for or

undertake any projects; rather, they

establish limitations on what actions

may be authorized during project

decisionmaking. Forest plan direction

must not conflict with applicable laws

or regulations. Additionally, forest plans

should not conflict with applicable

agency directives issued through the

Directive System. Where there is a

substantial conflict between a resource

management directive and direction in

a forest plan revision or amendment

prepared pursuant to this subpart, the

responsible official should identify the

conflict and include in the decision

document the rationale for the plan’s

departure from agency directives.

(i) Plan area. Each Regional Forester

shall determine the area to be covered

by each forest plan. Options include a

separate plan for each National Forest or

National Grassland, a plan that covers

any combination of National Forests or

other National Forest System lands

within the responsibility of one Forest

Supervisor, or a single plan

encompassing one National Forest but

which is administered by several Forest

Supervisors.

(ii) Simultaneous amendment or

revision. Forest plan goals, objectives,

standards, and guidelines that are

applicable to more than one plan area

may be established through one

decision document which

simultaneously amends or revises

multiple forest plans.

(2) Project decisions. Authorization of

site-specific activities within a plan area

occurs through project decisionmaking.

Project decisionmaking must comply

with NEPA procedures and must

include a determination that the project

is consistent with the forest plan

(§ 219.11(a)). Project decisionmaking

includes decisions on proposals

received from outside the agency as well

as those initiated by the agency.

(b) Reconciling direction in forest

plans with other resource direction or

planning efforts—(1) Laws and

regulations. If, following issuance of

new laws or regulations affecting

National Forest System resource

management, it is determined that the
18924 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

direction in forest plans within the

Region is in conflict with the new

direction, the Regional Forester shall

direct that affected plans be changed in

accordance with the procedures of

§ 219.9 or § 219.10 of this subpart and

shall specify the timing for doing so.

(2) Agency directive. (i) If resource

management direction in a new agency

directive appears to conflict with

direction in forest plans, the directive

issuing official shall indicate as part of

the directive issuance whether affected

forest plans are to be made consistent

with the new directive and, if so, shall

direct that affected plans be changed in

accordance with the procedures of

§ 219.9 or § 219.10 of this subpart and

shall specify the timing for doing so.

(ii) In addition to adjusting forest

plans as required by paragraph (b)(2)(i)

of this section, the Forest Supervisor, as

part of monitoring and evaluation,

should periodically review recent

resource management directives to

determine if the forest plan is in conflict

with newly issued resource directives. If

so, the Forest Supervisor shall either

initiate a forest plan amendment to

eliminate the conflict or give the

Regional Forester written notice of why

the forest plan should not be changed.

(3) RPA Program. Following adoption

and issuance of each RPA Program, the

Chief determines those elements of the

Program that should be considered in

forest plan implementation, monitoring,

and evaluation and establishes such

agency-wide processes or procedures as

may be necessary to ensure

consideration of these Program elements

in forest plans.

(4) Ecosystem analysis. As part of

monitoring and evaluation, the Forest

Supervisor shall periodically review the

results of any applicable ecosystem

analyses that have been completed or

updated after plan approval and

determine if there is new information

which would indicate a need to initiate

forest plan amendment procedures.

§ 219.6 Forest plan direction.

(a) Integrated resource management.

Forest plans provide for integration and

coordination of all resources within the

plan area on a multiple-use and

sustained-yield basis. To this end, forest

plan direction shall be established, as

appropriate, to address management of

soil, water, fish and wildlife habitat,

grazing, timber, oil, gas, minerals,

recreation, wilderness, cultural, historic,

geologic, vegetative, air, visual, and

other relevant resources. In addition,

forest plans address management of

infrastructure and land ownership and

access patterns relative to the plan area

to the extent appropriate.

(b) Scope. Forest plans allocate the

land and resources of the plan area to

various uses or conditions by

establishing management prescriptions

consisting of goals, objectives,

standards, and guidelines. Goals,

objectives, standards, and guidelines

may be established to apply throughout

a plan area (forest-wide direction) and/

or they may be established for only a

part of the plan area. The forest plan

management prescription for any given

site within the plan area is the aggregate

of all forest-wide direction and any

other direction that is applicable to only

that specific part of the plan area. The

forest plan must identify where goals,

objectives, standards, and guidelines are

applicable. Maps or similar information

that delineate where goals, objectives,

standards, and guidelines are applicable

constitute forest plan direction.

(1) Projected levels of goods and

services or projected levels of

management activities do not constitute

forest plan direction. Moreover, any

projections of the rate at which

objectives identified in the forest plan

might be achieved are not forest plan

direction (§ 219.11(d)).

(2) Forest plan direction should focus

on resource management and resource

conditions specific to the plan area, not

on the procedural aspects of making

future project decisions. Also, as a

general rule, forest plans should not

repeat other applicable direction

established through the Directive

System, regulation, Executive order, or

law.

(3) The main body of the forest plan

document is limited to forest plan

direction. Background information or

other accompanying material are not

appropriate to the main body of the

document but may be presented as part

of a brief forest plan preface or in the

appendices.

(c) Goals. Goals are concise

statements describing a desired end

result and are normally expressed in

broad general terms. Forest plan goals

serve as the link between broad agency

goals set forth in law, Executive order,

regulation, agency directives, and the

RPA Program and specific desired

resource conditions relevant to the plan

area as defined by objectives. The forest

plan does not specify a time period for

achievement of goals. Additionally,

forest plan goals are generally not

expressed in quantitative terms; rather,

evaluation of associated measurable

objectives or monitoring indicators

assesses whether goals are being

achieved (§ 219.12(a)(1)(ii)).

(d) Objectives. Objectives are

statements describing desired resource

conditions, or ranges of conditions,

intended to achieve forest plan goals.

Objectives may describe the desired

state of natural resource conditions,

such as soils and vegetation; the desired

state of resources resulting from human

influences, such as infrastructure or

historic sites; or how resources are to be

perceived, such as visual quality or the

nature of the wilderness visitor

experience. An objective must be

defined in a manner that permits

measurement of whether the objective is

being achieved. The forest plan does not

specify a time period for achievement of

objectives.

