[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54074-54112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25666]


      

[[Page 54073]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Agriculture





_______________________________________________________________________



Forest Service



_______________________________________________________________________



36 CFR Parts 217 and 219



National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 54074]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Parts 217 and 219

RIN 0596-AB20


National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department requests comment on a proposed rule to guide 
land and resource management planning for the National Forest System. 
This proposed rule describes the framework for National Forest System 
planning; makes sustainability the foundation for National Forest 
System planning and management; and establishes requirements for 
implementation, monitoring, evaluation, amendment, and revision of land 
and resource management plans. The intended effects are to simplify, 
clarify and otherwise improve the planning process; to reduce 
burdensome and costly procedural requirements; and to strengthen 
collaborative relationships with the public and other government 
entities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing and received by January 4, 
2000. Public meetings will be held at places and on dates yet to be 
determined. Notice of the times, places, and locations will be 
published in a future edition of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the CAET-USDA, Att. Planning Rule, 
Forest Service, USDA, 200 East Broadway, Room 103, P.O. Box 7669, 
Missoula, Montana 59807, via email at planreg/[email protected], or 
FAX (406) 329-3021.
    Comments, including names and addresses when provided, are subject 
to public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments 
received on this proposed rule in the Office of Deputy Chief, Third 
Floor, Southwest Wing, Yates Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, 
SW, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert S. Cunningham at (406) 329-
3388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline displays the contents 
of the preamble to this proposed rule.
Background
National Forest Management Act Requirements
The Proposed Planning Process
Section-by-Section Description of the Proposed Rule

Purpose, Goals, and Principles

Proposed section 219.1--Purpose.
Proposed section 219.2--Goals and principles for planning.

The Framework for Planning

Proposed section 219.3--Overview.
Proposed section 219.4--Topics of general interest or concern.
Proposed section 219.5--Information development and interpretation.
Proposed section 219.6--Proposed actions.
Proposed section 219.7--Plan decisions that guide future actions.
Proposed section 219.8--Amendment.
Proposed section 219.9--Revision.
Proposed section 219.10--Site-specific decisions and authorized uses 
of land.
Proposed section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability

Proposed section 219.12--Collaboration and cooperatively developed 
landscape goals.
Proposed section 219.13--Coordination among federal agencies.
Proposed section 219.14--Involvement of state and local governments.
Proposed section 219.15--Interaction with American Indian Tribes and 
Alaska.
Proposed section 219.16--Relationships with interested individuals 
and organizations.
Proposed section 219.17--Interaction with private landowners.
Proposed section 219.18--Role of advisory groups and committees.

Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability

Proposed section 219.19--Ecological, social, and economic 
sustainability.
Proposed section 219.20--Ecological sustainability.
Proposed section 219.21--Social and economic sustainability.

The Contribution of Science

Proposed section 219.22--The role of assessments, analyses, and 
monitoring.
Proposed section 219.23--The participation of scientists in 
planning.
Proposed section 219.24--Science consistency evaluations.
Proposed section 219.25--Science advisory boards.

Special Considerations

Proposed section 219.26--Identifying and designating suitable uses.
Proposed section 219.27--Special designations.
Proposed section 219.28--Determination of land suitable for timber 
removal.
Proposed section 219.29--Limitation on timber removal.

Planning Documentation

Proposed section 219.30--Land and resource management plan 
documentation.
Proposed section 219.31--Maintenance of the plan and planning 
records.

Objections and Appeals

Proposed section 219.32--Objections to amendments or revisions.
Proposed section 219.33--Appeals of site-specific decisions.

Applicability and Transition

Proposed section 219.34--Applicability.
Proposed section 219.35--Transition.

Definitions

Proposed section 219.36--Definitions.
Public Comment Invited

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Impact
No Takings Implications
Civil Justice Reform Act
Unfunded Mandates Reform
Environmental Impact
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on The Public Description of the 
Information Collection Use of Comments
Federalism

Background

    The Forest Service is responsible for managing the lands and 
resources of the National Forest System which includes 192 million 
acres of land in 42 states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The 
system is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 
various other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
Agriculture (the Secretary). According to the Multiple-Use Sustained-
Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) (16 U.S.C. 528) and the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the National Forest 
System lands are to be managed for a variety of uses on a sustained-
yield basis to ensure a continued supply of products and services in 
perpetuity.
    The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) guides land management 
planning for National Forest System lands. It directs the Secretary to 
develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource 
management plans for units of the National Forest System and sets forth 
the requirements for doing so. During the 23 years since enactment of 
NFMA, much has been learned about land and resource management 
planning. Yet, many controversial issues regarding the appropriate 
short- and long-term use of national forests and grasslands remain.
    While some advocates of land and resource management planning 
believed it would lead to resolution of the issues associated with the 
management of natural resources, it has not. Difficult issues remain 
among competing interests. Land and resource management planning and 
attendant decisionmaking cannot be expected to resolve all problems; 
however, improved planning procedures can more fully engage the public 
and lead to mutually developed landscape goals and improved public 
participation in

[[Page 54075]]

decisionmaking. The expanded requirements for collaboration and 
scientific input in the proposed new planning process will result in 
expanded management choices and more fully informed decisionmaking to 
ensure the long-term sustainability and health of national forests and 
grasslands.
    In March 1989, the Forest Service initiated a comprehensive review 
of its land and resource management planning process. Results of the 
review were published in May 1990, in a summary report entitled 
``Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management Planning'' (Vol. 1), 
accompanied by ten other more detailed reports. The 1990 Critique 
documented lessons learned since passage of the NFMA and adoption of 
initial plans under that law. The Critique provided recommendations to 
improve planning and the management of national forests and grasslands 
and to more effectively engage the public in addressing future natural 
resource management challenges.
    On February 15, 1991, the Forest Service published an Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 6508) which included preliminary 
regulatory text revising the existing planning rule. Four public 
informational meetings were held to explain and discuss ideas for 
revising the planning procedure. Over 600 individuals and several 
groups of people submitted written comments. These comments were used 
in the development of a proposed rule published on April 13, 1995 (60 
FR 18886).
    A substantial number of public comments were received on the 
proposed rule, generally expressing dissatisfaction with proposed 
changes in the planning process. In part, as a result of public concern 
with changes proposed, the Secretary elected not to proceed with this 
proposal.
    In order to take a fresh look at the issues associated with land 
and resource management planning and to obtain an independent 
perspective, in December 1997, the Secretary of Agriculture convened a 
13-member Committee of Scientists to review the Forest Service planning 
process and to offer recommendations for improvements. The Committee's 
charter was to ``provide scientific and technical advice to the 
Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service on 
improvements that can be made in the National Forest System Land and 
Resource Management Planning Process and to address such topics as how 
to consider the following in land and resource management plans: 
biological diversity, use of ecosystem assessments in land and resource 
management planning, spatial and temporal scales for planning, public 
participation processes, sustainable forestry, interdisciplinary 
analysis, and any other issues that the Committee identifies that 
should be addressed in revised planning regulations.'' USDA Under 
Secretary Lyons noted at the Committee's initial meeting that the 
Committee's challenge was to ``produce a set of recommendations that 
will guide us in developing the next generation of forest plans.''
    Following a series of meetings around the country with Forest 
Service employees, representatives of tribes, state and local 
governments, related federal natural resource agencies, and members of 
the public, the Committee of Scientists issued a final report on March 
15, 1999. The Committee recognized the extraordinary legacy that is the 
National Forest System and characterized these lands as ``a grand 
experiment in multiple-use management.'' The Committee concluded that, 
through careful management, National Forest System lands can continue 
to provide many and diverse benefits to the American people in 
perpetuity. These benefits include clean air and water, productive 
soils, biological diversity, a wide variety of products and services, 
employment, community development opportunities, and recreation. 
National Forest System lands also can provide incalculable benefits 
such as beauty, inspiration, wonder, and a refuge for the renewal of 
the human spirit. Finally, recognizing innovative efforts in the field, 
the Committee concluded that the Forest Service, as the steward of the 
people's lands, can improve its planning and decisionmaking by relying 
on the concepts and principles of sustainable natural resource 
stewardship, by applying the best available scientific knowledge to 
management choices, and by effectively collaborating with a broad array 
of citizens, other public servants, and governmental and private 
entities.
    Based on the Committee of Scientists' findings, the draft 
regulatory text it contained, and over two decades of experience in 
developing and implementing land and resource management plans, a team 
of Forest Service employees, aided by an interagency steering 
committee, prepared this proposed rule. The Forest Service rule writing 
team was selected from different management levels within the 
organization and included representation from the National Forest 
System, Research, and State and Private program areas. In addition to 
the Committee's report, in developing this proposed rule the team also 
considered the 1990 Critique of land and resource management planning, 
and the various laws, regulations, and reports influential in guiding 
planning and management of the National Forest System, including, but 
not limited to:
    The National Forest Management Act;
    The National Environmental Policy Act;
    The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act;
    The Endangered Species Act;
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act;
    Administrative direction in the Forest Service Manual and 
Handbooks;
    The Council on Environmental Quality, ``The Cumulative Effects 
Handbook''
    The 1983 Bureau of Land Management Planning Regulations (40 CFR 
Part 1600); and
    The Council on Environmental Quality, ``The National Environmental 
Policy Act: A Study of its Effectiveness After Twenty-five Years.''

National Forest Management Act Requirements

    Section 6 of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) specifies 
the requirements for the regulations that guide National Forest System 
planning. A synopsis of those requirements follows, along with an 
identification of the sections of the proposed planning rule where the 
requirements are addressed.
    Section 6(d) of NFMA requires public participation in the 
development, review, and revision of land management plans. In response 
to this provision and the Committee's strong recommendations on 
collaborative planning, the proposed rule places increased emphasis on 
the cooperative development of land management plans, requiring 
planners and managers to provide the opportunity and motivation for 
public participation in every phase of the planning process. In 
Sec. 219.2(d)(1) of the proposed rule, the goal, as written by the 
Committee of Scientists, specifically speaks to meaningfully engaging 
the American people in the stewardship of their national forests and 
grasslands to ``build stewardship capacity.'' Sections 219.12 through 
219.18 (Collaborative planning for sustainability) would establish the 
requirements for public involvement including consultation and 
interaction with American Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives, adjacent 
landowners and interested individuals as well as establishing the 
requirements for involving state and local governments

[[Page 54076]]

and coordinating planning with other federal agencies. The requirements 
for public involvement described in these sections are a key feature in 
the proposed planning rule.
    Section 6(e) of NFMA requires plans to provide for: (1) The 
multiple-use and sustained-yield of products and services from National 
Forest System lands; and (2) the determination of forest silvicultural 
systems, harvest levels and procedures, and the availability of lands 
and their suitability for timber production.
    The multiple-use, sustained-yield objective is embodied in the goal 
at Sec. 219.2(b)(1). Sections 219.19 through 219.21 make ecological, 
social, and economic sustainability the overall goal for National 
Forest System management to provide for the multiple-use and sustained-
yield of the products and services derived there from. Additional 
statutory requirements, including timber management systems 
(Sec. 219.7), harvest levels, and availability and suitability of 
lands, are incorporated in Secs. 219.26 through 219.29 (Special 
considerations).
    Section 6(f) of NFMA lists five requirements: (1) The development 
of one integrated land and resource management plan for each unit of 
the National Forest System; (2) the embodiment of the plan in 
appropriate written material; (3) interdisciplinary plan development; 
(4) amendment of the plan as needed; and (5) revision of the plan from 
time to time or at least every 15 years. The requirements of this 
section are addressed in Secs. 219.3 through 219.11 which describe the 
proposed planning framework, in Secs. 219.30 and 219.31 (Planning 
documentation) which describe the content of a land and resource 
management plan, and in Sec. 219.8 (Amendment) and Sec. 219.9 
(Revision).
    Section 6(g) of NFMA requires the development of planning 
regulations that are in compliance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-
Yield Act. Section 6(g) also requires: (1) Compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); (2) guidelines for the identification 
of land suitability, gathering inventory data and the identification of 
resource hazards; and (3) guidelines that ensure economic and 
environmental aspects of resource management; ensure maintenance of the 
diversity of plant and animal species; ensure that research is 
conducted; permit increases in harvest based on specific requirements; 
ensure the harvest of timber based on various resource conditions; 
specify silvicultural requirements; identify riparian or wetland 
protection needs; and describe specific harvest systems and size 
limitations for fundamental resource protection.
    In Sec. 219.12 (Collaboration and cooperatively developed landscape 
goals), the proposed rule addresses application of the nation's 
environmental policy as described in the NEPA. Compliance with the 
procedural requirements of NEPA is addressed in Secs. 219.3 through 
219.11 (The framework for planning). It is important to note that the 
Forest Service NEPA procedures are to guide decisionmaking procedures 
described in these sections.
    Land suitability and the identification of special conditions and 
resource hazards are addressed in Sec. 219.26 (Identifying and 
designating suitable uses) and in Sec. 219.27 (Special designations). 
Inventory data collection is addressed in Secs. 219.22 through 219.25 
(The contribution of science) and Sec. 219.5 (Information development 
and interpretation).
    The economic and environmental aspects of resource management are 
addressed in Secs. 219.19 through 219.21 (Ecological, social and 
economic sustainability), Sec. 219.4 (Topics of general interest or 
concern) and in Sec. 219.6 (Proposed actions). The diversity of plant 
and animal species, protection of riparian or wetland resources, and 
research needs are addressed indirectly in Secs. 219.22 through 219.25 
(The contribution of science), and directly in Secs. 219.19 through 
219.21 (Ecological, social and economic sustainability). Various 
requirements for the management of timber resources are addressed in 
Sec. 219.28 (Determination of land suitable for timber removal) and 
Sec. 219.29 (Limitation on timber removal). Fundamental natural 
resource protection is highlighted in Secs. 219.3 through 219.11 (The 
framework for planning) and in Secs. 219.19 through 219.21 (Ecological, 
social, and economic sustainability).
    Sections 6(i) and (j) of NFMA require that resource management 
actions be consistent with land management plan direction and define 
when plans become effective. Consistency with land and resource 
management plan decisions and the date when land and resource 
management plans become effective are addressed in Secs. 219.3 through 
219.11 (The framework for planning) and in Sec. 219.35 (Transition).
    Section 6(k) of NFMA requires the identification of lands not 
suitable for timber production. Section (6)(k)(1) requires a process 
for estimating long-term costs and benefits related to timber 
management; and section (6)(k)(2) requires a summary of this 
information in the form of an annual report. The final part of Section 
6(k)(2) requires standards to ensure that trees have reached the 
culmination of mean annual increment, the use of sound silvicultural 
practices, and that standards do not preclude salvage or sanitation 
harvest. Exceptions to these standards include consideration of other 
resource uses.
    The requirement for the identification of lands not suitable for 
timber production is included in Sec. 219.28 (Determination of land 
suitable for timber removal). The process for estimating long-term 
costs and benefits related to timber management is addressed in 
Sec. 219.21 (Social and economic sustainability). The requirement for a 
summary of information in the form of an annual report is included in 
Secs. 219.30 and 219.31 (Planning documentation). The procedures to 
ensure harvest of timber within the requirements of NFMA including the 
mean annual increment, the practice of sound silvicultural systems, and 
direction for salvage or sanitation harvests are included in the Forest 
Service Directive System.

