[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18886-18932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8594]




[[Page 18885]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Agriculture





_______________________________________________________________________



Forest Service



_______________________________________________________________________



36 CFR Parts 215, 217 and 219



National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning; Proposed 
Rule

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


[[Page 18886]]


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service




36 CFR Parts 215, 217, and 219

RIN 0596-AB20


National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service requests comment on a proposed rule to 
guide land and resource management planning for the 191-million acre 
National Forest System. This proposed rule, which would revise and 
streamline the existing planning rule, describes the agency's framework 
for National Forest System resource decisionmaking; incorporates 
principles of ecosystem management into resource planning; and 
establishes requirements for implementation, monitoring, evaluation, 
amendment, and revision of forest plans. The intended effect is to 
simplify, clarify, and otherwise improve the planning process; reduce 
burdensome and costly procedural requirements; and strengthen 
relationships with the public and other government entities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing and received by July 12, 
1995.
    The agency will provide briefings to assist the public in 
understanding the proposed rule on April 24 at the locations and times 
listed under Supplementary Information.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Director, Ecosystem Management 
(1920; 3 CEN), Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 
20090-6090.
    The public may inspect comments received on this proposed rule in 
the Office of the Director, Third Floor, Central Wing, Auditor's 
Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, between the 
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Those wishing to inspect comments are 
encouraged to call ahead (202-205-1034) to facilitate entry into the 
building.
    Briefings will be held at the addresses set out under Supplementary 
Information of this notice for proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Christensen, Land Management 
Planning Specialist (202-205-1034).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Briefings and Locations

    The Forest Service will hold public briefings on April 24 in the 
following cities at the addresses and times shown:
    1. Washington, DC--April 24, 1995, 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Crystal 
City Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 
22202.
    2. Missoula, Montana--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., 4B's Inn 
and Conference Center, 3803 Brooks Street, Missoula, Montana, 59801.
    3. Denver, Colorado--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., USDA 
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Auditorium, 740 Simms Street, 
Golden, Colorado, 80401.
    4. Grand Junction, Colorado--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 
p.m., Grand Junction Ranger District, 764 Horizon Drive, Grand 
Junction, Colorado, 81506.
    5. Durango, Colorado--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., San 
Juan Forest Supervisor's Office, 701 Camino del Camino, Durango, 
Colorado, 81301.
    6. Chadron, Nebraska--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., 
Nebraska National Forest Supervisor's Office, 125 N. Main Street, 
Chadron, Nebraska, 69337.
    7. Rapid City, South Dakota--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 
p.m., Pactola Ranger District Office, 800 Soo San Drive, Rapid City, 
South Dakota, 81506.
    8. Casper, Wyoming--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Holiday 
Inn, 300 ``F'' Street, Casper, Wyoming, 82601.
    9. Albuquerque, New Mexico--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., 
Southwestern Regional Office, 517 Gold Avenue, S.W., Albuquerque, New 
Mexico, 87102.
    10. Phoenix, Arizona--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., Tonto 
National Forest Supervisor's Office, 2234 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, 
Arizona, 85010.
    11. Boise, Idaho--April 24, 1995, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., National 
Interagency Fire Center, Training Building Auditorium, 3833 Development 
Avenue, Boise, Idaho, 83705.
    12. Salt Lake City, Utah--April 24, 1995, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Federal 
Building, Room 2404, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, 
84138.
    13. Sacramento, California--April 24, 1995, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., 
Radisson Hotel Sacramento, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, California, 
95815.
    14. Portland, Oregon--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., USDA 
Forest Service Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Robert Duncan Plaza, 
333 S.W. First Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97208.
    15. Atlanta, Georgia--April 24, 1995, 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., USDA 
Forest Service Southern Region Office, 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W., room 
199, Atlanta, Georgia, 30367.
    16. Brookfield, Wisconsin--April 24, 1995, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., 
Brookfield Marriott Hotel, 375 South Moorland Road, Brookfield, 
Wisconsin, 53005.
    17. Juneau, Alaska--April 24, 1995, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Alaska Native 
Brotherhood Hall, 320 Willoughby Avenue, Juneau, Alaska, 99801.
    Public comments will not be taken at these briefings, which will 
consist of video presentations prepared by the Chief's Office. As of 
May 1, one copy of this video material will also be available at the 
Chief's Office, each Regional Office, each Forest Supervisor's Office, 
each Research or Experiment Station, the Forest Products Laboratory, 
the Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry Office, and the 
International Institute of Tropical Forestry. The video may be borrowed 
by interested parties on a reservation basis by contacting their local 
Forest Service office or calling the telephone number listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT earlier in this notice.

Background

    The Forest Service is responsible for managing the land and 
resources of the National Forest System. It is headed by the Chief of 
the Forest Service and includes 191 million acres of lands in 42 
States, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The National Forest System 
consists of 155 National Forests, 20 National Grasslands, and various 
other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
Under the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) and 
the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600), these 
lands are managed for a variety of uses on a sustained basis to ensure 
a continued supply of goods and services to the American people in 
perpetuity.
    The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 
(RPA) (88 Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 USC 1601-1614) 
(hereafter, NFMA), specifies that land and resource management plans 
shall be developed for units of the National Forest System. Regulations 
to implement NFMA are set forth at 36 CFR part 219.
    A forest plan has been approved for every National Forest except 
the Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Mendocino, and Six Rivers National 
Forests, all located in California. It remains the agency's intent that 
these National Forests complete their plans under the requirements for 
forest plan development described by the existing regulation, adopted 
September 30, 1982 (47 FR 43026), as amended June 24, 1983 (48 FR 
29122), and September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383), and as set out in the 

[[Page 18887]]
Code of Federal Regulations as of July 1, 1993.
    During the 18 years since enactment of NFMA, much has been learned 
about planning for management of National Forest System lands. The 
original vision of NFMA raised many varied expectations, some of which 
remain unfulfilled. Although forest planning efforts to date have 
produced notable accomplishments in addressing forest management issues 
and fostering public participation in public land management, many 
controversies linger. For each National Forest, difficult resource 
management choices must be made among competing interests, often where 
there are no universally accepted answers. In such a setting, forest 
planning cannot be expected to revolve all differences; however, 
improvements in forest planning requirements and procedures can help 
better focus the issues and choices and lead to better, more informed 
decisions.
    This proposed rule is the culmination of a systematic and 
comprehensive review of forest planning rules and processes. The nature 
of this review and its findings were described in detail in the Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on February 15, 1991 (56 FR 
6508), along with a history of forest planning and an overview of the 
existing planning rule.

Critique of Land Management Planning

    Of particular note in development of this proposed rule is the 
Critique of Land Management Planning. The Forest Service initiated this 
comprehensive review of its land management planning process in March 
1989. Conducted with the help of The Conservation Foundation, the 
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources at Purdue University, and 
others, the purpose of the Critique was to document what had been 
learned since passage of the National Forest Management Act and to 
determine how best to respond to the planning challenges of the future.
    The Critique involved over 3,500 people both within and outside the 
Forest Service. Workshops and interviews were conducted involving over 
2,000 people who had participated in or had responsibilities for forest 
planning. These participants represented a broad cross-section of all 
those who were involved in planning, including members of the general 
public, interest groups, representatives of other agencies, elected 
officials, representatives of Indian tribal governments, Forest 
Supervisors, Regional Foresters, resource specialists, and members of 
interdisciplinary planning teams. Additionally, there were written 
comments received from 1,500 interested people. The Critique was 
completed in May 1990. The results of the Critique are documented in a 
summary report, ``Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management 
Planning'' (Vol. 1) and 10 other more detailed reports. In the interest 
of economy and brevity, the findings of the Critique and other material 
are not repeated here but should be considered as the foundation and 
background for this proposed rule.

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on February 
15, 1991 (56 FR 6508). The public comment period closed May 16, 1991. 
The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking included preliminary 
regulatory text completely revising the existing regulation, based 
largely on the findings of the Critique. Four public informational 
meetings were held to stimulate public interest in and comment on the 
proposal in the Advance Notice and to assist the public in 
understanding the ideas presented in the Notice. Meetings were held as 
follows: Washington, DC, February 26, 1991; Portland, Oregon, April 8, 
1991; Denver, Colorado, April 10, 1991; and Atlanta, Georgia, April 12, 
1991. Altogether, approximately 50 people attended these meetings.
    In addition to publishing the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
in the Federal Register, the Forest Service mailed approximately 20,000 
copies to known interested parties and invited comment on the rule. 
Over 600 groups and individuals provided nearly 4,700 comments. 
Approximately 10 percent were from business and industry groups; 11 
percent from Federal, State, and local government agencies; 11 percent 
from environmental and conservation groups; 2 percent from recreation 
and user groups; 1 percent from academia; 1 percent from civic 
organizations; 9 percent from agency employees; and the remaining 55 
percent from individual citizens.
    As stated in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the agency 
received a petition on November 1, 1990, from the National Forest 
Products Association and 79 other organizations ``to engage in a 
rulemaking to amend the regulations set out at 36 CFR Part 219 to 
improve the implementation of land and resource management plans 
(`forest plants'), provide for prompt amendment, establish specific 
environmental documentation requirements, and for related reasons.'' 
This petition for rulemaking included proposed regulatory text and the 
rationale for it. It represented an alternative approach to changing 
the NFMA planning regulation at 36 CFR Part 219. The specific 
recommendations in the petition, along with supplemental comments 
received from the National Forest Products Association during the 
public comment period, were considered as part of the public comment 
associated with the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Basic Conclusions Underlying This Proposal

    The proposed rule now being published rests on many of the same 
basic conclusions as the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which 
are highlighted here.

1. Many Recommendations of the Critique of Land Management Planning can 
and Should be Adopted by Revising the Planning Rule

    Although a number of specific recommendations have been used in 
developing this proposed rule, the following major recommendations 
identified by the Critique are particularly important:
(a) Simplify, Clarify, and Shorten the Planning Process
    The Critique found that the complexity of the forest planning 
process was so overwhelming that few people really fully understood it. 
Further, the Critique found that this complexity often inhibited 
meaningful communication with the public and other governments, reduced 
agency credibility, and increased the time and cost needed to complete 
plans.
    The Critique also identified the problems associated with trying to 
resolve socio-political issues through a highly technical and 
systematic set of planning procedures. The importance of balancing 
technical information with the values and concerns of the public was 
highlighted in the Critique reports.
    Finally, the planning process is so lengthy and complex that the 
process of completing forest plans is frustrating for the public and 
agency employees alike. In addition, the financial expenditure required 
for such a lengthy and complex process has had a major impact on the 
agency and diverted funds and personnel from project decisionmaking and 
other activities.
    While endorsing the need to simplify, clarify, and shorten the 
planning process, the Forest Service also recognizes that forest 
planning is inherently complex due to the multitude of resources and 
statutory responsibilities involved. Sound, yet often complex, 
technical analyses serve 

[[Page 18888]]
a critical role in evaluating resource trade-offs and ensuring that 
resource decisions are based on the best possible information. A 
balance must be found between the simplicity most people desire and the 
complex reality of forest planning.
(b) Clarify the Decision Framework
    The existing regulation does not precisely address the nature of 
forest plan decisions and the appropriate scope of environmental 
analysis. During development of the existing forest plans, many people 
believed that forest plans would make irretrievable resource 
commitments for all projects necessary to fully implement the goals and 
objectives of the plan. Confusion over the nature of forest plan 
decisions has been a principal source of controversy for many plans. 
Most of the administrative appeals of forest plans challenge whether 
forest plans and accompanying environmental impact statements satisfy 
particular requirements of NFMA, NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the 
Clean Water Act, and other environmental laws. Forest plan appellants 
frequently argue that forest plans irretrievably commit the agency to 
individual projects but fail to provide the analysis and documentation 
required by these statutes.
    In fact, the environmental impact statements accompanying forest 
plans do not attempt to identify, evaluate, and decide every individual 
project that may be permissible during the normal 10-year period of a 
forest plan. It would be practically impossible to satisfy these 
obligations in one single set of decisions or in a single environmental 
impact statement. Court decisions as well as administrative appeal 
decisions by the Chief of the Forest Service and the Assistant 
Secretary of Agriculture have explained the content of forest plan 
decisions and the scope of environmental analysis. To avoid confusion, 
the existing rule should be revised accordingly.
(c) Provide for an Incremental Approach to Revising Forest Plans
    The Critique firmly endorsed an incremental approach to forest plan 
revision. It was considered a key element to achieving the major 
recommendations of the Critique to ``Simplify, clarify, and shorten the 
planning process.'' In Volume 2 of the Critique report, the merits of 
incremental planning are addressed:

    Wiping the slate clean and beginning anew allows the entire 
universe to alternatives to be examined, unprejudiced by directions 
and choices that have gone before. In fact, however, change is 
incremental when the alternatives available are heavily influenced--
and circumscribed--by the choices made in the past. Examining the 
entire universe of alternatives in great detail may be both 
interesting and informative, but it imposes a tremendous demand for 
analysis that may go largely unused in the real decision process * * 
*. Federal regulations should be revised to permit an explicitly 
incremental approach to the revision of forest plans.'' (p. 61)

2. While NFMA Has Some Limitations, It Remains Basically Sound

    Such NFMA principles as integrated resource planning, public 
participation, and an interdisciplinary approach to planning continue 
to provide a solid foundation for agency planning efforts. The Act also 
provides flexibility to make needed improvements through rulemaking or 
agency directives.
    Many of the problems with forest planning are not directly 
associated with the provisions of NFMA. Public land management is 
complicated by a long series of laws and regulations enacted over many 
years. This has resulted in a situation once described by Federal 
District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton as a ``crazy quilt of 
apparently mutually incompatible statutory directives.'' (United States 
v. Brunskill, Civil S-82-666-LKK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 1984) unpublished 
opinion, aff'd, 792 F.2d 9938 (9th Cir. 1986)). Thus, the controversy 
which often has surrounded forest planning must be viewed in light of 
the many requirements imposed by statutory and regulatory requirements 
other than the National Forest Management Act (e.g., the National 
Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, 
Clean Air Act). It is often the interaction of these other laws and 
regulations that has increased the controversy surrounding forest 
planning and land use.
    Some of the dissatisfaction with NFMA can be traced to unrealistic 
expectations. One of the major findings of the Critique of Land 
Management Planning was the need for adjustments in the public's 
expectations of forest planning. Volume 2 of the report of the Critique 
explicitly addressed this as follows:

    Expectations for forest planning are high in some cases, 
unrealistically so. Some workshop participants expected forest 
planning would lead to establishment of ``reasonable and 
sustainable'' production goals. Others thought it would free 
resource allocation from politics while building a powerful case for 
budgets and appropriations sufficient to accomplish plan goals. And 
many apparently thought that forest planning would be a way to 
influence the political process and sway management to their 
purposes. Probing more deeply, we found that it was not so much the 
process to which people objected, but the results of that process. 
In retrospect, it was inevitable that this would occur. When the law 
was enacted, representatives of both the Sierra Club and the 
National Forest Products Association returned to their constituents 
and proclaimed victory. Obviously, both had different expectations 
of outcomes under the law. (p.3)

3. Many Opportunities Exist to Streamline the Existing Regulatory Text

    In addition to finding numerous opportunities to streamline the 
substantive procedural requirements for forest planning, one of the 
findings of the review of the existing regulation was that much could 
be done to simplify the regulatory text itself and to enhance its 
readability regardless of major substantive changes. For example, there 
were numerous opportunities to simplify language, shorten definitions, 
eliminate similar or duplicative provisions, improve structural 
organization, and reduce overlap with other laws, regulations, or 
Executive orders. In addition, language without real substance should 
be removed. The composite effect of such changes can be a significant 
reduction in the length of the regulation, an enhancement of its 
readability, and a positive step forward towards better understanding 
and simplification of forest planning.
    In reviewing the existing regulation, the agency also has 
considered the relative roles of the planning regulation at 36 CFR part 
219 and the Forest Service Directive System. The review indicated that 
the rule is better suited for defining the purpose and desired results 
of planning and the minimum standards for planning than for giving 
detailed procedural guidelines. As a result, some streamlining has been 
achieved in the proposed rule by shifting detailed procedural direction 
to agency directives. To implement the revised regulation, the agency 
plans to reorganize and revise its directives related to forest 
planning. Subject to procedures in 36 CFR part 216, substantive 
revisions to planning direction in Forest Service Manual Chapter 1920 
will be made available for public review and comment prior to being 
adopted.

4. The Solution to Some Problems With the Planning Process Are Not 
Within the Scope of the Planning Regulation

    Only about one-third of the 232 Critique recommendations concern 
changes that are appropriate to implement through revision of the 
planning regulation or issuance of related guidance through the Forest 

[[Page 18889]]
Service Directive System. The remaining two-thirds of the 
recommendations must be addressed through other actions or channels, 
such as increasing accountability for performance or improving 
training.
    In addition, even though some aspects of planning are within the 
scope of the regulation, the real success or failure of some endeavors 
will depend on the commitment and understanding of agency personnel and 
the public. A good example of this is public involvement. No amount of 
regulatory detail can guarantee effective and open communication. 
Certain expectations can be defined and minimum procedures established, 
but ultimately the success or failure of the communication between the 
agency and public depends upon the people involved. As a result, the 
agency recognizes that even though modifying the planning regulation is 
a major and essential step towards improving the effectiveness of 
forest planning, such improvements must occur in concert with other 
changes and commitments in order for the full potential of forest 
planning to be realized.
    In addition to the preceding four conclusions which had been 
addressed in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, one additional 
finding has guided development of this proposed rule which were not 
reflected in the Advance Notice.
5. Principles of Ecosystem Management Need to be Reflected in the 
Planning Regulation

    In the decade following promulgation of the existing planning rule, 
the concept of ecosystem management has slowly and steadily evolved, 
and the agency has made clear its intention to move toward an ecosystem 
management approach to National Forest System management. In recent 
years, the agency has actively promoted implementation of ecosystem 
management principles within existing legal requirements. Other Federal 
agencies are proceeding similarly. Additionally, the spotted owl 
controversy in the Pacific Northwest has become a focal point for 
exploring ways to implement the principles of ecosystem management. The 
validity of an ecosystem approach was recently upheld when the Record 
of Decision (ROD) for the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl was 
sustained from programmatic challenge (SAS v. Lyons, No. C92-479WD 
(W.D. WA, Dec. 21, 1994)). In that decision, Judge Dwyer stated, 
``Given the current condition of the forests, there is no way the 
agencies could comply with environmental laws without planning on an 
ecosystem basis'' (slip. Op. @ 32).
    In light of the experience in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, 
there is much interest in finding ways for Federal land management 
agencies to better incorporate the principles of ecosystem management 
when conducting resource planning and decisionmaking activities. The 
existing NFMA planning regulation was promulgated in 1982, long before 
the concept of ecosystem management had begun to be widely recognized. 
By contrast, the proposed rule has been promulgated with recognition of 
the role of ecosystem management and represents a significant step 
toward incorporating ecosystem management into the planning process to 
the extent permitted by current law.
    While basic principles of NFMA remain sound, there are questions as 
to whether statutory changes may be appropriate if ecosystem management 
is to become a fully operational concept for the management of National 
Forest System lands. A related consideration is the interaction of NFMA 
requirements with numerous other relevant statutes, such as the 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321), the endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), or the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (86 Stat. 770). Experience to date has shown that the 
existing ``crazy quilt'' framework of statutes creates some limitations 
and uncertainties regarding implementation of ecosystem management 
concepts. Although progress can be made within the existing legal 
framework, the agency believes that a review of NFMA and other relevant 
statutes may be appropriate before the concept of ecosystem management 
can be transformed from an evolving vision into a fully operational 
reality.
    Moreover, it must be recognized that ecosystem management is a 
continuously evolving concept. There is still much to be learned 
regarding how best to implement the principles of ecosystem management 
when fulfilling the agency's responsibilities for management of 
National Forest System lands. As a result, the proposed rule should not 
be viewed as the agency's ultimate vision for implementing ecosystem 
management, but rather as a transitional step for beginning to 
incorporate the concepts of ecosystem management into land and resource 
management planning procedures and to do so in a manner consistent with 
the requirements of NFMA.
    In summary, as the first generation of forest plans prepared under 
NFMA is coming due for revision, the Forest Service proposes a 
substantially streamlined planning rule that builds on 15 years of 
planning experience and evolving concepts of resource management. The 
primary outcomes anticipated from the proposed rule include: forest 
plans and forest planning procedures that are simpler, more 
understandable, and less costly; stronger relationships with the public 
and other government entities; the incorporation of ecosystem 
management principles into forest planning; and clarification of the 
nature of forest plan decisions and their relationship to other 
planning and decisionmaking processes.

Comparison of Outlines of Proposed Rule to Existing Rule

    The following table allows comparison of the existing table of 
contents for 36 CFR part 219, subpart A to that in the proposed rule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Proposed rule                        Existing rule      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
219.1  Purpose and principles................  219.1  Purpose and       
                                                principles.             
219.2  Definitions...........................  219.2  Scope and         
                                                applicability.          
219.3  Relationships with the public and       219.3  Definitions and   
 government entities.                           terminology.            
219.4  Sustainability of escosystems.........  219.4  Planning levels.  
219.5  Framework for resource decisionmaking.  219.5  Interdisciplinary 
                                                approach.               
219.6  Forest plan direction.................  219.6  Public            
                                                participation.          
219.7  Ecosystem analysis....................  219.7  Coordination with 
                                                other public planning   
                                                efforts.                
219.8  Interdisciplinary teams and             219.8  Regional planning--
 information needs.                             general procedure.      
219.9  Forest plan amendments................  219.9  Regional guide    
                                                content.                
219.10  Forest plan revision.................  219.10  Forest planning--
                                                general procedure.      
219.11  Forest plan implementation...........  219.11  Forest plan      
                                                content.                
219.12  Monitoring and evaluation............  219.12  Forest plan      
                                                process.                

[[Page 18890]]
                                                                        
219.13  Statutory timber management            219.13  Forest planning--
 requirements.                                  resource integration    
                                                requirements.           
219.14  Special designations.................  219.14  Timber resource  
                                                land suitability.       
219.15  Applicability and transition.........  219.15  Vegetative       
                                                management practices.   
                                               219.16  Timber resource  
                                                sale schedule.          
                                               219.17  Wilderness       
                                                designation.            
                                               219.18  Wilderness       
                                                management.             
                                               219.19  Fish and wildlife
                                                resource.               
                                               219.20  Grazing resource.
                                               219.21  Recreation       
                                                resource.               
                                               219.22  Mineral resource.
                                               219.23  Water and soil   
                                                resource.               
                                               219.24  Cultural and     
                                                historic resource.      
                                               219.25  Research natural 
                                                areas.                  
                                               219.26  Diversity.       
                                               219.27  Management       
                                                requirements.           
                                               219.28  Research.        
                                               219.29  Transition       
                                                period.                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Section-by-Section Description

    The principal features of the proposed rule are summarized here, 
keyed to the proposed CFR section numbers.

Section 219.1  Purpose and Principles

    The proposed rule would: (1) Describe the agency's framework for 
National Forest System resource decisionmaking; (2) incorporate 
principles of ecosystem management; (3) establish requirements for the 
implementation, monitoring, evaluation, amendment, and revision of 
forest plans; and (4) articulate the relationship between resource 
decisionmaking and compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
Act (hereafter, NEPA). Unlike the existing rule, the proposed rule 
would not provide direction for development of initial forest plans, 
because all but four of those plans are in effect.
    Paragraph (b) would identify 10 principles which provide the basis 
for National Forest System resource decisionmaking and management. The 
existing rule contains 14 principles. Although the 14 original 
principles are basically sound in and of themselves, the agency 
believes the new set of principles better reflects the concepts of 
ecosystem management and the agency's approach to resource 
decisionmaking.
    The first principle states the agency's commitment to managing for 
sustainable ecosystems and the multiple benefits which they can yield. 
The second principle articulates a key aspect of the agency's approach 
to ecosystem management--that people are part of ecosystems and that 
meeting people's needs and desires within the capacities of natural 
systems is a primary role of resource decisionmaking.
    The third principle reflects the dynamic nature of ecosystems and 
that they occur at a variety of spatial scales, with the resulting need 
for flexible planning processes that consider ecological changes over 
time. The fourth principle recognizes that ecosystems often cross many 
ownerships and jurisdictions, making it important to coordinate 
planning efforts for National Forest System lands with other 
landowners, governments, and agencies. This principle also addresses 
the need to respect private property rights and the jurisdictions of 
other government entities.
    The fifth principle notes the importance of open, ongoing, and 
equitable public involvement. This embodies the agency's belief that 
such participation by all interested publics is an important and 
integral part of National Forest System management.
    The sixth principle highlights the vital role of scientists in 
gathering and analyzing information for resource decisionmaking.
    The seventh principle recognizes that a fundamental goal of 
managing National Forest System lands is the optimization of net public 
benefits, which includes consideration of both quantitative and 
qualitative criteria.
    The eighth principle emphasizes the importance of being able to 
efficiently adjust forest plans in response to changing conditions and 
new information.
    The ninth principle makes clear that NEPA procedures define the 
scope and level of analysis conducted for resource decisionmaking and 
the need for analysis to be commensurate with the scope and nature of 
decisions being made.
    The last principle acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in 
resource decisionmaking, and the need for resource decisionmaking to 
proceed using an adaptive approach to resource management.
    The 10 principles highlight the underlying concepts and assumptions 
upon which the remaining sections of the proposed rule are based and 
set out many of the principles of ecosystem management which are 
reflected in the proposed rule.

Section 219.2  Definitions

    The following words are defined in the existing rule, but would not 
be included in the definitions provided in the proposed rule, because 
they are not used or do not vary in meaning from common or well-
established use of the term:

Base sale schedule
Biological growth potential
Capability
Corridor
Cost efficiency
Diversity
Even-aged management
Goods and services
Integrated pest management
Management concern
Management direction
Management intensity
Management practice
Planning horizon
Present net value
Public issue
Real dollar value
Receipt shares
Responsible line officer
Sale schedule
Silvicultural system
Suitability
Sustained-yield of products and services
Timber production
Uneven-aged management

    The following terms are not defined in the Definitions section of 
the existing rule, but would be defined in the proposed rule:

Catastrophic event
Category 1 candidate species
Category 2 candidate species

[[Page 18891]]

Chargeable timber volume
Conservation agreement
Culmination of mean annual increment
Decision document
Directive
Directive System
Ecosystem analysis
Ecosystem management
Environmental assessment
Environmental impact statement
Even-aged stand
Forest Supervisor
Guideline
Infrastructure
NEPA documents
NEPA procedures
Previous planning rule
Project
Proposed action
Regional Forester
RPA Program and Assessment
Resource conditions
Responsible official
Species and natural community rankings
Standard
Station Director
Sustainability of ecosystems
Tribal governments

    The following definitions appear in the existing rule and would be 
modified or retained unchanged in the proposed rule:

Allowable sale quantity
Forested land (previously listed as ``forest land'')
Goal
Long-term sustained-yield timber capacity
Management prescription
Objective
Multiple-use
Plan area (previously listed as ``planning area'')
Plan period (previously listed as ``planning period'')

    Readers of this Supplementary Information should refer to the 
definitions section of the proposed rule (Sec. 219.2) for definitions 
of terms used in this preamble.

Section 219.3  Relationships With the Public and Government Entities

    This section focuses on building and maintaining relationships with 
the public and other government entities and, in conjunction with 
numerous provisions in other sections of the proposed rule, would 
substantially strengthen the role of public participation and 
government coordination compared to the existing rule. This emphasis 
responds to findings of the Land Management Planning Critique, which 
highlighted the critical role of ongoing and meaningful public 
involvement and the need to strengthen coordination with other Federal 
agencies and State, local and tribal governments. Although the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act imposes some limitations on how involvement 
activities can be conducted, a cornerstone of ecosystem management and 
this proposed rule is the recognition that the public and other 
agencies and governments must work closely together if resource 
management issues are to be addressed effectively.
    Although this section would specifically address public 
participation and government coordination, there are numerous other 
sections of the proposed rule that reflect the agency's recognition of 
the importance of people in resource management and that reflect the 
agency's intent to expand opportunities for public involvement in 
agency planning and for public comment. For example, six of the 
principles in proposed Sec. 219.1 highlight the role of people in 
managing the National Forest System (Sec. 219.1(b)(1), (2), (4)-(7)). 
There would be two new opportunities for public notice and comment--a 
30-day comment period for some minor amendments (Sec. 219.9(c)(2)(i)) 
and a 30-day comment period prior to updating a monitoring and 
evaluation strategy (Sec. 219.12(c)(2)). In addition, three new 
provisions designed to provide more information to the public are 
proposed: (1) the requirement for an annual monitoring and evaluation 
report (Sec. 219.12(e)); (2) the requirement to periodically update 
estimated levels of goods and services and management activities 
(Sec. 219.11(d)(2)); and (3) the requirement to conduct and make 
available the results of a prerevision review when initiating the 
revision process (Sec. 219.10(c) and (d)). Involvement in the revision 
process would also be strengthened by a requirement to provide 
opportunities for participation in the prerevision review 
(Sec. 219.10(c)(2)) and in formulation of a communications strategy for 
the prerevision review and revision effort (Sec. 219.10(c)(2)(ii)). 
Finally, the proposed rule provides opportunities for involvement and 
coordination in monitoring and evaluation efforts 
(Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(x)).
    Separate sections in the existing rule for Public Participation 
(Sec. 219.6) and Coordination With Other Public Planning Efforts 
(Sec. 219.7), would be combined into one section in the proposed rule. 
Combining the two sections is not intended to diminish the distinctive 
roles and importance of the public and cooperating agencies and 
governments; rather, combining these sections allows the agency to 
avoid repeating the many provisions that are applicable to both the 
public and cooperating agencies and governments while still providing 
the ability to address their specific and unique needs.
    Proposed paragraph (a) asserts that building and maintaining 
relationships with the public and other Federal agencies and State, 
local, and tribal governments is an essential and ongoing part of 
National Forest System planning and management. Paragraphs (a) (1)-(5) 
would expand on this statement by further describing five purposes for 
establishing and maintaining communication with parties interested in 
forest planning.
    The first purpose is to develop a shared understanding of the 
variety of needs, concerns, and values held by the public. In the past, 
public involvement efforts have too often promoted polarization of 
parties and interests. The agency believes communication and 
understanding of needs, concerns, and values is essential if 
polarization is to be replaced with cooperative problem solving and a 
genuine desire to move towards consensus.
    A second purpose is to coordinate planning efforts with other 
Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments. This 
reflects the agency's desire to strengthen working relationships with 
other agencies and governments as well as an awareness of the distinct 
roles and jurisdictions that must be recognized during resource 
planning efforts. This purpose also is consistent with the emphasis in 
ecosystem management that all parties interested in an ecosystem work 
together rather than approaching resource planning efforts in 
isolation. The provision would encourage coordination of planning 
efforts between the Forest Service and other government entities. 
However, the Forest Service recognizes that the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act is an important consideration that can influence the 
extent to which such coordinated efforts can occur.
    The third purpose is to improve the information base influencing 
decisions and to promote a shared understanding of the validity of this 
information. If the public is to have confidence in resource decisions 
made by the agency, there must be confidence in the information used in 
making those decisions. The public and other agencies and governments 
can play an integral part in improving the information base used and in 
helping to assess its validity. For example, this could mean working 
together with the public, scientific community, and other agencies to 
conduct an ecoregion assessment, or development of joint data bases 
with 

[[Page 18892]]
other agencies. This could also involve providing more opportunities 
for the public to review the information being used early in the 
decision process so that concerns about its validity can be identified 
and resolved in a cooperative and ongoing manner.
    The fourth purpose is to strengthen the scientific basis for 
resource management decisions through involvement of members of the 
scientific community. Although the agency has always considered the 
scientific community as part of the public, the proposed rule would 
highlight the particular importance of the involvement of scientists in 
resource planning. This emphasis is appropriate because the concept of 
ecosystem management recognizes and validates the important role of 
science and the need to integrate scientific expertise more effectively 
into resource planning and management.
    The fifth and final purpose is to resolve conflicts associated with 
resource decisionmaking. The first four goals, if achieved, lay the 
groundwork for conflict resolution. Although the Forest Service 
recognizes that resource management issues are often highly 
controversial and consensus may not be achievable, agency involvement 
and coordination efforts, nevertheless, should strive to promote the 
kind of communication and understanding that helps diminish differences 
and encourages parties with varying interests to work through issues 
together.
    Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 219.3 would require the Forest 
Supervisor to maintain and periodically update a mailing list of 
interested individuals, organizations, scientists, and government 
agencies and officials. This provision is intended to assure a means by 
which anyone who so desires can be informed of planning activities.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require the maintenance of planning 
records that document forest plan amendments, revisions, and monitoring 
and evaluation and would ensure public access to these records. This is 
generally comparable to Sec. 219.10(h) of the existing rule.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would require copies of forest plans and 
monitoring and evaluation strategies to be accessible to the public at 
designated locations and is generally comparable to Sec. 219.6(i)(3) of 
the existing rule.
    Paragraph (e) of this section would direct Regional Foresters to 
seek to establish a memorandum of understanding or other form of 
agreement to guide coordination of planning efforts when desired by 
State officials or affected tribal governments. Paragraph (1) (i)-(ii) 
set forth the content requirements for such agreements, and paragraphs 
(1) (iii)-(iv) indicate when Forest Supervisors may execute such 
agreements and when a memorandum of understanding can be jointly 
executed by two Regional Foresters. This new provision is intended to 
help strengthen communication and cooperation between the Forest 
Service and State and tribal governments. This provision would 
supplement Forest Service authority to enter into such agreements with 
other Federal agencies or local governments.
    Proposed paragraph (f) highlights the need for public involvement 
and government coordination procedures to conform with NEPA 
requirements and other applicable laws, Executive orders, or 
regulations. This is included as a reminder that there are numerous 
requirements already in place with which the agency must comply. 
Perhaps the two most notable are public involvement requirements 
associated with NEPA procedures and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act has been increasingly recognized as 
having a substantial impact on how public involvement activities are to 
be conducted.