(e) Standards. Standards are

limitations to be placed on management

activities within the plan area to ensure

compliance with applicable laws and

regulations or to limit the discretion to

be permitted during project

decisionmaking. Standards are limited

to those actions that are within the

authority and ability of the agency to

meet or enforce.

(1) Standards are the basis for

determining whether a project is

consistent with the forest plan as

required by § 219.11(a).

(2) Project compliance with relevant

standards is mandatory. A project that

would vary from a relevant standard

may not be authorized, unless the forest

plan is amended to modify, remove, or

waive application of the standard.

(f) Guidelines. Guidelines describe a

preferred or advisable course of action.

Variation of a project from a guideline

does not trigger a forest plan

amendment. Guidelines may be used for

the following purposes:

(1) To describe a preferred or

advisable method for conducting

resource activities specific to the plan

area; and

(2) To describe a preferred or

advisable sequence or priority for

implementing various types of projects,

when such guidance is deemed useful

in facilitating achievement of a forest

plan goal.

(g) Coordination of forest plan

direction across plan areas. The

Regional Forester is responsible for

coordinating direction in forest plans

within the Region as well as with

adjacent Regions to promote consistent

approaches to resource management. In

many cases, variation in direction is

appropriate due to varying local

circumstances; for example, differing

resource conditions, public preferences,

or socio-economic considerations.

However, unless there is reasonable

basis for such variations, the Regional

Forester shall provide for consistency

among forest plans within the Region, as

well as consistency with those forest

plans in other Regions whose plan areas
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18925

are physically adjacent to plan areas

within the Region. At a minimum, the

Regional Forester shall ensure that

forest plans within the Region include

the following:

(1) Consistent management

prescriptions for adjacent National

Forest System lands, including the use

of consistent mapping scales, symbols,

and other elements to facilitate review

and comparison of the management

prescriptions;

(2) Consistent management

prescriptions for a specially designated

area (§ 219.14) that crosses plan area

boundaries, such as a national scenic

trail extending through several National

Forests;

(3) Consistent direction when findings

of an ecosystem analysis or research

used as a basis for that direction are

applicable to more than one plan area,

such as the establishment of a forest

plan standard to meet the habitat needs

of a threatened or endangered species

that occurs on more than one plan area;

and

(4) Consistent terminology and

classification systems among or between

forest plans.

§ 219.7 Ecosystem analysis.

(a) Purpose and scope. Ecosystem

analysis is a broad term used to denote

various interdisciplinary studies

conducted to provide information on

and enhance an understanding of the

physical, biological, social, or economic

aspects and interactions of an

ecosystem. For example, an ecosystem

assessment and landscape-level analysis

are both forms of ecosystem analysis.

Ecosystem analysis may be conducted at

whatever scale is appropriate in order to

provide the information desired. To the

extent practicable, the area covered by

an ecosystem analysis should generally

be delineated based on ecological

considerations, including social and

economic factors, rather than on

administrative or jurisdictional

boundaries. Ecosystem analyses are

conducted whenever deemed

appropriate by the agency.

(b) Relationship to resource

decisionmaking. An ecosystem analysis

is distinct from resource

decisionmaking and does not trigger

NEPA analysis and disclosure. Findings

resulting from ecosystem analysis are

not resource decisions and cannot be

used as a substitute for forest plan goals,

objectives, standards, or guidelines.

Ecosystem analysis may provide

information that indicates a need to

change forest plan direction; however,

such changes would be evaluated and

established through forest plan

amendment or revision procedures.

Ecosystem analysis also may be used to

display various opportunities for

achieving the goals and objectives

already established by law, Executive

order, regulation, agency directive, or

the forest plan.

(c) Results. Results of ecosystem

analysis vary depending on their scope

and specific purpose. Results of

ecosystem analysis may include, but are

not limited to, the following:

(1) Identification of trends and

historic conditions;

(2) Identification of anticipated effects

if current management continues;

(3) Identification of resource

conditions that would satisfy legal

requirements;

(4) Identification of opportunities to

improve monitoring and evaluation

strategies;

(5) Identification of research needs

and recommended priorities;

(6) Identification of opportunities and

recommended priorities for project

implementation in order to meet forest

plan goals;

(7) Determination of resource

capabilities;

(8) Compilation of a socio-economic

overview or assessment; for example,

assessments of pertinent social,

demographic, and economic data,

socioeconomic and cultural trends, or

important relationships among physical,

biological, economic, and social aspects

of resource management;

(9) Compilation of information for use

in monitoring and evaluation;

(10) Compilation of information for

use in NEPA documents; and

(11) Compilation of updated

inventory data.

§ 219.8 Interdisciplinary teams and

information needs.

(a) Interdisciplinary team. An

interdisciplinary team must be used to

prepare amendments, revisions, and

monitoring and evaluation strategies

and reports and to conduct ecosystem

analysis. The team may consist of

whatever combination of Forest Service

and other Federal government personnel

is necessary to achieve an

interdisciplinary approach.

(b) Analysis and inventory. Analytical

efforts should be focused on obtaining

and using the information needed for

decisionmaking commensurate with the

decisions being made. Each responsible

official shall strive to obtain and keep

updated inventory data appropriate to

meet analytical needs for resource

decisionmaking. In assessing the

environmental, social, and economic

factors relevant to decisionmaking, the

responsible official shall consider the

conclusions resulting from applicable

quantitative analytical methods as well

as nonquantifiable considerations.

(c) Social and economic effects. When

amending or revising the forest plan, the

responsible official shall consider the

effects of each alternative on community

stability, employment, or other

indicators of social and economic

change commensurate with the decision

being made.

(d) Research needs. Each Forest

Supervisor shall identify and inform the

Regional Forester of research needed for

decisionmaking including, but not

limited to, the research needed to help

resource managers ensure that

management practices do not produce

substantial or permanent impairment of

the productivity of the land.

§ 219.9 Forest plan amendments.

(a) Purpose and type. Except as

provided at § 219.9(e), amendment is

the only method by which forest plan

direction is changed between revisions.

Only forest plan direction as described

at § 219.6 is subject to amendment.

Amendments are categorized as major,

minor, or interim.