The Proposed Planning Process

Statutory Background and Overview

    Under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 
1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), 
the Secretary of Agriculture is required to ``develop, maintain, and, 
as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of 
the National Forest System.'' 16 U.S.C. 1604(a). Land and resource 
management plans, in large part, furnish overall programmatic guidance 
for the management of individual national forests and grasslands and 
the design of site-specific projects such as timber sales or watershed 
restoration projects.
    Currently, all national forests and grasslands are operating under 
land and resource management plans developed under the existing forest 
planning regulations. There are two ways that these plans can be 
changed: revision and amendment. The NFMA requires revision of plans at 
least every 15 years, and revision can also occur whenever 
circumstances affecting the entire plan area or major portions of it 
have changed significantly. The proposed rule will set standards for 
the upcoming revision of most of the existing land and resource 
management plans, which were adopted in the 1980's and early 1990's. 
Amendment is a means of updating the forest plan's programmatic 
direction between the periodic revisions that must occur every 15 
years. The proposed rule provides for a flexible

[[Page 54077]]

ongoing process of investigating and responding to new information, 
which can lead to either the revision or amendment of plans or the 
development of appropriate site-specific projects to address changing 
circumstances as they arise.

The Content of Plans

    Under the proposed rule, land and resource management plans would 
contain four categories of decisions (Sec. 219.7). First, they 
establish desired resource conditions to achieve long-term 
sustainability (which may include, but are not limited to, the desired 
watershed and ecological conditions and aquatic and terrestrial habitat 
characteristics). Second, the plans contain goals (statements of 
intent), objectives (measurable results intended to achieve goals), 
standards, and guidelines. The standards and guidelines provide 
criteria for the design of site-specific projects that address such 
important considerations as species and their habitat, timber harvest 
guidelines, and watershed integrity. Third, plans include the 
designation and identification of suitable uses within the plan area 
(e.g., lands where timber production is an appropriate objective) and 
designations of special areas. Finally, the plans contain monitoring 
and evaluation requirements, which guide ongoing forest or grassland 
management.
    The addition, removal, or modification of any of these decisions 
requires either revision or amendment of the plan.

Revision

    Under the proposed planning rule, a land and resource management 
plan must be revised whenever circumstances affecting the entire plan 
area or major portions of the plan area have changed significantly or 
the plan has reached its 15-year statutory age limit (Sec. 219.9). To 
begin the revision process, the responsible officials would summarize 
existing information and provide for scientific review of the 
effectiveness of current management, among other steps, and make this 
information available for public review. The responsible officials must 
then publish a Notice of Intent to revise in the Federal Register, and 
provide for a second opportunity for public comment for at least 45 
days regarding the scope of the proposed revision. Following any 
adjustment in the scope of the revision in response to these comments, 
the responsible officials must prepare a NEPA document on the proposed 
revision and provide at least a 90-day public comment period.
    Any person may file objections to a proposed revision within 30 
days of publication of the availability of the final NEPA document 
(Sec. 219.32). The responsible official must prepare a written response 
to the objection by the time a decision is reached. Any final decision 
to revise plans will become effective 30 days after notice of the 
decision is published in the Federal Register.

Amendment

    In addition to revision, a land and resource management plan may 
also be amended (Sec. 219.8) to add, remove, or modify one or more of 
the decisions embodied in a forest plan.
    Like other Forest Service actions, proposed amendments require 
compliance with NEPA. As part of the NEPA process, the responsible 
official must determine whether the significance of the proposed 
amendment's impact on the environment, and whether an environmental 
impact statement is required. The NFMA also requires that the Forest 
Services determine whether amendments are significant under this 
statute as well. The proposed rule simplifies this NFMA finding by 
linking it to the required significance determination under NEPA. Thus, 
the responsible official must make only one determination of 
significance, under the well-known standards of NEPA. For significant 
amendments, the preparation of an environmental impact statement and a 
90-day public comment period are required. For non-significant 
amendments, less detailed levels of NEPA compliance such as the 
preparation of environmental assessments are appropriate. There is the 
same opportunity for persons to file objections to proposed amendments 
as there is for proposed revisions (Sec. 219.32). All decisions to 
approve amendments become effective after the responsible official 
gives notice of the proposed decision.

Site-Specific Projects

    The NFMA provides that ``[r]esource plans and permits, contracts, 
and other instruments for the use and occupancy of the National Forest 
System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans.'' 16 
U.S.C. 1604 (i). If a proposed site-specific activity is not consistent 
with the land management plan, the responsible official may ``[m]odify 
the proposal to make it consistent with the plan''; ``[r]eject the 
proposal''; or ``[a]mend the plan to permit the proposal.'' 53 FR 
26,836 (1988). However, the fact that a proposed activity is consistent 
with the applicable land management plan does not mean that it will 
actually go forward, or that it can be undertaken without further 
scrutiny. Rather, when an individual project (such as a timber sale or 
closure and obliteration of an unneeded road) is proposed, the agency 
undertakes an individual study of its likely environmental effects and 
renders a formal decision regarding it. The Forest Service is required 
by statute to provide opportunities for public notice and comment, 
along with a right of administrative appeal for all ``proposed actions 
of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing 
land and resource management plans.''

Ongoing Process

    The proposed planning rule sets out an innovative planning 
framework to update land and resource management plans. The goal is to 
create a planning process that enables responsible officials to amend 
their plans quickly and soundly in response to new information or 
changed conditions.
    Formally, the proposed planning process (Appendix A) for updating 
plans begins with a topic(s) of general interest or concern 
(Sec. 219.4). Sources for these topics of general interest or concern 
may include new Forest Service conservation initiatives, enactment of 
new laws or policies, discussions among people, organizations, or 
governments, etc. or information generated from a later stage of the 
planning process. For example, monitoring and evaluation plays a key 
role in the proposed planning process. Under the proposed rule, 
information from inventory and monitoring would feed back into the 
proposed planning process at various points throughout the process and 
could lead to the development of a topic of general interest or 
concern. Information from a broad-scale assessment or local analysis 
could also lead to the development of a topic of general interest or 
concern.
    Once a general topic of concern arises, the responsible official 
would have to determine whether the topic should receive consideration 
(Sec. 219.4). In so doing, the official would consider the criteria 
listed in Sec. 219.4(b). If, after using these criteria, the 
responsible official determined that a topic of general interest or 
concern should receive further consideration, the responsible official 
would then evaluate whether adequate information existed about the 
topic (Sec. 219.5). Information could come from a number of existing 
sources, including existing inventories, broad-scale assessments, local 
analyses, or from information voluntarily submitted from interested 
parties. If obtaining

[[Page 54078]]

more information was desirable and could be obtained at a reasonable 
cost and in a timely manner, a broad-scale assessment or local analysis 
could be developed or supplemented.
    Broad-scale assessments provide information regarding ecological, 
economic, or social topics that are broad in geographic scale. In most 
cases, they go well beyond individual national forest and grassland 
boundaries. The results from assessments are not proposed actions or 
decisions subject to NEPA procedures. But under the proposed rule, 
their findings and conclusions could be used to inform the planning 
process and/or develop new topics of general interest or concern. 
Similarly, local analyses provide information that aids in the 
identification of possible actions or projects on a more local scale. 
Depending on the situation, broad-scale assessments and local analyses 
should provide information related to ecological factors set forth in 
Sec. 219.20 and/or social and economic factors set forth in 
Sec. 219.21. These assessments and analyses do not make decisions, but 
instead provide information which may assist in subsequent decisions. 
Although the assessments and analyses will often involve extensive 
public participation, persons only have legal rights to comment or 
participate if the responsible officials make actual decisions 
regarding revisions, amendments, or site-specific projects. If the 
assessments or analyses affect actual decisions, the public will 
necessarily have an opportunity to comment before actual decisions are 
made. Furthermore, there is no right to judicial review of the broad-
scale assessments and local analyses, which responsible officials are 
encouraged rather than legally mandated to undertake to update their 
knowledge of changing conditions.
    Based on consideration of the criteria in Sec. 219.4(b) and 
available information in Sec. 219.5, responsible officials could 
propose to revise a plan, amend it, and/or propose a site-specific 
project (Sec. 219.10). In each case, they would be required to analyze 
alternatives and effects of the proposal in conformance with agency 
NEPA procedures. A formal NEPA process would ensue, although, a 
responsible official may use the above planning process to accomplish 
the NEPA scoping process. These decisions all give the public 
opportunities for input, either through objections (revision or 
amendment), or notice and comment and administrative appeal (site-
specific projects).
    Monitoring and evaluation assess the effectiveness of the plan 
(Sec. 219.11). Under the proposed rule, monitoring and evaluation would 
aid in identification of new topics of general interest or concern, the 
development of new assessments, and the selection process for site-
specific projects.
    Although monitoring and evaluation is the last step in describing 
the planning process, it does not end the planning process. Indeed, in 
practice these monitoring and evaluation requirements, like the broad-
scale assessments and local analyses described above, would provide 
important feedback information that would continuously link planning to 
plan implementation. Under the proposed planning rule, a national 
forest or grassland, like a business or other large organization, would 
always be ready to respond quickly to new information or changed 
conditions.
    Under the proposed rule, the exact planning process might be very 
different on two different national forests or grasslands, depending on 
the amount of monitoring and assessment information that exists, the 
problems and opportunities facing the administrative units, the level 
of public involvement in the planning process, etc. These differences 
would enable National Forest and Grassland Supervisors to amend or 
revise their land and resource management plans in ways that best match 
the complex issues and conditions they face. It would also make 
planning a meaningful exercise that better promotes the health of the 
resources on our national forests and grasslands setting more realistic 
expectations for the goods, services, and amenities the national 
forests and grasslands can provide. Of course, plans would still have 
to meet the broad framework goals and principles for planning and 
specific requirements in the proposed rule.