Section 219.4  Sustainability of Ecosystems

    This section is the central focus of the agency's shift toward an 
ecosystem approach to resource management. The fundamental premise is 
that the principal goal of managing the National Forest System is to 
maintain or restore the sustainability of ecosystems and that this is 
essential because sustained yield of benefits for present and future 
generations is more likely to occur when the ecosystems from which 
those benefits are produced are in a sustainable condition.
    This section is also based on the premise that a diversity of plant 
and animal communities is an inherent feature of sustainable 
ecosystems. Therefore, this proposed regulation is premised on the 
assumption that maintaining or restoring the sustainability of 
ecosystems simultaneously meets the NFMA provision to, ``provide for 
diversity of plant and animal communities'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).
    Seven key themes are woven throughout this section.
    1. Adoption of Sustainable Ecosystems As a Goal. This proposed 
section explicitly establishes the maintenance or restoration of the 
sustainability of ecosystems as a goal and recognizes that the agency 
has the discretion to determine what processes and information will be 
used to work toward this goal. Under the proposed rule, the agency 
would retain the discretion to determine for each plan area which 
conditions are indicative of sustainable ecosystems and how the plan 
area could be managed to promote achievement of those conditions. There 
is nothing in the proposed rule that establishes a concrete standard 
regarding ecosystem sustainability or diversity.
    This discretionary, goal-oriented approach to diversity and 
maintenance of sustainable ecosystems is consistent with the statutory 
basis for forest planning and the NFMA diversity provision which has 
been interpreted by court rulings to be a goal within the context of 
multiple use. ``Diversity is not the controlling principle in forest 
planning, although it is an important goal to be pursued in the context 
of overall multiple-use objectives.'' Sierra Club v. Robertson, 845 F. 
Supp. 485, 502 (S.D. Ohio, 1994). The interpretation of the NFMA 
diversity provision as a goal rather than a concrete standard is 
supported by the legislative history of the Act and has been upheld to 
date in a number of court cases. In Sierra Club v. Espy, No. 93-5050 
(5th Cir. Nov. 15, 1994) the court recognized that the Forest Service 
has discretion to determine how it provides for diversity. See also, 
Sierra Club v. Robertson, 784 F. Supp. 593, 609 (W.D. Ark. 1991); ONRC 
v. Lowe, 836 F. Supp. 727 (D. Ore. 1993); Glisson v. USFS (S.D. Ill. 
August 26, 1993); Sierra Club v. Marita, 843 F. Supp. 1526 (E.D. Wisc. 
1994); Krichbaum v. Kelly, 844 F. Supp. 1107 (W.D. Va. 1994); Sierra 
Club v. Marita (Robertson), 845 F. Supp. 1317 (E.D. Wisc 1994); in 
which courts have upheld Forest Service decisions based on NFMA 
diversity grounds.
    In addition, the goal statement in paragraph (a) of proposed 
Sec. 219.4 is consistent with Section 4(a) of the Multiple-Use, 
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) which calls for ``* * * 
harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each 
with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land * * 
*.'' Similarly, Section 2(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended, (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., hereafter, ESA), states that one of 
the purposes of the Act is to ``provide a means whereby the ecosystems 
upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be 
conserved * * *.''

[[Page 18893]]

    The premise is that by maintaining or, where needed, restoring the 
sustainability of ecosystems, the productivity of the land will not be 
impaired and the ecosystems upon which plant and wildlife species 
depend will be functioning properly. Thus, the ecological foundation is 
in place from which multiple benefits can be derived over time. Without 
those natural systems functioning properly, the ability to provide 
multiple benefits would be at risk.
    The goal in proposed paragraph (a) also is consistent with the 
multiple-use mission of the National Forest System as mandated by 
Section 2 of the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act, which directs the 
Secretary to ``* * * develop and administer the renewable surface 
resources of the national forests for multiple-use and sustained-yield 
of the several products and services obtained therefrom.'' The Act 
specifically identifies recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, 
and fish as values for which national forests are administered. Later, 
at Sec. 219.6(a), the proposed rule would make clear that forest plans 
address the full range of multiple-uses in an integrated manner and on 
a sustained-yield basis.
    2. Recognition of the Relationship between Sustainable Ecosystems 
and Meeting the Needs of People. The goal statement of Sec. 219.4(a), 
which is the foundation for this proposed section, clearly links the 
sustainability of ecosystems to the ability to provide multiple 
benefits to present and future generations. As stated at 
Sec. 219.1(b)(2) of the proposed rule, people are considered part of 
ecosystems, and meeting people's needs and desires within the 
capacities of natural systems is a primary role of resource 
decisionmaking. The proposed rule is based on the premise that National 
Forests are managed to provide multiple benefits to people in a manner 
that is sustainable over time, and that those benefits which people 
need and desire will only be sustained when the ecosystems from which 
they are derived are sustained.
    Although proposed section Sec. 219.4 is focused on the biological 
and physical aspects of sustainable ecosystems, the proposed rule would 
make clear that forests plans address the full range of multiple-uses 
(Sec. 219.6(a)). In addition, proposed Sec. 219.8(c) would make clear 
that the social and economic effects of resource decisions must be 
considered when amending or revising the forest plan. Thus, the 
proposed rule provides a holistic approach to National Forest 
management by assuring that the needs of people and the capacities of 
natural systems in both the near and long-term are considered when 
making resource decisions.
    3. Adoption of ``Coarse Filter/Fine Filter'' Approach. This section 
of the proposed rule incorporates the ``coarse filter/fine filter'' 
concept of conservation biology, which holds that a strategy focused on 
maintaining the function, composition, and structure of an ecosystem as 
a whole will be adequate to meet the needs of most species. In essence, 
most species' needs are ``caught'' by the mesh of the ``coarse 
filter.'' In contrast, some species have additional needs or more 
narrow habitat requirements that are not adequately met by focusing 
solely on the ecosystem as a whole. Under these circumstances, 
additional ``fine filter'' measures are needed to ``catch'' and support 
the special needs of species whose needs otherwise would have gone 
unmet.
    The proposed rule provides the ``coarse filter'' by requiring that 
forest plan goals and objectives address the desired composition, 
function, and structure of ecosystems. These three aspects are 
generally considered to be integral to understanding and describing 
sustainable natural systems. Ecosystem structure includes the 
distribution and pattern of ecosystem elements such as forest openings 
and riparian corridors at a landscape scale, and the amount and 
arrangement of special habitat features such as seeps, snags and down 
woody material at smaller scales. Ecosystem composition includes the 
plant and animal species which make up an ecosystem. Ecosystem function 
includes processes and the relationships among processes, such as 
nutrient cycling in a system. In many cases, these three aspects of 
ecosystems will be described in the forest plan for ecosystems at 
fairly large scales, such as for ecosystems encompassing sizable 
portions of the plan area.
    The ``coarse filter'' can be provided at a variety of spatial 
scales, however. For example, proposed paragraph (b)(3) would direct 
that forest plans are to provide for the protection of rare natural 
communities. In many cases, these areas provide the ``coarse filter'' 
even though they may only be a fraction or an acre in size. By 
protecting rare natural communities, many individual species that are 
dependent on those habitats and communities are protected, thereby 
exemplifying the ``coarse filter/fine filter'' concept.
    The ``fine filter'' safeguard is provided in the proposed rule 
through the requirements to protect threatened and endangered species. 
For example, proposed Sec. 219.4(b)(4) would require that forest plans 
provide for the conservation of species listed as threatened and 
endangered, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). It also would make explicit that once a species is listed or 
proposed for listing, management activities on National Forest System 
lands which affect the habitat of the species must comply with the 
requirements of ESA. Additional ``fine filter'' protection is provided 
by the requirements of Option I to protect sensitive species, and the 
requirements of Option II to address viability of species which are 
addressed later in this section.
    4. Clear Intent to Seek to Prevent Listing of Species Under the 
Endangered Species Act. This proposed rule would send a clear signal 
that forest plan direction should seek to prevent the need for a 
species being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA 
addresses the conservation of species that have been listed as 
threatened or endangered, but does not address protection of those 
species for which there is evidence of a trend toward listing but which 
are not yet listed. Option I of the proposed rule would target and 
treat as sensitive those species for which there is some evidence of 
risk but which are not yet imperiled to the point of being listed as 
threatened or endangered.
    5. Emphasis on Strengthening Cooperation and Sharing of 
Professional Expertise. Another theme of the proposed rule is 
strengthened cooperation and coordination with other resource 
professionals. For example, Option I of the proposed rule utilizes the 
expertise of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Network of 
Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers in the 
identification of sensitive species and natural communities. In 
addition, this section of Option I of the proposed rule parallels both 
the spirit and application of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
recently signed by the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, and other government agencies (94-
SMU-058; January 25, 1994) to guide cooperation and participation in 
the conservation of species toward listing. Like this Memorandum of 
Understanding, the proposed rule (Option I) focuses on those species 
tending toward listing in order to preclude their designation as 
threatened or endangered, stresses interagency cooperation to address 
this goal, and recognizes the value of addressing species conservation 
within an ecosystem approach.

[[Page 18894]]

    6. Focus on Habitat Rather Than Populations. Option I of the 
proposed rule would emphasize the management of habitat for fish and 
wildlife species, and not the management of populations as some would 
interpret the existing rule. As used in this section, habitat 
capability includes the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitats 
needed by a species. A focus on habitat capability is more appropriate 
than a focus on populations because there are many factors affecting 
populations that are not under the agency's direct control. These may 
include disease, predation, hunting or fishing pressures, natural 
cyclical changes and conditions occurring or actions being taken 
outside the plan area.
    The proposed rule would not alter the current cooperative 
relationship with State fish and wildlife agencies. The Forest Service 
role has traditionally been to provide habitat rather than manage 
numbers of species. States generally exercise jurisdiction over hunting 
and fishing on National Forest System lands.
    7. Use of Best Available Information. The agency recognizes that 
there are many uncertainties regarding how to maintain or restore 
sustainable ecosystems and that scientific knowledge will always be 
incomplete and evolving. The terms ``sustainable,'' ``restoration,'' 
``maintenance,'' or ``deteriorated ecosystem'' are all subject to 
varying and evolving interpretations. Furthermore, there is an infinite 
number of ecosystems, and realistically, planning efforts must be 
allowed to focus on only those ecosystem considerations of most 
relevance to decisionmaking. Therefore, in concert with the principle 
that the agency must retain discretion in its approach to maintaining 
or restoring sustainable ecosystems, the proposed rule (Sec. 219.4(e)) 
also recognizes the inevitable need to use the best available 
information in making the various decisions associated with approval of 
a forest plan. The proposed rule makes clear that there is no 
expectation that there will ever be a precise and universally accepted 
understanding or measure of what sustainable ecosystems are and the 
actions appropriate to maintain or restore them; rather, the 
expectation established by this proposed rule is that the agency will 
use the best information available and an adaptive management approach 
in its efforts to maintain or restore sustainable ecosystems and to 
manage the National Forest System toward that outcome.
    Adaptive management is considered one of the cornerstones of 
ecosystem management. This concept acknowledges that our understanding 
of ecosystems is always changing, that we learn by observing how 
natural systems respond to actual situations, and that we should adapt 
our actions accordingly. Adaptive resource management recognizes that 
decisions cannot always be halted until research is complete, 
especially since, at times, inaction can have far-reaching 
consequences.
    Proposed paragraph Sec. 219.4(e) not only would establish the use 
of an adaptive management approach for dealing with incomplete and 
changing information, but also would clearly signal that resource 
decisionmaking need not be halted if there is uncertainty or incomplete 
knowledge. In accordance with NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1502.22), 
decisionmaking is expected to proceed using the best information 
available commensurate with the decision being made, and monitoring and 
evaluation is to be used to assess the effects of those decisions and 
to identify new information which may come available. Since project 
decisions for the decade of the forest plan are approved incrementally 
during the plan period, the opportunity exits to adapt those decisions 
as needed to respond to new information.

Options for Providing Diversity

    In addition to the provisions of Sec. 219.4(b)(1)-(4), this 
proposed rule sets out two options for providing diversity. Proposed 
Option I would provide for diversity by addressing sensitive species. 
By contrast, Option II which is basically the requirements of the 
current regulation would provide for diversity by addressing viability 
of species.
    Option I. Proposed Sec. 219.4(b)(5) creates a system for protection 
of habitat capability for sensitive species in order to prevent the 
need for listing the species as threatened or endangered under ESA and 
to preclude extirpation of the sensitive species from the plan area.
    Paragraph (b)(5)(i) describes how sensitive species would be 
identified. First, sensitive species can encompass species, subspecies, 
populations, or stocks of vertebrates, invertebrates, vascular plants, 
bryophytes, fungi, and lichens. Second, the species must be known to 
occur or to be likely to occur on National Forest System lands. Third, 
the species must meet one of the criteria described at (b)(5)(i)(A)-
(C). These criteria utilize a combination of information derived from 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Network of Natural Heritage 
Programs and Conservation Data Centers.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Federal agency with 
primary responsibility for administering ESA. The Network of Natural 
Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers is generally considered 
to have one of the most comprehensive and accurate compilations of 
information on species that are imperiled in the United States. The 
Network consists of approximately 85 data centers, including at least 
one in each State. Each data center is established within a local 
institution, most frequently as part of a government agency responsible 
for natural resource management and protection, and each center 
functions in support of Natural Heritage Programs. The Nature 
Conservancy is involved in the establishment and operation of the data 
centers by providing technical, scientific, and administrative support 
and training. The Conservancy also makes available the computer 
technology, data inventory and management methodology, and procedural 
manuals used.
    Natural Heritage Programs and the Conservation Data Centers provide 
continuously updated, computer-assisted inventories of the biological 
and ecological features and biodiversity preservation of the region in 
which they are located. Most data centers use the Biological and 
Conservation Data System as the basis for operation, a system developed 
and refined by The Nature Conservancy since 1974.
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) (A) and (B) would establish the 
process for ensuring that forest plan direction is responsive to the 
needs of sensitive species. The first step is to identify the sensitive 
species for the plan area using the rankings and listings and to 
identify their habitat needs. Second, the habitat needs for the 
sensitive species, or assemblages of sensitive species, are compared 
against current forest plan direction with consideration of the likely 
contribution of lands outside the plan area. When the forest plan is 
being revised, habitat needs are compared to the tentatively proposed 
revisions to forest plan direction. This provides for consideration of 
sensitive species habitat needs throughout the forest plan revision 
process and inclusion of this direction in the draft environmental 
impact statement and proposed revised forest plan when they are 
released for public comment.
    In accordance with (b)(5)(ii)(B)(1), forest plan direction must be 
modified if a continuing downward trend in habitat capability is 
predicted to occur within the plan area and that downward trend is 
predicted to result in the need for Federal listing of the species or 
if it is predicted that the sensitive species will be extirpated from 
the plan area.

[[Page 18895]]

    Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(2) would establish that if a conservation 
agreement has been approved by the Forest Service and either the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, and 
if relevant direction from that agreement has been incorporated by 
amendment into the forest plan, the requirement to establish direction 
to protect the habitat capability of the species is met. The forest 
plan amendment requires full NEPA analysis and disclosure.
    Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(3) would affirm that the needs of a 
threatened or endangered species take precedence over a sensitive 
species should a conflict occur relative to protective measures needed. 
Although it is not anticipated such a conflict would happen often, it 
is important that the rule provide for such circumstances because the 
proposed rule's requirements for protection of both sensitive species 
and threatened and endangered species could theoretically be in 
conflict. It is reasonable that the rule provide that listed species be 
given priority in the event of conflict with the needs of a sensitive 
species since listed species are at greater risk than sensitive species 
and there is a statutory obligation to provide for the conservation of 
listed species.
    Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(4) would require management direction for 
sensitive species to be established using the best information 
available commensurate with the decision being made. This idea is also 
echoed in paragraph (e) of this section. In addition, paragraph 
(b)(5)(ii)(B)(4) would make clear that determinations of whether the 
habitat needs of sensitive species are adequately met and the degree of 
protection needed are inherently dependent on professional judgment.
    Paragraph (b)(5)(iii) proposes procedures for handling newly 
identified sensitive species. The categories and rankings of sensitive 
species would be reviewed annually as part of monitoring and 
evaluation, and if additions to the listings have occurred, the 
adequacy of existing forest plan management direction to meet the needs 
of those species would be assessed. This paragraph also would make 
clear that even though the rankings and categories are required to be 
reviewed on an annual basis, this does not relieve the agency of its 
obligation to consider new information at any time a project is under 
consideration that affects the habitat capability of a sensitive 
species.
    Option II. As an alternative to the regulatory text proposed in 
Option I of Sec. 219.4(b)(5), the agency has set forth alternative 
regulatory text, which is almost identical to the existing rule at 
Sec. 219.19; however, a few nonsubstantive edits have been made to 
assure consistency of terminology and coding with the remainder of the 
proposed rule.
    There are five key differences between the Option I approach to 
sensitive species and the alternative text of Option II which is based 
on Sec. 219.19 of the existing rule. These are (1) use of the term 
``viability''; (2) establishment of clear analytical expectations that 
are reasonable to implement; (3) scope of species protected; (4) goal 
of protective measures; and (5) role of management indicator species.
    First, in Option I the proposed rule does not use the term 
``viability''. NFMA does not use the term ``viability,'' nor is there 
anything in the statute or legislative history that indicates the 
agency was expected to insure viable species or pursue the type of 
viability analyses described in current scientific literature (for 
example, M.E. Soule, Viable Populations for Conservation (Cambridge, 
1989), 189pp.) Rather, the statute requires that the Secretary of 
Agriculture promulgate regulations to guide the Forest Service 
development and revision of Forest Plans. One of the statutory 
requirements is ``specifying guidelines for land management plans 
developed to achieve the goals of the Program which * * * (B) provide 
for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability 
and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall 
multiple use objectives * * *.'' 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(B).
    Translating the statutory language to provide for diversity of 
plant and animal communities through regulations, plans and actions has 
been and continues to be a formidable challenge, as the Committee of 
Scientists who provided scientific advice to the Forest Service on the 
crafting of the current regulation accurately predicted at the time of 
their promulgation. The Committee stated that, ``it is impossible to 
write specific regulations to `provide for' diversity: and that ``there 
remains a great deal of room for honest debate on the translation of 
policy into management planning requirements and into management 
programs'' (44 FR 26,6000-01 & 26,608).
    The Forest Service has found that the term ``viability'' has been 
subject to continuously evolving scientific interpretation and no 
longer meets the agency's expectations at the time the rule was 
written. When the existing rule was finalized, ``viability'' was a 
general concept not associated with specific scientific 
interpretations. Since 1982, however, the concept of viability has 
become the object of intense discussion and varying interpretation 
within the scientific community. The extensive and expensive amount of 
scientific expertise, data, and technology needed for conducting 
species viability assessments as currently described in the scientific 
literature is far beyond what was originally envisioned by the 
Committee of Scientists when developing the planning rule.
    Even when addressing the overall topic of diversity, the Committee 
of Scientists clearly had not envisioned the type of highly 
quantitative analysis which has come to be associated with viability 
assessments. The Committee stated, ``We analyzed the issue in our 
report and stressed that, in our opinion, Congress used the term 
diversity to refer to biological variety rather than any of the 
quantitative expressions now found in the biological literature.'' 
(Rules and Regulations, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix 
E--Supplementary Final Report of the Committee of Scientists (August 
17, 1979), 44 FR 53967 (September 17, 1979)).
    Furthermore, the current regulatory requirement is ``to insure 
viable populations will be maintained.'' As a practical matter, there 
is a growing recognition that a requirement to ``insure'' viable 
populations, if interpreted literally, envisions an outcome impossible 
to be guaranteed by any agency, regardless of the analytical resources 
marshalled.
    Rather than continuing use of a regulatory term which is subject to 
such varying interpretations and expectations, Option I would define 
more precisely what is required for species protection. This approach 
in Option I is consistent not only with the original intent of the 
regulation, but also with the underlying statute.
    Second, the analysis needed to meet the requirements of Option I is 
better defined, more meaningful, and more capable of accomplishment 
than the analysis some associate with the existing rule. Species 
viability analysis has evolved to where it currently involves such 
information as species habitat needs, trends in habitat capability, 
trends in other factors affecting population (e.g.--disease, predation, 
overutilization), relationship of habitat capability to population 
numbers, population demographics (e.g.--reproductive success, sex 
ratios, mortality rates), effective population size, genetic 
measurements, and development of risk assessments. The 

[[Page 18896]]
technology, data, and scientific expertise to conduct and maintain 
numerous scientifically sound viability analyses given current 
scientific interpretations is far beyond what is available to any 
agency or scientific institution. Although the agency's position has 
been upheld in court that the requirements of Sec. 219.19 of the 
existing rule can be met without such complex analyses, the proposed 
rule offers a timely opportunity to clarify analytical expectations.
    In addition, it is expected that for most sensitive species, the 
requirements of (b)(5)(ii)(B) of Option I of the proposed rule can be 
met using habitat capability information. Analyses involving population 
demographics and prediction of population trends, which requires far 
more extensive and costly data, would likely only be needed when a 
continuing downward trend in habitat capability is predicted to be 
leading toward the listing or extirpation of the species. In addition, 
it is intended that there be no circumstances where Option I of the 
proposed rule would trigger the need for studies of long-term genetic 
diversity, in contrast to the case if thorough viability assessments 
were to be required.
    Furthermore, Option I of the proposed rule recognizes that 
individual sensitive species may often be able to be grouped into 
assemblages of sensitive species with similar habitat needs. By 
focusing on assemblages of sensitive species rather than individual 
species whenever possible, analytical burden and costs are reduced 
without impairment to species protection.
    The third key difference between the proposed approach to sensitive 
species in Option I and that in Option II is the scope of the species 
addressed. In contrast to Sec. 219.19 of the existing rule which 
addresses only native and desired non-native vertebrate species, Option 
I the proposed rule would include vertebrates, invertebrates, vascular 
plants, bryophytes, fungi, and lichens. This is appropriate since 
species other than vertebrates play an important role in ecosystems and 
merit protection when at risk.
    The scope of proposed Option I also varies from the existing rule 
in that it would include as sensitive species only those species at 
risk range-wide; that is, those species imperiled throughout their 
range. For example, a plant species abundant in several States, but 
very limited in a particular plan area, would not be of range-wide 
concern and thus would not be identified as a sensitive species under 
Option I of the proposed rule.
    The agency believes the focus on species on range-wide concern is 
appropriate in order to address the two underlying reasons for 
protecting sensitive species: (1) To address how the agency will meet 
the NFMA goal of providing a diversity of plant and animal communities, 
and (2) to attempt to preclude the listing of species under ESA. Both 
are achieved by proposed Option I without expanding the scope of 
sensitive species to include those of only local concern.
    Option I of the proposed rule puts considerable emphasis on 
providing a diversity of plant and animal communities. For example, the 
provisions of proposed Sec. 219.4 address establishing forest plan 
direction for sustainable ecosystem conditions, soil and water 
protection, protection of rare natural communities, protection of 
threatened and endangered species, and protection of sensitive species 
in order to attempt to prevent extirpation from the plan area or 
listing under ESA. These all work together to provide a diversity of 
plant and animal communities within the plan area.
    Under the ``coarse filter/fine filter'' concept, the ecological 
conditions which will occur as a result of these various provisions for 
providing diversity should meet the needs of many species of local, but 
not range-wide, concern. For example, many species of local concern, 
but not at risk range-wide, are associated with rare natural 
communities addressed in the proposed rule at Sec. 219.4(b)(3). The 
agency believes that adding yet another ``fine flter'' layer of 
protection, by including as sensitive species those not at risk range-
wide, and the extensive additional analysis this would require, goes 
beyond what is necessary to meet the two underlying reasons for 
protecting sensitive species. It should be noted, however, that nothing 
in the proposed rule precludes the Forest Service from working with 
State agencies and organizations to determine whether to protect 
species of local concern even though such protection would be beyond 
the requirements of Option I of the proposed rule.
    The fourth key difference between the approach to sensitive species 
in Option I and the alternative text in Option II is the goal of 
protective measures. Under the existing rule, the goal is to ensure 
that viable populations are maintained. But, as explained previously, 
the concept of a ``viable population'' has been subject to evolving 
interpretations. Option I of the proposed rule would make the goal much 
more explicit; that is, for sensitive species, to prevent their listing 
under the ESA and to prevent their extirpation from the plan area. This 
second goal is deemed appropriate because, for species of range-wide 
concern, the agency feels it is undesirable to lose their 
representation from the plan area due to their contribution to 
providing a diversity of plant and animal communities. Under some 
circumstances the first goal, to prevent listing of a sensitive 
species, may not be adequate to prevent extirpation of a sensitive 
species from the plan area because a species extirpated from one plan 
area may not necessarily be more prone to listing as threatened or 
endangered.
    The final key difference is the Option I of the proposed rule would 
not require the identification of management indicator species. As 
noted in the 1991 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, there is 
diminishing scientific support for focusing solely on individual 
species as indicators of the welfare of a group of associated species. 
Instead of requiring management indicator species, the monitoring and 
evaluation provisions of the proposed rule would allow for establishing 
whatever measurable indicators are appropriate in order to determine 
progress towards achieving goals. In some cases, individual species may 
be an appropriate measure of whether ecosystem goals are being achieved 
and can be used as indicators.
    Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems. Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 219.4 
recognizes the dynamic nature of ecosystems and the importance of 
evaluating ecosystem disturbances in the context of ecological 
processes and resilience. Ecosystem disturbances are those events that 
significantly change the existing pattern of an ecological system. 
Examples of such disturbances include both natural or human-induced 
phenomena such as wildfires, floods, or oil spills. Resilience is a 
term used to describe the ability of an ecological system to maintain 
its functions despite disturbance.
    Paragraph (c) recognizes that disturbances are a natural and 
sometimes even essential part of many ecosystems. Similarly, other 
changes may be naturally occurring within an ecosystem, such as the 
progression of vegetation from one seral stage to another over time. 
Therefore, sustaining an ecosystem does not imply reaching or 
maintaining a static condition, but rather managing in such a way that 
naturally occurring disturbances and changes allow the ecosystem to 
retain the characteristics which provide resiliency.
    Some examples of ecosystems in which disturbance is required for 

[[Page 18897]]
    sustainability are the fire-adapted pine forests. Lodgepole pine and 
sand pine communities require stand replacement fire (or some 
surrogate) to sustain those communities through time. Ponderosa pine 
and longleaf pine communities require recurring, low intensity fires to 
sustain the structure and functioning of the ecosystem.
    Paragraph (c) would assure that forest plan direction intended to 
maintain or restore sustainable ecosystems was developed with 
recognition of the dynamic nature of ecosystems and natural role of 
disturbances. It should be noted that this provision does not 
specifically require analysis of the ``range of natural variability'' 
or require that future conditions stay within historic ranges of 
variability. The value of the ``range of natural variability'' in 
gaining a better understanding of sustainable ecosystem conditions is 
recognized, but the agency does not intend to mandate that all forest 
plans must provide for conditions within such a range.
    Multiple Spatial Scales. Paragraph (d) recognizes that ecosystems 
exist at multiple scales and are infinite in number. For example, the 
span of ecosystems can range from the microscopic world of life 
occurring on the trunk of a fallen tree to the range of a migratory 
bird that travels annually from the tropics to the arctic. It is 
impossible and unnecessary to expect a forest plan to address all of 
the ecosystems which occur within a plan area. Therefore, paragraph (d) 
would establish that the forest plan should address those ecosystems of 
most relevance to forest plan decisionmaking, with the intent being to 
limit efforts to a practical number and scope.
    Role of Lands Outside the Plan Area. Consideration of conditions 
outside the plan area is an integral part of the concept that Federal 
lands should be managed from an ecological perspective rather than one 
limited by jurisdictional boundaries. This consideration must occur, 
however, without detriment to the rights of private landowners or the 
authorities of other government jurisdictions. Paragraph (a) of this 
section of the proposed rule would, in part, direct consideration of 
the contribution of lands outside the plan area when establishing 
forest plan direction. For example, when evaluating the habitat 
capability of a sensitive species, the quality, quantity, and 
distribution of habitat within the species' range would be considered 
in the context of the plan area. However, this consideration does not 
mean that the forest plan would in any way address how to manage these 
other lands. Instead, the responsible official might choose to alter 
decisions in the forest plan regarding management of National Forest 
System lands due to conditions on these other lands, if that should be 
determined to be desirable to help maintain or restore sustainable 
ecosystems.
    Protection of soil and water resources. Paragraph (b)(2) would 
address soil and water resources. This paragraph of the proposed rule 
would not only provide for forest plans to address the protection of 
soil and water resources, but also the restoration of existing 
conditions harmful to soil and water quality.