(b) Major amendment. (1) A major

amendment is appropriate only under

one of the following circumstances:

(i) The proposed change would

modify, remove, or add a standard, or

modify the geographic area to which a

standard applies, except as provided at

paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this

section or except when such a change is

made by interim amendment;

(ii) The proposed change would allow

the amount of chargeable timber volume

which can be sold for a decade from a

proclaimed National Forest within the

plan area to exceed the long-term

sustained-yield timber capacity of that

proclaimed National Forest

(§ 219.13(d)(1)(ii)); or

(iii) The proposed change would

permit harvest of even-aged stands that

have not reached culmination of mean

annual increment of growth

(§ 219.13(e)).

(2) The Regional Forester is the

responsible official for major

amendments.

(3) The public review and comment

period on a proposed major amendment

and associated NEPA documents is 90

calendar days. During this period, the

Regional Forester shall take the

following actions:

(i) Make the proposed amendment

and associated NEPA documents

available for public inspection at

convenient locations in the vicinity of

the lands covered by the plan;

(ii) Notify those on the list described

at § 219.3(b) of the opportunity for

public review and comment; and
18926 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(iii) Provide opportunities for open

communication with the public and

other government entities during the

review of the proposed major

amendment.

(4) Legal notice of adoption of a major

amendment shall be provided in

accordance with 36 CFR 217.5.

(5) A major amendment is not

effective until the eighth calendar day

following date of publication of the legal

notice of the decision (36 CFR 217.10).

(c) Minor amendment. (1) Unless the

authority is reserved by the Regional

Forester, the Forest Supervisor is the

responsible official for minor

amendments.

(2)(i) For a proposed minor

amendment for which an environmental

assessment has been prepared, the

Forest Supervisor shall publish notice of

the proposed amendment and provide at

least 30 calendar days for public review

of and comment on the proposed

amendment and environmental

assessment. Such notice shall be

published in newspapers of general

circulation within or near the Forest.

(ii) In the event that a draft

environmental impact statement has

been prepared for a proposed minor

amendment, public notice shall be

provided in accordance with NEPA

procedures. At least 45 calendar days

must be provided for public review of

and comment on the proposed

amendment and draft environmental

impact statement.

(3) Legal notice of decisions to adopt

a minor amendment must be provided

in accordance with 36 CFR 217.5. The

effective date of minor amendments is

governed by 36 CFR 217.10.

(4) A minor amendment shall be used

to allocate newly acquired land to a

management prescription, provided the

prescription is consistent with the

purposes for which the land was

acquired.

(5) If the responsible official

concludes that a proposed project

should be implemented, but that the

project would conflict with a forest plan

standard, the project may be approved

only if the forest plan standard is

amended. If such an amendment is

limited to apply to only the specific

project and the circumstances described

at paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and (iii) of this

section do not apply, then the change is

a minor amendment. By contrast, a

change to a forest plan standard that

would apply to the specific project and

to future projects or that applies to one

project but meets the circumstances

described at paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and

(iii) of this section would be a major

amendment.

(i) The environmental effects of

modifying or waiving application of the

forest plan standard for a specific

project must be disclosed in the NEPA

documentation associated with the

project decision.

(ii) A proposed minor amendment

that applies only to a specific project

and that is accompanied by an

environmental assessment is subject to

the notice and comment procedures of

36 CFR 215.5.

(iii) A proposed minor amendment

that applies only to a specific project

and is accompanied by an

environmental impact statement is

subject to notice and comment in

accordance with NEPA procedures.

(iv) A decision to amend a forest plan

for a specific project is subject to the

notice and appeal procedures of 36 CFR

part 215, and the time period between

the decision and implementation is also

governed by 36 CFR part 215.

(d) Interim amendment. (1) An

interim amendment may be used only

when a catastrophic event has occurred

or when new information indicates

there is a need to promptly change the

forest plan in order to provide resource

protection and it is unacceptable to

delay the changes needed until

procedures for major or minor

amendment can be completed.

(2) Unless the authority is

subsequently reserved by the Chief, the

Regional Forester is the responsible

official for interim amendments.

(3) The Regional Forester shall give

notice of an interim amendment to those

on the list described at § 219.3(b) and

shall provide legal notice of the decision

in a newspaper of general circulation. In

addition, if the Chief is the responsible

official, notice shall be published in the

Federal Register. The notice must

concisely summarize the following:

(i) The circumstances which warrant

use of the interim amendment

procedure;

(ii) The changes being made in the

forest plan;

(iii) The anticipated consequences

associated with the interim amendment;

(iv) The anticipated duration of the

interim amendment, not to exceed two

years;

(v) The changes being made to the

monitoring and evaluation strategy in

association with the interim

amendment; and

(vi) The opportunity for public

comment.

(4) An environmental impact

statement is not required for an interim

amendment.

(5) The effective date of an interim

amendment is the eighth calendar day

after legal notice of the decision is

published in a newspaper of general

circulation pursuant to § 219.9(d)(3) or,

in the case where the Chief is the

responsible official, in the Federal

Register.

(6) A period of 45 calendar days must

be provided for public comment

beginning on the date of publication of

legal notice of an interim amendment

decision. On the basis of public

comment, the responsible official may

decide to modify the interim

amendment through issuance of a new

interim amendment or may decide that

the interim amendment remains in

effect without change. In either

circumstance, the responsible official

shall publish a notice of the decision

and a brief summary of the rationale,

and also provide it to those on the list

described at § 219.3(b).

(7) The duration of an interim

amendment may not exceed two years.

If an approved amendment or revision

has not superseded the interim direction

within two years of the effective date of

the interim amendment, then the

responsible official may reissue the

interim amendment or issue a modified

interim amendment, subject to the

notice and comment requirements of

this section.

(8) An interim amendment may not be

made through a decision document for

a specific project.

(9) Pursuant to 36 CFR part 217, an

interim amendment is not subject to

administrative appeal.