Key Elements of Planning

    The proposed planning process is built upon the fundamental 
statutes that have guided national forest management for nearly a 
century as well as the wealth of experience gained since the passage of 
NFMA and the initiation of the land and resource management process. 
The Committee of Scientists' report serves as a synthesis of this 
information and provides valuable guidance in understanding the 
successes and failures of forest planning to date.
    The proposed rule sets forth a new collaborative, adaptable 
planning process that fully engages the public and requires use of the 
best available science to ensure informed decisionmaking. The process 
set forth in the proposed rule creates opportunities for people, 
communities, and organizations to work together to develop mutual 
understanding regarding desired resource conditions and outcomes as 
well as to develop multiple-use management options designed to achieve 
desired resource conditions and outcomes in ways that respond to public 
interests or concerns. Consistent with the 1990 Critique, as validated 
by the Committee of Scientists' report, the proposed rule emphasizes 
monitoring and evaluation so that managers and others can evaluate 
management performance, determine if desired and/or anticipated 
outcomes are achieved, and adapt as resource conditions change over 
time. This emphasis is in keeping with NFMA's mandate to evaluate the 
effects of management systems, based on continuous monitoring and 
assessment in the field, to ensure that substantial and permanent 
impairment of the productivity of the land will not result (16 U.S.C. 
1604(g)(3)(C)).
    The proposed rule would affirm ecological, social, and economic 
sustainability as the overall goal for management of National Forest 
System lands. To achieve sustainability, the first priority for 
management is the maintenance and restoration of ecological 
sustainability to provide a sustainable flow of products, services and 
other values from these lands. As the Committee of Scientists 
explained, making ecological sustainability the first priority does not 
mean that the agency will maximize the protection of plant and animal 
species to the exclusion of human values and uses. Rather, it means 
that, without ecologically sustainable systems, other uses of the lands 
and their resources would be impaired (Committee of Scientists' report, 
page xvi.).
    The proposed rule also would simplify required planning steps to 
enable responsible officials to more readily address emerging issues 
than is now possible with current required planning steps. For example, 
the proposed rule would clarify that, where appropriate, multiple 
planning activities of one or more national forests or grasslands can 
be combined among administrative boundaries. Additionally, current 
requirements for detailed analyses, such as those required for 
benchmark analyses, would be streamlined or eliminated. The current 
regulatory criteria for determining whether a proposed amendment would 
result in a significant change in a plan, triggering requirements under 
section 6(f)(4) of NFMA, would be revised. Under the proposed rule, the 
significance of a

[[Page 54079]]

proposed amendment for NFMA purposes would be linked to the threshold 
for significance under NEPA procedures. This will coordinate NFMA and 
NEPA requirements, and eliminate confusion associated with having two 
different thresholds for significance in the planning process. The 
proposed rule also allows the steps in the planning framework to be 
coordinated with the scoping requirements under the Forest Service NEPA 
procedures when appropriate. This will reduce duplication when 
preparing environmental documents associated with management of the 
National Forest System.
    A key element of the proposed rule is increased emphasis on 
collaboration as a means to encourage broader public participation in 
the planning process. The rules provide for regular and sustained 
involvement of other federal natural resource agencies, tribal 
governments, state and local governments, interested organizations, and 
the public in a continuing process of discussion and collaboration.
    The Committee of Scientists heard that many people are tired of the 
demands placed on the public and the agency by the current planning 
process. Many report that detailed analyses and seemingly endless 
meetings have resulted in planning documents deemed obsolete before 
their completion. Public concerns and events have sometimes overtaken 
the Forest Service's ability to respond. In an effort to avoid this in 
the future, the proposed rule provides a planning framework that 
facilitates the identification and responsive resolution to emerging 
problems such that plans ensure long-term sustainability and address 
evolving conditions.
    Under the proposed rule, improvements to management practices would 
be made based upon cooperatively developed landscape goals and other 
topics of general interest or concern which can emerge from a variety 
of sources such as collaboration, monitoring, evaluation, broad-scale 
assessments, local analyses, new laws and policies, or simply from 
discussions among interested persons. The proposed planning process 
would provide for consideration of identified topics of general 
interest or concern, development of information as needed, and 
proposals for agency action when appropriate for resolution. 
Additionally, the proposed rule requires annually updated displays of 
proposed, authorized, and completed actions, and annually updated 2-
year projections of anticipated outcomes, products, and services to 
provide realistic estimates based upon on-the-ground analyses.
    Through this collaborative approach, and by providing interested 
publics with additional information regarding management direction, 
outcomes, and accomplishments for each management unit, the proposed 
planning process seeks to encourage the public's active involvement in 
forest planning. This approach is not only consistent with the 
direction provided in NFMA and other statutes guiding land and resource 
management, but is also in concert with the underlying philosophy of 
national forest management as reflected in guidance provided by Gifford 
Pinchot in the first Forest Service administrative manual, ``Uses of 
the National Forests'' (1907), in which he stated, ``National Forests 
are made for and owned by the people. They should also be managed by 
the people. * * * If National Forests are going to accomplish anything 
worthwhile the people must know all about them and must take a very 
active part in their management. What the people as a whole want will 
be done. To do it, it is necessary that the people carefully consider 
and plainly state just what they want and then take a very active part 
in seeing that they get it.''

Emphasis on Science in Planning

    Another key element in the proposed planning process is renewed 
emphasis on the use of science in planning and the role of scientists 
in the decisionmaking process. The proposed rule requires use of the 
best available science to improve the ability of people, communities, 
and organizations to work together to develop mutual understandings 
about desired resource conditions and outcomes as well as to develop 
multiple-use management options that respond to public interests or 
concerns in the context of best available information and analysis.
    The rule would incorporate science and scientists in the planning 
and decisionmaking process in a number of ways.
    First, the rule recognizes the lessons learned in recent years in 
the development and analysis of scientific information as it affects 
natural resource management on a regional basis. The use of regional 
ecosystem assessment, as a basis for understanding the scientific, 
ecological, social, and economic issues affecting resource conditions 
and trends has proved extremely valuable as a means of generating 
baseline data for use in planning and decisionmaking.
    In addition, as efforts continue to adopt the principle of adaptive 
management to guide natural resource stewardship, greater emphasis 
needs to be placed on evaluating resource conditions and monitoring 
trends over time. Consistent with the 1990 Critique as validated by the 
Committee of Scientists' report, the proposed rule emphasizes 
monitoring and evaluation so that management can be adapted as 
conditions change over time. This emphasis is in keeping with NFMA's 
direction to ensure research on evaluation of the effects of each 
management system, based on continuous monitoring and assessment in the 
field, to the end that it will not produce substantial and permanent 
impairment of the productivity of the land (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C)). 
As noted by the Committee, ``Monitoring is a key component of planning 
* * *. Monitoring procedures need to be incorporated into planning 
procedures and should be designed to be part of the information used to 
inform decisions. Adaptive management and learning are not possible 
without effective monitoring of actual consequences from management 
activities.''
    Finally, the proposed planning process provides for the 
establishment of science advisory boards to improve access for 
decisionmakers and planners to current scientific information and 
analysis. The role of these science boards, and of scientists in the 
planning process, in general, is emphasized by the following 
observation of the Committee of Scientists, ``To ensure public trust 
and support innovation, scientific and technical review processes need 
to become essential elements of management and stewardship. * * * The 
more that conservation strategies and management actions are based on 
scientific findings and analysis, the greater the need for an ongoing 
process to ensure that the most current and complete scientific and 
technical knowledge is used.''

Learning and Improving Planning

    In summary, the proposed planning process provides for a 
continuous, collaborative approach to planning based upon best 
available scientific information and analysis and the concepts of 
ecological, social, and economic sustainability. This new and improved 
approach to planning is consistent with the statutory foundations for 
national forest and grassland management, experiences learned over the 
course of two decades of land and resource management planning under 
the NFMA, and the recommendations of the Committee of Scientists.
    The proposed planning process is built upon the learning and 
innovation that has occurred and continues to occur among 
decisionmakers, scientists, and collaborators, as observed by the

[[Page 54080]]

Committee of Scientists. Thus, the proposed process is not a 
``cookbook'' for making decisions, but a process that encourages 
learning and the evolution of new ideas that will improve the planning 
process over time.

Section-by-Section Description of the Proposed Rule

Purpose, Goals, and Principles

Proposed Section 219.1--Purpose.
    This section describes the purpose of the proposed rule. The 
proposed rule would (1) describe the framework for National Forest 
System resource planning and decisionmaking; (2) encourage public 
participation and collaboration in resource management decisionmaking; 
(3) incorporate principles of sustainable resource management; and (4) 
establish requirements for implementing, amending, revising, 
monitoring, and evaluating land and resource management plans. Land and 
resource management plans for all units of the National Forest System 
have been developed under the existing rule. Therefore, the proposed 
rule focuses on planning procedures and the amendment and revision of 
the existing land and resource management plans.
Proposed Section 219.2--Goals and Principles for Planning.
    This section of the proposed rule would establish five goals to be 
considered in land and resource management planning and decisionmaking. 
For each goal, this section sets out associated principles. The goals 
and principles for planning are those recommended by the Committee of 
Scientists, and emphasize the concepts of sustainable resource 
management, collaboration, and stewardship of the National Forest 
System and are intended to be statements of best planning practices.
    The five goals of planning and management are, in the words of the 
Committee of Scientists, (1) to strive to assure the ecological 
sustainability of our watersheds, forests, and rangelands; (2) as part 
of the overall goal of sustainability, promote economic and social 
sustainability by providing for a wide variety of uses, values, 
products, services, and community benefits; (3) to recognize and 
efficiently integrate national forest and grassland management into the 
broader geographic, legal, political, and social landscape within which 
national forests and grasslands exist; and (4) to meaningfully engage 
the American people in the stewardship of their national forests and 
grasslands; and (5) to be at once visionary and pragmatic in guiding 
decisionmaking.

The Framework for Planning

Proposed Section 219.3--Overview.
    Paragraph (a) of this section lays out the conceptual foundation of 
the proposed rule. Rather than viewing planning as an activity with a 
fixed beginning and ending, with rigid procedural steps and somewhat 
artificial analytical requirements, the proposed rule recognizes 
planning as a continuous, dynamic process that is driven by public 
interests or concerns about National Forest System resources or 
management, the results of monitoring and evaluation, or other new 
information. One of the underlying concepts is that now that the first 
round of plans are in place, the process should not focus on how to 
create new plans, but rather on how to improve upon the plans that are 
in effect. Thus, the proposed rule focuses on amending and revising 
plans and gathering better and more comprehensive information on which 
to base plan decisions. The key to gathering better information is 
through conducting broad-scale assessments and ensuring independent 
reviews and advice from scientists.
    Another important conceptual difference between this proposed rule 
and the existing planning rule is the emphasis on collaborative 
planning. Under the proposed rule, the responsible official is expected 
to actively seek and encourage citizens, organizations, and governments 
to participate fully in identifying topics of general interest or 
concern that may require some action and to participate in deciding 
whether an interest or concern is ready to be addressed. This is a 
fundamentally different approach than that in the existing rule. The 
existing rule requires input from others less frequently and more 
formally than anticipated under the proposed rule.
    Another significant addition to the planning process under this 
proposed rule is the integration of site-specific, project-level 
analysis and decisionmaking into the planning framework. The current 
planning rule is limited to forest planning at the programmatic level; 
no direction is given on planning, analyzing, and approving site-
specific actions that apply the decisions adopted in plans or that 
achieve the desired conditions, goals, or objectives established in 
plans.
    In addition, another significant change from the existing rule is 
the recognition that a meaningful forest or grassland plan cannot be 
bound between two covers, but must allow for the continuous changes 
anticipated by this proposed rule. Thus, the plan is a repository of 
the information and decisions required by the proposed rule.
    Paragraph (b) describes the levels of planning at the national, 
regional, or national forest or grassland level depending on the nature 
and scope of topics of general interest or concern. This paragraph also 
establishes the Forest or Grassland Supervisor as the responsible 
official for the land and resource management plan. Under the existing 
rule, the Regional Forester is the responsible official for land and 
resource management plans. This proposed change in responsibility is 
based on the changing nature of the planning process. The existing rule 
was designed for the initial development of land and resource 
management plans and, because such plans had never been prepared, it 
was decided that the Regional Forester should be the responsible 
official. However, now that the first iteration of plans has been 
adopted, a revised planning rule should focus on the revision, 
amendment, and implementation of the existing land and resource 
management plans. The proposed rule would allow for one or more 
Regional Foresters or the Chief of the Forest Service to undertake 
planning which would amend simultaneously several relevant land and 
resource management plans for needs affecting a larger geographic area 
than that covered by a single national forest or grassland. Issues that 
might warrant such a regional approach include the recovery of an 
endangered species or regional forest health issues.
    The proposed rule provides for linkage of various planning 
processes and levels. In the proposed rule, resource management plans 
would be related in substantive and meaningful ways to the long-term 
goals and objectives of the Forest Service to ensure progress toward 
those national-level goals and objectives. Proposed paragraph (b) would 
establish the context for land and resource management plans and the 
need for consideration of the Forest Service's national strategic, 
long-term goals, objectives, and outcome measures in resource 
management planning.
    Proposed paragraph (c) identifies the key elements in land and 
resource management planning and the decisionmaking process: (1) Broad-
scale assessments (Sec. 219.4(b)) and Cooperatively developed landscape 
goals (Sec. 219.12(b)); (2) Topics of general interest or concern; (3) 
Information development and interpretation; (4) Proposed actions; (5) 
Plan decisions that guide future actions; (6) Amendment; (7) Revision; 
(8) Monitoring and