Section 219.5 Framework for Resource Decisionmaking

    Paragraph (a) explains that the agency uses a staged decisionmaking 
process, with forest plans being used to allocate the lands and 
resources of the plan area through management prescriptions, and 
project decisionmaking being the point at which site-specific 
activities are authorized. Paragraph (a) also explains that forest plan 
and project decisions must adhere to legal requirements and that an 
additional source of direction guiding management of the National 
Forest System is direction issued through the agency's Directive 
System.
    The staged decisionmaking process described in the proposed rule is 
consistent with a series of administrative appeal decisions. These 
include the Chief's appeal decision on the Idaho Panhandle Land and 
Resource Management Plan (Appeal No. 2130, August 15, 1988); the 
Chief's appeal decisions on the Flathead National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan (Appeals No. 1467 and No. 1513, August 31, 
1988). For court decisions upholding the staged decisionmaking approach 
of forest plan and project levels, see Cronin v. USDA, 919 F.2d 439, 
447-49 (7th Cir. 1990); Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 
1508, 15511-12 (9th Cir. 1992); Resources Ltd Inc. v. Robertson, 789 F. 
Supp. 1529 (D.Mt. 1991) aff'd in part (NEPA, NFMA) and reversed in part 
(ESA), 8 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1993) (amended July 5, 1994); Swan View 
Coalition v. Turner, 824 F.Supp. 923 (D. Mt. 1992); Sierra Club v. 
Robertson, 810 F.Supp. 1021 (W.D. Ark 1992); Eighth Circuit found no 
standing and alternatively affirmed lower court on the merits, 23 F.3d. 
753 (8th Cir. 1994).
    There is currently a conflict between the Eighth and Ninth Circuits 
as whether the forest plans without a project decision present a 
justiciable controversy. ``We are aware that on several occasions the 
Ninth Circuit has entertained challenges to forest plans similar to the 
Plan here in issue. [citations deleted] * * * we decline to apply them 
[Ninth Circuit decisions] as a basis for finding that the appellants 
have standing to attack the Plan outside the context of a proposed 
site-specific action that causes or threatens to cause injury in 
fact.'' Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753, 759-60 (8th Cir. 1994). 
See also, Wilderness Society v. Alcock, F. Supp. (N.D. Ga. September 
30, 1994) finding the Eighth Circuit reasoning more persuasive and 
holding that plaintiffs' claims against approval of the Cherokee forest 
plan did not present a justiciable controversy.
    Even the Ninth Circuit recognizes that forest plan EIS's are ``an 
early stage, where the EIS is `merely' programmatic.'' Idaho 
Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d at 1523. The Ninth Circuit has 
also held that when a programmatic EIS ``is prepared, site-specific 
impacts need not be fully evaluated until a `critical decision' has 
been made to act on site development.'' Salmon River Concerned Citizens 
v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1357 (9th Cir. 1994).
    Paragraph (a)(1) describes the first stage of the agency's staged 
decisionmaking process--forest plans. Forest plans allocate the land 
and resources of the plan area through management prescriptions which 
consist of goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines.
    Paragraph (a)(1) would also establish a key point essential to 
understanding the nature of a forest plan; i.e., that forest plans do 
not compel the agency to plan for or undertake any specific projects, 
but do establish limitations on actions that may be authorized later 
during project decisionmaking. This concept is central to understanding 
the role of a forest plan and is addressed in more detail under the 
preamble discussion of Sec. 219.6.
    Paragraph (a)(1) also would clarify that forest plans must not 
conflict with laws or regulations and should not conflict with policy 
and procedure issued through the Forest Service Directive System. 
Although it has generally been understood that forest plans must not 
conflict with laws or regulations, there is not such common 
understanding of the relationship of directives issued through the 
Directive System to forest plan direction. The proposed rule seeks to 
end this misunderstanding. As noted in paragraph (b)(1), any conflict 
with an agency directive should be identified and the rationale for not 
complying with such a directive provided at the time of forest plan 
amendment or revision. The relationship between forest plans and 

[[Page 18898]]
directives is addressed in further detail under the preamble discussion 
of Sec. 219.5(b)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) would limit the area covered by a 
forest plan to one or more National Forests and/or other units of the 
National Forest System within the jurisdiction of a single Forest 
Supervisor. One forest plan can be developed, however, when a single 
National Forest is administered by several Forest Supervisors. 
Currently, the Tongass National Forest in Alaska is the only National 
Forest administered by more than one Forest Supervisor. These 
provisions are not substantively different from the requirements of the 
existing rule at Sec. 219.4(b)(3).
    Establishing a plan area based on administrative boundaries may 
appear to conflict with the principles of ecosystem management. Some 
may argue that resource planning should occur based on areas with 
shared ecological conditions rather than on boundaries established for 
administrative purposes. The agency recognizes the benefits that can be 
gained from taking a more ecological approach to establishing the area 
to be encompassed by a forest plan. In the long run, a realignment of 
plan boundaries should be considered. In the short-run, however, there 
are practical considerations for continuing the current approach.
    First, NFMA does not clearly articulate the area to be covered by a 
forest plan. Although Section 6(f)(1) of NFMA directs ``one integrated 
plan for each unit of the National Forest System,'' a unit is not 
specifically defined. The determination of the unit for planning is 
complicated by provisions of Section 13 of NFMA, which require certain 
limitations on timber removal to be determined on a National Forest 
basis. Provided such timber-related requirements could be met, the 
agency believes it does have discretion under the statute to redefine, 
through a new rule, the geographic area to be covered by a forest plan.
    However, realigning the entire National Forest System into a new 
set of plan areas for forest planning introduces significant new and 
immediate challenges. For example, where should new boundaries be 
drawn? Ecosystems exist at a variety of scales, and ecological units 
can be defined variously. Determining the best boundaries for planning 
purposes is not a simple process. How can the public be involved in 
delineating the new plan area? How might a change in boundaries of the 
plan area affect the public's interest and ability to participate in 
the planning process? Might the change be perceived to be more 
advantageous to some segments of the public than others? How would such 
a change effect National Forests where revision efforts are already 
underway or scheduled to begin in the near future? How should such a 
realignment be coordinated with the planning efforts of other agencies 
and governments? These are questions which the agency is currently not 
prepared to answer, but which merits careful examination before changes 
in plan area boundaries should occur.
    This agency also recognizes that roughly two-thirds of all forest 
plans are or will be undergoing either significant amendment or 
revision in the next 1-2 years. Redefining plan areas would delay 
revision, which would be detrimental to the public interest and to 
resource management, as well as increase the risk of exceeding the 15-
year period between revisions. Rather than introducing a complex and 
time-consuming new decision to be made before initiating the planning 
process, the agency expects to take various administrative actions to 
mitigate the disadvantages of planning based on administrative 
boundaries.
    For example, planning efforts can be synchronized among those 
National Forests that share ecological characteristics through the use 
of joint planning teams and development of parallel schedules. 
Similarly, the mechanism for simultaneous plan amendment or revision, 
as addressed at proposed Sec. 219.5(a)(1)(ii), is intended to 
facilitate achieving such coordination across plan area boundaries.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would permit forest plan direction to 
be established for more than one plan area by simultaneously amending 
or revising the appropriate forest plans. Since this occurs through the 
amendment or revision of forest plans, NEPA procedures would still 
apply. For example, if the Regional Forester wanted to establish a 
forest plan standard for all lands within the range of a particular 
wildlife species, and the range encompassed three plan areas, the 
Regional Forester could establish a new standard by simultaneously 
amending those three forest plans, with associated NEPA disclosure of 
effects.
    The concept of simultaneous amendment or revision is an essential 
part of integrating ecosystem management into the agency's resource 
decisionmaking framework. Ecosystem management necessitates a flexible 
approach to the spatial scale for planning and decisionmaking; the 
proposed approach allows resource decisions to be made at whatever 
scale is appropriate. Even though a forest plan document itself is 
limited to administrative boundaries, the forest plan direction it 
contains can be derived from analysis and decisions at any appropriate 
scale or land area regardless of administrative boundaries.
    The proposed rule would discontinue regional guides as required by 
the existing rule. As noted in the Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, agency experience has shown that regional guides may no 
longer be the most effective and efficient means for providing regional 
direction. In reality, most regional guides did not fully achieve the 
role of being the meaningful or effective documents originally 
envisioned. Moreover, the rigorous requirements of Secs. 219.8 and 
219.9 in the existing rule siphoned a significant investment of 
staffing and funds from forest or project planning efforts. The 
provision for simultaneous amendment or revision would provide a means 
to establish resource direction at a regional scale, or any other 
appropriate scale, and, therefore, is believed to be a more effective 
approach to providing multi-forest direction than a regional guide.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would identify project decisions as the 
second stage of the agency's decisionmaking process. The proposed rule 
would make clear that it is at the project level that the authorization 
is made to conduct resource activities, not at the forest plan level. 
Paragraph (a)(2) would also make clear that NEPA procedures must be 
followed when approving a project, and projects must be consistent with 
the forest plan.
    As discussed previously, various court decisions have upheld the 
staged decision approach of forest plans and project decisionmaking. 
One important basis for this staged approach and the relationship 
between forest plans and projects rests largely upon the requirements 
for compliance with NEPA. In a landmark court case (State of California 
v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982)), the Ninth Circuit stated that 
``the critical inquiry in considering the adequacy of an EIS prepared 
for a large scale, multi-step project is not whether the project's 
site-specific impact should be evaluated in detail, but when such 
detailed evaluation should occur.'' The court determined that ``[t]his 
threshold is reached when, as a practical matter, the agency proposes 
to make an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the 
availability of resources to a project at a particular site.''
    As a practical matter, it is impossible for a forest plan to 
identify all of the projects to be implemented for a 10-year period, 
adequately disclose their site-

[[Page 18899]]
specific environmental effects in an accompanying environmental impact 
statement, and comply with the multitude of statutes and regulations 
applicable to project activities. Furthermore, new information 
regarding the relationship among proposed projects and effects of 
proposed actions within a forest is constantly being developed. No 
matter how sophisticated forest models become, it is doubtful that the 
order and relationship of possible activities can ever be forecast with 
enough precision at the forest plan approval stage to meet the 
requirements of environmental laws or correspond to the realities of a 
changing world. In addition, many activities occurring on a forest are 
initiated by forest users and not the Forest Service. The relationship 
of projects initiated by others and projects planned by the Forest 
Service is continuously changing. Thus, the forest plan is best viewed 
as a dynamic management system that provides the framework for further 
decisionmaking at the project level.
    Under the existing rule, project decisions can be made in a forest 
plan provided they are identified in the Record of Decision and 
adequately disclosed in associated NEPA documents. The proposed rule 
would eliminate this Option in order to clarify the distinction between 
the two stages of decisionmaking and because this option has not been 
commonly used in the past.
    The two-stage decisionmaking process described in the proposed rule 
does not preclude multiple steps at the project level. Examples include 
some multi-stage recreational development decisions such as for ski 
areas (Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 322, 336-
37 (1989)), or the multiple decision points in oil and gas leasing, 
exploration, and development where a series of decisions is made over 
time (see 36 CFR 228, 228.102 (55 FR 10423, March 21, 1990)). In most 
cases, however, project decisions are not of this complexity, and the 
project decision occurs in a single step.
    Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 219.5 would explain how forest plans 
are to be reconciled with changing legal requirements, new agency 
directives, or new information from other planning efforts. In 
accordance with proposed paragraph (b)(1), if a change in law or 
regulation conflicts with forest plan direction, the Regional Forester 
must direct that the plan be brought into compliance following the 
procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10 and specify the timing for 
doing so. The proposed provision to permit nondiscretionary changes at 
Sec. 219.9(e) provides a mechanism for quickly changing forest plan 
direction to respond to changes in legal requirements for which there 
is no discretion in the manner of compliance.
    Proposed Sec. 219.5(b)(2) (i) and (ii) address responsibilities 
regarding reconciliation of forest plans with changes in agency 
direction issued through the Directive System. As described at 
paragraph (b)(2)(i), an official issuing a directive must determine if 
forest plans are to be made consistent with a newly issued directive 
when it appears that the directive would conflict with forest plan 
direction. If so, the official must specify that plans be changed 
following the procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10 and the timing 
for doing so. In the event of conflict between an agency resource 
directive and direction in a forest plan, the forest plan takes 
precedence. Accordingly, the agency maintains discretion to determine 
when a forest plan should be amended to be consistent with agency 
directives. As stated at Sec. 219.5(a) of the proposed rule, agency 
directives are subject to NEPA procedures, as is the process for forest 
plan amendment.
    Reconciliation of forest plans and agency directives as described 
at paragraph (b)(2)(ii) addresses those situations where a directive 
has been issued, but it was not readily apparent at the time that it 
might conflict with forest plans. To address such situations, the 
Forest Supervisor is responsible for periodically reviewing resource 
management amendments or supplements to the Directive System as part of 
the monitoring and evaluation process. If a conflict occurs between 
forest plan direction and a newly issued directive, the Forest 
Supervisor must either amend the forest plan so that it no longer 
conflicts with the directive, or notify the Regional Forester why such 
an amendment is not deemed appropriate. Consistent with agency policy 
at FSM 1103, if the directive had been issued at the National level, 
the Regional Forester would be expected to notify the Chief of the 
concerns with the newly issued directive.
    The provisions of (b)(2)(i)-(ii) are closely related to the 
provision of paragraph (a)(1) of this section which directs that where 
there is substantial conflict between a resource management directive 
and a forest plan amendment or revision, the responsible official is 
expected to identify the conflict and include the rationale for the 
departure in the decision document. In order to enhance understanding 
of these provisions, a brief explanation of the Directive System is 
provided as follows.
    The Forest Service Directive System consists of the Forest Service 
Manual and Handbooks in which the agency's policy, practice, and 
procedure are codified. The system serves as the primary basis for the 
internal management and control of all programs and as the primary 
source of administrative direction to Forest Service employees. The 
Forest Service Manual contains legal authorities, management 
objectives, policies, responsibilities, delegations, general 
instructions, and guidance needed on a continuous basis by Forest 
Service line officers and staff at more than one unit to plan and 
execute programs. New or revised direction is issued by amendment or 
interim directive, whereas direction which expands on directives issued 
by a higher level is issued by supplement. For example, a Regional 
Forester may issue a regional supplement in order to expand on the 
national direction issued by the Chief.
    Directives issued through the Directive System are subject to NEPA 
procedures. In addition, issuance of some Manual direction may be 
subject to public notice and comment procedures in accordance with 16 
USC 1612 and 36 CFR 216.6(a), which requires public notice and comment 
for standards, criteria, and guidelines, when substantial public 
interest in or controversy over a proposed Manual directive can be 
expected. Reviewers are encouraged to study 16 USC 1612 and 36 CFR part 
216 if further information is desired on public review and comment 
related to changes in Manual direction.
    As previously noted, there are two main reasons why it is important 
to consider agency directives when amending or revising forest plans. 
First, it would be unreasonable and illogical for forest plans to 
substantially conflict with officially established agency objectives, 
policy, and procedure. Although direction in an approved forest plan 
would take precedence in case of a conflict, such conflicts should be 
avoided when establishing forest plan direction to prevent conflicts in 
performance expectations and potential loss of national or regional 
consistency.
    A second reason for identifying any substantial conflicts between 
forest plans and agency directives at the time of amendment or revision 
relates to the nature of agency directives. Some directives have been 
established through extensive agency effort and adopted following 
public review and comment procedures under 36 CFR part 216; for 
example, the agency's policy and procedures for reauthorizing 
recreation residences (FSM 2300 and 

[[Page 18900]]
2700). Other policies are required to be published for comment under 
other statutes; for example, the regulations implementing NEPA at 40 
CFR parts 1500-1508 require the agency's NEPA policy and procedures, as 
issued in FSM Chapter 1950 and FSH 1909.15, to be published. On the 
other hand, not all agency directives are fully up-to-date, and some 
inconsistencies may and often do exist within the Directive System. 
Allowing the responsible official the flexibility to depart from agency 
directives, provided a rationale is given, will prevent forest plans 
from having to adhere to inappropriate or outdated agency directives 
and also will help the agency identify where directive changes are 
needed. The flexibility to be provided in the planning rule is 
consistent with current policy in FSM 1103 which requires employees to 
notify higher authorities when departure from direction is deemed 
necessary or when directives need to be revised.
    It is not anticipated, however, that there will often be 
substantial conflict between forest plans and agency directives. First, 
the proposed rule provides for greatly reducing the amount of 
repetition between forest plans and directives (Sec. 219.6(b)(2)). 
Second, the provision for simultaneous plan amendment or revision, as 
addressed at Sec. 219.5(a)(1)(ii), provides a mechanism for 
establishing direction known to affect more than one plan, thus 
eliminating the need to establish such direction through the Directive 
System. Third, directives are generally very broad and programmatic in 
nature, thus leaving considerable discretion for forest plans and 
project decisionmaking to establish more precise and site-specific 
direction. As a result, there are generally ample opportunity to 
establish more detailed direction at the forest plan or project stage 
without substantially conflicting with directives. Fourth, paragraph 
(a)(1) applies to resource management directives that would conflict 
with forest plan direction. Directives which provide procedural 
guidance on the process for amending or revising forest plans is not 
encompassed by the requirement.
    Paragraph (b)(3) would address the link between the RPA Program and 
forest plans. Following adoption of a new RPA Program, the Chief would 
determine those elements of the RPA Program that should be considered 
in forest plan implementation, monitoring, and evaluation as well as 
establish any necessary agency-wide procedures to achieve this. In 
addition, Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(vii)(A) of the proposed rule would require 
the monitoring and evaluation process to consider a newly issued RPA 
Program. As a result, there would be a link established whereby each 
new RPA Program would be reviewed to determine whether there is new 
information which makes it appropriate to initiate forest plan 
amendment procedures.
    Paragraph (b)(4) would direct Forest Supervisors, as part of 
monitoring and evaluation, to periodically review results of any 
applicable ecosystem analyses that have been completed subsequent to 
plan approval to determine if there is new information which would 
indicate the need to consider changing the forest plan. Although 
ecosystem analysis is not a decision process, it may generate 
information that indicates a need to consider changing a resource 
decision.

Section 219.6  Forest Plan Direction

    Paragraph (a) of this section of the proposed rule would direct 
that forest plans provide for integration and coordination of all 
resources on a multiple-use and sustained-yield basis. This paragraph 
lists the numerous resources to be addressed in a forest plan when such 
resources occur within the plan area. It also would assure that forest 
plans address infrastructure needs and land ownership and access 
patterns to the extent appropriate. None of this would represent a 
change from the scope of most current forest plans.
    Although forest plans address the full range of resources found 
within the plan area, this regulation does not attempt to provide 
direction for management of individual resources except where necessary 
to respond to specific requirements of NFMA. In contrast to the 
existing rule which contained 13 sections on individual resources, the 
proposed rule does not include such detailed direction. For example, 
the proposed rule does not define goals and objectives for specific 
resources nor prescribe requirements for how each resource will be 
evaluated during amendment or revision of forest plans. It is the 
agency's intent to provide through directive issuances any additional 
direction necessary to specify how individual resources are addressed 
in forest plans.
    The agency believes this planning regulation should stay focused on 
the specific requirements of NFMA, the authorizing statute. It would be 
beyond the reasonable scope of any one regulation to address all of the 
laws, regulations, and Executive orders under which National Forest 
System resources are managed. In addition, the shift to an ecosystem 
management orientation diminishes the relevance of focusing on 
individual resources, and supports the need for the more holistic 
approach taken in the proposed rule.
    Proposed paragraph (b) provides that a forest plan allocates the 
land and resources of the plan area through management prescriptions 
which consist of goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. These 
four types of direction, and the maps or similar information 
delineating where they are applicable, constitute forest plan 
direction. It is important that the proposed rule clearly define what 
constitutes forest plan direction, since plan direction can only be 
changed by amendment. Other information within the forest plan document 
is not forest plan direction and can be updated without going through 
amendment procedures.
    The existing rule is not explicit regarding the nature of forest 
plan decisions, resulting in some confusion by both the public and 
employees over the years. As noted in the preceding discussion of 
proposed Sec. 219.5, the nature of a forest plan under the existing 
rule has been articulated through a series of administrative appeal 
decisions and court decisions. The proposed rule reflects many of these 
decisions and explicitly defines forest plan direction and the contents 
of the forest plan document.
    In Citizens for Environmental Quality v. Lyng, 731 F. Supp. 970, 
977-78 (D. Colo. 1989), the court upheld the agency's position under 
the existing rule regarding the decisions made in forest plans. That 
court decision confirmed that approval of a forest plan results in: (1) 
Establishment of forest multiple-use goals and objectives; (2) 
Establishment of forest-wide management requirements (standards and 
guidelines) applying to future activities; (3) Establishment of 
management areas and management area direction (management area 
prescriptions) applying to future activities in that management area; 
(4) Designation of suitable timber land and establishment of allowable 
timber sale quantity; (5) Nonwilderness allocations or wilderness 
recommendations; and (6) Establishment of monitoring and evaluation 
requirements.
    Forest plan direction, as defined at proposed paragraph (b), in 
concert with other provisions of the proposed rule, overlap most, but 
not all, of the six items identified as forest plan decisions in 
Citizens for Environmental Quality v. Lyng. For example, goals, 
objectives, standards, and guidelines--both on a forest-wide basis and 
for specific portions of the plan area--are terms common to both the 
existing rule and 

[[Page 18901]]
the proposed rule. The definition of ``objectives'' has been modified 
in the proposed rule, however, as explained at the preamble discussion 
of Sec. 219.6(b)(1) and (d). Also, under both the existing and proposed 
rule, management prescriptions are the means by which direction is 
allocated to specific portions of the plan area. Similarly, although 
designation of suitable timber land, nonwilderness allocations, and 
wilderness recommendations are not individually identified in proposed 
Sec. 219.6, they are encompassed by the management prescriptions 
described at Sec. 219.6(b) and are addressed specifically at 
Sec. 219.13(b)(2) and Sec. 219.14.
    Although the term ``management area'' has not been used in the 
proposed rule, nothing in the rule prohibits continuation of the 
traditional use of the term, and some mechanism for delineating where 
direction applies is required regardless of the terminology used. It is 
anticipated that the term ``management area'' will continue to be used 
in many forest plans. The proposed rule has not required the use of 
this term in order to allow the flexibility to develop other terms, if 
beneficial, to describe the areas to which specific management 
prescriptions apply. This flexibility is desirable since ecosystem 
management has heightened the likelihood of direction being established 
at a variety of scales, and more effective ways may be possible to 
delineate where a management prescription applies than the traditional 
management area concept.
    Although there is considerable overlap between the six decisions 
resulting from forest plan approval under the existing rule and forest 
plan decisions under the proposed rule, two points of notable 
difference relate to forest plan objectives and monitoring and 
evaluation requirements. These differences are addressed in this 
preamble discussion of Secs. 219.6(b)(1), 219.6(d), and 219.12.
    Under paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec. 219.6, projected levels of 
goods and services or projected levels of management activities would 
not constitute forest plan direction. In addition, the proposed rule 
makes explicit that any projections of the rate of achieving desired 
resource conditions would not be forest plan direction.
    Based on the definition of ``objectives'' provided in the existing 
rule, ``objectives'' as used in the existing rule would encompass the 
types of projections addressed in proposed paragraph (b)(1). The 
proposed rule would make clear that such predictions addressing the 
rate of implementation are not forest plan direction. For example, 
under the proposed rule the forest plan would define resource 
conditions desirable to achieve, but would not address the rate at 
which achievement should occur. Instead, any such projections of the 
rate of achievement would be provided in an appendix in accordance with 
Sec. 219.11(d).
    These changes are proposed for two reasons. First, experience has 
shown that the rate at which forest plans will be implemented cannot be 
established for a 10-year period. As explained earlier, the agency's 
decision framework provides for staged decisionmaking, with project 
decisions, rather than the forest plan, being the point at which site-
specific activities are authorized. Decisions to approve and implement 
individual projects are subject to many variables, such as the results 
of project-level NEPA analysis, availability of funding, agency 
priorities, administrative appeals, and litigation. Since the rate at 
which forest plans can be implemented is based on decisions which occur 
during the plan period rather than decisions that can be made at the 
time of approving or revising a forest plan, it is important to make 
clear that the rate of implementation is not a decision that can be 
made in the forest plan.
    Second, if rate-specific direction were to be included in a forest 
plan, it increases the likelihood of creating a false expectation that 
specific implementation rates, particularly levels of goods and 
services, can be assured during the 10-year plan period. As already 
noted, the agency cannot provide such guarantees. Elimination of rate-
specific projections from forest plan direction, in concert with the 
provisions of Sec. 219.11(d), should enhance understanding of the 
agency's staged decisionmaking process and produce more realistic 
expectations of what may occur during the plan period.
    While excluding any rate-specific objectives from forest plan 
direction may appear to some to be a major change from the existing 
rule, this approach is consistent with a variety of court decisions 
which have affirmed the agency's staged decisionmaking process and 
verified that the agency has no obligation to produce the goods and 
services or to undertake the management activities identified in forest 
plans. The most notable actual difference resulting from the proposed 
rule would be that projections of implementation rates can be updated 
during the plan period without amendment procedures.
    The approach that would be taken under proposed paragraph (b)(1) 
also represents an evolution in understanding of the relationship 
between forest plans and the agency's process for formulating budgets. 
In the past, there have been expectations that the objectives in forest 
plans would drive the budget process; that is, that funds would be 
requested at whatever level was necessary to achieve the objectives of 
the forest plan over the course of a decade, and any lower funding 
level was interpreted as less than full implementation of the forest 
plan by many people. In addition, most forest plans were developed 
without imposing budget constraints, so there was no attempt to 
establish objectives at levels that reflected probable budget levels. 
Over time, the agency has recognized the shortcomings of these earlier 
expectations and approaches, and has been re-evaluating and clarifying 
the link between forest plans and the budget process.
    The proposed rule is consistent with the recommendations of a 
national team of Forest Service personnel chartered to study the 
linkage between budgets and forest plans. Rather than expecting the 
forest plan to define a desired rate of implementation to guide the 
budget process, the proposed rule would result in a process where 
budgets are formulated by considering forest plan direction, the 
results of monitoring and evaluation, and continuously updated 
information regarding national and agency priorities. This approach 
recognizes that annual program development and budgeting, rather than 
the forest plan, is the most timely and effective mechanism for 
responding to the continuously changing information which influences 
the rate at which plan goals can be achieved.
    Proposed Sec. 219.6(b)(2) would direct that forest plans focus on 
management of the resources specific to the plan area. It would further 
explain that forest plans should generally not provide direction on 
procedural aspects of how future project decisions will be made nor 
repeat other direction established through the Directive System, 
regulation, Executive order, or law. The existing rule does not have a 
comparable requirement, and this does represent a change from the way 
most current forest plans have been developed.
    A sample of forest plans has been reviewed to determine the amount 
of overlap between direction in forest plans and direction already 
established through the Directive System, regulation, Executive order, 
or law. In one case, almost all of the forest-wide 

[[Page 18902]]
goals and about half of the standards and guidelines overlapped 
direction that was already established and applicable to almost any 
National Forest in the country. Although the percentage of overlap 
varies with each plan, this sample does not appear to be exceptional. 
It seems there is a high degree of repetition in forest plans of 
direction that has already been established and applicable to most plan 
areas.
    This repetition results, in part, from the desire to provide in one 
document all the direction applicable to the plan area. The reality, 
however, is that given the volume and breadth of laws, Executive 
orders, regulations, and agency directives that apply to National 
Forest lands, it is infeasible to consolidate all of that direction 
into one document. While some forest plans may currently appear to 
encompass all relevant direction, it is inevitable that one must still 
refer to other sources to fully grasp all of the direction applicable 
to the plan area.
    There are four main sources of overlap which would be eliminated 
under the proposed rule. First, forest plans would not restate goals or 
policies that are already established by law, regulation, Executive 
order, or agency directive. Secondly, forest plans would not repeat 
procedural direction on how to conduct project analysis and 
decisionmaking. This type of administrative procedure is appropriate to 
issuance in the Directive System and not in forest plans. Under the 
proposed rule, forest plans will be clearly focused on desired resource 
conditions for the plan area, focusing on management of resources 
rather than on management of the administrative processes used to make 
decisions. For example, the Directive System is the definitive source 
of agency guidance and information on how to conduct NEPA analysis and 
should be the source of any guidance for conducting specific 
evaluations or analyses required to make a resource decision.
    Third, forest plans would not repeat instructions related to public 
involvement and coordination with other government entities. 
Considerable direction on these topics is already established by law, 
regulation, Executive order, agency directive, and any additional 
direction needed is appropriately issued through the Directive System.
    Finally, procedural guidance on how to conduct routine professional 
tasks would not be repeated in forest plans. For example, agency 
directives describe how to locate hiking trails and factors to consider 
when designing recreation sites. Such direction is applicable anywhere 
in the country and, as a result, should not be repeated in a forest 
plan. In contrast, if there are special circumstances in the plan area 
that require establishment of specific standards or guidelines to 
address local resource conditions, then such local direction would be 
appropriate for the forest plan.
    The agency anticipates several benefits from reducing the overlap 
between forest plans and direction already established by law, 
regulation, Executive order, or agency directives. First, forest plan 
direction should be substantially shorter, making forest plans more 
readable and easier to understand. Second, forest plans should be much 
more focused on local conditions and management needs. Third, the 
public should have a clearer understanding of the decisions that are 
actually being made in the forest plan.
    Paragraph (b)(3) of this proposed section would limit the main body 
of the forest plan document to forest plan directionk. Other 
information would appear in a brief preface or appendices. One benefit 
is to make it easier for the reader to distinguish between forest plan 
decisions and other information that may be found within the document. 
Currently, it is often difficult for readers to quickly locate the 
decisions made in the forest plan, and sometimes direction appears to 
be repeated or intermingled in multiple locations. Another benefit of 
this approach is that forest plans should be substantially shorter and 
easier to understand.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would describe the role and function of 
forest plan goals. Goals would be concise statements that describe a 
desired end result; they would normally be expressed in broad general 
terms rather than quantitatively; and there would be no time period 
specified for achievement. Forest plan goals would serve as the link 
between broad agency goals already established through legal 
requirements, agency directives, or the RPA Program and specific, 
measurable desired resource conditions as defined by objectives in the 
forest plan. As a result, they will help to translate national goals 
into end results of more local relevance to the plan area. Pursuant to 
paragraph (b)(2) of this proposed section, forest plan goals would not 
repeat national goals, but would rather translate them into end results 
more specific to the local conditions of the plan area.
    Because forest plan goals are not quantitative in nature, progress 
towards achieving goals is determined by monitoring achievement of the 
measurable desired conditions established by forest plan objectives 
and, if necessary, additional measurable indicators can be established 
through the monitoring and evaluation process (Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(ii)).
    Paragraph (d) describes the role of forest plan objectives. 
Objectives would describe measurable desired resource conditions, or 
ranges of conditions, intended to achieve forest plan goals. In many 
cases, a range of conditions is likely to be a more desirable target 
than a specific condition, because natural systems usually have ranges 
within which some variation is typical and acceptable. In addition, 
defining a desired range of conditions is appropriate when there is not 
enough information to make a more precise statement, or when such 
precision is not necessary, given the decision being made.
    Paragraph (d) would make clear that objectives must be defined in a 
manner that permits measurement of whether the objective is being 
achieved. The ability to directly measure the achievement of an 
objective, its greater degree of specificity, and its scope being 
limited to resource conditions are the three features which help to 
distinguish an objective from a goal. The proposed rule would explain 
that objectives can be defined to encompass natural resource 
conditions, conditions resulting from human influences, or the manner 
in which resources are perceived. As further explained at the preamble 
discussion of Sec. 219.6(b)(1), this use of the term ``objectives'' in 
the proposed rule is not the same as use of the term in the existing 
rule.
    Paragraphs (e)(1)-(2) describe the role of forest plan standards. 
These paragraphs would make explicit that standards are limitations on 
management activities and that adherence to standards is mandatory. 
They are the basis for determining if a project is consistent with the 
forest plan (Sec. 219.11(a)).
    One particularly important feature of standards is that they must 
be defined in such a manner that they are clearly within the authority 
or ability of the agency to enforce; that is, compliance must be within 
the agency's control. This characteristic is essential, because under 
the proposed rule standards it would be used for assessing project 
consistency with the forest plan (Sec. 219.11). When undertaking a 
project, the two things that the agency has the authority to control 
are the specific activities authorized and how they are conducted. The 
agency cannot control the actual results, however, since there are 
usually various factors beyond the 

[[Page 18903]]
agency's influence that can affect results. For example, usual weather 
events or wildfires can affect actual on-the-ground results in 
unpredictable and uncontrollable ways.
    Proposed paragraph (f) describes the role forest plan guidelines 
would play under the proposed rule. Guidelines would be used to 
describe a preferred or advisable course of action. Unlike standards, 
variation from a guideline does not trigger a forest plan amendment. 
Guidelines would play two key roles.
    First, guidelines would be used to describe a preferred or 
advisable method of conducting resource activities. For example, a 
guideline might recommend that shelters on hiking trails be located at 
least one mile from trailheads. If terrain or other circumstances 
related to a specific project made compliance infeasible, the 
flexibility would exist to locate the shelter closer to a trailhead. 
However, the guideline would have served to advise the responsible 
official that construction of a shelter less than one mile to the 
trailhead should not occur unless special circumstances exist.
    Second, guidelines would be used to describe a preferred or 
advisable sequence or priority for implementing various types of 
projects when such guidance is useful in facilitating achievement of a 
forest plan goal. For example, the forest plan might have a goal which 
addresses the restoration of hydrologic processes in a particular 
watershed. Various objectives could be defined describing resource 
conditions associated with restoration of the hydrologic processes, 
such as desired vegetative conditions within the watershed, the 
presence of down woody material in the stream channel, stream 
temperatures, or turbidity levels. Guidelines could be used if there is 
a preferred sequence for implementing the types of projects that would 
achieve these objectives and the ultimate goal. For example, if 
revegetating exposed soils within the riparian area are needed more 
urgently than soil restoration projects elsewhere in the watershed, a 
guideline can indicate that priority. Such guidelines would not be used 
to identify specific projects, but rather to specify if certain types 
of projects should be implemented before others in order to achieve a 
goal in the most timely manner.
    Paragraph (g) would establish requirements for coordinating forest 
plan direction across plan areas. The intent is to improve consistency 
between forest plans. In many cases currently, it is difficult to 
compare forest plan decisions for adjacent forests covered by different 
forest plans, and direction often changes at an administrative boundary 
even though the management situation appears to be identical. Paragraph 
(g) recognizes that there may often be legitimate reason for 
differences, but that, unless such reasons exist, forest plan decisions 
within a Forest Service administrative Region and for plan areas 
adjacent to the Region should be consistent in at least four ways.
    First, management prescriptions for adjacent lands should be the 
same. The direction for managing a specific area of land should not 
change at the boundary between forest plan plan areas unless a good 
reason exists for such change. In addiiton, maps used in the forest 
plans should be consistent to facilitate review and comparison. For 
example, this would mean using maps of the same scale and with the same 
legends and formats.
    Second, management prescriptions for specially designated areas 
should be the same when they cross plan area boundaries, unless good 
reason exists for change. For example, direction for managing a 
wilderness area, scenic trail, or similar specially designated area 
(Sec. 219.14) should not change simply because of a change in 
administrative boundary.
    Third, forest plan direction should be the same for adjacent areas 
when findings of an ecosystem analysis or research used as a basis for 
the direction are applicable to more than one plan area, unless local 
circumstances justify variation. For example, if the research used as a 
basis for establishing a habitat protection standard for a threatened 
or endangered species applies to a broad area covered by several forest 
plans, that standard should be the same in each of those plans, unless 
valid reason existed to alter it.
    Finally, consistency would be required in the use of terminology 
and classification systems. The intent is to have the same terms and 
classification systems used wherever feasible.
    In summary, the provisions proposed in Sec. 219.6 would incorporate 
the results of landmark administrative appeal decisions and court cases 
which have clarified the nature and scope of decisions made in forest 
plans. In addition, this section would establish a uniform approach to 
what appears in the main body of the forest plan and what can be 
presented in the preface and appendices. These changes to the contents 
of a forest plan will result in shorter, simpler forest plans that are 
easier to use and understand, as well as forest plans that are more 
highly focused on direction specifically tailored for management of the 
resources of the plan area.