(e) Nondiscretionary changes. If a

change in applicable law or regulation

occurs which conflicts with forest plan

direction and the agency has no choice

but to comply and no discretion in the

manner in which to comply, the forest

plan may be modified to reflect such

changes without conducting

amendment procedures. The Forest

Supervisor shall give public notice of

such changes through the annual

monitoring and evaluation report

(§ 219.12). Such nondiscretionary

changes are not subject to NEPA

procedures.

(f) Other changes. The following

changes to the content of a forest plan

may be made at any time, do not require

amendment, and are not subject to

NEPA procedures. However, such

changes are to be identified and briefly

described in the next annual monitoring

and evaluation report.

(1) Changes to information that is not

forest plan direction (§ 219.6), such as

the information in forest plan

appendices;

(2) Corrections to forest plan maps

which delineate where a management

prescription is applicable, provided

such changes are the result of improved
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18927

information about the location of the onthe-ground conditions to which the

prescription was described in the forest

plan to apply;

(3) Corrections of typographical errors

or other non-substantive changes.

§ 219.10 Forest plan revision.

(a) Initiation. Revision of a forest plan

should occur about every 10 years, but

no later than 15 years, from the date of

approval of the original plan or the

latest plan revision. Revision also must

occur when the Regional Forester

determines that conditions over most or

all of the plan area have significantly

changed from those in place when the

forest plan was originally approved or

last revised; for example, if a

catastrophic event has substantially

altered resource conditions over most or

all of the planning area.

(b) Responsible official. The Regional

Forester is the responsible official for

forest plan revision.

(c) Prerevision actions.—(1)

Prerevision review of the forest plan.

Prior to initiating scoping pursuant to

NEPA procedures, the entire forest plan

must be reviewed, using the cumulative

results of monitoring and evaluation.

The purpose of the review is to identify

changed conditions and/or other new

information which appear to indicate a

need to change direction in the current

plan.

(2) Communications strategy. The

Forest Supervisor shall formulate a

communications strategy that describes

how the public and government entities

may participate in the prerevision

review and revision of the forest plan on

an ongoing basis.

(i) The Forest Supervisor shall meet,

or designate a representative to meet,

with interested representatives of other

Federal agencies and State, local, and

tribal governments to establish

procedures for ongoing coordination

and communication throughout the

prerevision review and the revision

processes. These procedures should be

documented in the communications

strategy.

(ii) The Forest Supervisor shall

publish notice of the prerevision review

process and the formulation of a

communications strategy in both the

Federal Register and newspapers of

general circulation within or near the

plan area. The notice must include an

invitation to the public and

representatives of government entities to

express their ideas and suggestions on

formulation of a communications

strategy.

(iii) The Forest Supervisor shall also

give notice of the prerevision review

and formulation of the communications

strategy to those on the list described at

§ 219.3(b).

(d) Scoping. Upon completion of the

prerevision review, the Regional

Forester shall initiate the forest plan

revision process by publishing in the

Federal Register a Notice of Intent to

revise the forest plan and to prepare the

associated draft environmental impact

statement. The Regional Forester shall

allow 60 calendar days for public

comment. The purposes of the Notice of

Intent are to notify the public of the

forest plan revision process, the

anticipated scope of the revision effort,

and opportunities for the public to be

involved in the revision process, and

also to begin the scoping process

required by NEPA procedures.

(1) In addition to the content

requirements established by NEPA

procedures, the following apply to a

Notice of Intent to revise a forest plan:

(i) The statement of purpose and need

for the proposed action identifies

specific opportunities to better achieve

agency goals, as set forth in law,

Executive order, regulation, agency

directives, and the RPA Program,

through changes in forest plan direction;

(ii) The proposed action identifies the

direction in the current forest plan

which will be evaluated for change; and

(iii) Significant revision issues

describe the topics of concern related to

changing forest plan direction and are

used to help focus revision analysis

efforts on those concerns.

(2) At the time of publication of the

Notice of Intent, the Forest Supervisor

shall take the following additional

actions to notify the public of the

revision process:

(i) Notify those on the list described

at § 219.3(b) of the revision effort and

opportunities for involvement;

(ii) Distribute a press release on the

revision effort to newspapers of general

circulation within or near the Forest;

(iii) Publicize and conduct activities

designed to foster ongoing participation

by the public and government

representatives in the revision process

pursuant to the communications

strategy formulated pursuant to

paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(3) The Regional Forester shall

consider comments received in response

to the Notice of Intent and determine if

there is a need to adjust the scope of the

revision effort.

(e) Required elements. The forest plan

revision process requires the following

evaluations or updates:

(1) A review of the identification of

lands suited and not suited for timber

production (§ 219.13(a));

(2) An evaluation of roadless areas for

wilderness designation; (§ 219.14(b));

(3) In accordance with § 219.14(c), an

evaluation of rivers for eligibility as

wild, scenic, and recreation rivers; and

(4) An update of the information in

the appendix to the forest plan which

displays projected levels of goods and

services and management activities for

the next decade (§ 219.11(d)(1)).

(f) Draft environmental impact

statement. A draft environmental

impact statement must accompany a

proposed revision of a forest plan.

(g) Public notice and comment. The

Regional Forester shall give the public

notice and opportunity to comment as

follows:

(1) The draft environmental impact

statement, proposed revised forest plan,

and draft monitoring and evaluation

strategy must be available for public

comment for at least 90 calendar days.

Copies will be made available for

inspection at convenient locations in

the vicinity of the lands covered by the

plan, beginning on the date of

publication of the notice of availability

of the draft environmental impact

statement in the Federal Register;

(2) The Forest Supervisor shall give

notice to those on the list described at

§ 219.3(b) of the opportunity for public

review and comment; and

(3) The Regional Forester shall either

hold public meetings or, alternatively,

conduct other activities to foster public

participation in the review of the draft

environmental impact statement,

proposed revised forest plan, and draft

monitoring and evaluation strategy.

(h) Final environmental impact

statement and revised forest plan.

Following public comment, the

Regional Forester shall oversee

preparation of a final environmental

impact statement and revised forest

plan. The final environmental impact

statement and record of decision

documenting the selected alternative

and adoption of the revision shall be

prepared and made public in

accordance with NEPA procedures.