[[Page 54081]]

evaluation; and (9) Site-specific decisions and authorized uses of 
land.
Proposed Section 219.4--Topics of General Interest or Concern
    This section would establish a process for identifying, discussing, 
and, if appropriate, acting on topics of general interest or concern 
that may emerge from a variety of sources, such as the results of 
monitoring and evaluation, new information, collaboratively developed 
landscape goals, or discussions with those interested in National 
Forest System management.
    Paragraph (a) describes topics of general interest or concern. 
These topics may originate from many sources. The existing rule refers 
to ``issues'' in a similar context; however, the Committee of 
Scientists viewed the word ``issue'' as having a negative connotation, 
referring to a problem that needs to be solved or something that 
required action. A topic of general interest or concern is a broader 
concept than an issue in that it includes any subject of interest or 
concern to any of the many partners and individuals interested in how 
the National Forest System is managed. A topic of general interest or 
concern may not require immediate action; it may simply spur discussion 
or the need for better understanding among the public and interested 
individuals.
    To help determine when action on a topic of general interest or 
concern is needed rather than just discussion and better understanding, 
paragraph (b) includes several factors for the responsible official to 
consider. These factors include the level of public interest generated 
by the topic of interest or concern, the opportunities to contribute to 
ecological, social and economic sustainability by resolving the issue, 
the opportunities to improve ecological conditions or contribute to 
social or cultural values, the capability and resources to act, and 
other factors such as the potential for disproportionally high or 
adverse environmental effects on minority populations.
    In the past, the agency often has been either too quick to act in 
initiating procedural requirements of NEPA to resolve potential 
problems or too slow. With regard to the former, acting too quickly 
without all of the information needed to properly define and resolve 
the issue, and without initially involving the public, has made issues 
more controversial and less clear, and resolutions harder to reach. The 
proposed rule would provide the agency with the framework and direction 
to move forward in addressing topics of interest or concern so that the 
public has confidence that the agency is taking appropriate action when 
and where it is needed.
Proposed Section 219.5--Information Development and Interpretation
    This section describes information needed to further consider a 
topic of general interest or concern and provides direction on 
conducting broad-scale assessments and local analyses. When the 
responsible official determines that readily available scientific 
information is not adequate, a broad-scale assessment or local analysis 
should be conducted to obtain the needed information. The proposed rule 
makes clear that the findings and reports from assessments and analyses 
are not proposed actions or decisions subject to NEPA analyses and 
documentation.
    Broad-scale assessments would be conducted to provide information 
specific to identified topics of general interest or concern with a 
broad geographic scale. Broad ecological boundaries or a broad social 
or economic community of interest would define the geographic scale. 
Agency personnel and other individuals and organizations that have 
knowledge or interest in the assessment area would collaboratively 
develop broad-scale assessments. These assessments would use the best 
available scientific information and analysis in describing the 
historic and current biological, physical, social, and economic 
conditions. The assessments would present findings and conclusions that 
describe the status and trends of ecological, social, and economic 
conditions and their relation to sustainability, and whether additional 
research is needed.
    Section 219.5(a)(2) would establish a connection to nationwide 
Forest Service assessments, as they provide the context for broad-scale 
assessments. Nationwide Forest Service assessments and strategies 
provide a national portrait of the status and trends in supply, demand, 
and resource conditions for various natural resources on all forest and 
range lands within the United States and are useful in the preparation 
of broad-scale assessments. Other sources of information are also 
available to aid in the preparation of broad-scale assessments.
    Local analyses are conducted at a geographic scale that is smaller 
than the area covered in a broad-scale assessment. A local analysis 
focuses on an aquatic or terrestrial ecological unit or a social or 
economic community that is appropriate for the type and complexity of 
the topic of general interest or concern under consideration. Local 
analyses use the best available scientific information and analysis, 
and may be used to collect additional information, such as inventory 
data or current conditions.

    Comparison of the Components of Broad-Scale Assessments and Local
                                Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Broad-scale
         Components                assessment          Local analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose.....................  Gathering and         Gathering existing
                               synthesizing          information and/or
                               existing              collecting new
                               information for       information that is
                               identified issues.    synthesized.
Who does it.................  Scientists and        Forest Service
                               managers together.    managers with input
                               A Regional Forester   from scientists.
                               and Research
                               Station Director
                               share the lead.
Scale.......................  Broad and             Usually a watershed
                               appropriate to        within a subpart of
                               address identified    a plan area. May be
                               issues. Usually       a subpart of a
                               greater than or       broad-scale
                               equal to one or       assessment area and
                               more plan areas.      often used for site-
                                                     specific projects.
Information source..........  Usually existing      Existing information
                               information,          and/or new
                               including             inventory data.
                               monitoring data.
Conclusion..................  Findings.             Recommendations.
Use.........................  Development of        Development of
                               proposed management   project proposals
                               direction,            necessary to carry
                               conservation          out decisions of a
                               strategies,           land and resource
                               policies, or          management plan.
                               programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 54082]]

Proposed Section 219.6--Proposed Actions
    In this section, the concept of a proposal for Forest Service 
action is described. Under this proposed rule, the agency would not 
initiate the NEPA procedures until the agency has determined it is 
appropriate to propose an action based on the consideration of factors 
in Sec. 219.4, available information and analyses (Sec. 219.5), and the 
ability to meaningfully evaluate the effects of one or more alternative 
actions. The intent here is to require more up-front thought when 
considering and framing proposals for action. Paragraph (b) explains 
that the responsible official may use the planning framework to 
accomplish the scoping process described in Forest Service NEPA 
procedures. This is a more inclusive, collaborative approach to scoping 
than the agency has used in the past, and would streamline the planning 
process.
Proposed Section 219.7--Plan Decisions That Guide Future Actions
    This section describes the decisions that would be made through the 
planning process of the proposed rule. The existing rule does not 
precisely address the nature of land and resource management plan 
decisions and the appropriate scope of environmental analyses. 
Confusion over the nature of the decisions embodied in a land and 
resource management plan has been a principal source of controversy. 
Initially, many people believed land and resource management plans 
would lead to irretrievable resource commitments for all projects 
necessary to fully achieve the goals and objectives of the plan. It was 
often argued that land and resource management plans irretrievably 
committed the Forest Service to individual projects but failed to 
provide the analysis and documentation required by statutes such as 
NEPA.
    Under the proposed rule, each land and resource management plan 
would include four categories of decisions that would guide future 
agency actions: (1) Desired conditions which describe the long-term 
sustainability sought over a period of time; (2) goals, objectives, 
standards, and guidelines applicable to all or a portion of the plan 
area; (3) identification and designation of suitable uses and 
designation of special areas; and (4) identification of required 
monitoring and evaluation. The environmental document accompanying an 
amendment or revision to a land and resource management plan, usually a 
broad statement (45 CFR Part 1502.20), would identify the scope of the 
federal action and associated environmental impacts. The environmental 
reviews of pending site-specific actions within a watershed could then 
tier to existing environmental documents to reduce unnecessary 
paperwork as described in NEPA procedures (45 CFR part 1500.4).
    The proposed rule is significantly different from the existing rule 
with regard to the linking of different levels of planning. The 
proposed rule is responsive to the Committee of Scientists' report in 
terms of connections between planning levels and the roles of the 
National Assessment and the RPA Program, each required by the Forest 
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. Sections 
219.7(b)(1) and 219.9(d)(1) address how decisions made for land and 
resource management plans and decisions to change such plans would be 
linked to the Forest Service strategic plan goals and objectives (Table 
1).

  Table 1.--The Planning and Decisionmaking Levels of the Existing and
                             Proposed Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Existing rule         Proposed rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levels of Information         National, Regional,   Broad-scale
 Collection and                and national forest   assessment--the
 Interpretation.               and grassland--the    scope and scale of
                               scope of              information
                               information set by    gathering is based
                               administrative unit.  on the scope and
                                                     scale of
                                                     information needs.
                              Other information     Local Analysis--
                               needs based on        provides
                               issues.               information for
                                                     site-specific
                                                     projects such as a
                                                     timber sale or
                                                     watershed
                                                     improvement project
                                                     and, if
                                                     appropriate, ties
                                                     to the findings of
                                                     a broad-scale
                                                     assessment.
Required Plans..............  Regional Guide--one   No Regional Guide
                               per Region.           after 3 years--The
                                                     direction for
                                                     management would
                                                     reside in the
                                                     applicable LRMP.
                              One land and          Same.
                               resource management
                               plan (LRMP) per
                               national forest and
                               grassland (units
                               can be combined
                               when under the
                               jurisdiction of a
                               Forest Supervisor).
Responsible Official........  Regional Guide--      Regional Guide--
                               Chief.                Eliminated.
                              LRMP--Regional        LRMP--Forest
                               Forester for          Supervisor with
                               adoption,             authority for a
                               significant           higher-level
                               amendment and         official to amend
                               revision. Forest      or revise as
                               Supervisor for non-   needed.
                               significant
                               amendment.
Amendment...................  Large amendments      Only one type of
                               (significant)         amendment. The
                               similar to revision   scope of the change
                               while less            in the plan
                               extensive             dictates the
                               amendments (non-      appropriate public
                               significant) are      review and
                               possible for          necessary steps in
                               changes in the        agency NEPA
                               content of a plan.    procedures.
Revision....................  Start as if no plan   Evaluate plan,
                               existed and project   provide for public
                               high and low output   review, and make
                               and budget options.   appropriate changes
                                                     to plan following
                                                     agency NEPA
                                                     procedures. All
                                                     national forests
                                                     and grasslands now
                                                     have plans in
                                                     effect.
Site-specific projects......  Not addressed.......  The planning
                                                     framework is used
                                                     to guide project
                                                     identification and
                                                     authorization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 219.7(b) describes the goals, objectives, standards, and 
guidelines which are applicable to all or a portion of the plan area. 
Goals link Forest Service policies, procedures, laws, Executive Orders, 
regulations and applicable Forest Service strategic plans with specific 
measurable objectives. Objectives describe measurable results intended 
to achieve one or more goals. Examples might include obliterating roads 
to improve watershed health or treating forested areas to reduce fuels 
and associated wild fire risks. Standards and guidelines describe the 
criteria

[[Page 54083]]

needed to achieve objectives and promote compliance with applicable 
laws and regulations. These would include, but are not limited to, the 
identification of focal species, standards and guidelines for 
management activities and land use, and preferred practices. This 
section includes the NFMA requirement (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)) that guidance 
be provided for timber harvest and regeneration methods, maximum 
harvest size openings, and techniques for achieving aesthetic 
objectives by blending the boundaries of vegetation treatments.
    In the proposed rule, standards and guidelines are to be 
implemented according to the criteria they establish. Each provides 
criteria, within the authority of the Forest Service, on management 
activities within the plan area to ensure compliance with applicable 
laws and regulations or regulate management activities. Standards and 
guidelines may describe required or preferred or advisable courses of 
action. The specific requirement of each standard or guideline would 
dictate its specific application to an on-the-ground situation.
    Paragraph (c) directs the responsible official to identify the 
suitability of lands for specific uses as described in Sec. 219.26, 
including identification of the necessary transportation system and 
special areas such as research natural areas, geologic areas, reference 
landscapes, and botanical areas as described in Sec. 219.27.
Proposed Section 219.8--Amendment
    This section addresses amendments to land and resource management 
plans. The process for amendments would follow the planning framework 
(Secs. 219.3 thorough 219.11) and agency NEPA procedures. While the 
proposed process for amendment is similar to that of the existing rule, 
amendments to land and resource management plans under the proposed 
rule would be based on the scope and scale of the issues selected for 
resolution from collaboration, new information, monitoring and 
evaluation, and appropriate broad-scale assessments and local analyses. 
For example, if a management strategy to protect a group of wide-
ranging species is needed, several responsible officials for units of 
the National Forest System could combine their planning efforts to make 
broad-scale plan decisions through amendments to their land and 
resource management plans. These decisions would be further refined 
through on-the-ground analyses, site-specific projects, and monitoring 
and evaluation of actual results on each unit.
Proposed Section 219.9--Revision
    The concept of revision under the existing rule in Sec. 219.10(g) 
and Sec. 219.12 would be substantially streamlined and improved by the 
proposed rule. Rather than being a zero-based event as envisioned in 
the existing rule, revision becomes a time for review in the planning 
framework (Secs. 219.3 through 219.11). The responsible official would 
conduct a public review of the overall outcomes of a land and resource 
management plan to determine if corrections in the plan decisions or 
changes in management direction are needed. The findings from 
monitoring and evaluation, new data, new or revised policy, and changes 
in circumstances affecting the entire or large portion of the plan area 
would all be considered at the time of revision. The results of the 
review would be used to identify issues for further consideration in 
the planning process, and could lead the responsible official to 
proposing one or more changes to the plan decisions. Plans that have 
been actively amended consistent with the proposed rule may not require 
many changes at the time of revision. Also, at the time of revision the 
responsible official must adjust the next decade estimates of outcomes 
and outputs (Sec. 219.9(b)(6)).
Proposed Section 219.10--Site-Specific Decisions and Authorized Uses of 
Land
    In paragraph (a), the responsible official is directed to conduct 
planning within the framework described in Secs. 219.3 through 219.11 
to make site-specific project decisions. This is a significant shift 
from the approach of the existing rule, which is limited to the 
preparation of forest plans. Under the proposed rule, the same basic 
steps and requirements apply to land and resource management planning 
as to planning for a site-specific project. The only differences 
between the decisions embodied within a land and resource management 
plan and those related to a site-specific project plan are the scope, 
breadth, specificity, and commitment of resources.
    As in the existing rule, this proposed paragraph requires the 
decision to select a site-specific project to be consistent with 
decisions in the applicable land and resource management plan. If a 
proposed action were found to be not consistent with the land and 
resource management plan, the responsible official, subject to valid 
existing rights, would have several options: modify the proposal to 
make it consistent with the direction in the land and resource 
management plan; reject the proposal; or amend the land and resource 
management plan so that the proposed site-specific project is 
consistent.
    Paragraph (b) of Sec. 219.10 implements the NFMA requirement that 
permits, contracts, or other authorizing instruments must be consistent 
with the management direction in the applicable land and resource 
management plan. This proposal seeks to remedy some of the confusion 
and inconsistent interpretation that has occurred under the existing 
planning rule. The proposed rule clearly requires that an authorization 
for occupancy and use be consistent with the plan at the time of its 
issuance. This policy is well established and understood. The more 
difficult matter is what to do with permits, etc. when plans are 
amended or revised. The proposed rule makes clear the options available 
to the responsible official. First, the responsible official must 
consider the effect of an amendment or revision on ongoing permits and 
contracts, etc. Ongoing activities or uses may be exempt from 
provisions of a plan amendment or revision. Second, the responsible 
official can require changes in the authorized use, subject to valid 
existing rights and applicable statutes, to make the activity 
consistent with the plan. Or, the amendment or revision can exempt the 
authorization from conformance with the new amendment or revision. 
However, the proposed rule provides a safeguard or condition regarding 
waivers; namely that consistency cannot be waived if the authorized use 
would prevent achievement of the desired condition of the plan area. 
The proposed rule also provides that should an authorized use not be 
exempted from application of a new plan amendment or revision, the 
decision document must include a schedule for compliance.
Proposed Section 219.11--Monitoring and Evaluation
    While monitoring and evaluation are addressed in the existing rule, 
the emphasis has been on developing and amending plans. Attention to 
monitoring and evaluation has been sporadic or inconsistent. For 
planning to provide for adaptive management and achieve the desired 
conditions that the public supports, monitoring and evaluation must 
receive careful attention.
    Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 219.11 would require land and 
resource management plans to establish monitoring requirements. At a 
minimum, this would require that plans identify the actions, effects, 
resources to be measured; the frequency of measurement; the method of