Section 219.7  Ecosystem Analysis

    This section would introduce the concept of ecosystem analysis to 
the planning process, a topic not addressed in the existing rule. 
Paragraph (a) would define ecosystem analysis as a broad term used to 
denote various interdisciplinary studies conducted to provide 
information on and enhance understanding of the physical, biological, 
social, or economic aspects and interactions of an ecosystem. Because 
the agency considers humans to be an integral part of ecosystems, 
studies of social and economic aspects of ecosystems are within the 
scope of these analyses. Ecoregion assessments and landscape-level 
analyses are only two examples of the different types of studies that 
are conducted at various scales which fall under the general umbrella 
of ecosystem analysis.
    Paragraph (a) would also address the geographic scope of ecosystem 
analysis. It acknowledges that such analyses can be conducted at any 
scale deemed appropriate, and emphasizes that areas subject to 
ecosystem analyses should generally be delineated based on ecological 
considerations rather than administrative or jurisdictional boundaries.
    Reviewers are cautioned not to confuse the concept of ecosystem 
analysis with the analysis and evaluation of environmental effects 
which occurs as part of the NEPA process. The requirements associated 
with NEPA procedures would be unchanged by the provisions of this 
proposed section. The two documents used to disclose environmental 
assessment, are distinct in nature and purpose from an ecosystem 
analysis.
    Proposed Sec. 219.7 would not require an ecosystem analysis to be 
conducted as a precursor to resource decisionmaking. In fact, ecosystem 
analyses are not mandatory, and it is left to agency discretion to 
conduct them as appropriate. While the area covered by an ecosystem 
analyses is defined by the ecosystem and not by jurisdictional or 
administrative boundaries, the proposed rule would in no way impose 
resource decisions of the Forest Service on private lands. However, in 
order to make decisions for National Forest System lands, the agency 
believes it is important to be knowledgeable of the conditions on non-
Forest Service lands within an ecosystem being studied. This is 
considered an essential part of taking an ecological approach to 
management of National Forest System lands.

[[Page 18904]]

    Proposed paragraph (b) would make an important distinction between 
an ecosystem analysis and resource decisionmaking. As noted earlier, 
ecosystem analysis is not a decisionmaking effort and does not result 
in a resource decision. Therefore, it does not trigger NEPA analysis 
nor does the result of ecosystem analysis substitute for a NEPA 
disclosure document. Rather, an ecosystem analysis is a process by 
which information is gathered and synthesized in order to enhance and 
understanding of ecosystems. This information is usually intended as 
one--but not the only--source of information to be used later when 
making resource decisions.
    One key provision of paragraph (b) intended to help draw the 
distinction between ecosystem analysis and resource decisionmaking is 
the requirement that the findings of ecosystem analysis not be used as 
a substitute for forest plan goals, objectives, standards, or 
guidelines. The proposed rule would make clear that the findings of an 
ecosystem analysis may indicate the need to change forest plan 
direction, but that such changes must occur through amendment or 
revision procedures. The agency does not intend ecosystem analysis to 
be used to identify any preferred or desired alternatives or outcomes. 
Identification of such preferences would reflect value judgments on the 
part of those conducting the ecosystem analysis without the benefit of 
utilizing NEPA procedures. The agency also hopes such a requirement 
will reduce any confusion regarding the expected results of ecosystem 
analysis and diminish the risk that such analyses might be mistaken for 
decisionmaking processes.
    The proposed rule would make clear that ecosystem analysis may be 
used to identify opportunities for achieving goals and objectives that 
have already been established by law, Executive order, regulation, 
agency directive, or the forest plan. For example, this could include 
identifying various management options or scenarios that might meet 
established goals and assessing the results if such options were chosen 
or scenarios were to occur. This kind of assessment can be helpful in 
determining the potential to resolve issues given existing forest plan 
direction, or in evaluating the probable effects if current direction 
were to remain unchanged. In addition, paragraph (b) would make clear 
that an ecosystem analysis may be used to provide information that 
indicates a need to initiate forest plan amendment procedures. It will 
be incumbent upon the agency official responsible for the ecosystem 
analysis to ensure that such findings are properly utilized and that 
any consideration of options or strategies is conducted in a manner 
complementary to using the information for subsequent compliance with 
NEPA procedures associated with resource decisionmaking.
    Paragraph (c) would list various possible results of ecosystem 
analysis, depending upon the scope and specific purpose of each 
analysis. Eleven examples are provided of the type of information which 
might result from an ecosystem analysis. This is not intended to be an 
all-inclusive list, but rather to represent the type of results that 
might be expected. All eleven items are informational in nature and do 
not represent resource decisions or a narrowing of options to be 
considered in future decisionmaking efforts.

Section 219.8  Interdisciplinary Teams and Information Needs

    Paragraph (a) would require the use of an interdisciplinary team 
when preparing amendments, revisions, and monitoring and evaluation 
strategies and reports and when conducting ecosystem analysis. Although 
the proposed rule would clearly identify when interdisciplinary teams 
must be used, it would be less specific than Sec. 219.5 of the existing 
rule, which addresses in more detail the functioning and selection of 
interdisciplinary teams. Such detail is in excess of what is 
appropriate to this regulation, especially since NEPA procedures 
already provide guidance on the use of interdisciplinary teams. The 
proposed rule would limit interdisciplinary team membership to Forest 
Service and other Federal personnel. This limitation is primarily due 
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which imposes extensive 
requirements on the creation and use of committees that include non-
Federal personnel for the purpose of advising Federal agencies.
    Paragraph (b) would direct that the responsible official must 
strive to obtain and keep updated inventory data needed for 
decisionmaking. This is intended to emphasize the importance of 
maintaining data on a continuous basis rather than allowing inventories 
to become outdated. This is of particular importance in implementing an 
adaptive approach to resource management. The ability to know if and 
how management should be adjusted depends on ongoing analysis of 
information throughout the plan period.
    Maintaining inventory data is also critical to avoiding delays in 
the revision process. Some forests took as much as two years or more to 
gather the inventory data needed to develop their initial forest plans. 
As envisioned under the proposed rule, such information would be 
maintained throughout the plan period, with little delay needed at the 
time of revision to obtain new data. Realistically, many forests do not 
have fully updated inventories at this time, so, regrettably, such 
delays must still be expected in some cases when forest plans are 
revised. The updating process would occur prior to or during the 
prerevision review, however.
    In addition, paragraph (b) would clarify that the information 
compiled should be commensurate with the decisions being made. It is 
wasteful to try to obtain highly precise estimates if the decision 
being made does not require such precision. The proposed rule would 
make clear that the precision of the data should be commensurate with 
the precision needed to make the decision (see also Sec. 219.4(e)). 
Paragraph (b) also emphasizes the need for carefully focused analysis 
efforts, a noteworthy change from the existing rule. The proposed rule 
intends that analytical efforts will be focused on the critical 
questions relevant to specific decisionmaking needs rather than 
dispersed across a wide range of standardized analytical requirements 
that may not be relevant to local conditions, issues, and concerns.
    Although paragraph (b) would provide enhanced flexibility to tailor 
analysis to meet local needs, this should not be interpreted as 
deemphasizing the importance of sound analyses. While the proposed rule 
is certainly intended to better focus the analysis, there may or may 
not be a reduction in the overall quantity of analysis conducted on any 
given forest. For example, the extensive benchmark analyses required by 
the existing rule at Sec. 219.12(e) would no longer be required in the 
proposed rule. In many cases, the effort invested in these benchmark 
analyses has often diverted too much time and energy from more critical 
analyses needed for decisionmaking. However, in other cases, the data 
derived from some of the benchmark analyses proved very helpful. The 
proposed rule would not require that standardized benchmark analyses be 
conducted for all resources on all forests, but it would also signal 
the expectation that such analyses should occur if and when needed for 
informed decisionmaking.
    This focused approach to analysis is also intended to enhance 
understanding of and confidence in the agency's analytical procedures. 
Findings of the Critique of Land Management Planning clearly indicated 
that many people distrust analytical procedures and view 

[[Page 18905]]
computer models as mysterious ``black boxes'' that produce 
incomprehensible and unverifiable answers. The approach in paragraph 
(b) would keep analytical procedures highly focused and relevant to 
local decisionmaking needs and thus should help increase public and 
employee confidence in methodologies and results. Although computer 
models will still be used, analytical efforts should be better tailored 
to local needs. Under this provision, forest analysts could devote more 
time and effort to understanding the data relevant to the specific 
decisions to be made and to improving ways of communicating that 
information to the public and decisionmakers.
    Paragraph (c) would assure that social and economic effects are 
considered when amending or revising the forest plan. As stated at 
Sec. 219.1(b)(2), meeting people's needs and desires within the 
capacities of natural systems is a primary role of resource 
decisionmaking. The forest plan addresses management of land and 
resources, but decisions as to how those lands and resources should be 
managed is inherently dependent on considering the effects on people as 
well as on the resources themselves. Paragraph (c) would assure that 
commensurate with the decision being made, appropriate indicators of 
social and economic change, such as changes in community stability or 
employment, are evaluated during amendment and revision.
    Paragraph (d) would require Forest Supervisors to identify the 
research needed for decisionmaking, including, but not limited to, the 
research needed to help resource managers ensure that management 
practices do not produce substantial impairment of the productivity of 
the land. This latter requirement responds to Section 6(g)(3)(C) of 
NFMA. Comparable provisions of Sec. 219.28 of the existing rule are 
more detailed. By contrast, the proposed rule focuses more directly on 
making sure that research needs are identified, but would leave to 
normal agency administrative processes the task of directing 
formulation of budgets and reporting procedures.

Section 219.9 Forest Plan Amendment

    Paragraph (a) would provide for three types of amendments to forest 
plans--major, minor, and interim. It also would make explicit that: (1) 
only those elements defined as forest plan direction are subject to 
amendment, and (2) that amendment is the only method by which forest 
plan direction can be changed between revisions, unless the changes are 
nondiscretionary as described at Sec. 219.9(e).
    The term ``major amendment'' in the proposed rule would replace the 
term ``significant amendment'' as used in the existing rule. This 
change in terminology should help avoid confusion with the term 
``significance'' as it is used in the context of NEPA compliance. 
Criteria for determining significance for NEPA compliance differ from 
the criteria for distinguishing the significance of amendments under 
NFMA. These differences have caused considerable confusion both within 
and outside the agency with regard to ``significant'' plan amendments. 
Under the proposed rule, the term ``minor amendment'' would be used to 
refer to amendments which do not meet the criteria for a ``major'' or 
``interim'' amendment.
    Proposed paragraph (b) addresses major amendments. Paragraph (b)(1) 
would define the only three circumstances which trigger a major 
amendment. The existing rule does not define specific criteria for 
triggering a significant amendment, stating simply that ``if the change 
resulting from the proposed amendment is determined to be significant, 
the Forest Supervisor shall follow the same procedure as that required 
for development and approval of a forest plan'' (Sec. 219.10(f)).
    In the absence of criteria in the existing rule, the agency has 
issued, at FSM 1922.52, two examples indicative of circumstances that 
may cause a significant change to the forest plan. In addition, FSH 
1909.12 describes four factors to be used in helping to determine 
significance. The two circumstances described at FSM 1922.52 are: (1) 
Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship 
between levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected, 
and (2) changes that may have an important effect on the entire forest 
plan or affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the 
planning area during the plan period. Both of these examples are 
subject to varying interpretation.
    In reassessing the circumstances that should trigger a major 
amendment, the agency has focused on two key provisions of Section 
6(f)(4) of NFMA. First, this section recognizes that some amendments 
may result in a significant change in the plan. Second, it establishes 
special requirements for those amendments that would result in a 
significant change to the forest plan--a three-month comment period and 
associated requirements for public involvement.
    With these provisions of NFMA in mind, the agency proposes 
establishing in the proposed rule at Sec. 219.9(b)(1), rather than in 
the Forest Service Manual, three criteria for triggering a major 
amendment. The first trigger would be a change to a forest plan 
standard. The second would be when the chargeable timber volume that 
can be sold for a decade is amended in such a manner that it exceeds 
the long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of a proclaimed National 
Forest within the plan area. The third circumstance would be if the 
forest plan is changed to permit harvest of even-aged stands that have 
not reached culmination of mean annual increment of growth.
    The first criterion, changing a forest plan standard, reflects the 
heightened importance of forest plan standards under the proposed rule. 
As explained earlier in this preamble, adherence to forest plan 
standards would be mandatory, and standards would be used to assure 
compliance with legal requirements and to provide environmental 
safeguards. As a result, standards would have a distinctly stronger 
role in the forest plan than goals, objectives, or guidelines. 
Subsequently, the proposed rule would consider a change to a standard 
or where a standard is applied as a significant change to the forest 
plan, which thus would trigger a major amendment unless the exceptions 
identified at Sec. 219.9(c) (4) and (5) apply. The exceptions are when 
a standard is changed to accommodate a particular site-specific 
project, or the allocation of a management prescription, which 
typically includes some standards, to newly acquired lands and the 
prescription is consistent with the purposes for which the land was 
acquired.
    The other two circumstances that would trigger a major amendment 
derive directly from NFMA. In the case of the decadal chargeable volume 
that can be sold from a proclaimed National Forest exceeding the long-
term sustained yield timber capacity of that Forest, Section 13 of NFMA 
requires that such a variation be made following the same public 
involvement requirements as those for a major amendment or revision; 
i.e., a 90-day comment period. Similarly, Section 6(m)(2) of NFMA 
requires a 90-day comment period if stands are to be harvested before 
reaching culmination of mean annual increment of growth. As a result, 
the proposed rule would require that such changes be considered major 
amendments.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would provide that the Regional Forester 
is the responsible official for major amendments. This delegation of 

[[Page 18906]]
authority is the same as that under the existing rule.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would describe the procedural 
requirements associated with major amendment. These differ from those 
of the existing rule in two main ways. First, there is no automatic 
requirement to develop an EIS for a major amendment. The intent is to 
allow NEPA procedures to guide the determination of whether an EIS or 
an environmental assessment is appropriate for the decision being made. 
Second, the proposed rule would drop the requirement to use the same 
process for a major amendment as for development of initial forest 
plans and revisions (Sec. 219.12(a) of the existing regulation). 
Instead, the proposed rule would rely on established NEPA procedures to 
guide the process for major amendment.
    Both changes are expected to help focus and streamline analyses. As 
described at proposed Sec. 219.8(b), one intent of the proposed rule is 
to focus analyses on the information needed for decisionmaking and thus 
to ensure that the nature, scope; and complexity of analyses are 
commensurate with the nature, scope and impact of the decisions to be 
made. Relying on NEPA procedures to determine the type of disclosure 
that is appropriate is a sound means of assuring that analysis and 
documentation match the nature of the decision.
    Similarly, the requirement in the existing rule to repeat the same 
steps for a significant amendment as for a revision has proven 
excessively burdensome. This existing requirement has often resulted in 
a variety of analysis efforts, such as developing benchmarks or 
reevaluating the suitability of lands for timber production, which 
proved to be of little benefit or utility and which diverted energy and 
focus from more critical factors related to the decision.
    Paragraph (b)(3) of the proposed rule also would state the 
requirement to provide a 90-day period for public review and comment on 
a major amendment. This paragraph also specifies the minimum actions 
the Regional Forester would be required to take to provide for public 
participation in the major amendment process.
    Paragraph (b)(4) would require publication of legal notice of 
adoption of a major amendment. Paragraph (b)(5) provides that the 
effective date of an approved major amendment is the eighth calendar 
day following publication of legal notice of the decision in accordance 
with administrative appeal rules at 36 CFR 217.10.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would establish requirements for a minor 
amendment, which is triggered whenever a change is being made to the 
forest plan which does not meet the circumstances for triggering a 
revision, major amendment, or interim amendment.
    Paragraph (c)(1) would designate the Forest Supervisor as the 
responsible official for minor amendments, unless that authority is 
retained by the Regional Forester.
    Paragraph (c)(2) addresses public comment periods for minor 
amendments. As is the case with major amendments, the proposed rule 
does not specify what type of NEPA documentation must accompany a minor 
amendment. Instead, NEPA procedures would provide this guidance. 
Although NEPA procedures require a 45-day comment period for review of 
a draft EIS, there is no requirement under NEPA procedures for public 
comment on a draft environmental assessment. Nevertheless, the agency 
believes that the public should have an opportunity to comment on a 
minor amendment to a forest plan when an environmental assessment is 
prepared. Therefore, the proposed rule requires at least a 30-day 
comment period when an environmental assessment is prepared and at 
least a 45-day comment period when an EIS is prepared.
    Paragraph (c)(3) indicates that 36 CFR part 217 provides for 
administrative appeal of forest plan amendments and revisions and 
guides public notice of decisions to adopt a minor amendment, as well 
as their effective date. This is further clarified in a conforming 
amendment to 36 CFR 217.3(a).
    Proposed paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) describe two circumstances 
where a minor amendment, not a major amendment, is the appropriate 
mechanism for changing a forest plan even though such an amendment 
involves changing a standard or changing where a standard applies. 
Under paragraph (c)(4), a minor amendment would be appropriate when a 
management prescription is extended to apply to newly acquired land and 
the prescription is compatible with the purposes for which it was 
acquired. Without this provision, such a change would trigger a major 
amendment since management prescriptions include standards, and 
allocating lands to a management prescription changes where those 
standards are applied.
    Paragraph (c)(5) provides instructions for handling a proposed 
site-specific project that would conflict with a forest plan standard. 
As required at Sec. 219.11(a) of the proposed rule, a project cannot be 
approved if it conflicts with a forest plan standard. If the 
responsible official has determined that the project merits an 
exception to a forest plan standard, but wishes the exception to apply 
only to the site-specific project rather than changing the standard for 
all future projects, the proposed rule would specify that the change be 
made by minor amendment. This is appropriate because of the limited, 
site-specific scope of the change in the standard(s). However, a minor 
amendment cannot be used when the circumstances described at 
(b)(1)(ii)-(iii) apply, since NFMA requires a 90-day comment period on 
changes of that nature.
    Under the proposed rule, the public could review and comment on a 
proposed site-specific amendment as part of the project decisionmaking 
process rather than as disjointed decisions. The disclosure of effects 
associated with changing the standard would be addressed as part of the 
NEPA documentation associated with the site-specific project decision. 
One intent of this integrated approach is to avoid duplicating analysis 
and documentation. It would be burdensome and confusing for both the 
public and the agency if a project decision had to be made separately 
from the forest plan amendment needed to authorize the site-specific 
exception from the standard.
    The length of the comment period under these circumstances would 
vary, depending on the nature of the decision being made. If the 
project decision or amendment required an EIS, then at least a 45-day 
comment period would be provided in accordance with NEPA procedures. If 
an environmental assessment would be adequate, then at least a 30-day 
comment period would be provided in accordance with 36 CFR 215.5.
    A minor amendment associated with a site-specific project would not 
be subject to administrative appeal under the provisions of 36 CFR part 
217, but instead would be appealable under 36 CFR part 215 which 
already governs appeal procedures when a project decision includes a 
plan amendment. Similarly, the time period between the decision and 
project implementation is also governed by 36 CFR part 215.
    Paragraph (d)(1) of this proposed section introduces the concept of 
``interim amendment.'' The agency believes there is a clear need to 
provide streamlined procedures for updating forest plan direction when 
there is new information that indicates a compelling need to promptly 
change the forest plan in order to provide resource protection, 

[[Page 18907]]
or when a catastrophic even has occurred, and the process for major 
amendment, minor amendment, or revision would result in an unacceptable 
delay.
    Due to the length of time it often takes to fully analyze new 
information and to complete appropriate amendment procedures, there can 
be quite a gap between the time the agency is aware that it needs to 
address a problem and the time normal procedures can be completed. In 
the meantime, environmental damage may be occurring as a result of 
these procedural delays. The interim amendment would be a means of 
addressing those situations where such delay is unacceptable, but would 
still assure that a thorough analysis of the new information is 
conducted and possible alternative responses are considered while such 
interim measures are in place.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would designate the Regional Forester as 
the responsible official for interim amendments, unless such authority 
is reserved by the Chief. Placing approval authority at the Regional 
Forester level should help to ensure that interim amendments are used 
and developed in a consistent manner and that they are not used when 
the needed changes can be made within the normal amendment process.
    Paragraph (d)(3) describes the requirements for public notice of an 
interim amendment and the information that must be disclosed at the 
time an interim amendment is issued.
    Paragraph (d)(4) establishes an explicit finding that an 
environmental impact statement is not required for interim amendment. 
Any change to a forest plan made by interim amendment will be limited 
in scope and duration and made only to respond to catastrophic events 
or to ensure resource protection. Given the limited circumstances where 
it could be used, an interim amendment would never meet the criteria 
for preparing an EIS as required by NEPA procedures. Nothing in 
paragraph (d)(4) would limit the preparation of an environmental 
assessment for an interim amendment.
    As specified in paragraph (d)(5), the effective date for interim 
amendments is the eighth calendar day after legal notice of the 
decision is published in a newspaper of general circulation or, if the 
Chief is the responsible official, in the Federal Register.
    Paragraph (d)(6) provides for a 45-day comment period starting upon 
issuance of legal notice of the interim amendment. Unlike most comment 
periods which occur prior to making a decision, this 45-day comment 
period would occur after the interim amendment is in effect. Based on 
the comments received, the responsible official may decide to modify 
the interim amendment or have it remain in effect unchanged. Under 
either circumstance, the public must be notified and rationale 
provided. Since an interim amendment is designed to respond to those 
circumstances where a quick change is necessary, it is not reasonable 
to delay issuance of the interim amendment until a comment period can 
occur. However, the provision of paragraph (d)(6) assures the 
opportunity to public review and comment as soon as possible, provides 
the responsible official an opportunity to change the interim amendment 
in a timely manner based on those comments, and ensures that the public 
is notified of whether the interim amendment is retained without change 
or is modified and why.
    The duration of an interim amendment would be limited by paragraph 
(d)(7) to two years. If an interim amendment has not been superseded by 
an approved amendment or revision within two years, the responsible 
official would have the option of reissuing the interim amendment or 
issuing a modified interim amendment. Under such circumstances, all of 
the limitations and notice and comment requirements for use of interim 
amendments would still apply. This limit on the duration of an interim 
amendment is intended to assure that direction established using these 
procedures is indeed interim in nature.
    Paragraph (d)(8) would expressly prohibit including an interim 
amendment in a decision document for a specific project. As discussed, 
the provisions of Sec. 219.9(c)(5) address those circumstances where a 
forest plan needs to be amended to permit one specific project.
    Paragraph (d)(9) would make clear that under 36 CFR part 217 an 
interim amendment is not subject to administrative appeal. Since 
neither the existing planning rule nor the appeals rule address interim 
amendments, a conforming amendment to 36 CFR part 217 is proposed to 
exclude interim amendments from the administrative appeals process. 
Such an exclusion is appropriate due to the short duration of an 
interim amendment and the circumstances for its use. The 45-day public 
comment period should provide an effective way for the public and other 
government entities to communicate with the responsible official about 
any potential concerns.
    Paragraph (e) would permit nondiscretionary changes to forest plan 
direction under specified circumstances. There is no similar provision 
in the existing rule. This provision would allow forest plan direction 
to be changed without completion of the more rigorous amendment and 
public comment procedures when the change is needed to comply with a 
law or regulation and the agency has no discretion in the manner in 
which it complies. Under such a circumstance, NEPA procedures would not 
need to be completed and there would be no public comment period. 
However, the public would be given notice through the annual monitoring 
and evaluation report that such changes had been made. Examples of such 
nondiscretionary changes include designating an area as wilderness 
after passage of wilderness legislation. Paragraph (f) would make clear 
that the Forest Supervisor may, at any time, make certain changes to a 
forest plan without amendment procedures. Such changes would be 
identified in the monitoring and evaluation report. Circumstances 
allowing such an approach include when changes do not alter forest plan 
management direction or when the changes are non-substantive in nature, 
such as correcting typographical errors.
    In addition, corrections to maps which delineate where a management 
prescription is applied can be made without amendment, provided such 
changes are due to improved on-the-ground information about the 
condition to which the management prescription was described to apply. 
For example, if a management prescription were to apply to all areas 
visible from a scenic highway but the visible area had not been 
precisely mapped, the mapped boundaries of where the prescription would 
apply could be adjusted after a detailed field survey is completed. It 
is essential that the forest plan state that the prescription is 
intended to apply to the visible area, however, so that it is clear 
what attributes the land must have if the map is to be changed in this 
manner. If, for example, the prescription were to be extended to apply 
to lands other than those visible from the scenic highway, amendment 
procedures would have to be followed.

Section 219.10  Forest Plan Revision

    This section would significantly revise the procedures for forest 
plan revision. The existing rule (Sec. 219.12) requires the agency to 
use the same process for forest plan revision as for developing initial 
forest plans. The 

[[Page 18908]]
proposed rule offers a new process specifically tailored to revision.
    Proposed paragraph (a) retains the provision of the existing rule 
that revision of a forest plan should occur about every 10 years, and 
no later than 15 years, after approval of the original plan or latest 
plan revision. Additionally, revisions must occur whenever conditions 
over most or all of the plan area have changed significantly, for 
example, to address catastrophic events that have substantially altered 
resource conditions over most or all of the plan area. These criteria 
for initiating revisions are based on requirements of Section 6(f)(5) 
of the National Forest Management Act.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would designate the Regional Forester as the 
responsible official for revision, as is the case in the existing rule.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) would establish an important new 
element--the prerevison review of a forest plan, which would be 
conducted prior to initiating scoping. The purpose of the prerevision 
review is to identify changed conditions and/or other new information 
which appear to indicate a need to change direction in the current plan 
using the results of monitoring and evaluation.
    This requirement for a prerevision review is somewhat comparable to 
the requirement in the existing rule for completing an Analysis of the 
Management Situation (hereafter, AMS) (Sec. 219.12(e)), but there are 
some important differences. The main similarity is that both the AMS 
and the proposed prerevison review culminate in a determination of the 
need to change direction in the forest plan. However, a key difference 
between the AMS and prerevision review is the source of the information 
and type of analysis required for making such determinations. The 
existing rule imposes extensive analytical requirements to be met when 
developing the AMS. As explained earlier in the preamble discussion for 
proposed Sec. 219.8, these analyses have not always proven relevant to 
the local situation or helpful to decisionmakers. In fact, the existing 
requirements have often diverted time and energy from more critical 
analyses needed for decisionmaking.
    In contrast, the proposed rule focuses on using the results of 
monitoring and evaluation of making such determinations. As part of the 
prerevision review, the Regional Forester would be responsible for 
reviewing the cumulative results of monitoring and evaluation, as well 
as conducting whatever associated analysis is needed in order to 
propose the scope of the revision process. In some cases, the type of 
analysis now required as part of the AMS may be appropriate. However, 
the proposed rule does not impose such specific analytical 
requirements; instead, the provisions of Sec. 219.8 (Interdisciplinary 
teams and information needs) and Sec. 219.12 (Monitoring and 
evaluation) provide sufficient guidance for obtaining appropriate 
information for the prerevision review.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require the Forest Supervisor to 
formulate a communications strategy that describes how the public and 
other government entities may participate on an ongoing basis in both 
the prerevision review and revision process. As noted earlier in regard 
to proposed Sec. 219.3, the agency is stressing the importance of 
building and maintaining strong relationships based on open and ongoing 
communication. One purpose of these communications efforts is to 
improve the information base on which decisions are based and to 
promote a shared understanding of the validity of this information (see 
Sec. 219.3(a)(3)). Proposed Sec. 219.10(c)(2) is specifically designed 
to help achieve these aims by encouraging the public to be involved 
while these initial prerevision analyses are occurring and data is 
being gathered in addition to involvement during the revision process 
itself.
    By participating in the prerevision review, the public and other 
government entities will have an opportunity to see the data and 
analytical methods being developed for the revision and to provide 
improved information or suggest better approaches. This should enhance 
public confidence in the data and analysis upon which decisions about 
revising the forest plan will be made. The results of the prerevision 
review provide the basis for the Notice of Intent to revise the forest 
plan and to prepare an environmental impact statement for the revision. 
The prerevision review also provides the public with a thorough 
analysis of monitoring and evaluation results, and identifies the 
direction in the forest plan that the Regional Forester believes may 
need to be changed.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require a meeting with interested 
representatives of other Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal 
governments in order to establish procedures for coordination and 
ongoing communication. These provisions reflect the importance which 
the Forest Service places on establishing a strong working relationship 
with other agencies and governments as well as on coordinating with 
them during the prerevision review and revision process.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would provide the public and representatives 
of other government entities the opportunity to express their ideas and 
suggestions on the communications strategy as it is being formulated. 
There is no comparable requirement in the existing rule, and this 
approach is not commonly practiced within the agency now. This new 
requirement is intended to greatly improve the effectiveness of public 
involvement efforts during revision. By providing the public an 
opportunity to comment on how to develop the communications strategy, 
involvement efforts should be more responsive to public needs and 
desires, better timed to assure that the public is involved at those 
points in the process of most interest, and better suited to 
facilitating the type of interaction, mutual understanding, and 
commitment necessary for success.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would assure that those who are on the 
mailing list described at Sec. 219.3(b) are notified of the prerevision 
review and formulation of the communications strategy.
    Paragraph (d) addresses scoping, which is required by NEPA 
procedures and is undertaken to identify important issues and determine 
the extent of analysis necessary for an informed decision on a proposed 
action. Scoping is used not only to identify significant environmental 
issues deserving of study, but also to deemphasize insignificant 
issues, thus narrowing the scope of the environmental impact statement 
accordingly (40 CFR 1500.4(g)). A Notice of Intent to revise a forest 
plan would be issued in the Federal Register, with a 60-day comment 
period. The Notice would serve to notify the public of the start of the 
revision process and would provide information on the anticipated scope 
of the effort. The Notice would also identify opportunities for public 
involvement in the revision process.
    This process for initiating forest plan revision is a substantial 
improvement over the existing rule, providing more and better 
information to the public for use in commenting on the scope of the 
revision process. In the existing rule, the process for forest plan 
revision starts from ground zero, repeating the same steps used for 
developing initial forest plans. Under this current approach, the 
revision process assumes that the ``slate has been wiped clean;'' that 
is, that no forest plan currently exists and that there is little 
information available from which to launch the revision effort.
    In contrast, the proposed rule recognizes that substantial 
information 

[[Page 18909]]
regarding the adequacy of the forest plan already exists as a result of 
monitoring and evaluation. Just as importantly, the proposed rule 
provides for making this information available to the public during the 
scoping process so that the public has the best possible information 
upon which to base its comments regarding the scope of the revision 
effort.
    Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(i)-(iii) identify three actions that the 
Forest Supervisor would be required to take at the time of issuing the 
Notice of Intent:
    (1) giving notice to those on the mailing list required at 
Sec. 219.3(b);
    (2) giving more general notice through a press release; and
    (3) promoting activities to foster ongoing participation in the 
revision process pursuant to the communications strategy.
    Proposed paragraph (e) specifies four required elements of the 
revision process:
    (1) Review of the identification of lands suited and not suited for 
timber production;
    (2) Evaluation of roadless areas for wilderness designation;
    (3) Evaluation of rivers for eligibility as wild, scenic, or 
recreation rivers under specified circumstances; and
    (4) Update of the appendix information displaying projected levels 
of goods and services and management activities for the next decade, as 
required by Sec. 219.11(d)(1). These four requirements, along with the 
requirements of Sec. 219.10(c), are the main factors which distinguish 
forest plan revision from major amendment.
    Paragraph (f) would require that a draft EIS be prepared for a 
proposed forest plan revision. Unlike the existing rule, the proposed 
rule would not provide additional guidance on how to develop or 
evaluate alternatives. Rather, the range of alternatives would be 
developed in accordance with NEPA procedures. Although it is possible 
that the agency may decide to supplement NEPA procedures to address the 
unique needs of draft EIS's associated with forest plan revisions, such 
detailed instructions would be appropriately issued through the 
Directive System, rather than in a regulation.
    Paragraph (g) describes procedural requirements for public notice 
and comment on the proposed revised forest plan, draft EIS, and draft 
monitoring and evaluation strategy. These provisions are designed to 
comply with the requirements of Section 6(d) of NFMA.
    Paragraph (h) defines the role of the Regional Forester in 
overseeing preparation of the final EIS and revised forest plan and 
also directs that preparation of the final EIS and record of decision 
be prepared and made public in accordance with NEPA procedures.
    Approval of the final plan and determination of the effective date 
is addressed in proposed Sec. 219.10(i). The final revised forest plan 
would become effective 30 days after public notice, as required by 
Section 6(j) of NFMA. Notice of a decision to revise a forest plan must 
be provided in accordance with 36 CFR part 217, the regulation that 
guides the process for administrative appeals of forest plans.