(i) Approval. In addition to the

Federal Register publication of the

notice of availability of the final

environmental impact statement and

record of decision pursuant to 40 CFR

1506.10, legal notice of the adoption of

a revised forest plan shall be provided

as required by 36 CFR 217.5. A revision

becomes effective 30 calendar days after

the date of the notice published in the

Federal Register.

§ 219.11 Forest plan implementation.

(a) Project consistency. Project

decisions must be consistent with the

standards in a forest plan. Deviation of

a project from compliance with a

guideline is not inconsistent with the
18928 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

forest plan. A determination of

consistency of a project with the forest

plan must be documented when the

project is approved. If a proposed

project is not consistent with a standard

in the forest plan, the responsible

official may, subject to valid existing

rights, take only one of the following

actions:

(1) Modify the proposal to make it

consistent with the forest plan;

(2) Reject the proposal; or

(3) Amend the forest plan to permit

the proposal.

(b) Application of forest plan

amendment or revision to existing

authorizations or previously approved

projects. Permits, contracts, and other

instruments issued or approved for the

use and occupancy of National Forest

System lands must be consistent with

the forest plan in effect at the time of

their issuance. Subject to valid existing

rights, contracts, permits, and other

instruments for occupancy and use that

are inconsistent with a new forest plan

amendment or revision must be revised

as soon as practicable to be made

consistent with the forest plan.

(c) Implementation during

amendment or revision process. An

approved forest plan, including all

amendments as may be adopted,

remains effective until a new

amendment or a revision is approved.

(d) Possible actions during the plan

period. (1) At the time of revision, an

appendix to the forest plan shall be

prepared displaying a prediction of the

major goods and services which may be

produced during the plan period, as

well as a display of the management

activities which may occur during the

plan period.

(i) The display should predict a

realistic range of goods and services and

management activity levels reflecting, to

the extent practicable and meaningful,

some of the variables which are most

likely to affect production or

accomplishment of predicted levels.

(ii) The display may include a

prediction of the rate of achieving forest

plan objectives reflecting, to the extent

practicable and meaningful, some of the

variables most likely to affect

achievement.

(iii) Such a display does not limit nor

compel any action by the agency and

does not constitute forest plan direction.

(2) At periodic intervals following

adoption of a revised forest plan and for

such time periods as is determined

appropriate, the Forest Supervisor shall

make available to the public an updated

estimate of major goods and services

and management activity levels that

may be produced or occur. Development

of these estimates does not require

NEPA analysis.

§ 219.12 Monitoring and evaluation.

(a) Monitoring and evaluation

strategy. The Forest Supervisor must

conduct monitoring and evaluation

efforts and, simultaneously with any

revision of the forest plan, shall prepare

a comprehensive monitoring and

evaluation strategy to guide such efforts.

This strategy is not forest plan direction,

is not included in the forest plan, and

does not require NEPA analysis.

However, monitoring and evaluation

activities are subject to NEPA

procedures at the time of

implementation.

(1) The monitoring and evaluation

strategy provides instructions for the

following:

(i) Assessing if projects are being

implemented in accordance with the

decision documents authorizing the

projects;

(ii) Assessing, through the use of

measurable indicators, if the activities

being implemented are effective in

achieving forest plan goals;

(iii) Conducting appropriate

monitoring and evaluation efforts to

occur within the plan area to help meet

monitoring and evaluation needs at

scales larger than the plan area;

(iv) Validating the assumptions upon

which forest plan direction was

established and verifying the accuracy

of predicted effects;

(v) Prioritizing monitoring and

evaluation efforts by identifying those

monitoring and evaluation efforts that

are of highest priority to conduct

because they assess the effects of those

management activities believed to have

the greatest potential risk to the

environment;

(vi) Collecting and compiling

appropriate information to serve as

reference points for future evaluations;

(vii) Determining if there is new

information or a change in conditions

which substantially affects the validity

of the forest plan including, but not

limited to:

(A) Laws, Executive orders,

regulations, RPA Program updates, or

agency directives issued subsequent to

approval of the forest plan;

(B) Changes in biological, physical,

social, or economic factors influencing

the plan area;

(C) Findings resulting from applicable

scientific research or experience;

(D) Findings resulting from ecosystem

analysis;

(viii) Storing and disseminating

information of use in the program

development and budget formulation

process, such as updated information on

resource capabilities, project

opportunities, activity costs, or

economic trends;

(ix) Tracking the goods and services

produced and management activities

accomplished;

(x) Involving the public in monitoring

and evaluation by identifying

opportunities for the public to

participate, when appropriate, in

monitoring and evaluation efforts;

(xi) Identifying problems, and

opportunities to resolve those problems,

for use in determining whether there is

a need to amend or revise the forest

plan.

(2) The monitoring and evaluation

strategy document should describe

procedures and identify planned

intervals for implementing and

reporting monitoring and evaluation

efforts. Because the type and intensity of

monitoring and evaluation efforts can

vary depending on the availability of

funds, the monitoring and evaluation

strategy should be realistic and

practicable. Monitoring and evaluation

efforts should be designed at the

appropriate spatial scale and for

appropriate timeframes.

(3) The Forest Supervisor shall give

priority to implementing those

monitoring and evaluation efforts that

assess the effects of management

activities having the greatest potential

risk to the environment.

(b) Notice and approval of monitoring

and evaluation strategies. (1) A

monitoring and evaluation strategy must

be made available for public review and

comment at the same time as a proposed

revised forest plan and in accordance

with § 219.10(g).

(2) The Regional Forester is

responsible for approving the

monitoring and evaluation strategy in

conjunction with approving the revised

forest plan. The Regional Forester shall

obtain concurrence of the applicable

Station Director before approving a

monitoring and evaluation strategy. A

final revised forest plan cannot be

approved before the associated

monitoring and evaluation strategy is

approved.

(c) Updating monitoring and

evaluation strategies. (1) Updates may

occur whenever deemed necessary.

Circumstances which might trigger an

update to the strategy include, but are

not limited to, amendment of the forest

plan; consideration of comment from

the public or government entities in

response to the annual monitoring and

evaluation report; availability of new

information; emergence of new

opportunities to coordinate monitoring

and evaluation with others; or
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18929

interdisciplinary team

recommendations.