[[Page 54084]]

monitoring; and the appropriate reporting intervals. Under the proposed 
rule, monitoring and evaluation would be used to determine if actions 
are being implemented in accordance with applicable plan direction; if 
the aggregated outcomes and effects of actions are sustainable and are 
achieving desired conditions; and if key assumptions underlying 
management direction are valid.
    Paragraph (b) would require the responsible official to provide 
opportunities for the involvement of others in monitoring and 
evaluation, and actively promote and seek stronger coordination with 
other federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments; 
scientific and academic communities; and other interested parties.
    Paragraph (c) addresses monitoring at the site-specific project 
level. This paragraph would require that when monitoring and evaluation 
are required in conjunction with a site-specific project, the 
monitoring requirements must be identified in the project decision 
document. Moreover, in such a case, subject to valid existing rights 
and other statutory requirements, the project could not be initiated, 
unless there is a reasonable expectation that adequate funding will be 
available to complete the required monitoring and evaluation.
    Paragraph (d) would require the development of an annual monitoring 
and evaluation report. The report would become part of the land and 
resource management plan. It would include the following: a list of 
required monitoring; a summary of the results of monitoring performed 
during the previous fiscal year; a description of achievement toward 
desired conditions and sustainability as identified in the land and 
resource management plan; identification of any new topics of general 
interest or concern arising from monitoring and evaluation; a list of 
amendments made to the plan in the previous year; and a summary of 
outputs, outcomes, and budgetary trends related to the achievement of 
desired conditions.
    Paragraphs (e) and (f) would describe the specific monitoring and 
evaluation requirements necessary for assessing achievement of 
ecological, social, and economic sustainability which is described in 
Secs. 219.19 through 219.21.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability

Proposed Section 219.12--Collaboration and Cooperatively Developed 
Landscape Goals
    Paragraph (a) describes the collaborative relationships of land and 
resource management planning that enhances the ability of people to 
work together, build their capacity for stewardship, and achieve 
ecological, economic, and social sustainability. The responsible 
official, functioning as a leader, convener, facilitator, or 
participant, as appropriate, should foster positive relationships with 
people interested in and/or affected by the management of the National 
Forest System lands, as well as with other federal agencies and state, 
local, and tribal governments that wish to participate in defining the 
future of the National Forest System. The responsible official should 
provide opportunities for early, open, and frequent meaningful 
participation in planning.
    Traditionally, the relationship between the national forests and 
grasslands and the broader society was primarily viewed as a one-way 
street--goods flowed from federal lands to numerous beneficiaries and 
public servants made choices based on their best judgments about what 
was best for society. To achieve long-term sustainability, the 
relationship between the public and the agency in managing these 
forests must be a two-way relationship. The existing rule and planning 
process has the Forest Service positioned as an arbiter in the middle 
of the conflict. The proposed rule recognizes that the responsible 
official may play several roles, such as convener, facilitator, leader, 
or participant, in achieving collaboration and understanding regarding 
conditions and needed actions or outcomes. The current planning process 
is designed to solicit input and then criticism from non-agency groups 
and individuals. It does not create a process for constructive dialogue 
leading to the resolution of problems. The proposed rule calls for 
collaboration in resolving issues of mutual concern in a manner that 
best fits the needs of the people concerned, the place, and the issues 
at hand.
    The Committee of Scientists stated that the planning process should 
provide for recognizing, enhancing, and capitalizing upon the capacity 
of interested and affected people to engage in stewardship activities 
and the achievement of sustainability.
    Building stewardship capacity to enhance achievement of 
sustainability is grounded on the following eight core elements:
    (1) Trust. For the planning process to be trusted, planning must be 
perceived to be legitimate, credible, and fair to the diverse groups, 
individuals, and communities who care about national forests and 
grasslands. To achieve legitimacy, planning must be sanctioned by 
administrative procedures, have the support and commitment of agency 
officials, and recognize other rights and authorities. Planning, to be 
credible, must have a sound and complete base of knowledge to inform 
decisionmaking. To be fair, planning must be inclusive and 
representative, with mutually agreeable criteria for decisionmaking and 
equal access to information.
    (2) Collaborative relationships. To effectively pursue 
sustainability, planners and managers must engage those who:
    (i) have information, knowledge, and expertise to contribute to 
developing courses of action;
    (ii) have sole control or authority over lands and activities 
adjacent to national forests and grasslands:
    (iii) have the skills, energy, time, and resources to carry out 
stewardship activities;
    (iv) can help monitor and assess on-the-ground consequences of 
management actions to better inform future decisions; and
    (v) can independently validate the credibility of stewardship 
decisions and the reality of achievements.
    (3) Understanding. To achieve effective stewardship, the planners 
and managers must build broad-based understanding and engage those who 
can provide a voice for the interests that must be recognized and 
understood. Planning must provide opportunities and incentives for 
people to come together and strengthen a community's ability to chart 
and pursue a common future course and to be able to assist in the 
pursuit of sustainability for public lands.
    (4) Joint fact finding. When planning and assessment processes are 
viewed as joint-inquiry processes between the agency and the public, 
then the attitudes of both are aimed toward mutual learning, issue 
identification, and problem solving, thereby enhancing the ability of 
the process to promote effective stewardship.
    (5) Dealing with conflict. Planners and managers must recognize the 
inevitability of legitimate, yet competing, values in National Forest 
System management and must encourage divergent interests to 
collectively deal with their differences

[[Page 54085]]

while pursuing shared goals for the national forests and grasslands.
    (6) Capabilities. Planners and managers must ensure that the Forest 
Service takes an active role in considering the types of communities 
and business capabilities necessary for effective stewardship. In 
addition, the planning process should foster the development and 
awareness of the relationship of local entrepreneurship and the 
capability to treat vegetation, restore watersheds, and other tasks 
necessary to achieve sustainability.
    (7) Will. By providing encouragement, flexibility, support, 
resources, skills, training, and rewards, planners and managers should 
provide a supportive agency environment to build the internal 
stewardship capacity needed to achieve sustainability.
    (8) A learning organization. The internal capacity for stewardship 
within the Forest Service is effectively established within an 
organization that promotes learning and appropriate change in behavior. 
The planners and mangers should foster appropriate change in 
organizational behavior and promote the development of several key 
indicators of a learning organization. These indicators of a learning 
organization include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (i) A recognized need for learning and action to achieve it;
    (ii) Learning from results and modifying successive steps 
accordingly;
    (iii) Team approaches that bridge skills, expertise, and interests 
and provide helping hands with shared ideas and responsibilities;
    (iv) Flexibility that prompts creativity and innovation;
    (v) Learning from what did or did not work;
    (vi) Use of constructive feedback loops and mechanisms for external 
reviews; and
    (vii) Champions who provide leadership and enthusiasm for the 
learning process. Paragraph (b) provides direction that the responsible 
official, using information from available broad-scale assessments or 
other available information, should seek to join in or initiate 
collaborative efforts to develop or propose landscape goals for 
ecological units. In addition, responsible officials, managers, and 
planners should strive to communicate and foster understanding of the 
nation's declaration of environmental policy expressed, in part, by 
section 101(b) of NEPA. The national declaration of environmental 
policy provides a common focus from which people of potentially 
differing views can consider mutually beneficial goals within their 
areas of interest. The establishment of collaboratively developed 
landscape goals among interests may identify a topic of general 
interest or concern which could lead to proposals for action by the 
Forest Service or others.
Proposed Section 219.13--Coordination Among Federal Agencies
    This section addresses the special relationship the responsible 
official must develop with other federal agencies in recognition of the 
fact that many issues affecting the national forests and grasslands can 
only be resolved through the collaborative efforts of federal agencies. 
Under the proposed rule, responsible officials must provide 
opportunities for other agencies to participate in identification of 
topics of general interest or concern and the formulation of proposed 
actions, and resolution of inconsistencies among policies, plans, or 
programs. To further solidify the cooperative effort among federal 
agencies, the responsible official is urged to develop joint plans 
where appropriate and practicable.
Proposed Section 219.14--Involvement of State and Local Governments
    This section addresses the special relationship the responsible 
official must develop with state and local governments. Much has been 
accomplished during the first round of planning, but better interaction 
with state and local governments is needed. The proposed rule provides 
for more involvement. Under the proposed rule, the responsible official 
must provide opportunities for early involvement of state and local 
governments in the discussion and resolution of issues related to land 
and resource management planning. The responsible official is called 
upon to recognize the unique jurisdiction, expertise, and role these 
governments play on lands both affected by and affecting the national 
forests and grasslands.
Proposed Section 219.15--Interaction With American Indian Tribes and 
Alaska Natives
    This section requires the responsible official to recognize the 
government-to-government relationship that the Forest Service has with 
American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. It requires the early 
identification of treaty rights, treaty protected resources, and other 
tribal concerns during the planning process. Responsible officials must 
invite American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives to participate 
throughout the planning process and consider tribal data and resource 
knowledge provided by tribal and village representatives in the 
planning process.
Proposed Section 219.16--Relationships With Interested Individuals and 
Organizations
    A central function of the planning process is to facilitate 
community building by providing the opportunity and incentives for 
people to come together. This section acknowledges both communities of 
place and interest. One goal of land and resource management planning 
is to enhance the capacity of diverse communities and people to work 
together and work with the agency, and in so doing, facilitate their 
ability to constructively contribute to national forest and grassland 
management.
    Collaboration with scientific experts and knowledgeable persons is 
emphasized as a way to bring the best available scientific and other 
information into the planning and decisionmaking process. Finally, this 
paragraph requires the responsible official to collaborate with a broad 
spectrum of individuals and entities to gain information about current 
and past public uses of the assessment area.
Proposed Section 219.17--Interaction With Private Landowners
    This section highlights the need for the Forest Service to be a 
good neighbor and to consider the overall context in which the national 
forests and grasslands exist. Nothing in this section should be 
interpreted as any desire to infringe upon or limit private property 
rights. Rather, this section would direct the responsible official to 
consider the pattern and distribution of land ownership in the plan 
area and to consider the conditions and activities on adjacent lands in 
evaluating the cumulative effects of management decisions. It would 
also direct the responsible official to actively seek the involvement 
of individuals who control or have authority over lands near or 
adjacent to national forests and grasslands.
Proposed Section 219.18--Role of Advisory Groups and Committees
    This section of the proposed rule describes the formal and informal 
role of advisory groups. Paragraph (b) describes the use of advisory 
committees to assist the responsible official in determining whether 
there is a reasonable basis for proposing an action to address a topic 
of general interest or concern. Each Forest or Grassland Supervisor 
would be required to have access to an advisory committee that can 
address local conditions and

[[Page 54086]]

topics of general interest or concern. The committees would consist of 
a diverse cross-section of knowledgeable persons interested in the 
planning for and management of National Forest System lands.

Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability

Proposed Section 219.19--Ecological, Social, and Economic 
Sustainability
    This section would confirm ecological, social and economic 
sustainability as the foundation for National Forest System management. 
The first priority for management is the maintenance and restoration of 
ecological sustainability which is consistent with laws guiding use and 
enjoyment of National Forest System lands. These laws clearly proclaim 
a national policy to provide for sustainability of these lands in 
perpetuity. The MUSYA directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop 
and administer the renewable surface resources of the National Forest 
System for multiple-use and sustained-yield of the several products and 
services obtained there from (16 U.S.C. 528, 529). The NFMA affirms 
this statutory policy by directing the Secretary, among other things, 
to assure that the development and administration of the renewable 
resources of the National Forest System are in full accord with the 
concepts for multiple-use and sustained-yield of products and services 
as set forth in the MUSYA (16 U.S.C. 1600, 1607).
    In developing and maintaining land and resource management plans 
for units of the National Forest System, NFMA mandates use of a 
systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated 
consideration of physical, biological, economic and other sciences (16 
U.S.C. 1604(b)). Moreover, NFMA requires consideration of the economic 
and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource 
management to provide for multiple-use and sustained-yield of the 
National Forest System products and services. In fulfilling the 
policies articulated by the Congress, it is paramount that the units of 
the National Forest System sustain their capacity for renewal to 
continue their ability to provide for various multiple-use benefits.
Proposed Section 219.20--Ecological Sustainability
    This section of the proposed rule would establish that it is 
necessary to maintain and restore ecological integrity to achieve 
ecological sustainability. Sustaining the integrity of ecological 
systems increases their resistance to natural disturbance events, 
allows for renewal following use or degradation, and preserves options 
for future generations.
    The concept of managing the national forests and grasslands in an 
ecologically sustainable manner can be traced back over 100 years. As 
early as 1897, the Congress directed that national forests would be 
established to improve and protect the forests * * * or for the purpose 
of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a 
continuous supply of timber * * * (16 U.S.C. 473-82 & 551). To carry 
out this mission, Congress vested the Secretary of Agriculture with 
broad authority to make rules needed to regulate occupancy and use of 
national forests and to preserve the forests therein from destruction 
(16 U.S.C. 551).
    In 1960, Congress enacted the MUSYA, which expressly directs the 
Forest Service to manage the national forests and grasslands for 
multiple uses under the balance the agency deems will best meet the 
needs of the American people and make the most judicious use of the 
forest resources under its jurisdiction (16 U.S.C. 528-531). In MUSYA 
Congress declared that the national forests are established and shall 
be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and 
wildlife and fish purposes (16 U.S.C. 528). The Act calls for the 
harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources * * * 
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 greatest unit output (16 U.S.C. 532(a)).
    In the late 1960's and 1970's, Congress enacted several statutes 
applicable to all federal agencies which significantly expanded public 
participation in federal decisionmaking and provided procedures for 
consideration and disclosure of the effects of Federal actions upon the 
environment. The enactment of these environmental laws has greatly 
influenced the process of National Forest System management. These laws 
augment the multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate and reinforce 
ecological sustainability as the first priority of National Forest 
System management. Examples of these statutes include: the National 
Environmental Policy Act (wherein Congress: (1) declared a national 
policy to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the 
environment and biosphere and * * * enrich the understanding of 
ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; (2) 
recognized the critical importance of restoring and maintaining 
environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man; 
and (3) directed the Federal Government, among other things, to use all 
practicable means to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the 
environment without degradation * * * (42 U.S.C. 4321,4331); the 
Endangered Species Act which provides a means whereby the ecosystems 
upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be 
conserved (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)); the Clean air Act which seeks to protect 
and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources, with a primary 
goal of promoting reasonable federal, state and local government 
actions * * * for pollution prevention (42 U.S.C. 7401); and the Clean 
Water Act the objective of which is to restore and maintain the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters (33 
U.S.C. 1251).
    In 1976, Congress enacted the NFMA, continuing the long line of 
statutory direction to provide for ecological sustainability in the 
management of the national forests and grasslands. The Committee of 
Scientists and the agency believe NFMA's direction to provide species 
diversity and maintain ecological productivity is consistent with the 
concept of ecological sustainability (Committee of Scientists' report, 
p. xvi). Senator Humphrey described NFMA as: ``an Act designed to build 
our forests as a bulwark of renewable resources. It is a full 
storehouse, providing a perpetual high yield of multiple-use benefits. 
It is a managed system of forest and rangeland with the water, 
wildlife, soil, and beauty maintained. This is an Act that assures that 
our public forests are managed with advice from the several publics, 
and managed in a framework that makes ecological and environmental 
sense'' (Compilation of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
Planning Act of 1974 (as amended) August 20, 1979, Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, p. 768).
    In NFMA, the Congress directed promulgation of regulations that 
specify forest planning guidelines that ensure consideration of the 
economic as well as environmental aspects of various systems of 
renewable resource management, including the related systems of 
silviculture and protection of forest resources * * * for multiple use 
management (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(A)). Similarly, the regulatory 
guidelines for planning are to provide for diversity of plant and 
animal communities based on

[[Page 54087]]

the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to 
meet overall multiple-use objectives * * * (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).
    In sum, the first priority for management, to achieve 
sustainability through the maintenance or restoration of ecological 
integrity of national forests and grasslands, affirms Congressional 
direction. Perhaps Judge Dwyer said it best in his opinion reviewing a 
challenge to Forest Service efforts to conduct inter-agency, ecosystem-
based planning associated with the Northern Spotted Owl: ``Given the 
current condition of the forests, there is no way the agencies could 
comply with the environmental laws without planning on an ecosystem 
basis'' (Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 1291 (W.D. 
Wash. 1994) aff'd 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996)).
    Ecosystem integrity, defined in Sec. 219.36, refers to the 
completeness of an ecosystem that, at multiple geographic and temporal 
scales, maintains its characteristic diversity of biological and 
physical components, spatial patterns, structure, and functional 
processes within its approximate range of historic variability. These 
processes include disturbance regimes, nutrient cycling; hydrologic 
functions, vegetation succession, and species adaptation and evolution. 
Ecosystems with integrity are resilient and capable of self-renewal in 
the presence of the cumulative effects of human and natural 
disturbances.
    Section 219.20 would provide a more explicit, comprehensive, and 
ecologically integrated framework for ecological sustainability than 
the existing regulation. The existing rule entails program-specific 
direction for different resources, such as soil and water, wildlife and 
fish, and so on. Under the existing rule, the NFMA requirement to 
provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities is met 
primarily through the requirement to provide habitat to maintain viable 
populations of native and desired non-native vertebrate species. To 
achieve ecological sustainability it is necessary to maintain and 
restore ecosystem integrity. The proposed rule would add an ecological 
systems approach that focuses on ecosystem integrity to complement the 
existing focus on species viability in assessment and management.
    Paragraph (a) describes information necessary to assess ecological 
sustainability. Maintaining ecological integrity provides for 
resiliency to environmental change and disturbance occurring within the 
historical range of natural variability. The species component requires 
the maintenance of ecological conditions necessary to provide for a 
high likelihood of maintaining species viability over time in the plan 
area. Together, these approaches are presumed to address and sustain 
ecosystem productivity as required in the MUSYA and provide for the 
diversity of plant and animal communities as required in NFMA (16 
U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).
    This section incorporates the key principles and desired outcomes 
for ecological sustainability that were outlined in the Committee of 
Scientists' report. The Committee acknowledged that providing for 
sustainability of ecological systems on national forests and grasslands 
is an imprecise process with many unknowns and potential pitfalls that 
are not under the control of resource managers. Therefore, this section 
of the regulation would:
     Acknowledge the dynamic nature of ecological systems 
(Sec. 219.20(a)). Maintaining composition, structure, and processes 
within the expected bounds of variation is proposed as an approach to 
sustain ecological diversity and productivity for future generations 
(Sec. 219.20(b)(1), (2), and (3)).
     Acknowledge the uncertainty and inherent variability of 
ecological systems (Secs. 219.20(a)(10) and 219.20(b)(1)). Uncertainty 
and variability are acknowledged in decisionmaking, monitoring and 
adaptive management so change is incorporated into the dynamics of 
stewardship.
     Acknowledge the significance of natural processes 
(Sec. 219.20(b)(3)) by requiring responsible officials to make 
decisions that provide for ecosystem integrity at appropriate planning 
levels.
     Acknowledge cumulative effects (Sec. 219.20(a)(8)).
     Preserve options as a way of explicitly acknowledging our 
incomplete knowledge of complex ecological systems (Sec. 219.20(b)(4)).
     Conserve habitat for native species (Sec. 219.20(b)(8)) 
and productivity of ecological systems in order to maintain ecological 
sustainability. The productivity of an ecosystem can be sustained over 
the long term only if species that provide the appropriate structure 
and function for the system are maintained.
     Recognize the special role that national forests and 
grasslands play in regional landscapes (Sec. 219.20(b)(10)).
     Analyze issues at the appropriate scale (Sec. 219.20(a)).
    Three major components are included in this section. The first is 
paragraph (a), ecological information and analysis, which outlines the 
underlying information needed to support and develop scientifically 
sound management approaches to ecological sustainability. The second 
paragraph, management decisions, identifies specific components and 
actions that direct management activities to meet the objective of 
ecological sustainability. Monitoring is the third paragraph 
(Sec. 219.20(c)). It outlines a framework to assess the effectiveness 
of management action in maintaining or restoring ecosystem integrity.
    Sections 219.20(a) describes the ecological information and 
analysis that would be needed to support the goal of ecological 
sustainability. This includes the information necessary to characterize 
the current biological and physical environment (Sec. 219.20(a)(1)) and 
principle ecological processes (Sec. 219.20(a)(2)) within the planning 
area and is similar in some respects to the analysis of the management 
situation in the current regulations.
    The concept of the historical range of variability 
(Sec. 219.20(a)(4)) is used as an ecological context to assess 
ecosystem integrity. The historic range of variability describes the 
limits of change in composition, structure, and processes of the 
biological and physical components of an ecosystem resulting from 
variations in the frequency, magnitude, and patterns of natural and 
human disturbance and ecological processes characteristic of an area 
before European settlement. Measures of the historical range of 
variability could include the forest types and the proportion of 
successional stages represented in an area, the size and return 
intervals of stand replacing fires, or the variability in instream 
flows and associated periodicity and effects of major flood events. The 
effects of pre-Europeans are considered as factors when estimating the 
historical range of variability and human disturbance. The effects of 
post-European settlement activity are also described. Historical pre-
European settlement conditions are compared to current conditions to 
estimate the degree of ecosystem integrity. Ecosystems whose current 
range of variability, through space and time, approximates the 
historical range are considered to have high integrity and to be in a 
sustainable condition since biotic components had theoretically adapted 
to ecological conditions occurring within that range.
    Focal species (Sec. 219.20(a)(7)(i)) would be identified and used 
as surrogate measures in assessing ecological integrity, including the 
diversity of native and desirable non-native species, in evaluating 
differences in effects between alternatives, and in monitoring

[[Page 54088]]