Section 219.11  Forest Plan Implementation

    Section 6(i) of NFMA requires resource plans, permits, contracts, 
and other instruments for use and occupancy of National Forest System 
lands to be consistent with forest plans. This section describes how a 
determination of consistency is made at the time of project approval, 
prior to issuing permits or contracts to implement a project decision, 
as well as how consistency is maintained after forest plan amendments 
or revisions. This section also provides other direction relevant to 
forest plan implementation.
    Proposed Sec. 219.11(a) describes how the agency would determine 
project consistency. A determination of consistency with the forest 
plan would be based on whether a project adheres to forest plan 
standards, and this determination must be documented at the time of 
project approval.
    Paragraphs (a)(1)-(3) list the options available to a responsible 
official when faced with a project proposal inconsistent with the 
forest plan. The options are to: modify the proposal to make it 
consistent with the plan; reject the proposal, or amend the forest plan 
to permit the proposal.
    Paragraphs (a)(1)-(3) reflect the key role that forest plan 
standards would play under the proposed rule. As noted earlier in the 
discussion of proposed Sec. 219.6, standards would be the one component 
of forest plan direction to which adherence would be mandatory. Unlike 
goals, objectives, or guidelines, standards define the limitations 
within which project activities must occur and are limited to those 
constraints within the agency's authority or ability to enforce. As a 
result, individual projects can be readily assessed for their 
compliance with standards.
    By contrast, achievement of forest plan goals and objectives would 
typically be dependent on the cumulative results of individually 
authorized projects and, in some cases, naturally occurring changes 
over time. The impact of any specific project on achievement of a goal 
or objective could be difficult to measure. Monitoring and evaluation 
is a more meaningful way to account for progress towards goals and 
objectives than using forest plan goals or objectives in project 
consistency determinations.
    Likewise, project consistency determinations would not be based on 
guidelines. Guidelines describe a preferred or advisable course of 
action. Therefore, it would be counter to their intended role if they 
were used in determining project consistency. In addition, it would be 
difficult to assess on a project-by-project basis whether a project was 
consistent with those guidelines that describe specific resource 
conditions desirable to achieve, just as was the case with forest plan 
goals.
    Paragraph (b) would require that permits, contracts, and other 
instruments issued or approved for use and occupancy of National Forest 
System lands be consistent with standards in the forest plan in effect 
at the time of their issuance. Also, subject to valid existing rights, 
they must be revised as soon as practicable after a forest plan is 
amended or revised, if necessary, to be made consistent with the forest 
plan. Both of these provisions are based on requirements of NFMA 
(Section 6(i)) and are similar to provisions of the existing rule 
(Sec. 219.10(e)), with the exception that the proposed rule would 
expand this requirement to include amendment as well as revision.
    Paragraph (c) would fill an omission existing in the current rule 
by making clear that an approved forest plan remains in effect until 
approval of an amendment or revision. The question of the status of 
forest plans undergoing amendment or revision has arisen often and 
would be answered definitively by this paragraph.
    Paragraph (d) would address possible actions during the plan 
period. Paragraph (d)(1) would require that a display be included in a 
forest plan appendix predicting the major goods and services which may 
be produced, as well as the management activities which may occur 
during the plan period. Rather than displaying this information as 
precise figures, paragraph (d)(1)(i) would provide for this information 
to be expressed in terms of ranges reflecting, when practicable and 
meaningful, some of the variables most likely to affect actual 
accomplishment.
    Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would allow a display of the rate of achieving 
desired 

[[Page 18910]]
resource conditions identified by forest plan objectives. Once again, 
this prediction would reflect, to the extent practicable and 
meaningful, some of the variables most likely to affect achievement. 
This would not be a required display, but it may be a useful tool for 
showing how long it would take to achieve the resource conditions 
envisioned in the forest plan.
    Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would clarify that the information in the 
displays described at paragraph (d)(1)(i)-(ii) is not forest plan 
direction and does not compel the agency to take any action.
    Paragraph (d)(2) would require periodic updates of the estimated 
levels of goods and services and management activities, but provides 
for the intervals and timeframes to be determined as appropriate. It is 
the agency's intent to utilize information from other ongoing agency 
efforts rather than requiring the preparation of new or additional 
information exclusively for the purposes of these updates. Therefore, 
the agency believes it is important to retain the flexibility to adjust 
the intervals and timeframes for which these estimates are provided in 
order to keep synchronized with whatever agency procedures can be most 
efficiently utilized. Development of these estimates does not require 
NEPA analysis.
Section 219.12  Monitoring and Evaluation

    This section is designed to greatly strengthen the role of 
monitoring and evaluation and contains several changes from the 
approach taken in the existing rule. The agency believes an expanded 
and strenghened role for monitoring and evaluation is a cornerstone for 
implementing the proposed rule and making adaptive resource management 
a reality for National Forest System lands.
    Paragraph (a) would establish the Forest Supervisor's 
responsibility to conduct monitoring and evaluation and would require 
development of a monitoring and evaluation strategy. This strategy 
would be prepared by the Forest Supervisor simultaneously with revision 
of a forest plan. In contrast to the existing rule, which provides for 
monitoring and evaluation to be addressed in the forest plan, the 
proposed rule would address monitoring and evaluation in a companion 
strategy document, and it would not be part of the forest plan. 
Paragraph (a) would also clarify that the strategy does not require 
NEPA analysis. However, monitoring and evaluation activities are 
subject to NEPA procedures at the time of implementation.
    There are several reasons the agency is proposing to address 
monitoring and evaluation in a companion document. First, the 
requirement to develop a companion document should give considerably 
more emphasis to monitoring and evaluation than at present and should 
promote greater recognition of monitoring and evaluation as a critical 
and integrated aspect of National Forest System management. As the 
first generation of forest plans is facing revision and with the agency 
shifting to an ecosystem management approach, monitoring and evaluation 
is receiving greatly increased emphasis within the agency, and 
considerably more effort is being invested in developing well-designed 
and coordinated monitoring and evaluation procedures.
    The agency also anticipates much more emphasis on joint monitoring 
with other agencies, coordination of monitoring efforts across plan 
area boundaries, and a shift from a forest-by-forest approach to a 
corporate approach to monitoring and evaluation activities. All of this 
will likely require a document that more easily allows for an expanded 
length and different formats from what is typically found in most 
forest plans now. Establishing a separate document for addressing 
monitoring and evaluation activities allows more flexibility in how all 
of this information can be aggregated and organized. Given the rapidly 
expanding technologies and knowledge associated with monitoring and 
evaluation, it is especially desirable to retain as much flexibility as 
possible so that the most effective means can be found for structuring 
and displaying relevant information.
    Finally, separating the monitoring and evaluation strategy from 
decisions in the forest plan should help to streamline the forest plan. 
The Critique of Land Management Planning revealed that the public wants 
shorter forest plans, and the agency agrees this is desirable. Yet, 
circumstances could occur where the length of the monitoring and 
evaluation strategy could approach the length of the forest plan 
itself, depending on the monitoring and evaluation format used and the 
amount of information incorporated from other sources. Therefore, 
rather than adding to the size of forest plans or creating a 
disincentive to include all relevant or useful information for 
monitoring and evaluation in order to keep the forest plan at a 
manageable size, the agency believes it is appropriate to treat 
monitoring and evaluation information in a companion document.
    In addition to addressing monitoring and evaluation in a companion 
document, the proposed rule would make clear that the monitoring and 
evaluation strategy is not considered forest plan direction. There are 
distinct differences between forest plan direction and the information 
in a monitoring and evaluation strategy. Unlike the forest plan 
direction described at Sec. 219.6 (goals, objectives, standards, and 
guidelines), monitoring and evaluation strategies do not address how to 
manage resources. Rather than guiding how to manage resources, these 
strategies guide how to determine if resource management activities are 
resulting in the outcomes expected. In essence, they are part of the 
quality control process for implementing the forest plan.
    The exclusion of monitoring and evaluation from forest plan 
direction creates two particularly notable changes. First, updates to 
the monitoring and evaluation strategy would not be subject to 
procedures for forest plan amendment. This exclusion is logical 
because, as provided at proposed Sec. 219.12(a), the strategy does not 
require NEPA analysis, yet the amendment process is focused on 
evaluating alternatives following NEPA procedures. However, a second 
important aspect of amendment procedures is the requirement for a 
public comment period. In order to assure that the public has an 
opportunity to comment on updates to the monitoring and evaluation 
strategy, the proposed rule would require a 30-day comment period.
    The second notable change is that the strategy would not be subject 
to administrative appeal. The monitoring and evaluation strategy does 
not make decisions about how resources will be managed, but rather 
establishes procedures for assessing the effects of the forest plan. 
Although the agency has received hundreds of appeals on forest plans, 
very few of them involve monitoring and evaluation. Considering the 
nature of a monitoring and evaluation strategy and the emphasis in the 
rule on assuring on-going communication and accountability for 
monitoring and evaluation, the appeals process does not appear to be 
the most appropriate or effective means for addressing monitoring and 
evaluation issues.
    The proposed rule has established numerous safeguards to assure the 
agency's accountability for monitoring and evaluation. Some of these 
include: public review and comment on the strategy at the time of 
revision (Sec. 219.12(b)(1)); public comment on proposed updates to the 
strategy (Sec. 219.12(c)(2)); public notification of 

[[Page 18911]]
updates to the strategy in the annual monitoring and evaluation report 
(Sec. 219.12(e)(5)); involvement of the applicable Station Director in 
the development and implementation of monitoring and evaluation 
strategies (Sec. 219.12(d)(3)); and the availability of an annual 
monitoring and evaluation report for public review (Sec. 219.12(e)). In 
addition, Sec. 219.12(d)(1) and Sec. 219.3 promote ongoing involvement 
and communication with the public and other agencies and governments 
throughout all phases of resource planning and management, including 
monitoring and evaluation.
    Beyond establishing the monitoring and evaluation strategy as a 
companion document not subject to administrative appeal, paragraph (a) 
of proposed Sec. 219.12 also would address NEPA responsibilities 
related to monitoring and evaluation. The monitoring and evaluation 
strategy does not require NEPA analysis because it does not contain any 
resource decisions. It is an operational guide that identifies 
techniques and procedures for gathering relevant information; it does 
not compel any specific action or prohibit any action. Therefore, due 
to the nature of the information it contains, the criteria for 
undertaking NEPA analysis and disclosure are not met and no NEPA 
documentation is required.
    In contrast to the monitoring and evaluation strategy, actual 
monitoring and evaluation activities are subject to NEPA procedures at 
the time of implementation. For example, if water quality monitoring 
activities involve placing instrumentation in a stream or require 
helicopter access into a remote mountain lake to collect water samples, 
the environmental effects of such activities would have to be 
considered. In most cases, monitoring and evaluation activities are 
categorical exclusions under 7 CFR 1.b(3), which clearly excludes 
``Inventories, research activities, and studies, such as resource 
inventories and routine data collection when such actions are clearly 
limited in scope and intensity.'' Such an exclusion does not apply, 
however, if extraordinary circumstances exist. Extraordinary 
circumstances might encompass monitoring and evaluation activities 
affecting such features as inventoried roadless areas, wetlands, Native 
American religious sites, and Congressionally designated areas (FSH 
1909.15, Sec. 30.3, para. 2).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) lists the types of instructions provided 
in a monitoring and evaluation strategy and expands the role of 
monitoring and evaluation from that in the existing rule. Under 
paragraphs (a)(1) (i) and (ii), the monitoring and evaluation strategy 
would provide guidance to make sure that projects are being implemented 
in accordance with the project decision document, and that progress is 
being made toward achieving plan goals. Since forest plan goals 
normally are not expressed in quantitative terms, the rule would 
require that measurable indicators be used to assess achievement. In 
many cases, those measurable indicators will be desired resource 
conditions defined by objectives.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) links the monitoring and evaluation 
strategy for the plan area to monitoring and evaluation efforts needed 
at scales larger than the plan area. This is a key new concept and 
reflects how much of the coordination required of the Regional Forester 
at paragraph (d)(2) of this section will be integrated into forest 
activities. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) recognizes that an important 
role of the monitoring and evaluation strategy is to provide for 
validating the assumptions upon which plan decisions were based and 
verifying the accuracy of the predicted effects.
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) (v)-(x) substantially expand the role of 
monitoring and evaluation beyond what is required by the existing rule. 
Under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(v), the monitoring and evaluation 
strategy would include setting priorities for monitoring and evaluation 
efforts, and it specifies that the highest priority for monitoring and 
evaluation is those activities believed to have the greatest potential 
risk to the environment.
    Proposed provision (a)(1)(vi) would require the monitoring and 
evaluation strategy to address compilation of information to serve as 
reference points for future evaluations. Similarly, paragraph 
(a)(1)(vii) would direct that monitoring and evaluation be used to 
determine if new information exists which substantially affects the 
validity of the forest plan, such as changes in legal requirements, 
shifting social or economic trends, new scientific information, or 
findings resulting from ecosystem analyses. This deliberate outreach 
for new information is not generally recognized as part of monitoring 
and evaluation under the existing rule.
    Paragraph (a)(1)(viii) would expand the role of monitoring to 
include the storage and dissemination of information for use in the 
budget formulation process. A major source of this type of information 
is expected to be various ecosystem analyses, as well as information 
being gathered from various other sources. Although storing and 
disseminating such information is a vital function, its importance is 
not always recognized.
    Tracking goods and services provided and management activities 
conducted, as would be required at paragraph (a)(1)(ix), is 
traditionally associated with monitoring and evaluation. The final 
item, identifying problems and opportunities for resolution, is not 
traditionally considered part of monitoring and evaluation. Under the 
proposed rule, however, such efforts would be considered as part of 
monitoring and evaluation and are considered an integral and critical 
step whereby the monitoring and evaluation results are synthesized into 
a clear problem statement and evaluation of opportunities for solution.
    The decision as to whether a forest plan needs to be amended or 
revised is a separate step and not included within the role of 
monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation only goes as far 
as providing the information which defines the problem and which 
describes opportunities for solution. The subsequent determination as 
to whether an amendment or revision is triggered is based on the 
information provided through monitoring and evaluation. This 
determination is made available to the public in the annual monitoring 
and evaluation report that would be required by paragraph (e) of this 
proposed section.
    Paragraph (a)(2) provides additional instructions for developing 
monitoring and evaluation strategies. The proposed rule would make 
clear that strategies should be realistic and practicable to implement 
and should recognize possible fluctuations in funding. This paragraph 
also would assure that monitoring and evaluation efforts are designed 
at appropriate spatial scales and for appropriate timeframes.
    The agency recognizes that there will always be limitations on the 
funds and staff available to conduct monitoring and evaluation. One 
approach for enhancing efficiency is to assure that efforts are 
designed at the appropriate scales for appropriate timeframes. This 
will require close coordination of effort and careful planning, but 
such coordination is essential to prevent redundant efforts and to 
maximize the results obtained with limited funding.
    The provision of paragraph (a)(2) to recognize funding limitations 
is one of three provisions in this section which work together to 
address the issue of funding. The first provision is (a)(1)(v), which 
would require that priorities be set for monitoring and evaluation 
efforts in the strategy in order to identify monitoring and evaluation 
efforts 

[[Page 18912]]
associated with the management activities having the greatest potential 
risk to the environment. The second is paragraph (a)(2), which would 
direct monitoring and evaluation strategies to be designed recognizing 
that the type and intensity of efforts may need to vary depending on 
the availability of funds. The third related provision is paragraph 
(a)(3), which would require that, when funds are limited, the highest 
priority monitoring and evaluation activities be implemented first.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would require that the monitoring and 
evaluation strategy be available for public review and comment along 
with the proposed revised forest plan. This assures the public an 
opportunity to review the strategy at the time of revision just as 
would have been the case if it were contained in the forest plan. An 
important safeguard for ensuring that a timely monitoring and 
evaluation strategy is developed is the prohibition against approving a 
revised forest plan prior to approval of the monitoring and evaluation 
strategy. This provision would assure that there is no delay between 
finalizing a revised forest plan and having an approved monitoring and 
evaluation strategy. Finally, Station Director concurrence would be 
required when approving the strategy. This provision would help ensure 
that the monitoring and evaluation strategy is scientifically sound and 
would promote the involvement of the scientific community in 
development of these strategies.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) provides that updates may occur as needed 
and lists circumstances which might trigger an update. Proposed 
Sec. 219.12(c)(2) would make the Forest Supervisor responsible for 
updating monitoring and evaluation strategies as needed and would make 
clear that such updates do not require NEPA analysis. As previously 
noted, paragraph (c)(2) would require a 30-day period for public review 
and comment on proposed updates to a monitoring and evaluation 
strategy.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would promote coordination of monitoring 
and evaluation efforts, to the extent feasible, with other Federal 
agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, interested private 
landowners, the scientific community, and other interested parties. 
Such coordination offers opportunities to enhance open and ongoing 
communication, improve the information base for decisionmaking, reduce 
costs through shared efforts, and promote an ecological approach to 
resource management across jurisdictional boundaries.
    Paragraph (d)(2) would require the Regional Forester to be 
responsible for assuring that monitoring and evaluation needs which 
extend beyond a plan area are addressed and coordinated. This expands 
the role of the Regional Forester from that in the existing rule and 
clearly establishes the agency's intent to address monitoring and 
evaluation efforts at whatever scale is appropriate, rather than 
focusing on efforts within a plan area simply because monitoring and 
evaluation procedures have historically been forest plan decisions. The 
proposed rule intentionally would not provide detailed instructions on 
how this coordination is to be accomplished since the agency has not 
had extensive experience addressing monitoring and evaluation 
procedures at this scale and flexibility is needed in order to 
determine the best way to approach this task.
    Paragraph (d)(3) would create an integral and ongoing role for 
Forest Service research personnel in all phases of monitoring and 
evaluation. The intent is to provide a sound scientific basis for all 
monitoring and evaluation activities and to help promote interaction 
between researchers and land managers. Because the paragraph directs 
that research personnel should be involved in monitoring and evaluation 
to the extent practicable, there is recognition that there will be 
limits to the extent research staff are available for such efforts.
    Paragraph (e) of proposed Sec. 219.12 requires the Forest 
Supervisor to prepare an annual monitoring and evaluation report to be 
made available to the public, as well as transmitted to the Regional 
Forester and Station Director. This provision is intended to increase 
the accountability of the agency for conducting monitoring and 
evaluation and to enhance communication and involvement of the public. 
The seven items which would be included in the report assure that the 
public, Regional Forester, and Station Director are aware of the 
results of monitoring and evaluation efforts, the implications such 
results have for needing to change the plan or how it is being 
implemented, and any changes which have occurred during the year to the 
plan or monitoring and evaluation strategy.
    Paragraph (f) would limit implementation of projects if funds for 
associated monitoring and evaluation activities are not reasonably 
expected to be available. There is no comparable requirement in the 
existing rule. This represents another means by which the agency 
intends to increase its commitment to accomplishing monitoring and 
evaluation efforts. This limitation applies to those monitoring and 
evaluation activities specifically identified in a decision document 
associated with authorizing a site-specific project. In addition to 
assuring that monitoring and evaluation needs are considered at the 
time of project implementation, this provision should be an incentive 
to improve the manner in which monitoring and evaluation costs are 
integrated into project planning.
    The final paragraph of this section would make clear that none of 
the requirements for conducting and reporting on monitoring and 
evaluation preclude initiating an amendment or revision at any time.

Section 219.13  Statutory Timber Management Requirements

    This section describes those statutory planning requirements that 
affect the management and harvest of timber on National Forest System 
lands. Although most of the provisions of this section are directly 
responsive to specific requirements of NFMA, a few are discretionary. 
Those of a discretionary nature are identified in this preamble.
    With the agency's emphasis on integrating consideration of 
resources as part of ecosystem management, devoting an entire section 
of the proposed rule to the timber resource may seem inconsistent to 
many reviewers. The attention given to timber in this section, while 
possibly appearing to be out-of-balance with other resources, is 
generally the minimum needed to respond to the highly prescriptive 
requirements for timber management in NFMA. Enacted largely in response 
to timber-related issues in the mid-1970's, NFMA contains extensive 
specific direction regarding management of timber resources, much more 
so than for any other resource.
    Proposed Sec. 219.13(a) addresses reviews of timber suitability 
determinations. Section 6(k) of NFMA requires that lands not suited for 
timber production be identified in forest plans. Paragraphs (a) through 
(c) of this section address compliance with Section 6(k) of NFMA.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would address the NFMA requirement for 
the 10-year suitability review, and states that the 10-year review 
should normally occur as part of the revision process. When done as 
part of the revision process, the entire land base would be considered. 
In some case, however, it is possible that revision will not have 
occurred by the time the 10-year period has elapsed. In these cases, 
proposed 

[[Page 18913]]
paragraph (a)(1) would require the 10-year review to consider only the 
unsuitable lands, with all lands reviewed later at the time of 
revision.
    Although the statute does not require a review of the timber 
suitability determination for all lands at the time of revision, the 
agency believes it is appropriate to do so. This comprehensive review 
will assure that suitable lands are considered for possible 
reallocation to the unsuited land base rather than focusing only on 
whether unsuited lands should remain so designated. Proposed paragraph 
(a)(3) would clarify that the determination of timber suitability may 
be changed at any time through forest plan amendment.
    Proposed Sec. 219.13(b)(1) would direct that unsuited lands have a 
fixed location and that they should be identifiable on maps or by other 
readily recognizable means. This provision aims to assure that these 
lands can be located during project planning and is also intended to 
facilitate the 10-year review of unsuited lands. One of the problems 
with the current approach is that unsuited lands are sometimes 
designated on a forest-wide basis rather than identified with a 
specific location. For example, 20,000 acres out of a total of 55,000 
acres of a particular forest type may have been determined to be 
unsuited lands, but there is no delineation of which lands within the 
total are to be treated as unsuited. The location of the unsuited land 
will be clear if this proposed provision is adopted.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would require that management prescriptions be 
established to ensure that unsuited lands are managed in accordance 
with the three provisions of the proposed rule which are applicable to 
them. These include the requirement to limit timber harvesting except 
for salvage sales or other sales necessitated to protect other 
multiple-use values (Sec. 219.13(b)(4)), the provision to continue to 
reforest unsuited lands (Sec. 219.13(b)(5)), and the provision to allow 
exceptions to the five-year reforestation requirement when long-term 
openings are needed (Sec. 219.13(b)(3)(v)(B). All three of these 
provisions are in response to requirements of NFMA.
    Paragraph (b)(3) describes the five types of lands that are not 
suited for timber production. The first type is lands which have been 
withdrawn from harvest by an Act of Congress, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service. This is comparable to 
the requirement at Sec. 219.14(1)(a)(4) of the existing rule.
    The second exclusion is lands on which timber harvesting would 
violate statute, Executive order, or regulation. The third requirement 
would continue the exclusion of non-forested land, as is currently 
provided in Sec. 219.14(a)(1) of the existing rule.
    The fourth exclusion would be those lands where technology is not 
available for conducting timber harvesting without irreversible damage 
to soil and watershed conditions. This parallels a requirement at 
Section 6(g)(2)(E)(i) of NFMA and Sec. 219.14(a)(2) in the existing 
rule.
    The final exclusion would be those lands where there is not a 
reasonable assurance of adequate reforestation within five years after 
timber harvest. This parallels the requirement at Section 
6(g)(2)(e)(ii) of NFMA and Sec. 219.14(a)(3) of the existing rule. The 
proposed rule defines the five year period after final timber harvest 
to mean five years after clearcutting, after the last overstory removal 
of a shelterwood or seed tree cutting, or after selection cutting. In 
shelterwood or seed tree cuts, the entire existing overstory may never 
be removed, as trees may be left to provide for other considerations. 
Therefore, the time period begins when the last planned overstory 
removal is conducted. In selection cutting, the stand is left stocked 
with trees of varying age and size classes.
    There are two supplemental provisions associated with the five-year 
reforestation criterion. First, the rule specifies that research and 
experience are the basis for determining a reasonable assurance of 
restocking. Secondly, the five-year reforestation requirement would not 
prohibit creating openings for long-term purposes, such as wildlife 
habitat improvements, scenic vistas, recreation sites, or other similar 
uses.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would permit harvest from unsuitable 
lands only for salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect other 
multiple-use values. This requirement is based on the provisions of 
Section 6(k) of NFMA.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would affirm that lands not suited for 
timber production will continue to receive reforestation treatments to 
protect other multiple-use values as required by Section 6(k) of NFMA.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(6) would explicitly provide that the 
unsuited land base should not vary among the alternatives at the time 
of forest plan revision. This requirement is a major change from the 
existing regulation, and provides a good focal point for comparing 
differences in the determination of suitability under the proposed rule 
and the existing rule.
    The existing rule essentially has a three-step process. The first 
step in the existing rule is closely paralleled in the proposed rule, 
but the other two are not.
    The first step, described at Sec. 219.14(a) of the existing rule, 
defines four screening criteria fairly comparable to the six criteria 
described in the proposed rule. Thus, under the proposed rule, the 
unsuited land base would be quite similar to the land base identified 
as unsuited under the first screening step of the existing rule. This 
screening step does not differ substantially between alternatives, 
because the criteria are based on conditions or attributes which remain 
constant even if management objectives vary.
    The second step of the existing rule (Sec. 219.14(b)) requires an 
analysis which stratifies those lands not identified as unsuited in the 
first step. The stratification identifies lands with similar management 
costs and returns. Consistent with the intent of Sec. 219.8(b) to 
reduce standardized analysis requirements, there is no comparable 
requirement in the proposed rule.
    The third step in the existing rule (Sec. 219.14 (c) and (d)) 
screens lands out of the suitable land base based on the objectives of 
each alternative. More specifically, lands would be considered not 
suited for timber production if the multiple-use objectives for the 
alternative precluded timber production, if other management objectives 
imposed such limitations on timber harvest that requirements of 
Sec. 219.27 could not be met, or if the lands were not cost-efficient 
over the planning horizon in meeting forest objectives.
    This third step in the existing rule is also not paralleled in the 
process for identifying unsuited lands under the proposed rule. The 
proposed rule would address considerations comparable to the third step 
in the existing rule at paragraph (c), which would make clear that 
forest plan standards may be imposed on suited lands to prohibit or 
limit timber harvesting. Economic considerations or an allocation of 
land to uses incompatible with timber harvesting would be examples of 
reasons for imposing such standards on suited lands. In essence, 
paragraph (c) is fairly comparable to the third step of the process 
under the existing rule, except that paragraph (c) would limit 
harvesting by imposing standards on the suited land base rather than 
declaring those lands to be unsuited for timber production.