(2) The Forest Supervisor is

responsible for updating the monitoring

and evaluation strategy as needed. The

Forest Supervisor shall obtain

concurrences of the applicable Station

Director before approving an update to

a monitoring and evaluation strategy.

Updating the monitoring and evaluation

strategy does not trigger a forest plan

amendment or NEPA analysis. A

proposed update to a monitoring and

evaluation strategy must be made

available for public review and

comment for 30 calendar days. Those on

the list described at § 219.3(b) shall be

notified of the opportunity for public

review and comment.

(d) Coordination of monitoring and

evaluation efforts. (1) Monitoring and

evaluation efforts should be

coordinated, to the extent feasible, with

other Federal agencies, State, local, and

tribal governments, interested private

landowners, the scientific community,

and other interested parties. The

monitoring and evaluation strategy

should include identification of

information to be gathered by other

entities.

(2) Monitoring and evaluation efforts

should be coordinated across Forest

Service administrative boundaries. The

Regional Forester shall assure that

monitoring and evaluation needs which

extend beyond a plan area are addressed

and coordinated.

(3) To the extent practicable, the

applicable Station Director should

provide for the involvement of Forest

Service research personnel in the

development and updating of

monitoring and evaluation strategies,

the implementation and evaluation of

monitoring and evaluation tasks, and

preparation of the annual monitoring

and evaluation report.

(e) Monitoring and evaluation report.

The Forest Supervisor shall prepare a

concise monitoring and evaluation

report annually. This report shall be

transmitted to the Regional Forester and

Station Director and be made available

to interested individuals, organizations,

government agencies, and public

officials. The report should include, but

is not limited to, the following:

(1) A summary of the results of

monitoring and evaluation efforts;

(2) Identification of any changes

needed in how the forest plan is being

implemented;

(3) Identification of whether

amendment or revision of the forest

plan is needed;

(4) A brief description of any

amendments which have been initiated

or become effective since the previous

report;

(5) A brief description of any updates

made to the monitoring and evaluation

strategy;

(6) A brief description of any

nondiscretionary changes made to the

forest plan pursuant to § 219.9(e);

(7) A brief description of changes

made to information in the forest plan

that does not constitute direction, such

as changes to appendices (§ 219.9(f)).

(f) Project implementation. When

monitoring and evaluation activities are

essential to ensuring mitigation of

possible environmental effects of a

project, such activities must be

identified in the project decision

document. Moreover, in such case, that

project may not be initiated unless there

is a reasonable expectation that

adequate funding will be available to

conduct the monitoring and evaluation

activities.

(g) Initiating amendment or revision.

Nothing in this section shall be

construed to preclude initiating a forest

plan amendment or revision at any time

the Forest Supervisor or Regional

Forester deems necessary.

§ 219.13 Statutory timber management

requirements.

(a) Review of suitability

determination. (1) Lands identified as

not suited for timber production must

be reviewed at least every 10 years.

Normally, this should occur as part of

forest plan revision; however, if a 10-

year period elapses prior to forest plan

revision, then the review of unsuitable

lands shall occur at the 10-year interval

as well as later during forest plan

revision. The time period for the 10-year

review begins upon the effective date of

the original forest plan, the effective

date of any forest plan revision, or the

effective date of any amendment which

included a review of all unsuitable

lands.

(2) Notwithstanding the 10-year

review, all lands must be reviewed for

their suitability for timber production at

the time of forest plan revision.

(3) The identification of lands as

suited or not suited for timber

production may be changed at any time

for forest plan amendment.

(b) Lands not suited for timber

production. (1) Lands not suited for

timber production must have a fixed

location and should be identified on

maps, either in the forest plan or the

planning records, or otherwise

described in a manner in which they

can be readily recognized.

(2) Forest plan management

prescriptions must be established to

ensure the management of unsuited

lands is consistent with the provisions

of paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(B) and (b)(4) and

(5) of this section.

(3) Lands are identified as not suited

for timber production if any of the

following conditions apply:

(i) The land has been withdrawn from

timber harvest by an Act of Congress,

the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief

of the Forest Service;

(ii) Timber harvest on these lands

would violate statute, Executive order,

or regulation;

(iii) The land does not meet the

definition of forested land as set forth in

§ 219.2 of this subpart;

(iv) Technology is not available for

conducting timber harvesting without

irreversible damage to soil productivity

or watershed conditions;

(v) There is no reasonable assurance

that such lands can be adequately

reforested within five years of final

timber harvest. Adequate reforestation

means that the cut area contains the

minimum number, size, distribution,

and species composition of regeneration

as identified in the forest plan. Five

years after final harvest means five years

after clearcutting, after last overstory

removal entry in shelterwood or seed

tree cutting, or after selection cutting.

(A) Research and experience are the

basis for determining whether the

harvest and regeneration practices

planned can be expected to result in

adequate reforestation.

(B) The reforestation requirement of

paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section does

not prohibit the harvesting of timber

when openings are created for wildlife

habitat improvement, vistas, recreation

uses, or similar long-term purposes.

(4) Timber harvesting may occur on

unsuitable lands only for salvage sales

or sales necessitated to protect other

multiple-use values.

(5) Lands not suited for timber

production are to continue to be treated

for reforestation purposes, particularly

with regard to the protection of other

multiple-use values.

(6) Identification of unsuitable lands

should not vary among alternatives at

the time of forest plan revision.

(c) Lands suited for timber

production. Lands that are not

identified as unsuitable for timber

production shall be considered suited

for timber production. However, forest

plan standards may be established

which prohibit or limit timber

harvesting on suited lands. For example,

such standards could be imposed on

lands otherwise suited for timber

production due to economic

considerations or due to allocation of

the land to uses not compatible with

timber harvesting. Each forest plan must
18930 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

include in the appendix a tabular

summary displaying a listing of the

number of acres of suitable lands where

standards have been imposed which

prohibit or limit timber harvesting and

the number of acres where such

prohibitions or limitations do not apply.

This summary is provided as a

convenient reference only and is not

part of the suitability determination.