and assessing the effects of management activities on ecological 
sustainability. Focal species are expected to convey information about 
the status of the larger ecological system in which they reside or 
about the integrity of specific ecosystem components or processes. 
Focal species would include those which play key roles in maintaining 
community structure or processes, serve an umbrella function in terms 
of encompassing habitats needed for many other species, or whose 
population status and habitat relationships serve to convey information 
about the status and integrity of the larger ecosystem in which they 
occur. These species could be used to evaluate conditions needed to 
provide for the viability of other species and in monitoring the 
effectiveness of plan decisions for maintaining or restoring ecosystem 
integrity.
    Focal species should not be confused with the concept of 
``management indicator species'' under the existing rule. The existing 
rule uses population trends of management indicator species to evaluate 
the effects of management activities and indicate the status of other 
species with similar habitat needs. The concept of management indicator 
species has been the subject of substantial criticism and would not be 
adopted in the proposed regulation.
    Procedures will be developed for evaluating species viability 
(Sec. 219.20(a)(7)(i)) under current and proposed strategies on all 
lands in the assessment area. These analyses will highlight risks to 
species viability, document cumulative effects, and identify ecological 
conditions needed to maintain species viability over time.
    Additional indicators of ecosystem integrity 
(Sec. 219.20(a)(7)(iii)) would be identified, such as air quality, 
water quality, soil quality, fire and water flow regimes, plant growth 
and the variety and distribution of forest and grasslands. Ecosystem 
integrity (Sec. 219.20(a)(7)(ii)) will be evaluated using measures of 
species viability and the condition of other indicators under current 
and proposed management strategies on all lands within the assessment 
area. These measures and indicators may be valuable in providing 
feedback within a shorter timeframe than that needed to determine 
status and trend of populations.
    In addition to focal species, species at risk would be identified 
as indicators of ecological integrity. Species at risk 
(Sec. 219.20(a)(8)(ii)) are those species for which viability is a 
concern, including endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate 
species as described by the Endangered Species Act as well as species 
for which there is a viability concern throughout the species' range, 
or species for which there are concerns about distribution in the plan 
area.
    In addition to the above indicators of ecological integrity, demand 
species will be identified and their status evaluated. Demand species 
(Sec. 219.20(a)(9)) are plant and animal species with high social, 
cultural, or economic values.
    Proposed section 219.20(b) requires the responsible official to 
make decisions that provide for maintenance and restoration of 
ecosystem integrity, including species viability, at the appropriate 
planning level. Decisions made at subsequent levels would have to be 
consistent with decisions at higher levels. Decisions should either 
maintain conditions within the historical range of variability or 
provide for restoration toward conditions within that range. The intent 
is to manage for the historical range of conditions of key ecological 
attributes across the landscape rather than for a single point within 
that range such as the upper or lower extreme.
    The proposed regulation would clearly articulate expectations 
relative to maintaining species viability (Sec. 219.20(b)(8)). 
Decisions, at the appropriate levels of planning, would provide 
ecological conditions such that there is high likelihood of maintaining 
species viability over time. The proposed regulation clarifies the 
requirement of maintaining well-distributed and interacting populations 
and clarifies the objective for viability given different patterns of 
overlap between species range and the planning area. The proposed 
regulation also clarifies that rigor in the analysis of viability 
should be commensurate with the level of knowledge available about a 
species, including its demographic and genetic characteristics 
(Sec. 219.20(a)(8)(i)).
    The concept of ecological conditions (Sec. 219.20(b)(8)) is used to 
denote a broad array of factors that can affect species persistence and 
viability. The current regulation requires that fish and wildlife 
habitat shall be managed to support viable populations of native and 
desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. The 
proposed rule provides the concept that habitat includes an array of 
ecological conditions that are under control of management and that may 
influence species viability (Sec. 219.20(b)(8)(i)). These may include 
roads, conditions that contribute to spread of invasive species, and 
human uses as factors that must be managed to provide species 
viability.
    The proposed rule implements the NFMA requirement to provide for 
the diversity of plant and animal communities by expressly defining 
species to include any taxon of the plant or animal kingdom 
(Sec. 219.36). The existing rule only requires that viable populations 
of vertebrate fish and wildlife be maintained. Furthermore, in an 
attempt to more effectively meet the agency's commitment to avoid 
actions that would contribute to the need to list species under the 
Endangered Species Act, the definition of species and level of 
biological organization for which viability is assessed and managed is 
intended to match the listable entities concept used by the Departments 
of the Interior and Commerce in execution of their Endangered Species 
Act requirements to include the concept of subspecies, distinct 
population segments, and significant evolutionary units. Objectives, 
standards, and guidelines would include measures such that Forest 
Service actions, within conditions or events under its control, would 
not contribute to the need to list species (Sec. 219.20(b)(10)).
    The proposed rule would maintain the current cooperative 
relationship with state fish and wildlife agencies 
(Sec. 219.20(b)(11)). The Forest Service role has traditionally been to 
address habitat rather than population management and to work 
cooperatively with states to resolve issues involving fish and wildlife 
management. States generally exercise jurisdiction over hunting and 
fishing on National Forest System lands. Objectives for sustainable use 
levels of demand species would be jointly developed with states, 
American Indians, and Alaska Natives (Sec. 219.20(b)(11)). Management 
decisions must provide the ecological conditions needed to achieve 
these sustainable use levels.
    Proposed Sec. 219.11(e) and Sec. 219.20(c) require the 
implementation of a monitoring strategy that would provide an 
evaluation of the effectiveness of management decisions toward 
achieving ecological sustainability. The existing rule only requires 
monitoring population trends of management indicator species. The 
proposed rule includes a comprehensive monitoring approach that 
requires monitoring for focal species, species at risk, demand species 
and selected indicators of ecosystem integrity and incorporates an 
adaptive management framework.
    Expectations for monitoring of focal species and species at risk 
(Sec. 219.11(e)(2)) would be described to permit varying levels of 
intensity and differing methodology, depending on several factors. Most 
importantly, where

[[Page 54089]]

risks to species viability are high or there is great uncertainty about 
ecological conditions needed for viability, monitoring requires actual 
estimates of population trends and status through efficient population 
sampling or habitat relationships studies. It would provide the 
opportunity to estimate population status and trend using 
scientifically credible species-habitat relationships based on 
empirical data collected through time under the monitoring program. A 
broader array of methodology, including a variety of population indices 
or presence/absence information, may be used to assess population 
status where ecological risks to species are lower.
    Where risks to species are lower or there are well-established 
relationships between population status and habitat conditions, habitat 
monitoring alone may be used to infer species status. Habitat 
conditions and trends would be monitored for all focal species and 
species at risk.
    The monitoring program would develop methods for measuring all 
selected indicators of ecosystem integrity and designate critical 
values that would trigger reviews or possible amendments to management 
direction (Sec. 219.11(e)(3)). This is the essence of adaptive 
management.
    The conceptual models that focal species and other selected 
ecological indicators serve to indicate the status and integrity of the 
ecological system to which they belong must be validated 
(Sec. 219.11(e)(4)).
Proposed Section 219.21--Social and Economic Sustainability
    Prosperous communities and economies may remain healthy and vibrant 
if their foundation is ecologically sustainable. Although the Forest 
Service cannot solely sustain existing communities, the National Forest 
System lands nonetheless contribute many values, services, outputs, and 
uses that help enable economies and communities to persist, prosper, 
and evolve. This section details a process for developing comprehensive 
understanding of sustainable social and economic environments.
    Paragraph (a) describes the role of national forests and grasslands 
in promoting social and economic sustainability. The management of 
National Forest System lands promotes economic and social 
sustainability through involvement of interested and/or affected 
people, development and consideration of relevant social and economic 
information, and by providing a range of products, services, and 
values.
    Paragraph (b) describes that social and economic analyses are 
important in gaining understanding of the relationships among 
ecological, social, and economic sustainability. Social analyses 
address human life-styles, attitudes, beliefs, values, demographic 
characteristics, and land-use patterns of human communities and their 
capacity to adapt to changing conditions. Economic analyses identify 
and evaluate an area's economy. The responsible official, in conducting 
broad-scale assessments or local analyses, should consider the best 
available information to consider a variety of social and economic 
factors.
    Paragraph (c) describes an appropriate social analysis that may 
rely upon quantitative, qualitative, and participatory methods for 
gathering and analyzing data. Social analyses are often undertaken at 
varying spatial scales to improve understanding and the description of 
the potential consequences to communities and regions from changes in 
land management. Social analyses may include a regional analysis, a 
risk and vulnerability analysis, or other appropriate analyses.
    Paragraphs (d) and (e) describe economic analyses and local social 
and economic analysis that provide information and may include a 
quantitative, qualitative, and historical analysis of the effects of 
National Forest System management on national, regional, and local 
economies. Local analyses should provide refinement of larger-scale 
analyses and of regional data and information as related to the area 
under consideration. A local analysis may also provide a context for 
other analyses and prove useful in evaluating a proposed action or 
monitoring results.
    Paragraph (f) would require that analyses and decisions regarding 
social and economic sustainability are to be made at the appropriate 
planning level, and that decisions made at subsequent levels must be 
consistent with higher-level decisions.
    Monitoring of social and economic effects is addressed in 
Sec. 219.11(f). Monitoring and evaluation of social and economic 
sustainability should include periodic review of national, regional, 
and local supply and demand for products, services, and values. Special 
consideration should be given to those products, services, and values 
that the Forest Service is uniquely poised to provide. Monitoring 
should improve the understanding of the National Forest System 
contributions to human wants and values and to social and economic 
sustainability.

The Contribution of Science

Proposed Section 219.22--The Role of Assessments, Analyses, and 
Monitoring
    This section describes the proposed role of broad-scale 
assessments, local analyses, and monitoring and evaluation efforts. 
Scientists from within and outside the agency would be involved in 
broad-scale assessments to help identify, integrate, and evaluate the 
best available scientific and other information. Scientists would be 
involved in the design, evaluation, and peer review of monitoring and 
inventory strategies and protocols.
Proposed Section 219.23--The Participation of Scientists in Planning
    This section describes the participation of scientists in planning. 
Like the existing rule, the proposed rule would require the use of the 
best available scientific information in the formulation of land and 
resource management. The proposed rule adds the term ``and analysis'' 
to ``best available scientific information.'' The proposed addition is 
deemed to be an equivalent concept to the existing rule within the 
meaning of its application in the planning process. However, unlike the 
existing rule that is ambiguous about the use of scientists in the 
planning process, the proposed rule describes the critical role science 
and scientists will play in nearly every stage of the land and resource 
management planning. Scientists will be involved in helping to identify 
new issues and translate new information about the conditions of 
forests and grasslands; conducting appropriate broad-scale assessments 
and local analyses; and in helping managers and the public formulate 
potential solutions to issues by analyzing management options. The 
proposed rule provides for an independent scientific review of the 
effectiveness of land management plans in meeting the goal of 
ecological sustainability during the revision process. The proposed 
rule also provides for the establishment of a National Science Advisory 
Board and access for each national forest and grassland region to a 
science advisory board. The science advisory boards would provide 
science consistency evaluations when necessary to determine whether the 
planning process is consistent with the best available science; and 
when appropriate and practicable, independent scientific peer reviews 
of the findings and conclusions originating from a broad-scale 
assessment.

[[Page 54090]]

Proposed Section 219.24--Science Consistency Evaluations
    This section would allow for the scientific review of planning 
processes to ensure consistency in the application and interpretation 
of the best available scientific information and analysis.
Proposed Section 219.25--Science Advisory Boards
    This section would provide for the establishment of science 
advisory boards, which provide scientific advice to the responsible 
official. Board membership would include scientists representing a 
broad range of disciplines.

Special Considerations

    These sections provide direction to fulfill statutory planning 
requirements that affect the management and use of National Forest 
System lands, including timber harvest, livestock grazing, oil and gas 
leasing, recreation and other uses.
Proposed Section 219.26--Identifying and Designating Suitable Uses
    This section would provide that during amendment or revision of a 
land and resource management plan the suitability of various uses would 
be determined within the planning framework.
    The suitability of various uses is determined, as appropriate, 
within the proposed planning framework (Secs. 219.3 through 219.11) and 
includes plan decisions related to uses that would be permitted within 
specific areas. It is anticipated that the suitability of uses will be 
the subject of considerable debate. Suitability identifications would 
be applied to areas that are large enough to provide sufficient 
latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs 
and conditions. The proposed planning process would include broad-scale 
assessments, local analyses, or other analytical methods that 
facilitate collaboration with the public to identify lands that are 
suitable for certain management practices such as recreation, timber 
production, livestock grazing, mineral development, or other uses.
Proposed Section 219.27--Special Designations
    The existing rule specified only two special designations, 
wilderness and research natural areas. The proposed rule would expand 
special designations to include but not be limited to: wilderness; 
research natural areas; geological areas; reference areas; scenic by-
ways; unroaded areas; roadless areas; national scenic areas; national 
recreational areas; national natural landmarks; and wild, scenic, and 
recreation rivers.
    The purpose of this change is to ensure that land and resource 
management plans include all the relevant direction 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 proposed rule seeks to integrate direction for all specially 
designated areas into land and resource management plans to the extent 
possible.
    This section further proposes that amendment or revision of a land 
and resource management plan is the mechanism by which the Forest 
Service establishes management direction for such special designations.
    Paragraph (a) states that, unless otherwise directed, all 
undeveloped roadless areas must be evaluated for wilderness designation 
at the time of land and resource management plan revision.
    The proposed rule removes the four categories of lands considered 
for wilderness established in the existing rule at Sec. 219.17(a)(1), 
and the five evaluation criteria for evaluating lands for wilderness 
designation found at Sec. 219.17(a)(2). The agency believes such 
detailed procedural instructions are better suited for the Forest 
Service Directives System.
    It should be noted that nothing in paragraph (a) 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 other portions of the plan area.
    Paragraph (b) would reinforce the central role of land and resource 
management plans by requiring that any requirements for additional 
planning for special areas must be met through the land and resource 
management planning framework, unless certain identified exceptions 
exist. This is comparable to Sec. 219.2 of the existing rule and is 
intended to assure that special area planning is integrated with the 
land and resource management plan. The proposed rule would specifically 
require that the goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines in special 
area plans be incorporated into the land and resource management plans 
as plan decisions.
    Section 219.25 of the existing rule contains direction for research 
natural areas and is not repeated in the proposed rule. Rather, 
direction for special designations including natural areas are 
incorporated in a new section Sec. 219.27 of the proposed rule.
Proposed Section 219.28--Determination of Land Suitable for Timber 
Removal
    Under the proposed rule, vegetation management, such as timber 
harvest, is implemented for stewardship of natural resources, the 
production of wood fiber, and to provide for the use and enjoyment of 
public lands. The proposed rule would establish two classifications of 
land suitability for timber harvest. The first is the classification of 
lands not suited for timber production. The second is the 
classification of lands where timber harvest would be permitted to 
maintain or restore ecological integrity of the land, or to protect or 
achieve other multiple-use values. Within the second classification, 
the responsible official also would identify those lands where timber 
production is a land management objective.
Proposed Section 219.29--Limitation on Timber Removal
    This section requires the estimation of the long-term sustained 
yield of timber on the land area where the production of timber is 
identified as a preliminary objective along with other objectives for 
management of the land. This estimate must be made based on the yield 
of timber that can be removed consistent with achievement of the 
desired conditions identified in the land and resource management plan. 
Timber harvests are not to exceed long-term sustained yield capacity.
    The calculation of allowable sale quantity is a requirement in the 
existing rule. Calculation of an allowable sale quantity is not 
required under the proposed rule. The NFMA allows the Secretary to 
establish an allowable sale quantity for any decade that departs from 
the projected long-term average sale quantity that would otherwise be 
established (16 U.S.C. 1611). This permissive language of NFMA is 
included in this section of the proposed rule.