[[Page 18914]]

    In association with the change in determining unsuitable lands, the 
proposed rule would alter the land base for calculating the allowable 
sale quantity (ASQ) from that used in the existing rule. In the 
existing rule, the entire suitable land base is used in calculating the 
ASQ. Under the proposed rule, as described at Sec. 219.13(d)(1)(i), 
only those suited lands on which planned periodic entry for timber is 
allowed over time would be included in ASQ calculations; i.e., if 
standards have been imposed which are incompatible with timber 
harvesting over the long-term, then those lands are excluded from the 
land base used to calculate the ASQ. For example, if a corridor along a 
scenic hiking trail is allocated to a prescription that does not allow 
timber harvesting in order to protect scenic values, then the lands 
would be in the suited land base but would not be included in ASQ 
calculations.
    It is noteworthy that the proposed rule would limit the land base 
for ASQ calculations to those lands available for planned periodic 
entries. Lands would not be included in the ASQ calculations if only a 
one-time harvest were planned but not planned periodic entries. For 
example, if a salvage harvest was planned to occur during the plan 
period in an area where harvest would not otherwise occur nor be 
planned for future decades, then those lands would be excluded from ASQ 
calculations.
    Another notable change between the existing rule and proposed rule 
as related to timber suitability is the rule of economics. In contrast 
to the existing rule which addresses the economics of harvesting as 
part of the timber suitability determination, the proposed rule would 
address the economics of harvesting in the forest plan through 
establishment of forest plan standards or guidelines.
    Section 6(k) of NFMA states that unsuitable lands are to be 
identified ``* * * considering physical, economic, and other pertinent 
factors to the extent feasible, as determined by the Secretary * * *'' 
Although the agency agrees that economics is an important consideration 
in determining whether lands should be harvested, experience has proven 
that it is not feasible to effectively factor in economics as part of 
the 10-year timber suitability determination. Therefore, in light of 
the latitude provided by NFMA, the agency is proposing to address 
economic considerations by means other than the timber suitability 
process.
    There are various reasons for this change. First, economic 
conditions fluctuate greatly during the course of a plan period. One 
year a certain area of land or species may be uneconomic to harvest, 
and another year market conditions may have changed to where the same 
area or species would be greatly in demand. This makes it difficult to 
meaningfully assess the economics of harvesting a particular site over 
a 10-year period.
    Also, it is generally accepted that the net value of the timber 
sale program must be considered as a whole rather than by only 
evaluating individual timber sales in isolation, since some sales of 
low value are offset by other higher value sales. The timber program 
also must be viewed with consideration of non-market contributions, 
such as enhanced hunting use, and not strictly timber sale costs and 
receipts. These considerations further add to the difficulty of using 
the process for identifying unsuited lands in forest plans as an 
effective and timely means by which economic considerations are 
addressed.
    In contrast to using timber suitability determinations to address 
economic considerations, the agency believes they can be adequately 
addressed through other means. For example, forest plan standards can 
be established to limit harvesting due to economic reasons. Therefore, 
if harvest limitations are deemed appropriate due to economics, the 
option exists to use them. In addition, economic considerations can be 
considered as part of the program development and budget process. This 
would allow timely adjustment of annual harvest programs, within the 
limitations imposed by forest plan standards, based on such factors as 
fluctuating economic conditions. Also, the economics of harvesting any 
particular site can be considered as part of the project decision to 
approve harvest of the area.
    The agency believes there are four major advantages to the entire 
set of changes being proposed to the process for determining timber 
suitability. First, under the proposed rule, suitability determinations 
are much simpler and more efficient to conduct, and yet there is no 
compromise of the ability to exclude lands from timber harvest or from 
calculation of the ASQ. Secondly, the 10-year review will be completed 
more quickly, reducing the diversion of time and energy from revision 
efforts which are generally expected to be occurring at the same time. 
Third, it allows unsuited lands to be readily identifiable, making it 
easier for both the public and agency personnel to locate those lands 
when designing projects. Finally, it allows economic factors to be 
considered in a more effective and timely manner while reducing an 
analysis step that has not proven highly beneficial.
    In order to assure that the availability of lands for timber 
harvest is readily evident despite the proposed change in process for 
determining suitability, proposed paragraph (c) would require an 
appendix to display the number of acres of suitable lands where 
standards have been imposed prohibiting or limiting timber harvest as 
well as the number of acres where such limitations do not apply. This 
is not part of the suitability determination, but does provide 
information comparable to what is currently available in forest plans 
as part of the timber suitability information.
    Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the allowable sale quantity and 
makes clear that the ASQ is neither a projection of future sale levels 
nor a target to be achieved. Although this position is well supported 
in case law, there has been widespread misunderstanding that the ASQ is 
a target level for timber production from a National Forest. The 
proposed rule would make clear this is not the case.
    Proposed Sec. 219.13(d)(1) sets out procedures for calculating the 
allowable sale quantity (ASQ). As stated at (d)(1)(i) of the proposed 
rule, the land base for ASQ calculations would be limited to suitable 
lands on which planned periodic timber harvest is allowed over time.
    Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) explains the role of the long-term sustained 
yield timber capacity (LTSYTC) when calculating the ASQ. The LTSYTC is 
defined at Sec. 219.2 and represents the highest uniform wood yield 
that may be sustained in perpetuity consistent with the forest plan.
    Consistent with Section 13 of NFMA, the chargeable timber volume 
which can be sold for a decade cannot exceed the LTSYTC except where 
necessary to meet overall multiple-use objectives. An example of such a 
departure may be in the case of a forest having severe forest health 
problems, where accelerated silvicultural manipulations and accelerated 
timber harvest are critical to its ecological restoration.
    Under the proposed rule, the land base for calculating the LTSYTC 
would be calculated using the same lands and forest plan standards used 
to determine the ASQ. Where two or more proclaimed National Forests are 
included in the forest plan, the proportionate contribution of each 
National Forest to the total ASQ for the plan area cannot exceed the 
LTSYTC for each corresponding proclaimed National Forest. In order to 
assure this 

[[Page 18915]]
would not happen, a non-interchangeable component could be defined in 
accordance with (d)(3) of this section. This limitation on the 
chargeable volume that can be sold for a decade from a proclaimed 
National Forest does not apply where the proclaimed National Forest has 
fewer than 200,000 acres of land suited for timber production. These 
provisions are based on the requirements of Section 13 of NFMA, and do 
not vary from the existing situation, although the existing rule does 
not address this to the same degree of detail.
    Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would continue a non-declining flow 
requirement. When a new ASQ is determined, it may be higher, lower, or 
the same as the current ASQ. Such fluctuations might be caused by such 
factors as changes in the suitable land base, new standards, or revised 
timber growth and yield projections. However, whatever level is 
established for the decade of the plan must be capable of being 
sustained or increased during subsequent decades, with exceptions only 
to meet overall multiple-use goals. This limitation is intended to help 
assure that harvesting will not occur at so high a rate in the short-
term that decline is inevitable in the future, unless such a decline is 
recognized as being necessary to meet multiple-use goals. An example of 
when such an exception might be appropriate would, once again, be in 
the case of a forest having severe health problems, where higher levels 
may be beneficial in the short-term in order to correct imbalances of 
the forest structure and promote ecological restoration, but with lower 
harvest levels planned once the restoration phase was complete.
    Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) is a requirement of Section 6(g)(3)(D) of NFMA 
and would require that, when the ASQ is being recalculated, any 
predicted yields based on intensive management must be reduced if such 
practices have not been successfully implemented or adequate funds have 
not been received to continue substantially as planned. This statutory 
limitation is intended to help safeguard against over-estimating the 
ASQ due to faulty yield projections.
    Paragraph (d)(2) would clarify that only the timber volume included 
in the growth and yield projections to determine the ASQ is chargeable 
to the ASQ. Excluded would be the volume from timber classes not 
included in the projections, such as merchantable dead timber.
    Paragraph (d)(3) would allow for the establishment of non-
interchangeable components (NIC's). NIC's allow for separating discrete 
quantities of the ASQ into individually accountable categories. The 
proposed rule would stipulate that chargeable timber volume from one 
NIC cannot be substituted for the achievement of the volume limit of 
another NIC. In addition, such components would be required where 
management prescriptions for roadless areas allow planned periodic 
entries over time for timber harvest. Establishment of NIC's is not 
limited to roadless areas, however. On forests where the product or 
species mix is deemed important, the use of NIC's provides a means to 
maintain the intended balance.
    The provision for roadless area NIC's is intended to help reduce 
the pressure to over-harvest areas outside of roadless areas if 
anticipated timber production from roadless areas does not materialize. 
Although the proposed rule would make clear at paragraph (d) of this 
section that the ASQ is not a target or projection of future harvest 
levels, this requirement to establish NIC's for roadless areas is 
intended to further reinforce this idea and to help to reduce erroneous 
expectations regarding the role of the ASQ. In addition, other forest 
plan standards serve to prevent over-harvesting anywhere in the plan 
area.
    Paragraph (d)(4) addresses a provision of Section 13(b) of NFMA and 
clarifies that the ASQ may not be used to limit the harvesting of 
timber for salvage or sanitation purposes or for harvesting timber 
stands substantially damaged by fire, wind or other catastrophe, or 
which are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack. If such 
timber volume were included in the calculation of the ASQ, it may be 
substituted for timber volume that would otherwise have been sold under 
the plan. If the sanitation/salvage timber volume had not been included 
in the calculation of ASQ, or if it had and it is infeasible to 
substitute it for other volume, it can be sold over and above the ASQ.
    Paragraph (e) responds to the requirements of Section 6(m) of NFMA 
and would require that all even-aged stands scheduled for harvest 
during the planning period will generally have reached the culmination 
of mean annual increment (CMAI) of growth unless certain listed 
exceptions apply. This paragraph is similar to the existing rule, 
except that any change to a forest plan to permit exceptions must be 
made through a major amendment or done at the time of plan revision 
(see Sec. 219.9(b)(1)(iii)).
    Proposed paragraph (f) would address the selection of cutting 
methods. It would make clear that the determination of the appropriate 
harvest method is to be made at the project level. This has been a 
source of considerable confusion in the past, with many administrative 
appeals received by the agency questioning the adequacy of the analysis 
associated with a forest plan to support the selection of cutting 
methods. The proposed rule is consistent with numerous court decisions 
that confirm such decisions are made at the project level rather than 
in the forest plan. (For example, Sierra Club v. Robertson, 810 F. 
Supp. 1021, 1026 (W.D. Ark 1992) aff'd 28 F 3d 753, 760 (8th Cir. 
1994)).
    Paragraph (f) also responds to the requirement of NFMA at Section 
6(g)(3)(F)(i) which limits the use of clearcutting to those cases where 
it is determined to be the optimum method. The existing rule does not 
address what was meant by optimum. Paragraph (f) would establish seven 
purposes for which clearcutting can be used, provided it is the optimum 
method and the only practical method for meeting one or more of the 
purposes. These provisions reflect the agency's intent to continue to 
reduce the amount of clearcutting from levels which have historically 
occurred, tailoring its use to those situations which meet the purposes 
listed. Over the past several years, the agency has already 
substantially reduced its use of clearcutting.
    Paragraph (g) would require that the forest plan establish the 
maximum size of areas that can be clearcut in one harvest operation. 
This is in response to Section 6(g)(3)(F)(iv) of NFMA. Exceptions are 
allowed for natural catastrophes, or limits established by the Regional 
Forester on a project basis after public notice. Currently, harvest 
size limitations are found in the existing rule and regional guides, 
but regional guides would no longer be maintained under the proposed 
rule. In light of the fact that research findings on the effects of 
harvest size have changed and are likely to continue to change over 
time, it is not appropriate to include such prescriptive direction in 
this proposed rule. By addressing such limitations in the forest plan, 
even though they are not applied until the project level, the 
constraints are integrated with other resource decisions for the plan 
area and the public is assured the opportunity to review and comment 
when they are adopted or changed.
    Paragraph (h) would direct the shaping and blending of even-aged 
harvest methods with the natural terrain to the extent possible in 
order to ameliorate the visual impacts of such practices. It addresses 
NFMA Section 6(g)(3)(F)(iii) and is less detailed than the requirements 
of 219.27(d)(1) of the existing rule.

[[Page 18916]]

    Paragraph (i) would assure that timber is only harvested where soil 
and water can be adequately protected. This provision is based on 
Section 6(g)(E)(iii) of NFMA.
    Paragraph (j) would require certain displays of timber-related 
information that must be included in forest plan appendices. This 
information is expected to be of interest to the public and provides a 
concise summary of various timber-related analyses or decisions. Items 
(i)(1) and (i)(2) are intended to help summarize the availability of 
lands for timber harvest, while (i)(3) and (i)(4) provide information 
to assure NFMA requirements have been met. The proportion of probable 
timber harvest methods forest-wide is required to be included by 
Section 6(f)(2) of NFMA.
Section 219.14  Special Designations

    The purpose of this section is to ensure that forest plans include 
all of the relevant direction (goals, objectives, standards, and 
guidelines as described at proposed Sec. 219.6) for lands within the 
plan area, including those with special designations which may have 
been evaluated through other planning processes as required by statute. 
The existing rule addresses only two special designations, research 
natural areas and wilderness. The proposed rule seeks to integrate 
direction for all specially designated areas into forest plans to the 
extent possible.
    Paragraph (a) would explain that forest plan amendment or revision 
is the mechanism to allocate specific areas to prescriptions for 
special designations, or to recommend special designation by higher 
authorities. Various examples of special designations are also 
provided.
    Paragraph (b) would require that roadless, undeveloped areas be 
evaluated for wilderness designation during forest plan revision unless 
Federal legislation directs otherwise. Roadless, undeveloped areas are 
defined to be at least 5,000 acres in size unless contiguous to 
existing or Administration-endorsed units of the National Wilderness 
Preservation System. Due to the differing conditions in the eastern 
part of the country, a provision is added so that the size limitation 
would not apply east of the 100th meridian.
    These provisions of the proposed rule differ somewhat from the 
existing rule. Most notably, the proposed rule is more specific by 
defining roadless areas in terms of a 5,000-acre minimum for areas in 
the western part of the country. This size criterion has been agency 
policy as described in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 7.11, but is not in the 
existing rule. In contrast, the existing rule provides criteria for 
evaluating roadless areas, whereas the proposed rule does not, because 
the agency believes such detailed procedural instructions are better 
suited for the Directive System.
    It should be noted that nothing in paragraph (b) precludes 
consideration of roadless areas for the full range of management 
options. Although wilderness designation must be one of the options 
considered, roadless areas are also subject to consideration for 
various other uses or degrees of protection, not unlike the case for 
most portions of the plan area.
    Paragraph (c) of this section would provide for evaluation of a 
river's eligibility for wild, scenic, or recreation river designation 
during revision if legislation requires such an evaluation or if the 
river was not evaluated under criteria set forth in July of 1987 in 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12. Although many forests have evaluated 
their rivers under these criteria, many have not. This provision is 
designed to assure that all potential wild, scenic, or recreation 
rivers are evaluated under the same set of criteria. Although wild, 
scenic, and recreation rivers were not addressed in the existing rule, 
the proposed rule includes them since recommendations for river 
designation, as is the case for wilderness, are made in forest plans 
with the final decision made by the Congress.
    Paragraph (d) would reinforce the central role of forest plans by 
requiring that any requirements for additional planning for special 
areas must be met through forest plans, unless certain identified 
exceptions exist. This is comparable to Sec. 219.2(a) of the existing 
rule and is intended to assure that special area planning is integrated 
with forest plans.
    The proposed rule would specifically require that goals, 
objectives, standards, or guidelines from special area plans be 
incorporated into forest plans to maintain the role of the forest plan 
as the central source of local direction as well as to provide a basis 
for determining project consistency.

Section 219.15  Applicability and Transition

    This section provides for an orderly transition from the existing 
rule adopted in 1982 to the proposed rule. Paragraph (a) would 
establish that the proposed rule would apply to the entire National 
Forest System. Although terms such as ``National Forest,'' ``forest'' 
or ``forest plan'' have been used within the proposed rule and 
preamble, this does not limit applicability of the rule to only the 
National Forest components of the National Forest System. For example, 
the National Forest System includes National Forests, National 
Grasslands, Purchase Units, Land Utilization Projects, Experimental 
Forests, Experimental Range, Experimental Areas, and other areas. The 
applicability of the proposed rule to the National Forest System does 
not differ from the existing rule.
    Paragraph (b) would address those situations where an initial 
forest plan has not been approved at the time the new rule becomes 
effective. At this time, there are four National Forests where a forest 
plan has not yet been approved; these are the Klamath, Mendocino, 
Shasta-Trinity, and Six Rivers National Forests, all in the Pacific 
Southwest Region (R-5) (California). The new rule would not apply to 
development of initial forest plans. Therefore, paragraph (b) provides 
for unfinished forest plans to be completed under the previous planning 
rule as adopted in 1982. As a result, there would be consistent 
regulatory guidance for development of all initial forest plans and no 
disruption of the planning process for any unfinished plans. Upon 
approval of those forest plans, the provisions of the proposed rule 
would then apply to future amendments and revisions.
    Paragraph (c) would make clear that forest plans that are already 
approved remain in effect until amended or revised. This provision is 
intended to prevent any uncertainty as to the status of existing forest 
plans.
    Paragraph (d) would make clear that forest plans need not be 
amended in order to comply with requirements of the new rule prior to 
the forest plan being revised in accordance with the new rule. This 
provision is included because the agency does not intend for the new 
rule to immediately trigger either the amendment or revision of forest 
plans. It would be disruptive, expensive, and impractical to 
immediately undertake changes to every forest plan in order to adjust 
to the newly effective rule.
    Paragraph (e) allows development of the displays required at 
Sec. 219.11(d)(1)-(2) and Sec. 219.13(j) to be delayed until the forest 
plan is revised in accordance with the rules of this subpart.
    Paragraph (f) makes clear that the first annual monitoring and 
evaluation report would be required one fiscal year following adoption 
of the final rule. This time period allows forests time to plan for and 
organize work needed to produce the first annual monitoring and 
evaluation report. Such reports would be developed using the results of 
monitoring and evaluation activities 

[[Page 18917]]
described in existing forest plans, since most Forests will not have 
the newly required monitoring and evaluation strategies developed until 
the forest plan is revised.
    Paragraph (g) addresses how the transition process would occur 
regarding usage of ``standards'' and ``guidelines'' as defined in the 
proposed rule. Many existing forest plans do not distinguish between 
``standards'' and ``guidelines'' in the same manner as described in the 
proposed rule at Sec. 219.6 (e) and (f). In addition, it would not be 
mandatory for each forest plan to be changed to distinguish between 
``standards'' and ``guidelines'' until the time of revision. As a 
result, it would be appropriate to implement the provision of proposed 
Sec. 219.11(a), which would require project consistency determinations 
to be based on adherence to ``standards,'' or the provision of 
Sec. 219.9(b)(1)(i), which would require major amendment when modifying 
forest plan standards, without recognizing and providing for the impact 
of this proposed change in terminology.
    Under the provisions of paragraph (g), until such time as a forest 
plan were amended or revised to distinguish between ``standards'' and 
``guidelines'' in accordance with the terminology defined in the 
proposed rule, the words used in each existing ``standard'' or 
``guideline'' in the current plan would be used to determine whether it 
is mandatory. More specifically, many current forest plans contain a 
mix of ``standards'' and ``guidelines,'' of which only some are 
mandatory. For example, statements using ``must'' or ``shall'' are 
mandatory in nature and would generally be comparable to a ``standard'' 
in the proposed rule. In contrast, statements using ``may,'' 
``should,'' or ``ought'' provide the flexibility comparable to a 
``guideline'' in the proposed rule.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1) continues existing agency policy that 
project consistency determinations are based on whether project 
decisions adhere to mandatory standards or guidelines. This should 
provide a smooth transition to the new rule.
    Paragraph (g)(2) describes instructions for determining if a future 
amendment is considered ``major'' during the transitional period before 
a forest plan has been revised. The triggers for a major amendment that 
apply during the transition period differ somewhat from both the 
existing rule and the provisions at Sec. 219.9(b)(1) of the proposed 
rule. The provisions of proposed (219.9(b)(1) would apply only after 
forest plans have been amended or revised to fully comply with the new 
terminology. During the transition period before the plan has been 
changed to be in full compliance with the new terminology, the 
provisions of Sec. 219.15(g)(2) would apply.
    In accordance with Sec. 219.15(g), two circumstances must exist 
simultaneously for a major amendment to be triggered during the 
transition period; i.e., prior to a forest plan being amended or 
revised to be in full compliance with the new usage of standards. 
First, the amendment must change standards or guidelines in the current 
forest plan which are mandatory. Since many current forest plans do not 
distinguish between standards and guidelines, there may be mandatory 
requirements labelled as guidelines in current plans. Thus, the 
determination during the transition period focuses on whether the 
change is to a mandatory provision rather than whether it is labelled 
as a standard or guideline. In accordance with Sec. 219.6(f), this 
won't be necessary once a forest plan has been revised because there 
would be no mandatory requirements labelled as guidelines. If, during 
the transition period a new mandatory requirement was established, such 
a change to the forest plan would trigger a major amendment.
    The second circumstance which must also occur is that the proposed 
change to a mandatory standard or guideline would result in a 
significant change to the forest plan and those changes are predicted 
to affect resources over a large portion of the plan area during the 
remainder of the plan period. This is comparable to one of the 
circumstances currently defined in FMS 1922.52 for significant 
amendment.
    If both of these circumstances occur, a major amendment would be 
triggered during the transition period. This amendment would be 
conducted in accordance with the procedures for major amendment in the 
new rule, however. It should be noted that many changes to current 
forest plan standards may not affect resources over a large portion of 
the plan area during the remainder of the plan period. For example, if 
the forest plan was scheduled to undergo revision soon, there might be 
few, if any, changes that could affect resources over a large portion 
of the plan area within a short period of time. Even though the new or 
modified standard might apply over the entire plan area, resources on-
the-ground might not actually be affected if the standard was not going 
to be in place very long before revision would be initiated. Thus, some 
changes to standards might not meet the threshold of triggering a major 
amendment during this transition period.
    The intent of this transition procedure is to begin shifting the 
emphasis away from changes in output levels and towards recognizing the 
important role of forest plan standards when determining if a change 
triggers a major amendment. At the same time, it is designed to 
recognize that the change in terminology between the existing rule and 
proposed rule makes it unrealistic to implement the new approach 
defined at Sec. 219(b)(1)(i) immediately.
    In addition to the requirements related to changing a standard, a 
major amendment would be triggered during the transition period if the 
chargeable timber volume which can be sold for a decade from a 
proclaimed National Forest were established that exceeded the long-term 
sustained yield capacity of the Forest, or if harvest of even-aged 
stands were permitted before culmination of mean annual increment. Both 
of these provisions are identical to the provisions of Sec. 219.9(b)(1) 
(ii) and (iii). They are applicable during the transition period to 
ensure that the public involvement requirements of NFMA are met as 
required by the statute for changes of this nature.
    Proposed paragraph (h) would address how the new rule would be 
applied when a significant amendment or revision is already in progress 
as indicated by issuance of a Notice of Intent. At the time of adoption 
of a final rule, one of two scenarios could occur. If a draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS) has not yet been published, the 
new rule must be adopted. If a DEIS has been published, it is the 
Regional Forester's option to decide whether to continue under the 
previous planning rule or to apply the new rule. In those case where 
the new rule is adopted, paragraph (h) also provides direction so that 
the Regional Forester can avoid delaying ongoing processes.
    Paragraph (h) is intended to promote prompt application of the new 
rule. However, it would be unnecessarily disruptive and expensive to 
impose a new regulation on ongoing significant amendment or revision 
efforts nearing completion. Similarly, paragraph (h) is intended to 
allow ongoing efforts which are subject to the new rule to proceed as 
smoothly as possible. It would be largely redundant, time-consuming, 
and confusing to the public to require various procedural steps in the 
processes for amendment or revision to be repeated or accomplished in 
accordance with the new rule when the effort has already proceeded past 
the 

[[Page 18918]]
point where those steps are in a logical sequence.
    Paragraph (i) of the proposed rule would provide for the withdrawal 
of regional guides within three years of adoption of the final rule. 
The reasons for eliminating regional guides were explained earlier in 
the discussion of proposed Sec. 219.5. Paragraph (i) also would require 
that the Regional Guide for the Pacific Southwest Region (R-5) be 
maintained in accordance with the requirements of the existing rule 
until the remaining unfinished plans in that Region are approved. In 
all other Regions, regional guides would be withdrawn within 3 years 
from adoption of the final rule. The Pacific Southwest Region would 
need to maintain its regional guide in order to direct development of 
unfinished forest plans. The Pacific Southwest Regional Guide would be 
withdrawn within 3 years from approval of the last forest plan in 
Region 5. In addition, paragraph (i) would authorize the Chief of the 
Forest Service to extend any regional guide beyond the 3-year period in 
extenuating circumstances.
    Paragraph (j) assures that forest plans address limitations on the 
size of openings (Sec. 219.13(g)) prior to withdrawal of the regional 
guide. The establishment of size limitations is a requirement of NFMA 
and is currently addressed in regional guides and the existing rule. 
This provision will assure that there is no gap in having such 
direction in place during the transition to the new rule.
    The transition procedures of this proposed rule reflect current 
circumstances regarding the status of forest planning efforts 
nationwide and the nature of proposed changes to the existing rule. To 
the extent that these or other circumstances are different at the time 
the final rule is adopted, the agency may have to adopt different 
transitional procedures in order to assure the most practical, 
efficient, and timely transition possible.

Conforming Amendments

    The administrative appeal process for forest plans is set out in a 
separate rule at 36 CFR part 217, and the administrative appeal process 
for project decisions is set out at 36 CFR part 215. Due to the nature 
of changes being proposed to 36 CFR part 219, amendments would need to 
be made to these appeal rules in order for them to conform to the 
changes proposed to part 219. First, the terms ``nonsignificant 
amendment'' and ``significant amendment'' would be replaced by the 
terms ``minor amendment'' and ``major amendment'' wherever they occur 
in parts 215 and 217. Second, Sec. 217.3(b) would be removed to exclude 
regional guides from being subject to administrative appeal since these 
documents would not be retained under proposed revisions to part 219. 
Third, the heading of part 217 would be amended to remove reference to 
regional guides and read: Appeal of National Forest Land and Resource 
Management Plans. Finally, Sec. 217.3(a)(1) and Sec. 217.4 would be 
amended to exclude interim amendments from being subject to 
administrative appeal.

Conclusion

    The Forest Service invites individuals, organizations, and public 
agencies and governments to comment on this proposed rule. To aid the 
analysis of comments, it would be helpful if reviewers would key their 
comments to specific proposed sections or topics. Respondents also 
should know that in analyzing and considering comments, the Forest 
Service will give more weight to substantive comments than to simple 
``yes,'' ``no,'' or ``check off'' responses to form letter/
questionnaire-type submissions.

Regulatory Impact

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 on 
Regulatory Planning and Review. The agency has determined that this 
proposed rule is a significant regulatory action subject to Office of 
Management and Budget review. However, this proposed rule does not have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605 et seq).

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 
5 CFR 1320 and, therefore, imposes no paperwork burden on the public. 
Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 
do not apply.

Environmental Impact

    This proposed rule would establish procedures for land and resource 
management planning for National Forest System lands. Section 31.1b of 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180; September 18, 1992) 
excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact 
statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide 
administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.'' The 
agency's preliminary assessment is that this rule falls within this 
category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which 
would require preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement. A final determination will be made upon 
adoption of the final rule.

Civil Justice Reform Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, 
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule were adopted, (1) all state 
and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this proposed 
rule or which would impede its full implementation would be preempted; 
(2) no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and (3) 
it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file 
suite in court challenging its provisions.

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 215

    Administrative practice and procedure, and National forests.

36 CFR Part 217

    Administrative practice and procedure, and National forests.

36 CFR Part 219

    Environmental impact statements, Land and resource management 
planning, and National forests.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is 
proposed to amend parts 215, 217, and 219 of Title 36 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 215--NOTICE, COMMENT, AND APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL 
FOREST SYSTEM PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES

    1. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 551; sec. 322, Pub. L. 102-381, 106 
Stat. 1419 (16 U.S.C. 1612 note).

    2. Amend Secs. 215.1(a) and 215.3(c) by removing the term 
``nonsignificant amendments'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term 
``minor amendments''.
    2a. Amend Secs. 215.4(e) and 215.7(a) by removing the term 
``nonsignificant amendment'' and adding the term ``minor amendment''.
    3. Amend Sec. 215.8(a)(1) by removing the term ``significant 
amendment'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term ``major 
amendment''.

[[Page 18919]]


PART 217--APPEAL OF NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 
PLANS

    4. Revise the heading for part 217 to read as set out above.
    5. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as 
follows:

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

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


Sec. 217.3  Decisions subject to appeal.

    (a) The decisions subject to appeal under this part are decisions 
to approve, amend through major amendment or minor amendment, or revise 
a National Forest Land and Resource Management plan, except when a 
decision to authorize a specific project or activity includes a minor 
amendment to the forest plan as described in 36 CFR 219.9(c)(5).
* * * * *
    7. Amend Sec. 217.4(a) by removing the term ``non-significant 
amendment'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term ``minor 
amendment''.


Secs. 217.8 and 217.15  [Amended]

    7a. Amend Secs. 217.8(a)(2) and 217.15(a) by removing the term 
``non-significant amendments'' and adding the term ``minor 
amendments''.


Sec. 217.10  [Amended]

    8. Amend Sec. 217.10(i) by removing the term ``significant 
amendment'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term ``major 
amendment''.


Sec. 217.15  [Amended]

    8a. Amend Sec. 217.15(a) by removing ``significant amendments'' and 
adding ``major amendments''.
    9. Add paragraph (d) to Sec. 217.4 to read as follows:


Sec. 217.4  Decisions not subject to appeal.

* * * * *
    (d) Decisions to amend a forest plan by interim amendment.
    10. Revise part 219 to read as follows:

PART 219--PLANNING

Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
Sec.
219.1  Purpose and principles.
219.2  Definitions.
219.3  Relationships with the public and government entities.
219.4  Sustainability of ecosystems.
219.5  Framework for resource decisionmaking.
219.6  Forest plan direction.
219.7  Ecosystem analysis.
219.8  Interdisciplinary teams and information needs.
219.9  Forest plan amendments.
219.10  Forest plan revision.
219.11  Forest plan implementation.
219.12  Monitoring and evaluation.
219.13  Statutory timber management requirements.
219.14  Special designations.
219.15  Applicability and transition.

Subpart B--[Reserved]

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; and Secs. 6 and 15, 90 Stat. 2949, 
2952, 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613).

Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management 
Planning


Sec. 219.1  Purpose and principles.

    (a) This subpart describes the procedures for fulfilling the 
requirements for land and resource management planning as set forth in 
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 
(hereafter, ``RPA'') as amended by the National Forest Management Act 
of 1976 (hereafter, ``NFMA'') (16 U.S.C. 1604 et seq.) Specifically, 
the rules in this subpart are intended to:
    (1) Describe the agency's framework for National Forest System 
resource decisionmaking;
    (2) Incorporate principles of ecosystem management;
    (3) Establish requirements for implementation, monitoring, 
evaluation, amendment, and revision of forest plans; and
    (4) Articulate the relationship between resource decisionmaking and 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4321) (hereafter ``NEPA'') and implementing NEPA procedures (see 
definition at Sec. 219.2).
    (b) The following principles guide National Forest System resource 
decisionmaking and management:
    (1) The National Forest System is managed to provide sustainable 
ecosystems which yield multiple benefits to present and future 
generations.
    (2) People are a part of ecosystems; meeting people's needs and 
desires within the capacities of natural systems is a primary role of 
resource decisionmaking.
    (3) Ecosystems occur at many spatial scales and are dynamic in 
nature, creating a need for planning processes that are flexible in 
geographic scope and that consider the ecological changes that occur 
over time.
    (4) Ecosystems cross land ownerships, jurisdictions, and 
administrative boundaries. Therefore, planning efforts for National 
Forest System lands should be coordinated with other landowners, other 
Federal agencies, and State, local, and tribal governments in a manner 
that respects private property rights and the jurisdictions of other 
government entities.
    (5) Involving the public in National Forest System planning and 
decisionmaking on an ongoing, open, and equitable basis is essential.
    (6) The scientific community, including Forest Service researchers, 
should play a vital role in gathering and analyzing information for 
resource decisionmaking.
    (7) The National Forest System should be managed in a manner that 
optimizes net public benefits, considering both qualitative and 
quantitative criteria.
    (8) The forest planning process should provide for efficient 
adjustment of forest plans in response to changing conditions and new 
information.
    (9) NEPA procedures define the analysis process used for resource 
decisionmaking; such analysis should be commensurate with the scope and 
nature of the decisions being made.
    (10) Knowledge of ecosystems will never be complete; therefore, 
uncertainty is inherent in resource decisionmaking. Nevertheless, 
decisionmaking must proceed using an adaptive management approach, 
which incorporates applicable science and the best available 
information.