(d) Allowable sale quantity. The

amount of chargeable timber volume

which can be sold from a plan area for

a decade cannot exceed the allowable

sale quantity standard established for

the plan area. Each forest plan which

provides for a timber sale program must

establish a standard setting the

allowable sale quantity. The allowable

sale quantity is a ceiling; it is not a

future sale level projection or target and

does not reflect all of the factors that

may influence future sale levels.

(1) Calculation procedures. The

allowable sale quantity is calculated as

follows:

(i) Land base. The only lands on

which the allowable sale quantity is

based are those lands in the plan area

suited for timber production and on

which planned periodic entries for

timber harvest are allowed over time.

Only one allowable sale quantity can be

established per plan area.

(ii) Long-term sustained-yield timber

capacity. The amount of chargeable

timber volume which can be sold for a

decade from any proclaimed National

Forest within the plan area may not

exceed the long-term sustained-yield

timber capacity of that proclaimed

National Forest except as provided by

paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section or

as necessary to meet overall multipleuse goals as established in the forest

plan. Any change to the forest plan to

permit a departure to meet overall

multiple-use goals must be made by a

major amendment or revision.

(A) The long-term sustained-yield

timber capacity of a proclaimed

National Forest is calculated using the

same suited land base and forest plan

standards as used for calculating the

allowable sale quantity.

(B) In those cases where a proclaimed

National Forest has less than two

hundred thousand acres of lands suited

for timber production, two or more

proclaimed National Forests may be

used for purposes of determining the

long-term sustained-yield timber

capacity.

(iii) Non-declining flow. When

calculating a new allowable sale

quantity, the new allowable sale

quantity may either decline, remain

constant, or increase relative to the

current allowable sale quantity. The

new allowable sale quantity must be

established at a level that is predicted to

be sustainable or capable of increasing

during subsequent decades, with

exceptions permitted only to meet

overall multiple-use goals.

(iv) Intensified management practices.

Whenever the allowable sale quantity is

changed through amendment or

revision, predicted yields that were

dependent on implementation of

intensified management practices must

be decreased if such intensified

practices have not been successfully

implemented or funds have not been

received to permit such practices to

continue substantially as previously

planned.

(2) Chargeable timber volume. Only

the timber volume that has been

included in the growth and yield

projections used for the calculation of

the allowable sale quantity is

attributable to the allowable sale

quantity when sold.

(3) Noninterchangeable components.

The allowable sale quantity may be

divided into noninterchangeable

components. Limits on the sale of

chargeable timber volume associated

with each noninterchangeable

component cannot be exceeded, and

chargeable timber volume from one

noninterchangeable component cannot

be attributed to the volume limit

associated with another

noninterchangeable component. Where

management prescriptions allow

planned periodic entries for timber

harvest over time into roadless areas,

the portion of the allowable sale

quantity derived from those roadless

areas must be identified as a

noninterchangeable component.

(4) Exception to harvest limit. Nothing

in this section prohibits the salvage or

sanitation harvesting of timber stands

which are substantially damaged by fire,

windthrow, or other catastrophe, or

which are in imminent danger from

insect or disease attack. If the volume

from such harvests was included in the

calculation of the allowable sale

quantity, it may either be substituted for

timber that would otherwise be sold

under the plan or, if not feasible, sold

over and above the allowable sale

quantity.

(e) Culmination of mean annual

increment. All even-aged stands

scheduled to be harvested during the

plan period must generally have

reached culmination of mean annual

increment of growth. This requirement

does not apply to silvicultural practices

such as thinning or other stand

improvement measures; to salvage or

sanitation harvesting of stands which

are substantially damaged by fire,

windthrow, or other catastrophes, or

which are in imminent danger from

insect or disease attacks; when unevenaged methods are used; or to cutting for

experimental and research purposes. In

addition, exceptions to this requirement

are permitted in the forest plan for the

harvest of particular species of trees if

overall multiple-use goals would be

better attained. Any change to a forest

plan to permit such exceptions must be

made through a major amendment or at

the time of revision. Cubic foot measure

is used as the basis for calculating

culmination of mean annual increment

of growth unless the Chief directs

otherwise.

(f) Selection of cutting methods. The

determination of the appropriate cutting

method is made at the project level.

Clearcutting may be permitted only

when it is determined to be the

optimum method of timber cutting and

the only practical method to accomplish

one or more of the following purposes:

(1) Establishment, maintenance, or

enhancement of habitat for threatened

or endangered species;

(2) Enhancement of wildlife habitat or

water yield values or to provide for

recreation, scenic vistas, utility lines,

road corridors, facility sites, reservoirs,

fuel breaks, or similar developments;

(3) Rehabilitation of lands adversely

impacted by events such as fires,

windstorms, or insect or disease

infestations;

(4) Preclusion or minimization of the

occurrence of potentially adverse

impacts of insect or disease infestations,

windthrow, logging damage, or other

factors affecting forest health;

(5) Establishment and growth of

desired tree or other vegetative species

that are shade intolerant;

(6) Rehabilitation of poorly stocked

stands due to past management

practices or natural events; and

(7) Research needs.

(g) Maximum size of clearcuts. To

provide for those cases where

clearcutting may be approved for a

specific project, the forest plan must

establish the maximum size of areas that

could be clearcut in one harvest

operation. These sizes do not apply to

areas harvested by clearcutting as a

result of natural catastrophic conditions

such as fire, insect and disease attack,

or windstorm. Exceptions to the

established limits also may be exceeded

on a project basis after public notice and

approval by the Regional Forester.

(h) Blending of even-aged stands.

Blocks, patches, or strips for

clearcutting, shelterwood cutting, seed

tree cutting, and other methods

designed to regenerate an even-aged

stand of timber shall be shaped and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18931

blended to the extent practicable with

the natural terrain.

(i) Protection of soil and water. Forest

plans must not permit timber harvesting

where harvests are likely to seriously

and adversely affect water conditions or

fish habitat unless protection is

provided from detrimental changes in

water temperature, blockages of water

courses, and deposits of sediment.

(j) Displays of Timber Information.

The following information shall be

displayed in one or more appendices to

the forest plan:

(1) Acreage designated as lands

unsuitable and suitable for timber

production.