Sec. 219.2  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart, the following terms mean:
    Allowable sale quantity. The maximum quantity of chargeable timber 
volume that may be sold within a decade from the plan area.
    Catastrophic event. A sudden event causing widespread or intense 
destruction or devastation of resources, ecological conditions, or man-
made features. Catastrophic events include natural phenomena such as 
wildfire, hurricanes, tornados, floods, or earthquakes as well as 
events caused by human actions such as large chemical or oil spills.
    Category 1 candidate species. Taxa:
    (1) For which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has on 
file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) 
to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species;
    (2) Which appear in a notice of review containing the names of the 
species considered to be candidates for listing under the Endangered 
Species Act, which is published in the Federal Register by the USFWS, 
in accordance with 50 CFR 424.15, and is available at the office of the 
Forest Supervisor or the Regional Forester (36 CFR 200.2); and
    (3) For which the USFWS has not yet published proposed rules to 
list as 

[[Page 18920]]
endangered or threatened species because such action is precluded at 
present by other listing activity.
    Category 2 candidate species. Taxa:
    (1) For which information in the possession of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicates that proposing to list them as 
endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which 
persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threat are not 
currently available to support publication of proposed rules; and
    (2) Which appear in a notice of review containing the names of the 
species considered to be candidates for listing under the Endangered 
Species Act, which is published in the Federal Register by the USFWS, 
in accordance with 50 CFR 424.15, and is available at the office of the 
Forest Supervisor or the Regional Forester (36 CFR 200.2).
    Chargeable timber volume. All volume included in the growth and 
yield projections used to calculate the allowable sale quantity.
    Conservation agreement. A formal written document agreed to by the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service 
and another Federal agency, State, local, tribal government, or the 
private sector to achieve the conservation of a species through 
voluntary cooperation.
    Culmination of mean annual increment. The age at which the average 
annual growth is greatest for a stand of trees, with growth usually 
expressed in terms of cubic foot measure and calculated to include 
regeneration harvest yields and removals from intermediate stand 
treatments.
    Decision document. A Record of Decision, Decision Notice, or 
Decision Memo which is signed by the responsible official and which, in 
compliance with NEPA procedures, identifies the decision being made and 
the rationale for the decision.
    Directive. Policy, practice, and procedure issued through the 
Forest Service Directive System to guide the work of agency employees.
    Directive System. The administrative system composed of the Forest 
Service Manual and Handbooks by which internal agency policy, practice, 
and procedure are established, issued, and stored.
    Ecosystem analysis. A broad term used to denote various 
interdisciplinary studies conducted to provide information on and 
enhance an understanding of the physical, biological, social, and/or 
economic aspects and interactions of an ecosystem.
    Ecosystem management. A concept of natural resources management 
wherein National Forest activities are considered within the context of 
economic, ecological, and social interactions within a defined area or 
region over both short- and long-term.
    Environmental assessment. A concise document prepared in compliance 
with NEPA procedures that serves to briefly provide sufficient evidence 
and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact 
statement or for making a finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 
1508.9).
    Environmental impact statement. A detailed document prepared in 
compliance with NEPA procedures when a Federal action will have a 
significant impact on the human environment (40 CFR 1508.11).
    Even-aged stand. A distinguishable group of trees of essentially 
the same age. The difference in age among trees forming the main canopy 
level of the stand usually does not exceed 20 percent of the age of the 
stand at harvest rotation age.
    Forest Supervisor. An individual responsible to the Regional 
Forester for management of one or more National Forests, National 
Grasslands, or other components of the National Forest System.
    Forested land. Land not currently identified for non-forest use and 
of which at least 10 percent is occupied by forest trees or which 
formerly had such tree cover. Forest trees are those woody plants 
having a well developed stem and which are usually more than 12 feet in 
height at maturity.
    Goal. A concise statement describing a desired end result and 
normally expressed in broad general terms.
    Guideline. A description of a preferred or advisable course of 
action.
    Infrastructure. The facilities, utilities, and transportation 
systems needed to meet public and administrative needs.
    Long-term sustained-yield timber capacity. A projection of the 
maximum potential long-term average sale quantity representing the 
highest uniform wood yield that may be sustained in perpetuity 
consistent with the forest plan.
    Management prescription. The set of forest plan goals, objectives, 
standards, and guidelines that are applicable to a particular part of 
the plan area, including both forest-wide direction as well as 
direction applicable only to that specific part of the plan area.
    Multiple-use. As defined by the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 
1960 (16 U.S.C. 528), multiple-use is the management of all the various 
renewable surface resources of the National Forests so that they are 
utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the 
American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or 
all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to 
provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform 
to changing needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less 
than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of 
the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the 
productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the 
relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the 
combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the 
greatest unit output.
    NEPA documents. The terms used to refer to draft and final 
environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, findings of 
no significant impact, and notices of intent to publish an 
environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1508.10).
    NEPA procedures. The term used to refer to the requirements of 40 
CFR parts 1500 through 1508, as supplemented by Forest Service NEPA 
directives issued in Forest Service Manual Chapter 1950 and Forest 
Service Handbook 1909.15, which implement the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969.
    Objective. A statement describing measurable desired resource 
conditions, or ranges of conditions, intended to achieve forest plan 
goals.
    Plan area. The geographically defined area of the National Forest 
System covered by a forest plan, consisting of only those lands and 
resources under National Forest System jurisdiction.
    Plan period. The period of time between regularly scheduled 
revisions of a forest plan, normally 10 years but no longer than 15 
years.
    Previous planning rule. The land and resource management planning 
regulation, 36 CFR Part 219, adopted September 30, 1982 and amended on 
June 24, 1983, and September 7, 1983 (see 36 CFR Part 200-End edition, 
Revised July 1, 1994).
    Project. A site-specific resources management activity or 
combination of activities designed to accomplish a distinct on-the-
ground purpose or result.
    Proposed action. A proposal made by the Forest Service to 
authorize, recommend, or implement an action to meet a specific purpose 
and need.
    Regional Forester. The individual responsible to the Chief of the 
Forest Service for management of an administrative region of the 
National Forest System (36 CFR 200.2).
    Resource conditions. The state of the physical and biological 
components of 

[[Page 18921]]
the environment, including both natural features and human influences.
    Responsible official. The Forest Service employee who has the 
delegated authority to make a specific decision.
    RPA Assessment and Program. Documents required by Sections 3 and 4 
of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). The RPA Assessment is prepared every 10 
years and describes the potential of the nation's forests and 
rangelands to provide a sustained flow of goods and services. The RPA 
Program is prepared every five years to chart the long-term course of 
Forest Service management of the National Forest System, assistance to 
State and private forest landowners, and forest and range research.
    Species or natural community ranking. A rating established and 
maintained by the Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation 
Data Centers which reflects the biological imperilment status of a 
species or natural community. Rankings as used in this subpart are 
defined as follows:
    (1) G1--Species or community critically imperiled globally because 
of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially 
vulnerable to extinction; five or fewer occurrences, or less than 1,000 
individuals, or very few acres remaining.
    (2) G2--Species or community imperiled globally because of rarity 
or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction; 
six to twenty occurrences, or less than 3,000 individuals, or few acres 
remaining.
    (3) G3--Species or community vulnerable throughout range globally 
and typically having 21 to 100 occurrences, or fewer than 10,000 
individuals. May be very rare and local throughout its range or found 
locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) is a restricted 
range (e.g., a single western State, a physiographic region of the 
East).
    (4) N1, N2, and N3--Same as G1, G2, and G3 respectively, except 
these listings refer to a national situation rather than global one.
    (5) S1 and S2-- Same as G1 and G2 respectively, except these 
listings refer to a State situation rather than global one.
    (6) T1, T2, and T3--Same as G1, G2, and G3 respectively, except 
these refer to subspecies or recognized varieties that are listable 
entities under the Endangered Species Act.
    Standard. A limitation on management activities that is within the 
authority and ability to the agency to meet or enforce.
    Station Director. An individual who is responsible to the Chief of 
the Forest Service for administering research activities at an assigned 
Research Station (36 CFR 200.2).
    Sustainability of ecosystems. A concept which reflects the capacity 
of a dynamic ecosystem to maintain its composition, function, and 
structure over time, thus maintaining the productivity of the land and 
a diversity of plant and animal communities.
    Tribal governments. Federally recognized American Indian/Alaska 
Native tribal governments.


Sec. 219.3  Relationships with the public and government entities.

    (a) Building and maintaining relationships with the public and 
other Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments is an 
essential and ongoing part of National Forest System planning and 
management. The responsible official shall strive to establish and 
maintain communication with interested parties in order to:
    (1) Develop a shared understanding of the variety of needs, 
concerns, and values held by the public;
    (2) Coordinate planning efforts with other Federal agencies and 
State, local, and tribal governments, with recognition of the distinct 
roles and jurisdictions of each;
    (3) Improve the information base influencing decisions and to 
promote a shared understanding of the validity of this information;
    (4) Strengthen the scientific basis for resource management 
decisions by involving members of the scientific community; and
    (5) Resolve conflicts associated with resource decisionmaking.
    (b) The Forest Supervisor shall maintain a list of individuals, 
organizations, scientists, and government agencies and officials who 
have indicated a desire to be informed about forest planning or project 
activities on the Forest. The Forest Supervisor shall periodically 
verify the continuing interest of parties on the list and provide 
notice to the general public of the opportunity to be included on the 
listing. The list should include the following:
    (1) Representatives of other affected Federal agencies;
    (2) The official or agency designated as a point of contact for the 
affected State(s) agencies, including, if applicable, the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico;
    (3) Representatives of tribal governments;
    (4) Representatives of county or municipal governments;
    (5) Holders of permits, contracts, or other instruments providing 
for the occupancy and use of the plan area; and
    (6) Any citizen or organization expressing a desire to be included.
    (c) The Forest Supervisor shall ensure that records documenting the 
planning process and information used to amend, revise, or monitor and 
evaluate implementation of the forest plan are maintained and are 
available for public inspection at the Forest Supervisor's office 
during normal working hours. Information in the planning records is 
subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
    (d) Copies of the current forest plan and monitoring and evaluation 
strategy must be available for public inspection at each Forest Service 
office on the Forest, in the respective Regional Office, and at least 
one additional location, as determined by the Forest Supervisor, that 
offers convenient access to the public.
    (e) When desired by the State or affected tribal governments, 
Regional Foresters should seek to establish a Memorandum of 
Understanding or other form of agreement with the Governor of each 
State in which National Forest System lands are located or with 
affected tribal governments to guide coordination of planning efforts.
    (1) The following apply to any such Memorandum of Understanding or 
agreement;
    (i) The document should describe how the State's or tribe's 
positions on topics related to planning will be established, 
communicated, and considered;
    (ii) The document should address cooperation in forest plan 
implementation, monitoring, evaluation, ecosystem analysis, amendment, 
and revision;
    (iii) The document may be executed by the Forest Supervisor rather 
than the Regional Forester when all National Forest System lands within 
the State are managed by one Forest Supervisor; and
    (iv) The document may be jointly executed by the appropriate 
Regional Foresters when one State encompasses two or more Forest 
Service Regions.
    (2) Nothing in this section precludes development of a Memorandum 
of Understanding with other Federal agencies or local governments.
    (f) Procedures for public participation and government coordination 
must conform with NEPA requirements, the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(5 U.S.C. appendix), and any other applicable laws, Executive orders, 
or regulations.

[[Page 18922]]



Sec. 219.4  Sustainability of ecosystems.

    (a) Goal. The principal goal of managing the National Forest System 
is to maintain or restore the sustainability of ecosystems, thereby 
providing multiple benefits to present and future generations. The 
level and flow of benefits from National Forest System lands should be 
compatible with the restoration of deteriorated ecosystems and the 
maintenance of ecosystem sustainability over the long-term. The forest 
plan addresses this goal by:
    (1) Providing for diversity of plant and animal communities and 
other conditions indicative of sustainable ecosystems. This is 
accomplished by establishing forest plan direction as specified in 
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. In establishing such forest 
plan direction, the likely contribution or role of lands outside the 
plan area should be considered.
    (2) Providing for resource conditions which result in a flow of 
benefits to present and future generations. This is accomplished as 
specified at Sec. 219.6(a), and through the establishment of forest 
plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines.
    (b) Role of forest plan. The forest plan establishes goals and 
objectives describing desired conditions, indicative of sustainable 
ecosystems within the plan area and establishes standards and 
guidelines that direct how to achieve those conditions.
    (1) Scope. Forest plan goals and/or objectives should describe the 
desired composition, function, and structure of ecosystems within the 
plan area at appropriate spatial scales.
    (2) Soil and water resources. The forest plan must provide for the 
restoration, protection, and conservation of soil and water resources 
including, but not limited to, streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, 
wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains. Where there are existing 
conditions harmful to soil and water quality, the forest plan should 
include standards and/or guidelines that provide for the restoration of 
soil and water resources to achieve desired resource conditions. Forest 
plans should also address the protection of current and future 
consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses, including instream flow 
needs.
    (3) Rare natural communities. The forest plan should provide for 
maintaining or restoring the sustainability of those natural 
communities known to occur within the plan area that are identified by 
the Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers 
with rankings of G1, G2, G3, N1, N2, N3, S1, or S2 (Sec. 219.2).
    (4) Threatened and endangered species. The forest plan must provide 
for the conservation of species listed as threatened and endangered, or 
proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended, (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). Once species are listed or proposed 
for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act, management activities on National Forest System lands affecting 
the habitat of the listed species must be in compliance with the 
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

Option I for Paragraph (b)(5)

    (b)(5) Sensitive species. The forest plan must provide for the 
protection of habitat capability for sensitive species in order to 
preclude the need for listing these species as threatened or endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act or their extirpation from the plan 
area. For the purposes of this section, habitat capability refers to 
the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitat.
    (i) Identification. Sensitive species are those plant and animal 
species, subspecies, populations, or stocks, including vertebrates, 
invertebrates, vascular plants, bryophytes, fungi, and lichens, which 
are known to occur or likely to occur on National Forest System lands 
and which are included in one of the following:
    (A) The species is identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
as a Category 1 Candidate Species;
    (B) The species is identified by the Network of Natural Heritage 
Programs and Conservation Data Centers with global species rankings of 
G1 (T1) or G2 (T2);
    (C) The species is identified both by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service as a Category 2 Candidate Species and by the Network of Natural 
Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers with species rankings 
of G3 (T3), N1, N2, or N3.
    (ii) Process. In considering whether or not new or modified forest 
plan direction is needed for sensitive species, the following must be 
documented:
    (A) Sensitive species for the plan area and their habitat needs 
must be identified.
    (B) The habitat needs of sensitive species and/or assemblages of 
sensitive species shall be compared to existing forest plan direction 
or, in the case of revision of a forest plan, the habitat needs shall 
be compared against the tentatively proposed revisions to forest plan 
direction.
    (1) If a continuing downward trend in habitat capability is 
predicted to occur and predicted to result in the need for Federal 
listing of the species or if it is predicted that the sensitive species 
will be extirpated from the plan area, forest plan direction shall be 
modified to protect the habitat capability of the sensitive species in 
an attempt to preclude the need for Federal listing or extirpation from 
the plan ares.
    (2) Where the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
or National Marine Fisheries Service have approved a conservation 
agreement for a sensitive species and relevant direction from that 
agreement is incorporated into the forest plan, the requirement to 
establish direction to protect the habitat capability of the sensitive 
species is met.
    (3) To the extent that protective measures for one sensitive 
species conflict with the recovery of a threatened or endangered 
species, the needs of the threatened or endangered species shall take 
precedence.
    (4) Management direction for sensitive species shall be established 
using the best information available, commensurate with the decision 
being made. Determinations of whether habitat needs of sensitive 
species are adequately met as well as determinations of the degree of 
protection needed are decisions that are inherently dependent on 
professional judgment.
    (iii) Responding to newly identified sensitive species. The 
categories and rankings described at paragraphs (b)(5)(i) (A) through 
(C) of this section shall be reviewed annually as part of monitoring 
and evaluation to determine if there have been new additions subsequent 
to the last review. If a new addition has occurred, the habitat needs 
of the species shall be compared against forest plan direction to 
determine if a change in that direction is needed. The annual review of 
sensitive species categories and rankings does not remove the 
obligation to consider new information relevant to a project decision 
or, where appropriate, to analyze the effects of a proposed action on 
habitat capability needs of a sensitive species within the project 
area.

Option II for Paragraph (b)(5)

    (5) Species viability. Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed 
to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-
native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, 
a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated 
numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure its 
continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order 
to ensure 

[[Page 18923]]
that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to 
support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and 
that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can 
interact with others in the planning area. The forest plan shall 
establish guidelines for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for 
management indicator species to the degree consistent with overall 
multiple-use goals of the forest plan. In order to do this, management 
planning for the fish and wildlife resource shall meet the requirements 
set forth in paragraphs (b)(5) (i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) In order to estimate the effects of each alternative on fish 
and wildlife populations, certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate 
species present in the area shall be identified and selected as 
management indicator species and the reasons for their selection will 
be stated. These species shall be selected because their population 
changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities. 
In the selection of management indicator species, the following 
categories shall be represented where appropriate: Endangered and 
threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal 
lists for the plan area; species with special habitat needs that may be 
influenced significantly by planned management programs; species 
commonly hunted, fished, or trapped; non-game species of special 
interest; and additional plant or animal species selected because their 
population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management 
activities on other species of selected major biological communities or 
on water quality. On the basis of available scientific information, the 
interdisciplinary team shall estimate the effects of changes in 
vegetation type, timber age classes, community composition, rotation 
age, and year-long suitability of habitat related to mobility of 
management indicator species. Where appropriate, measures to mitigate 
adverse effects shall be prescribed.
    (ii) Planning alternatives shall be stated and evaluated in terms 
of both amount and quality of habitat and of animal population trends 
of the management indicator species.
    (iii) Biologists from State fish and wildlife agencies and other 
Federal agencies shall be consulted in order to coordinate planning for 
fish and wildlife, including opportunities for the reintroduction of 
extirpated species.
    (iv) Access and dispersal problems, of hunting, fishing, and other 
visitor uses shall be considered.
    (v) The effects of pest and fire management on fish and wildlife 
populations shall be considered.
    (vi) Population trends of the management indicator species will be 
monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined. This 
monitoring will be done in cooperation with State fish and wildlife 
agencies, to the extent practicable.
    (c) Dynamic nature of ecosystems. Ecosystems are dynamic. 
Therefore, sustaining an ecosystem does not imply maintaining static 
conditions. Disturbances to an ecosystem should be evaluated in the 
context of ecological processes and resilience.
    (d) Multiple spatial scales of ecosystems. Numerous ecosystems 
exist at multiple spatial scales. In order to limit efforts to a 
practicable number and scope, the forest plan should address the 
ecosystems of most relevance to forest plan decisionmaking.
    (e) Uncertainty and adaptive management. Understanding of the 
attributes of sustainable ecosystems and of the environmental effects 
of various management activities is subject to change as new 
information becomes available. Resource decisionmaking need not be 
halted because there is uncertainty or incomplete knowledge; rather, 
resource decisions should be made in a timely manner using the best 
information available commensurate with the decisions being made (40 
CFR 1502.22). Monitoring and evaluation shall be used to assess the 
effects of resource decisions and to determine if there is a need to 
adapt resource management in light of new information. Project 
decisionmaking provides an incremental means for accomplishing the 
goals and objectives of the forest plan, thereby providing the 
opportunity to evaluate the effects of on-the-ground activities at the 
appropriate spatial scale as well as providing the opportunity to adapt 
project proposals as new information becomes available during the plan 
period.


Sec. 219.5  Framework for resource decisionmaking.

    (a) Staged resource decisonmaking. National Forest System resource 
allocation and management decisions are made in two stages. The first 
stage is adoption of a forest plan, which allocates lands and resources 
to various uses or conditions by establishing management prescriptions 
for the land and resources within the plan area. The second stage is 
approval of project decisions. Both forest plan and project decisions 
are subject to the requirements of laws and regulations applicable to 
National Forest System lands and resources. In addition, direction to 
guide the management of lands and resources of the National Forest 
System is issued as needed through the Directive System (36 CFR 200.4). 
Pursuant to 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, agency directives are subject to 
NEPA procedures, and, depending on their nature and scope, directives 
also may be subject to the public notice and comment requirements of 36 
CFR part 216.
    (1) Forest plans. Forest plans do not compel the agency to plan for 
or undertake any projects; rather, they establish limitations on what 
actions may be authorized during project decisionmaking. Forest plan 
direction must not conflict with applicable laws or regulations. 
Additionally, forest plans should not conflict with applicable agency 
directives issued through the Directive System. Where there is a 
substantial conflict between a resource management directive and 
direction in a forest plan revision or amendment prepared pursuant to 
this subpart, the responsible official should identify the conflict and 
include in the decision document the rationale for the plan's departure 
from agency directives.
    (i) Plan area. Each Regional Forester shall determine the area to 
be covered by each forest plan. Options include a separate plan for 
each National Forest or National Grassland, a plan that covers any 
combination of National Forests or other National Forest System lands 
within the responsibility of one Forest Supervisor, or a single plan 
encompassing one National Forest but which is administered by several 
Forest Supervisors.
    (ii) Simultaneous amendment or revision. Forest plan goals, 
objectives, standards, and guidelines that are applicable to more than 
one plan area may be established through one decision document which 
simultaneously amends or revises multiple forest plans.
    (2) Project decisions. Authorization of site-specific activities 
within a plan area occurs through project decisionmaking. Project 
decisionmaking must comply with NEPA procedures and must include a 
determination that the project is consistent with the forest plan 
(Sec. 219.11(a)). Project decisionmaking includes decisions on 
proposals received from outside the agency as well as those initiated 
by the agency.
    (b) Reconciling direction in forest plans with other resource 
direction or planning efforts--(1) Laws and regulations. If, following 
issuance of new laws or regulations affecting National Forest System 
resource management, it is determined that the 

[[Page 18924]]
direction in forest plans within the Region is in conflict with the new 
direction, the Regional Forester shall direct that affected plans be 
changed in accordance with the procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10 
of this subpart and shall specify the timing for doing so.
    (2) Agency directive. (i) If resource management direction in a new 
agency directive appears to conflict with direction in forest plans, 
the directive issuing official shall indicate as part of the directive 
issuance whether affected forest plans are to be made consistent with 
the new directive and, if so, shall direct that affected plans be 
changed in accordance with the procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10 
of this subpart and shall specify the timing for doing so.
    (ii) In addition to adjusting forest plans as required by paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) of this section, the Forest Supervisor, as part of monitoring 
and evaluation, should periodically review recent resource management 
directives to determine if the forest plan is in conflict with newly 
issued resource directives. If so, the Forest Supervisor shall either 
initiate a forest plan amendment to eliminate the conflict or give the 
Regional Forester written notice of why the forest plan should not be 
changed.
    (3) RPA Program. Following adoption and issuance of each RPA 
Program, the Chief determines those elements of the Program that should 
be considered in forest plan implementation, monitoring, and evaluation 
and establishes such agency-wide processes or procedures as may be 
necessary to ensure consideration of these Program elements in forest 
plans.
    (4) Ecosystem analysis. As part of monitoring and evaluation, the 
Forest Supervisor shall periodically review the results of any 
applicable ecosystem analyses that have been completed or updated after 
plan approval and determine if there is new information which would 
indicate a need to initiate forest plan amendment procedures.


Sec. 219.6  Forest plan direction.

    (a) Integrated resource management. Forest plans provide for 
integration and coordination of all resources within the plan area on a 
multiple-use and sustained-yield basis. To this end, forest plan 
direction shall be established, as appropriate, to address management 
of soil, water, fish and wildlife habitat, grazing, timber, oil, gas, 
minerals, recreation, wilderness, cultural, historic, geologic, 
vegetative, air, visual, and other relevant resources. In addition, 
forest plans address management of infrastructure and land ownership 
and access patterns relative to the plan area to the extent 
appropriate.
    (b) Scope. Forest plans allocate the land and resources of the plan 
area to various uses or conditions by establishing management 
prescriptions consisting of goals, objectives, standards, and 
guidelines. Goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines may be 
established to apply throughout a plan area (forest-wide direction) 
and/or they may be established for only a part of the plan area. The 
forest plan management prescription for any given site within the plan 
area is the aggregate of all forest-wide direction and any other 
direction that is applicable to only that specific part of the plan 
area. The forest plan must identify where goals, objectives, standards, 
and guidelines are applicable. Maps or similar information that 
delineate where goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines are 
applicable constitute forest plan direction.
    (1) Projected levels of goods and services or projected levels of 
management activities do not constitute forest plan direction. 
Moreover, any projections of the rate at which objectives identified in 
the forest plan might be achieved are not forest plan direction 
(Sec. 219.11(d)).
    (2) Forest plan direction should focus on resource management and 
resource conditions specific to the plan area, not on the procedural 
aspects of making future project decisions. Also, as a general rule, 
forest plans should not repeat other applicable direction established 
through the Directive System, regulation, Executive order, or law.
    (3) The main body of the forest plan document is limited to forest 
plan direction. Background information or other accompanying material 
are not appropriate to the main body of the document but may be 
presented as part of a brief forest plan preface or in the appendices.
    (c) Goals. Goals are concise statements describing a desired end 
result and are normally expressed in broad general terms. Forest plan 
goals serve as the link between broad agency goals set forth in law, 
Executive order, regulation, agency directives, and the RPA Program and 
specific desired resource conditions relevant to the plan area as 
defined by objectives. The forest plan does not specify a time period 
for achievement of goals. Additionally, forest plan goals are generally 
not expressed in quantitative terms; rather, evaluation of associated 
measurable objectives or monitoring indicators assesses whether goals 
are being achieved (Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(ii)).
    (d) Objectives. Objectives are statements describing desired 
resource conditions, or ranges of conditions, intended to achieve 
forest plan goals. Objectives may describe the desired state of natural 
resource conditions, such as soils and vegetation; the desired state of 
resources resulting from human influences, such as infrastructure or 
historic sites; or how resources are to be perceived, such as visual 
quality or the nature of the wilderness visitor experience. An 
objective must be defined in a manner that permits measurement of 
whether the objective is being achieved. The forest plan does not 
specify a time period for achievement of objectives.
    (e) Standards. Standards are limitations to be placed on management 
activities within the plan area to ensure compliance with applicable 
laws and regulations or to limit the discretion to be permitted during 
project decisionmaking. Standards are limited to those actions that are 
within the authority and ability of the agency to meet or enforce.
    (1) Standards are the basis for determining whether a project is 
consistent with the forest plan as required by Sec. 219.11(a).
    (2) Project compliance with relevant standards is mandatory. A 
project that would vary from a relevant standard may not be authorized, 
unless the forest plan is amended to modify, remove, or waive 
application of the standard.
    (f) Guidelines. Guidelines describe a preferred or advisable course 
of action. Variation of a project from a guideline does not trigger a 
forest plan amendment. Guidelines may be used for the following 
purposes:
    (1) To describe a preferred or advisable method for conducting 
resource activities specific to the plan area; and
    (2) To describe a preferred or advisable sequence or priority for 
implementing various types of projects, when such guidance is deemed 
useful in facilitating achievement of a forest plan goal.
    (g) Coordination of forest plan direction across plan areas. The 
Regional Forester is responsible for coordinating direction in forest 
plans within the Region as well as with adjacent Regions to promote 
consistent approaches to resource management. In many cases, variation 
in direction is appropriate due to varying local circumstances; for 
example, differing resource conditions, public preferences, or socio-
economic considerations. However, unless there is reasonable basis for 
such variations, the Regional Forester shall provide for consistency 
among forest plans within the Region, as well as consistency with those 
forest plans in other Regions whose plan areas 

[[Page 18925]]
are physically adjacent to plan areas within the Region. At a minimum, 
the Regional Forester shall ensure that forest plans within the Region 
include the following:
    (1) Consistent management prescriptions for adjacent National 
Forest System lands, including the use of consistent mapping scales, 
symbols, and other elements to facilitate review and comparison of the 
management prescriptions;
    (2) Consistent management prescriptions for a specially designated 
area (Sec. 219.14) that crosses plan area boundaries, such as a 
national scenic trail extending through several National Forests;
    (3) Consistent direction when findings of an ecosystem analysis or 
research used as a basis for that direction are applicable to more than 
one plan area, such as the establishment of a forest plan standard to 
meet the habitat needs of a threatened or endangered species that 
occurs on more than one plan area; and
    (4) Consistent terminology and classification systems among or 
between forest plans.


Sec. 219.7  Ecosystem analysis.

    (a) Purpose and scope. Ecosystem analysis is a broad term used to 
denote various interdisciplinary studies conducted to provide 
information on and enhance an understanding of the physical, 
biological, social, or economic aspects and interactions of an 
ecosystem. For example, an ecosystem assessment and landscape-level 
analysis are both forms of ecosystem analysis. Ecosystem analysis may 
be conducted at whatever scale is appropriate in order to provide the 
information desired. To the extent practicable, the area covered by an 
ecosystem analysis should generally be delineated based on ecological 
considerations, including social and economic factors, rather than on 
administrative or jurisdictional boundaries. Ecosystem analyses are 
conducted whenever deemed appropriate by the agency.
    (b) Relationship to resource decisionmaking. An ecosystem analysis 
is distinct from resource decisionmaking and does not trigger NEPA 
analysis and disclosure. Findings resulting from ecosystem analysis are 
not resource decisions and cannot be used as a substitute for forest 
plan goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines. Ecosystem analysis 
may provide information that indicates a need to change forest plan 
direction; however, such changes would be evaluated and established 
through forest plan amendment or revision procedures. Ecosystem 
analysis also may be used to display various opportunities for 
achieving the goals and objectives already established by law, 
Executive order, regulation, agency directive, or the forest plan.
    (c) Results. Results of ecosystem analysis vary depending on their 
scope and specific purpose. Results of ecosystem analysis may include, 
but are not limited to, the following:
    (1) Identification of trends and historic conditions;
    (2) Identification of anticipated effects if current management 
continues;
    (3) Identification of resource conditions that would satisfy legal 
requirements;
    (4) Identification of opportunities to improve monitoring and 
evaluation strategies;
    (5) Identification of research needs and recommended priorities;
    (6) Identification of opportunities and recommended priorities for 
project implementation in order to meet forest plan goals;
    (7) Determination of resource capabilities;
    (8) Compilation of a socio-economic overview or assessment; for 
example, assessments of pertinent social, demographic, and economic 
data, socioeconomic and cultural trends, or important relationships 
among physical, biological, economic, and social aspects of resource 
management;
    (9) Compilation of information for use in monitoring and 
evaluation;
    (10) Compilation of information for use in NEPA documents; and
    (11) Compilation of updated inventory data.


Sec. 219.8  Interdisciplinary teams and information needs.

    (a) Interdisciplinary team. An interdisciplinary team must be used 
to prepare amendments, revisions, and monitoring and evaluation 
strategies and reports and to conduct ecosystem analysis. The team may 
consist of whatever combination of Forest Service and other Federal 
government personnel is necessary to achieve an interdisciplinary 
approach.
    (b) Analysis and inventory. Analytical efforts should be focused on 
obtaining and using the information needed for decisionmaking 
commensurate with the decisions being made. Each responsible official 
shall strive to obtain and keep updated inventory data appropriate to 
meet analytical needs for resource decisionmaking. In assessing the 
environmental, social, and economic factors relevant to decisionmaking, 
the responsible official shall consider the conclusions resulting from 
applicable quantitative analytical methods as well as nonquantifiable 
considerations.
    (c) Social and economic effects. When amending or revising the 
forest plan, the responsible official shall consider the effects of 
each alternative on community stability, employment, or other 
indicators of social and economic change commensurate with the decision 
being made.
    (d) Research needs. Each Forest Supervisor shall identify and 
inform the Regional Forester of research needed for decisionmaking 
including, but not limited to, the research needed to help resource 
managers ensure that management practices do not produce substantial or 
permanent impairment of the productivity of the land.


Sec. 219.9  Forest plan amendments.