(2) Acreage of suitable lands subject to

standards which prohibit or limit timber

harvesting and the acreage where such

prohibitions or limitations do not apply.

(3) the long-term sustained-yield

timber capacity of each proclaimed

National Forest either fully or partially

within the plan area.

(4) The proportion of possible timber

harvest methods forest-wide.

§ 219.14 Special designations.

(a) Special designations. Forest plan

amendment or revision is the

mechanism for the agency to allocate

specific areas to prescriptions for

special designations, or to recommend

special designation by higher

authorities. Special designations may

include, but are not limited to,

wilderness, research natural areas,

geological areas, botanical areas, scenic

by-ways, national scenic areas, national

recreation areas, national natural

landmarks, and wild, scenic, and

recreation rivers.

(b) Wilderness areas. Unless Federal

statute directs otherwise, all roadless,

undeveloped areas shall be evaluated

for wilderness designation during forest

plan revision subject to the following

limitations:

(1) West of the 100th meridian, areas

must be at least 5,000 acres in size

unless contiguous to existing units of

the National Wilderness Preservation

System or contiguous to areas endorsed

by the Administration for wilderness

designation.

(2) East of the 100th meridian, areas

must be of sufficient size as to make

practicable their preservation and use in

an unimpaired condition.

(c) Wild, scenic, and recreation rivers.

The eligibility of rivers for designation

as wild, scenic, and recreation rivers

shall be evaluated during forest plan

revision if any of the following apply:

(1) Federal legislation requires

evaluation; or

(2) A river eligibility evaluation has

not been conducted using the criteria

published in FSH 1909.12 in July, 1987.

(d) Role of forest plans. Where Acts

designating special areas within the

National Forest System require planning

beyond that required for forest plans,

the goals, objectives, standards, or

guidelines in special area plans shall be

incorporated into the forest plan as

forest plan direction.

§ 219.15 Applicability and transition.

(a) The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to all units of the National

Forest System as defined by 16 U.S.C.

1609 including, but not limited to, the

National Grasslands.

(b) In those circumstances where a

forest plan has not been approved as of

[effective date of the final rule],

development and approval of the forest

plan continue to be subject to the

previous planning rule. After plan

approval, the rules of this subpart apply.

(c) Forest plans adopted prior to

[effective date of the final rule] remain

in effect until amended or revised

pursuant to this subpart.

(d) Prior to adoption of a revised

forest plan prepared in accordance with

the rules of this subpart, forest plans

need not be amended in order to comply

with the rules of this subpart.

(e) The displays required by

§ 219.11(d)(1) and (2) and § 219.13(j)

need not be prepared prior to

development of a revised forest plan

prepared in accordance with the rules of

this subpart.

(f) The requirement of § 219.12(e)

applies starting the first full fiscal year

after [effective date of the final rule].

(g) Until such time as forest plans are

amended or revised to fully conform to

the definitions and usage of ‘‘standards’’

and ‘‘guidelines’’ as described at

§ 219.6(e) and (f), the following apply:

(l) Consistency determinations

(§ 219.11) shall be based on whether

project decisions adhere to mandatory

standards or guidelines in current plans;

and

(2) An amendment shall be

considered major when one of the

following circumstances exist:

(i) One or more mandatory standards

or guidelines in the current forest plan

would be amended in such a manner

that the amendment would result in

significant change to the forest plan and

that change is predicted to affect

resources over a large portion of the

plan area during the remainder of the

plan period;

(ii) The forest plan would be amended

in such a manner that the amount of

chargeable timber volume which can be

sold for a decade from a proclaimed

National Forest in the plan area exceeds

the long-term sustained-yield timber

capacity of that proclaimed National

Forest, except as provided at

(§ 219.13(d)(1)(ii)(B)); or

(iii) Forest plan direction would be

changed to permit harvest of even-aged

stands that have not reached

culmination of mean annual increment

of growth (§ 219.13(e)), including when

such a change is made to accommodate

a project.

(h) If a Notice of Intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement has

been published for a significant

amendment or revision of a forest plan

prior to [effective date of the final rule],

the following apply:

(1) If a draft environmental impact

statement accompanying a proposed

significant amendment has not been

issued, the Regional Forester shall

implement the rules of this subpart. In

such case, a new Notice of Intent need

not be issued; rather, the Regional

Forester shall notify those on the list

described at § 219.3(b) of any changes in

the amendment process resulting from

compliance with the rules of this

subpart.

(2) If a draft environmental impact

statement accompanying the proposed

significant amendment has been issued,

the Regional Forester may continue

under the previous planning rule.

(3) If a draft environmental impact

statement accompanying a proposed

revision has not been issued, the

Regional Forester shall implement the

rules of this subpart. If a draft

environmental impact statement

accompanying the proposed revision

has been issued, the Regional Forester

may continue under the previous

planning rule. If the Regional Forester

continues under the rules of this

subpart, a new Notice of Intent need not

be issued, the scoping process need not

be repeated, and the prerevision actions

required at § 219.10(c) need not

specifically occur. However, the

Regional Forester must document other

analyses or evaluations conducted as

part of the revision process which

served to review the entire forest plan

and to determine that need to change

forest plan direction. The Regional

Forester shall notify those on the list

described at § 219.3(b) of any changes in

the process for revision resulting from

compliance with the rules of this

subpart.

(i) Except for the Pacific Southwest

Region (36 CFR 200.2), regional guides

prepared in accordance with the

previous planning rule shall be

withdrawn no later than three years

from [effective date of the final rule],

unless the Chief of the Forest Service

determines that delay is warranted. The

Regional Guide for the Pacific

Southwest Region shall be maintained
18932 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

until such time as all forest plans in the

Region are approved. It shall then be

withdrawn no later than three years

from the date of approval of the last

forest plan, unless the Chief of the

Forest Service determines that delay is

warranted.

(j) A forest plan must meet the

requirement of § 219.13(g) prior to

withdrawal of the regional guide for that

plan area.

Subpart B—[Reserved]

Dated: April 4, 1995.

Jack Ward Thomas,

Chief.

[FR Doc. 95–8594 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M