    (a) Purpose and type. Except as provided at Sec. 219.9(e), 
amendment is the only method by which forest plan direction is changed 
between revisions. Only forest plan direction as described at 
Sec. 219.6 is subject to amendment. Amendments are categorized as 
major, minor, or interim.
    (b) Major amendment. (1) A major amendment is appropriate only 
under one of the following circumstances:
    (i) The proposed change would modify, remove, or add a standard, or 
modify the geographic area to which a standard applies, except as 
provided at paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this section or except when 
such a change is made by interim amendment;
    (ii) The proposed change would allow the amount of chargeable 
timber volume which can be sold for a decade from a proclaimed National 
Forest within the plan area to exceed the long-term sustained-yield 
timber capacity of that proclaimed National Forest 
(Sec. 219.13(d)(1)(ii)); or
    (iii) The proposed change would permit harvest of even-aged stands 
that have not reached culmination of mean annual increment of growth 
(Sec. 219.13(e)).
    (2) The Regional Forester is the responsible official for major 
amendments.
    (3) The public review and comment period on a proposed major 
amendment and associated NEPA documents is 90 calendar days. During 
this period, the Regional Forester shall take the following actions:
    (i) Make the proposed amendment and associated NEPA documents 
available for public inspection at convenient locations in the vicinity 
of the lands covered by the plan;
    (ii) Notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of the 
opportunity for public review and comment; and

[[Page 18926]]

    (iii) Provide opportunities for open communication with the public 
and other government entities during the review of the proposed major 
amendment.
    (4) Legal notice of adoption of a major amendment shall be provided 
in accordance with 36 CFR 217.5.
    (5) A major amendment is not effective until the eighth calendar 
day following date of publication of the legal notice of the decision 
(36 CFR 217.10).
    (c) Minor amendment. (1) Unless the authority is reserved by the 
Regional Forester, the Forest Supervisor is the responsible official 
for minor amendments.
    (2)(i) For a proposed minor amendment for which an environmental 
assessment has been prepared, the Forest Supervisor shall publish 
notice of the proposed amendment and provide at least 30 calendar days 
for public review of and comment on the proposed amendment and 
environmental assessment. Such notice shall be published in newspapers 
of general circulation within or near the Forest.
    (ii) In the event that a draft environmental impact statement has 
been prepared for a proposed minor amendment, public notice shall be 
provided in accordance with NEPA procedures. At least 45 calendar days 
must be provided for public review of and comment on the proposed 
amendment and draft environmental impact statement.
    (3) Legal notice of decisions to adopt a minor amendment must be 
provided in accordance with 36 CFR 217.5. The effective date of minor 
amendments is governed by 36 CFR 217.10.
    (4) A minor amendment shall be used to allocate newly acquired land 
to a management prescription, provided the prescription is consistent 
with the purposes for which the land was acquired.
    (5) If the responsible official concludes that a proposed project 
should be implemented, but that the project would conflict with a 
forest plan standard, the project may be approved only if the forest 
plan standard is amended. If such an amendment is limited to apply to 
only the specific project and the circumstances described at paragraphs 
(b)(1) (ii) and (iii) of this section do not apply, then the change is 
a minor amendment. By contrast, a change to a forest plan standard that 
would apply to the specific project and to future projects or that 
applies to one project but meets the circumstances described at 
paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and (iii) of this section would be a major 
amendment.
    (i) The environmental effects of modifying or waiving application 
of the forest plan standard for a specific project must be disclosed in 
the NEPA documentation associated with the project decision.
    (ii) A proposed minor amendment that applies only to a specific 
project and that is accompanied by an environmental assessment is 
subject to the notice and comment procedures of 36 CFR 215.5.
    (iii) A proposed minor amendment that applies only to a specific 
project and is accompanied by an environmental impact statement is 
subject to notice and comment in accordance with NEPA procedures.
    (iv) A decision to amend a forest plan for a specific project is 
subject to the notice and appeal procedures of 36 CFR part 215, and the 
time period between the decision and implementation is also governed by 
36 CFR part 215.
    (d) Interim amendment. (1) An interim amendment may be used only 
when a catastrophic event has occurred or when new information 
indicates there is a need to promptly change the forest plan in order 
to provide resource protection and it is unacceptable to delay the 
changes needed until procedures for major or minor amendment can be 
completed.
    (2) Unless the authority is subsequently reserved by the Chief, the 
Regional Forester is the responsible official for interim amendments.
    (3) The Regional Forester shall give notice of an interim amendment 
to those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) and shall provide legal 
notice of the decision in a newspaper of general circulation. In 
addition, if the Chief is the responsible official, notice shall be 
published in the Federal Register. The notice must concisely summarize 
the following:
    (i) The circumstances which warrant use of the interim amendment 
procedure;
    (ii) The changes being made in the forest plan;
    (iii) The anticipated consequences associated with the interim 
amendment;
    (iv) The anticipated duration of the interim amendment, not to 
exceed two years;
    (v) The changes being made to the monitoring and evaluation 
strategy in association with the interim amendment; and
    (vi) The opportunity for public comment.
    (4) An environmental impact statement is not required for an 
interim amendment.
    (5) The effective date of an interim amendment is the eighth 
calendar day after legal notice of the decision is published in a 
newspaper of general circulation pursuant to Sec. 219.9(d)(3) or, in 
the case where the Chief is the responsible official, in the Federal 
Register.
    (6) A period of 45 calendar days must be provided for public 
comment beginning on the date of publication of legal notice of an 
interim amendment decision. On the basis of public comment, the 
responsible official may decide to modify the interim amendment through 
issuance of a new interim amendment or may decide that the interim 
amendment remains in effect without change. In either circumstance, the 
responsible official shall publish a notice of the decision and a brief 
summary of the rationale, and also provide it to those on the list 
described at Sec. 219.3(b).
    (7) The duration of an interim amendment may not exceed two years. 
If an approved amendment or revision has not superseded the interim 
direction within two years of the effective date of the interim 
amendment, then the responsible official may reissue the interim 
amendment or issue a modified interim amendment, subject to the notice 
and comment requirements of this section.
    (8) An interim amendment may not be made through a decision 
document for a specific project.
    (9) Pursuant to 36 CFR part 217, an interim amendment is not 
subject to administrative appeal.
    (e) Nondiscretionary changes. If a change in applicable law or 
regulation occurs which conflicts with forest plan direction and the 
agency has no choice but to comply and no discretion in the manner in 
which to comply, the forest plan may be modified to reflect such 
changes without conducting amendment procedures. The Forest Supervisor 
shall give public notice of such changes through the annual monitoring 
and evaluation report (Sec. 219.12). Such nondiscretionary changes are 
not subject to NEPA procedures.
    (f) Other changes. The following changes to the content of a forest 
plan may be made at any time, do not require amendment, and are not 
subject to NEPA procedures. However, such changes are to be identified 
and briefly described in the next annual monitoring and evaluation 
report.
    (1) Changes to information that is not forest plan direction 
(Sec. 219.6), such as the information in forest plan appendices;
    (2) Corrections to forest plan maps which delineate where a 
management prescription is applicable, provided such changes are the 
result of improved 

[[Page 18927]]
information about the location of the on-the-ground conditions to which 
the prescription was described in the forest plan to apply;
    (3) Corrections of typographical errors or other non-substantive 
changes.


Sec. 219.10  Forest plan revision.

    (a) Initiation. Revision of a forest plan should occur about every 
10 years, but no later than 15 years, from the date of approval of the 
original plan or the latest plan revision. Revision also must occur 
when the Regional Forester determines that conditions over most or all 
of the plan area have significantly changed from those in place when 
the forest plan was originally approved or last revised; for example, 
if a catastrophic event has substantially altered resource conditions 
over most or all of the planning area.
    (b) Responsible official. The Regional Forester is the responsible 
official for forest plan revision.
    (c) Prerevision actions.--(1) Prerevision review of the forest 
plan. Prior to initiating scoping pursuant to NEPA procedures, the 
entire forest plan must be reviewed, using the cumulative results of 
monitoring and evaluation. The purpose of the review is to identify 
changed conditions and/or other new information which appear to 
indicate a need to change direction in the current plan.
    (2) Communications strategy. The Forest Supervisor shall formulate 
a communications strategy that describes how the public and government 
entities may participate in the prerevision review and revision of the 
forest plan on an ongoing basis.
    (i) The Forest Supervisor shall meet, or designate a representative 
to meet, with interested representatives of other Federal agencies and 
State, local, and tribal governments to establish procedures for 
ongoing coordination and communication throughout the prerevision 
review and the revision processes. These procedures should be 
documented in the communications strategy.
    (ii) The Forest Supervisor shall publish notice of the prerevision 
review process and the formulation of a communications strategy in both 
the Federal Register and newspapers of general circulation within or 
near the plan area. The notice must include an invitation to the public 
and representatives of government entities to express their ideas and 
suggestions on formulation of a communications strategy.
    (iii) The Forest Supervisor shall also give notice of the 
prerevision review and formulation of the communications strategy to 
those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b).
    (d) Scoping. Upon completion of the prerevision review, the 
Regional Forester shall initiate the forest plan revision process by 
publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to revise the 
forest plan and to prepare the associated draft environmental impact 
statement. The Regional Forester shall allow 60 calendar days for 
public comment. The purposes of the Notice of Intent are to notify the 
public of the forest plan revision process, the anticipated scope of 
the revision effort, and opportunities for the public to be involved in 
the revision process, and also to begin the scoping process required by 
NEPA procedures.
    (1) In addition to the content requirements established by NEPA 
procedures, the following apply to a Notice of Intent to revise a 
forest plan:
    (i) The statement of purpose and need for the proposed action 
identifies specific opportunities to better achieve agency goals, as 
set forth in law, Executive order, regulation, agency directives, and 
the RPA Program, through changes in forest plan direction;
    (ii) The proposed action identifies the direction in the current 
forest plan which will be evaluated for change; and
    (iii) Significant revision issues describe the topics of concern 
related to changing forest plan direction and are used to help focus 
revision analysis efforts on those concerns.
    (2) At the time of publication of the Notice of Intent, the Forest 
Supervisor shall take the following additional actions to notify the 
public of the revision process:
    (i) Notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of the 
revision effort and opportunities for involvement;
    (ii) Distribute a press release on the revision effort to 
newspapers of general circulation within or near the Forest;
    (iii) Publicize and conduct activities designed to foster ongoing 
participation by the public and government representatives in the 
revision process pursuant to the communications strategy formulated 
pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (3) The Regional Forester shall consider comments received in 
response to the Notice of Intent and determine if there is a need to 
adjust the scope of the revision effort.
    (e) Required elements. The forest plan revision process requires 
the following evaluations or updates:
    (1) A review of the identification of lands suited and not suited 
for timber production (Sec. 219.13(a));
    (2) An evaluation of roadless areas for wilderness designation; 
(Sec. 219.14(b));
    (3) In accordance with Sec. 219.14(c), an evaluation of rivers for 
eligibility as wild, scenic, and recreation rivers; and
    (4) An update of the information in the appendix to the forest plan 
which displays projected levels of goods and services and management 
activities for the next decade (Sec. 219.11(d)(1)).
    (f) Draft environmental impact statement. A draft environmental 
impact statement must accompany a proposed revision of a forest plan.
    (g) Public notice and comment. The Regional Forester shall give the 
public notice and opportunity to comment as follows:
    (1) The draft environmental impact statement, proposed revised 
forest plan, and draft monitoring and evaluation strategy must be 
available for public comment for at least 90 calendar days. Copies will 
be made available for inspection at convenient locations in the 
vicinity of the lands covered by the plan, beginning on the date of 
publication of the notice of availability of the draft environmental 
impact statement in the Federal Register;
    (2) The Forest Supervisor shall give notice to those on the list 
described at Sec. 219.3(b) of the opportunity for public review and 
comment; and
    (3) The Regional Forester shall either hold public meetings or, 
alternatively, conduct other activities to foster public participation 
in the review of the draft environmental impact statement, proposed 
revised forest plan, and draft monitoring and evaluation strategy.
    (h) Final environmental impact statement and revised forest plan. 
Following public comment, the Regional Forester shall oversee 
preparation of a final environmental impact statement and revised 
forest plan. The final environmental impact statement and record of 
decision documenting the selected alternative and adoption of the 
revision shall be prepared and made public in accordance with NEPA 
procedures.
    (i) Approval. In addition to the Federal Register publication of 
the notice of availability of the final environmental impact statement 
and record of decision pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.10, legal notice of the 
adoption of a revised forest plan shall be provided as required by 36 
CFR 217.5. A revision becomes effective 30 calendar days after the date 
of the notice published in the Federal Register.


Sec. 219.11  Forest plan implementation.

    (a) Project consistency. Project decisions must be consistent with 
the standards in a forest plan. Deviation of a project from compliance 
with a guideline is not inconsistent with the 

[[Page 18928]]
forest plan. A determination of consistency of a project with the 
forest plan must be documented when the project is approved. If a 
proposed project is not consistent with a standard in the forest plan, 
the responsible official may, subject to valid existing rights, take 
only one of the following actions:
    (1) Modify the proposal to make it consistent with the forest plan;
    (2) Reject the proposal; or
    (3) Amend the forest plan to permit the proposal.
    (b) Application of forest plan amendment or revision to existing 
authorizations or previously approved projects. Permits, contracts, and 
other instruments issued or approved for the use and occupancy of 
National Forest System lands must be consistent with the forest plan in 
effect at the time of their issuance. Subject to valid existing rights, 
contracts, permits, and other instruments for occupancy and use that 
are inconsistent with a new forest plan amendment or revision must be 
revised as soon as practicable to be made consistent with the forest 
plan.
    (c) Implementation during amendment or revision process. An 
approved forest plan, including all amendments as may be adopted, 
remains effective until a new amendment or a revision is approved.
    (d) Possible actions during the plan period. (1) At the time of 
revision, an appendix to the forest plan shall be prepared displaying a 
prediction of the major goods and services which may be produced during 
the plan period, as well as a display of the management activities 
which may occur during the plan period.
    (i) The display should predict a realistic range of goods and 
services and management activity levels reflecting, to the extent 
practicable and meaningful, some of the variables which are most likely 
to affect production or accomplishment of predicted levels.
    (ii) The display may include a prediction of the rate of achieving 
forest plan objectives reflecting, to the extent practicable and 
meaningful, some of the variables most likely to affect achievement.
    (iii) Such a display does not limit nor compel any action by the 
agency and does not constitute forest plan direction.
    (2) At periodic intervals following adoption of a revised forest 
plan and for such time periods as is determined appropriate, the Forest 
Supervisor shall make available to the public an updated estimate of 
major goods and services and management activity levels that may be 
produced or occur. Development of these estimates does not require NEPA 
analysis.


Sec. 219.12  Monitoring and evaluation.

    (a) Monitoring and evaluation strategy. The Forest Supervisor must 
conduct monitoring and evaluation efforts and, simultaneously with any 
revision of the forest plan, shall prepare a comprehensive monitoring 
and evaluation strategy to guide such efforts. This strategy is not 
forest plan direction, is not included in the forest plan, and does not 
require NEPA analysis. However, monitoring and evaluation activities 
are subject to NEPA procedures at the time of implementation.
    (1) The monitoring and evaluation strategy provides instructions 
for the following:
    (i) Assessing if projects are being implemented in accordance with 
the decision documents authorizing the projects;
    (ii) Assessing, through the use of measurable indicators, if the 
activities being implemented are effective in achieving forest plan 
goals;
    (iii) Conducting appropriate monitoring and evaluation efforts to 
occur within the plan area to help meet monitoring and evaluation needs 
at scales larger than the plan area;
    (iv) Validating the assumptions upon which forest plan direction 
was established and verifying the accuracy of predicted effects;
    (v) Prioritizing monitoring and evaluation efforts by identifying 
those monitoring and evaluation efforts that are of highest priority to 
conduct because they assess the effects of those management activities 
believed to have the greatest potential risk to the environment;
    (vi) Collecting and compiling appropriate information to serve as 
reference points for future evaluations;
    (vii) Determining if there is new information or a change in 
conditions which substantially affects the validity of the forest plan 
including, but not limited to:
    (A) Laws, Executive orders, regulations, RPA Program updates, or 
agency directives issued subsequent to approval of the forest plan;
    (B) Changes in biological, physical, social, or economic factors 
influencing the plan area;
    (C) Findings resulting from applicable scientific research or 
experience;
    (D) Findings resulting from ecosystem analysis;
    (viii) Storing and disseminating information of use in the program 
development and budget formulation process, such as updated information 
on resource capabilities, project opportunities, activity costs, or 
economic trends;
    (ix) Tracking the goods and services produced and management 
activities accomplished;
    (x) Involving the public in monitoring and evaluation by 
identifying opportunities for the public to participate, when 
appropriate, in monitoring and evaluation efforts;
    (xi) Identifying problems, and opportunities to resolve those 
problems, for use in determining whether there is a need to amend or 
revise the forest plan.
    (2) The monitoring and evaluation strategy document should describe 
procedures and identify planned intervals for implementing and 
reporting monitoring and evaluation efforts. Because the type and 
intensity of monitoring and evaluation efforts can vary depending on 
the availability of funds, the monitoring and evaluation strategy 
should be realistic and practicable. Monitoring and evaluation efforts 
should be designed at the appropriate spatial scale and for appropriate 
timeframes.
    (3) The Forest Supervisor shall give priority to implementing those 
monitoring and evaluation efforts that assess the effects of management 
activities having the greatest potential risk to the environment.
    (b) Notice and approval of monitoring and evaluation strategies. 
(1) A monitoring and evaluation strategy must be made available for 
public review and comment at the same time as a proposed revised forest 
plan and in accordance with Sec. 219.10(g).
    (2) The Regional Forester is responsible for approving the 
monitoring and evaluation strategy in conjunction with approving the 
revised forest plan. The Regional Forester shall obtain concurrence of 
the applicable Station Director before approving a monitoring and 
evaluation strategy. A final revised forest plan cannot be approved 
before the associated monitoring and evaluation strategy is approved.
    (c) Updating monitoring and evaluation strategies. (1) Updates may 
occur whenever deemed necessary. Circumstances which might trigger an 
update to the strategy include, but are not limited to, amendment of 
the forest plan; consideration of comment from the public or government 
entities in response to the annual monitoring and evaluation report; 
availability of new information; emergence of new opportunities to 
coordinate monitoring and evaluation with others; or 

[[Page 18929]]
interdisciplinary team recommendations.
    (2) The Forest Supervisor is responsible for updating the 
monitoring and evaluation strategy as needed. The Forest Supervisor 
shall obtain concurrences of the applicable Station Director before 
approving an update to a monitoring and evaluation strategy. Updating 
the monitoring and evaluation strategy does not trigger a forest plan 
amendment or NEPA analysis. A proposed update to a monitoring and 
evaluation strategy must be made available for public review and 
comment for 30 calendar days. Those on the list described at 
Sec. 219.3(b) shall be notified of the opportunity for public review 
and comment.
    (d) Coordination of monitoring and evaluation efforts. (1) 
Monitoring and evaluation efforts should be coordinated, to the extent 
feasible, with other Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal 
governments, interested private landowners, the scientific community, 
and other interested parties. The monitoring and evaluation strategy 
should include identification of information to be gathered by other 
entities.
    (2) Monitoring and evaluation efforts should be coordinated across 
Forest Service administrative boundaries. The Regional Forester shall 
assure that monitoring and evaluation needs which extend beyond a plan 
area are addressed and coordinated.
    (3) To the extent practicable, the applicable Station Director 
should provide for the involvement of Forest Service research personnel 
in the development and updating of monitoring and evaluation 
strategies, the implementation and evaluation of monitoring and 
evaluation tasks, and preparation of the annual monitoring and 
evaluation report.
    (e) Monitoring and evaluation report. The Forest Supervisor shall 
prepare a concise monitoring and evaluation report annually. This 
report shall be transmitted to the Regional Forester and Station 
Director and be made available to interested individuals, 
organizations, government agencies, and public officials. The report 
should include, but is not limited to, the following:
    (1) A summary of the results of monitoring and evaluation efforts;
    (2) Identification of any changes needed in how the forest plan is 
being implemented;
    (3) Identification of whether amendment or revision of the forest 
plan is needed;
    (4) A brief description of any amendments which have been initiated 
or become effective since the previous report;
    (5) A brief description of any updates made to the monitoring and 
evaluation strategy;
    (6) A brief description of any nondiscretionary changes made to the 
forest plan pursuant to Sec. 219.9(e);
    (7) A brief description of changes made to information in the 
forest plan that does not constitute direction, such as changes to 
appendices (Sec. 219.9(f)).
    (f) Project implementation. When monitoring and evaluation 
activities are essential to ensuring mitigation of possible 
environmental effects of a project, such activities must be identified 
in the project decision document. Moreover, in such case, that project 
may not be initiated unless there is a reasonable expectation that 
adequate funding will be available to conduct the monitoring and 
evaluation activities.
    (g) Initiating amendment or revision. Nothing in this section shall 
be construed to preclude initiating a forest plan amendment or revision 
at any time the Forest Supervisor or Regional Forester deems necessary.


Sec. 219.13  Statutory timber management requirements.

    (a) Review of suitability determination. (1) Lands identified as 
not suited for timber production must be reviewed at least every 10 
years. Normally, this should occur as part of forest plan revision; 
however, if a 10-year period elapses prior to forest plan revision, 
then the review of unsuitable lands shall occur at the 10-year interval 
as well as later during forest plan revision. The time period for the 
10-year review begins upon the effective date of the original forest 
plan, the effective date of any forest plan revision, or the effective 
date of any amendment which included a review of all unsuitable lands.
    (2) Notwithstanding the 10-year review, all lands must be reviewed 
for their suitability for timber production at the time of forest plan 
revision.
    (3) The identification of lands as suited or not suited for timber 
production may be changed at any time for forest plan amendment.
    (b) Lands not suited for timber production. (1) Lands not suited 
for timber production must have a fixed location and should be 
identified on maps, either in the forest plan or the planning records, 
or otherwise described in a manner in which they can be readily 
recognized.
    (2) Forest plan management prescriptions must be established to 
ensure the management of unsuited lands is consistent with the 
provisions of paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(B) and (b)(4) and (5) of this 
section.
    (3) Lands are identified as not suited for timber production if any 
of the following conditions apply:
    (i) The land has been withdrawn from timber harvest by an Act of 
Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest 
Service;
    (ii) Timber harvest on these lands would violate statute, Executive 
order, or regulation;
    (iii) The land does not meet the definition of forested land as set 
forth in Sec. 219.2 of this subpart;
    (iv) Technology is not available for conducting timber harvesting 
without irreversible damage to soil productivity or watershed 
conditions;
    (v) There is no reasonable assurance that such lands can be 
adequately reforested within five years of final timber harvest. 
Adequate reforestation means that the cut area contains the minimum 
number, size, distribution, and species composition of regeneration as 
identified in the forest plan. Five years after final harvest means 
five years after clearcutting, after last overstory removal entry in 
shelterwood or seed tree cutting, or after selection cutting.
    (A) Research and experience are the basis for determining whether 
the harvest and regeneration practices planned can be expected to 
result in adequate reforestation.
    (B) The reforestation requirement of paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this 
section does not prohibit the harvesting of timber when openings are 
created for wildlife habitat improvement, vistas, recreation uses, or 
similar long-term purposes.
    (4) Timber harvesting may occur on unsuitable lands only for 
salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect other multiple-use 
values.
    (5) Lands not suited for timber production are to continue to be 
treated for reforestation purposes, particularly with regard to the 
protection of other multiple-use values.
    (6) Identification of unsuitable lands should not vary among 
alternatives at the time of forest plan revision.
    (c) Lands suited for timber production. Lands that are not 
identified as unsuitable for timber production shall be considered 
suited for timber production. However, forest plan standards may be 
established which prohibit or limit timber harvesting on suited lands. 
For example, such standards could be imposed on lands otherwise suited 
for timber production due to economic considerations or due to 
allocation of the land to uses not compatible with timber harvesting. 
Each forest plan must 

[[Page 18930]]
include in the appendix a tabular summary displaying a listing of the 
number of acres of suitable lands where standards have been imposed 
which prohibit or limit timber harvesting and the number of acres where 
such prohibitions or limitations do not apply. This summary is provided 
as a convenient reference only and is not part of the suitability 
determination.
    (d) Allowable sale quantity. The amount of chargeable timber volume 
which can be sold from a plan area for a decade cannot exceed the 
allowable sale quantity standard established for the plan area. Each 
forest plan which provides for a timber sale program must establish a 
standard setting the allowable sale quantity. The allowable sale 
quantity is a ceiling; it is not a future sale level projection or 
target and does not reflect all of the factors that may influence 
future sale levels.
    (1) Calculation procedures. The allowable sale quantity is 
calculated as follows:
    (i) Land base. The only lands on which the allowable sale quantity 
is based are those lands in the plan area suited for timber production 
and on which planned periodic entries for timber harvest are allowed 
over time. Only one allowable sale quantity can be established per plan 
area.
    (ii) Long-term sustained-yield timber capacity. The amount of 
chargeable timber volume which can be sold for a decade from any 
proclaimed National Forest within the plan area may not exceed the 
long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of that proclaimed National 
Forest except as provided by paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section or 
as necessary to meet overall multiple-use goals as established in the 
forest plan. Any change to the forest plan to permit a departure to 
meet overall multiple-use goals must be made by a major amendment or 
revision.
    (A) The long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of a proclaimed 
National Forest is calculated using the same suited land base and 
forest plan standards as used for calculating the allowable sale 
quantity.
    (B) In those cases where a proclaimed National Forest has less than 
two hundred thousand acres of lands suited for timber production, two 
or more proclaimed National Forests may be used for purposes of 
determining the long-term sustained-yield timber capacity.
    (iii) Non-declining flow. When calculating a new allowable sale 
quantity, the new allowable sale quantity may either decline, remain 
constant, or increase relative to the current allowable sale quantity. 
The new allowable sale quantity must be established at a level that is 
predicted to be sustainable or capable of increasing during subsequent 
decades, with exceptions permitted only to meet overall multiple-use 
goals.
    (iv) Intensified management practices. Whenever the allowable sale 
quantity is changed through amendment or revision, predicted yields 
that were dependent on implementation of intensified management 
practices must be decreased if such intensified practices have not been 
successfully implemented or funds have not been received to permit such 
practices to continue substantially as previously planned.
    (2) Chargeable timber volume. Only the timber volume that has been 
included in the growth and yield projections used for the calculation 
of the allowable sale quantity is attributable to the allowable sale 
quantity when sold.
    (3) Noninterchangeable components. The allowable sale quantity may 
be divided into noninterchangeable components. Limits on the sale of 
chargeable timber volume associated with each noninterchangeable 
component cannot be exceeded, and chargeable timber volume from one 
noninterchangeable component cannot be attributed to the volume limit 
associated with another noninterchangeable component. Where management 
prescriptions allow planned periodic entries for timber harvest over 
time into roadless areas, the portion of the allowable sale quantity 
derived from those roadless areas must be identified as a 
noninterchangeable component.
    (4) Exception to harvest limit. Nothing in this section prohibits 
the salvage or sanitation harvesting of timber stands which are 
substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe, or 
which are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack. If the 
volume from such harvests was included in the calculation of the 
allowable sale quantity, it may either be substituted for timber that 
would otherwise be sold under the plan or, if not feasible, sold over 
and above the allowable sale quantity.
    (e) Culmination of mean annual increment. All even-aged stands 
scheduled to be harvested during the plan period must generally have 
reached culmination of mean annual increment of growth. This 
requirement does not apply to silvicultural practices such as thinning 
or other stand improvement measures; to salvage or sanitation 
harvesting of stands which are substantially damaged by fire, 
windthrow, or other catastrophes, or which are in imminent danger from 
insect or disease attacks; when uneven-aged methods are used; or to 
cutting for experimental and research purposes. In addition, exceptions 
to this requirement are permitted in the forest plan for the harvest of 
particular species of trees if overall multiple-use goals would be 
better attained. Any change to a forest plan to permit such exceptions 
must be made through a major amendment or at the time of revision. 
Cubic foot measure is used as the basis for calculating culmination of 
mean annual increment of growth unless the Chief directs otherwise.
    (f) Selection of cutting methods. The determination of the 
appropriate cutting method is made at the project level. Clearcutting 
may be permitted only when it is determined to be the optimum method of 
timber cutting and the only practical method to accomplish one or more 
of the following purposes:
    (1) Establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of habitat for 
threatened or endangered species;
    (2) Enhancement of wildlife habitat or water yield values or to 
provide for recreation, scenic vistas, utility lines, road corridors, 
facility sites, reservoirs, fuel breaks, or similar developments;
    (3) Rehabilitation of lands adversely impacted by events such as 
fires, windstorms, or insect or disease infestations;
    (4) Preclusion or minimization of the occurrence of potentially 
adverse impacts of insect or disease infestations, windthrow, logging 
damage, or other factors affecting forest health;
    (5) Establishment and growth of desired tree or other vegetative 
species that are shade intolerant;
    (6) Rehabilitation of poorly stocked stands due to past management 
practices or natural events; and
    (7) Research needs.
    (g) Maximum size of clearcuts. To provide for those cases where 
clearcutting may be approved for a specific project, the forest plan 
must establish the maximum size of areas that could be clearcut in one 
harvest operation. These sizes do not apply to areas harvested by 
clearcutting as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as 
fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm. Exceptions to the 
established limits also may be exceeded on a project basis after public 
notice and approval by the Regional Forester.
    (h) Blending of even-aged stands. Blocks, patches, or strips for 
clearcutting, shelterwood cutting, seed tree cutting, and other methods 
designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber shall be shaped and 


[[Page 18931]]
blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain.
    (i) Protection of soil and water. Forest plans must not permit 
timber harvesting where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely 
affect water conditions or fish habitat unless protection is provided 
from detrimental changes in water temperature, blockages of water 
courses, and deposits of sediment.
    (j) Displays of Timber Information. The following information shall 
be displayed in one or more appendices to the forest plan:
    (1) Acreage designated as lands unsuitable and suitable for timber 
production.
    (2) Acreage of suitable lands subject to standards which prohibit 
or limit timber harvesting and the acreage where such prohibitions or 
limitations do not apply.
    (3) the long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of each 
proclaimed National Forest either fully or partially within the plan 
area.
    (4) The proportion of possible timber harvest methods forest-wide.


Sec. 219.14  Special designations.

    (a) Special designations. Forest plan amendment or revision is the 
mechanism for the agency to allocate specific areas to prescriptions 
for special designations, or to recommend special designation by higher 
authorities. Special designations may include, but are not limited to, 
wilderness, research natural areas, geological areas, botanical areas, 
scenic by-ways, national scenic areas, national recreation areas, 
national natural landmarks, and wild, scenic, and recreation rivers.
    (b) Wilderness areas. Unless Federal statute directs otherwise, all 
roadless, undeveloped areas shall be evaluated for wilderness 
designation during forest plan revision subject to the following 
limitations:
    (1) West of the 100th meridian, areas must be at least 5,000 acres 
in size unless contiguous to existing units of the National Wilderness 
Preservation System or contiguous to areas endorsed by the 
Administration for wilderness designation.
    (2) East of the 100th meridian, areas must be of sufficient size as 
to make practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired 
condition.
    (c) Wild, scenic, and recreation rivers. The eligibility of rivers 
for designation as wild, scenic, and recreation rivers shall be 
evaluated during forest plan revision if any of the following apply:
    (1) Federal legislation requires evaluation; or
    (2) A river eligibility evaluation has not been conducted using the 
criteria published in FSH 1909.12 in July, 1987.
    (d) Role of forest plans. Where Acts designating special areas 
within the National Forest System require planning beyond that required 
for forest plans, the goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines in 
special area plans shall be incorporated into the forest plan as forest 
plan direction.
Sec. 219.15  Applicability and transition.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all units of 
the National Forest System as defined by 16 U.S.C. 1609 including, but 
not limited to, the National Grasslands.
    (b) In those circumstances where a forest plan has not been 
approved as of [effective date of the final rule], development and 
approval of the forest plan continue to be subject to the previous 
planning rule. After plan approval, the rules of this subpart apply.
    (c) Forest plans adopted prior to [effective date of the final 
rule] remain in effect until amended or revised pursuant to this 
subpart.
    (d) Prior to adoption of a revised forest plan prepared in 
accordance with the rules of this subpart, forest plans need not be 
amended in order to comply with the rules of this subpart.
    (e) The displays required by Sec. 219.11(d)(1) and (2) and 
Sec. 219.13(j) need not be prepared prior to development of a revised 
forest plan prepared in accordance with the rules of this subpart.
    (f) The requirement of Sec. 219.12(e) applies starting the first 
full fiscal year after [effective date of the final rule].
    (g) Until such time as forest plans are amended or revised to fully 
conform to the definitions and usage of ``standards'' and 
``guidelines'' as described at Sec. 219.6(e) and (f), the following 
apply:
    (l) Consistency determinations (Sec. 219.11) shall be based on 
whether project decisions adhere to mandatory standards or guidelines 
in current plans; and
    (2) An amendment shall be considered major when one of the 
following circumstances exist:
    (i) One or more mandatory standards or guidelines in the current 
forest plan would be amended in such a manner that the amendment would 
result in significant change to the forest plan and that change is 
predicted to affect resources over a large portion of the plan area 
during the remainder of the plan period;
    (ii) The forest plan would be amended in such a manner that the 
amount of chargeable timber volume which can be sold for a decade from 
a proclaimed National Forest in the plan area exceeds the long-term 
sustained-yield timber capacity of that proclaimed National Forest, 
except as provided at (Sec. 219.13(d)(1)(ii)(B)); or
    (iii) Forest plan direction would be changed to permit harvest of 
even-aged stands that have not reached culmination of mean annual 
increment of growth (Sec. 219.13(e)), including when such a change is 
made to accommodate a project.
    (h) If a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact 
statement has been published for a significant amendment or revision of 
a forest plan prior to [effective date of the final rule], the 
following apply:
    (1) If a draft environmental impact statement accompanying a 
proposed significant amendment has not been issued, the Regional 
Forester shall implement the rules of this subpart. In such case, a new 
Notice of Intent need not be issued; rather, the Regional Forester 
shall notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of any 
changes in the amendment process resulting from compliance with the 
rules of this subpart.
    (2) If a draft environmental impact statement accompanying the 
proposed significant amendment has been issued, the Regional Forester 
may continue under the previous planning rule.
    (3) If a draft environmental impact statement accompanying a 
proposed revision has not been issued, the Regional Forester shall 
implement the rules of this subpart. If a draft environmental impact 
statement accompanying the proposed revision has been issued, the 
Regional Forester may continue under the previous planning rule. If the 
Regional Forester continues under the rules of this subpart, a new 
Notice of Intent need not be issued, the scoping process need not be 
repeated, and the prerevision actions required at Sec. 219.10(c) need 
not specifically occur. However, the Regional Forester must document 
other analyses or evaluations conducted as part of the revision process 
which served to review the entire forest plan and to determine that 
need to change forest plan direction. The Regional Forester shall 
notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of any changes in 
the process for revision resulting from compliance with the rules of 
this subpart.
    (i) Except for the Pacific Southwest Region (36 CFR 200.2), 
regional guides prepared in accordance with the previous planning rule 
shall be withdrawn no later than three years from [effective date of 
the final rule], unless the Chief of the Forest Service determines that 
delay is warranted. The Regional Guide for the Pacific Southwest Region 
shall be maintained 

[[Page 18932]]
until such time as all forest plans in the Region are approved. It 
shall then be withdrawn no later than three years from the date of 
approval of the last forest plan, unless the Chief of the Forest 
Service determines that delay is warranted.
    (j) A forest plan must meet the requirement of Sec. 219.13(g) prior 
to withdrawal of the regional guide for that plan area.

Subpart B--[Reserved]

    Dated: April 4, 1995.
Jack Ward Thomas,
Chief.
[FR Doc. 95-8594 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M