Planning Documentation

Proposed Section 219.30--Land and Resource Management Plan 
Documentation
    The land and resource management plan documentation format under 
the proposed rule is intended to make the plan more understandable, 
more usable by Forest Service employees, and readily available to the 
public. The plan summarizes management direction and

[[Page 54091]]

contains maps and information from an annual monitoring and evaluation 
report and other information. The proposed rule would require that the 
set of documents that constitute a land and resource management plan be 
readily available to the public in various formats to meet the needs of 
the people who might want to access them. The plan is intended to be a 
repository for the information that is used by the decisionmaker. The 
format of the information will allow reviewers to follow the 
decisionmaking process and see the results of the decisions made about 
the management of the national forests or grasslands.
    Paragraph (a) describes the summary document of the plan, which 
provides an understanding of the vision for the forest or grassland by 
including a description of the plan area's qualities and 
characteristics; the desired conditions of the plan area; and actions 
taken to achieve the desired condition. The summary would include a 
sampling of maps, charts, figures, photographs, and other information 
to enhance understanding. This summary also would contain enough 
information to allow the reader to know where actions are proposed, 
scheduled, or planned and where activities such as camping and 
sightseeing are available. The existing rule requires a brief summary 
of the analysis of the management situation that includes the demand 
and supply conditions for resource commodities and services, production 
potentials, and use and development opportunities.
    Paragraph (b) requires a display of land suitable for selected 
uses. Each plan must display areas within the plan area that are 
suitable for specific uses of national forests and grasslands. The 
suitability of various uses (Sec. 219.26) is determined, as 
appropriate, within the proposed planning framework (Secs. 219.3 
through Sec. 219.11) and includes goals, objectives, standards, and 
guidelines related to uses that would be permitted within specific 
areas.
    Paragraph (c) requires a display of the decisions that apply to the 
area covered by the plan as described in Sec. 219.7.
    Paragraph (d)(1) requires a list of proposed, authorized, ongoing, 
and completed actions to achieve desired conditions. The list of 
actions is annually updated.
    Paragraph (d)(2) requires the projection of a 2-year schedule of 
anticipated outcomes, products and services, based on a reasonable 
estimate of the Forest Service budget and capacity to perform the work 
needed to achieve them from which trends in achievement of desired 
condition can be established. The existing rule tends to produce 
unrealistic expectations of possible outputs and budgets.
    Paragraph (d)(3) requires an updated 2-year summary of the actual 
outcomes, products and services as a result of project implementation.
    Paragraph (d)(4) requires a forecast of the range of expected 
outcomes, goods, and services for the next decade. These projections 
are intended to describe a measure of expected progress toward meeting 
plan goals and objectives and progress toward achieving desired 
conditions and ecological sustainability. Although these forecasts 
contain a high degree of uncertainty and are only estimates, they will 
be useful to portray the expected trends into the future. These 
projections will be updated at the time of revision of the land and 
resource management plan.
    Paragraph (d)(5) requires a list of anticipated accomplishments and 
the time necessary to achieve desired conditions. This would be updated 
to reflect changes in anticipated accomplishments.
    Paragraph (e) requires the responsible official to display the 
minimum level of monitoring and evaluation to occur in the plan area. 
Monitoring and evaluation direction in the land and resource management 
plan would help determine whether there is a need to amend or revise 
the land and resource management plan.
    Paragraph (f) requires a display of budgetary information. The 
existing rule requires a display of baseline and other budget 
projections that often do not reflect changes that occur during budget 
allocation. These projections then become unrealistic or misleading. 
The proposed rule would require the plan to display a concise summary 
of the estimated costs of the unit's program of work, including 
assessments, analyses, proposed and authorized actions, and monitoring. 
The display would also include details of the total current-year unit 
budget; funded actions, projections for future budgets over 2 years; 
and a display of the budget trends over, at least, the past 5 years. 
Budget information is not a land and resource management plan decision 
and can be updated at any time. The intent of this proposed requirement 
is to have a continuous display of budget trends and actual current 
budgets to allow meaningful discussions with the public and Congress as 
to the need for and accountability of budget allocations.
    Paragraph (g) requires each plan to contain a list of reference 
materials and decisions used in forming management direction such as 
previous decision and environmental documents, assessments, 
conservation strategies, biological opinions, inventories, studies, 
research, and agency direction.
    A crosswalk for reformatting existing land and resource management 
plans to the proposed format for plan content described in Sec. 219.30 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Existing land and resource management
                  plan                        Planning documentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of the Management Situation...  Findings and conclusions from
                                          assessments.
Desired Future Conditions/Goals Goods    Plan decisions, including land
 and services/outputs, Objectives,        suitability for uses,
 standards, and guidelines, Land          outcomes, maps.
 allocations.
5-10 year timber sale program..........  List of projects (past,
                                          current, proposed *).
Monitoring and evaluation..............  Monitoring plan, results of
                                          monitoring and evaluation.
Other Information From Forest Or
 Grassland Files.
Resource project files.................  Site-specific actions (past,
                                          current, proposed *).
Budget information.....................  Estimated costs--budgets (past,
                                          current, proposed).
                                         Adopted plans from other
                                          agencies.
                                         References--conservation
                                          strategies, recovery plans,
                                          best management practices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* During transition of existing land and resource management plans to
  the proposed planning framework, proposed actions, including timber
  sales, are those that are in the NEPA process or have a decision
  document but have not been implemented. After transition, the timber
  sale program becomes a subset of the list of site-specific actions.


[[Page 54092]]

Proposed Section 219.31--Maintenance of the Plan and Planning Records
    This section would establish a requirement to keep land and 
resource management plans up-to-date and readily available to the 
public. This section also describes those types of administrative 
changes that are considered maintenance and do not constitute a plan 
amendment or revision.

Objections and Appeals

Proposed Section 219.32--Objections to Amendments or Revisions
    This provision of the proposed rule would replace the current 36 
CFR Part 217 land and resource management plan post-decision appeal 
process with a pre-decision objection process. The intent is to further 
streamline the planning process and encourage resolution of issues by 
the supervisor of the responsible official. Under the proposed rule, 
any person would be allowed to object to a pending decision. The 
proposed rule would require that the objection be filed, in writing, 
within 30 days of public notice of the appropriate NEPA documentation. 
Unlike the current 217 regulation, the proposed objection process does 
not have a specific time limit for resolving objections. Under the 
proposed rule, the responsible official would not be allowed to approve 
an amendment or revision under objection until a decision on the 
objection has been reached and documented in an appropriate decision 
document for the land and resource management plan.
Proposed Section 219.33--Appeals of Site-specific Decisions
    In the proposed rule, appeals regarding site-specific decisions 
would remain as they are currently addressed by agency procedures.

Applicability and Transition

Proposed Section 219.34--Applicability
    This short section states that the proposed rule applies to all 
units of the National Forest System.
Proposed Section 219.35--Transition
    This section provides for an orderly transition from the 
requirements of the existing rule to the provisions of the proposed 
rule.
    Paragraph (b) would provide that existing land and resource 
management plans would remain in effect until amended or revised under 
the proposed rule. This provision is intended to prevent any 
uncertainty as to the status of current land and resource management 
plans.
    Paragraph (f) of the proposed rule would provide for the withdrawal 
of regional guides by the Regional Foresters within a year of when all 
units within a National Forest System region have completed the 
revision process under the revised rule. Regional guides were developed 
to provide direction and guidance for the development of the initial 
land and resource management plans. Having served that purpose, 
regional guides may be withdrawn by the Regional Foresters.
    Paragraph (g) would make clear that the responsible official must 
complete the first annual monitoring and evaluation report within 3 
years from the effective date of proposed rule.

Definitions

Proposed section 219.36--Definitions
    This section of the proposed rule defines the following terms:

Assessment or analysis area
Broad-scale assessment
Candidate species
Conservation agreements
Demand species
Desired condition
Desired non-native species
Disturbance processes
Diversity of plant and animal communities
Ecological composition
Ecological conditions
Ecological sustainability
Ecosystem
Ecosystem integrity
Ecosystem structure
Forest Service NEPA procedures
Historical range of variability
Local analysis
Native species
Plan area
Productive capacity of ecosystems
Reference landscapes
Responsible official
Roadless area
Salvage harvest of timber
Sanitation harvest of timber
Sensitive species
Species
Species viability
Timber production
Unroaded areas
Vegetation management
Watershed integrity

 
 Comparison of the Table of Contents of the Existing (1982) and Proposed
                                  Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           1982 planning rule                 Proposed planning rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  219.1  Purpose and Principles....  Sec.  219.1  Purpose.
                                         Sec.  219.2  Goals and
                                          principles for planning.
Sec.  219.2  Scope of Applicability....  219.34  Applicability.
Sec.  219.9  Definitions...............  219.36  Definitions.
Sec.  219.4  Planning levels...........  Sec.  219.3  Overview.
Sec.  219.5  Interdisciplinary Approach  Sec.  219.3  Overview.
Sec.  219.6  Public Participation......  Sec.  219.12-18  COLLABORATIVE
                                          PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY.
Sec.  219.7  Coordination with Other     Sec.  219.14  Involvement of
 Public Planning Efforts.                 state and local government.
                                         Sec.  219.13  Coordination
                                          among federal agencies.
Sec.  219.8  Regional Planning           Not applicable.
 Procedures.
Sec.  219.9  Regional Guide Content....  Not applicable.
Sec.  219.10  Forest Planning--General   Sec.  219.3  Overview.
 Procedures.
Sec.  219.11  Forest Plan Content......  Sec.  219.30-31  PLANNING
                                          DOCUMENTATION.
Sec.  219.12  Forest Planning Process..  Sec.  219.3-11  FRAMEWORK FOR
                                          PLANNING.
Sec.  219.13  Forest Planning--Resource  No counterpart.
 Integration Requirements (directs to
 other parts of rule).
Sec.  219.14  Timber Resource Land       Sec.  219.28  Determination of
 Suitability.                             land suitable for timber
                                          removal.
Sec.  219.15  Vegetation Management      Sec.  219.7  Plan decisions
 Practices.                               that guide future actions.
Sec.  219.16  Timber Resource Sale       Sec.  219.7  Plan decisions
 Schedule.                                that guide future actions.
                                         Sec.  219.28  Determination of
                                          land suitable for timber
                                          removal
                                         Sec.  219.29  Limitation on
                                          timber removal.

[[Page 54093]]

 
Sec.  219.17  Evaluation of Roadless     Sec.  219.26  Identifying and
 Areas.                                   designating suitable uses.
                                         Sec.  219.27  Special
                                          designations.
Sec.  219.18  Wilderness Management....  Sec.  219.27  Special
                                          designations.
Sec.  219.19  Fish and Wildlife          Sec.  219.19-21  ECOLOGICAL,
 Resource.                                SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC
                                          SUSTAINABILITY.
                                         Sec.  219.26  Identifying and
                                          designating suitable uses
Sec.  219.20  Grazing Resource.........
Sec.  219.21  Recreation Resource......
Sec.  219.22  Mineral Resource.........
Sec.  219.23  Water and Soil Resource..
Sec.  219.24  Cultural and Historic
 Resource.
Sec.  219.25  Research Natural Areas...  Sec.  219.27  Special
                                          designations.
Sec.  219.26  Diversity................  Sec.  219.20  Ecological
                                          sustainability.
Sec.  219.27  Management Requirements..  Sec.  219.7  Plan decisions
                                          that guide future actions
                                         Sec.  219.19-21 ECOLOGICAL,
                                          SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC
                                          SUSTAINABILITY.
                                         Sec.  219.28  Determination of
                                          land suitable for timber
                                          removal.
Sec.  219.28  Research.................  Sec.  219.22-25  THE
                                          CONTRIBUTION OF SCIENCE.
Sec.  219.29  Transition Period........  Sec.  219.35  Transition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment Invited

    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.
    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as 
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) 
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with 
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of 
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided 
into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type 
and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for 
example, Sec. 219.3 Overview). (5) Is the description of the rule in 
the ``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble helpful in 
understanding the proposed rule? (6) What else could we do to make the 
rule easier to understand?
    Send any comments on how we could make this rule easier to 
understand to the address shown earlier in this document.

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Impact

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and 
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been 
determined that this is not an economically significant rule. This rule 
will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy 
nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, nor state or local governments. This rule will 
not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor 
raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. 
However, because of the extensive interest in National Forest System 
planning and decisionmaking, the Office of Management and Budget has 
determined this rule to be significant and thus, subject to OMB review 
under Executive Order 12866.
    Moreover, this proposed rule has been considered in light of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it 
has been determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by 
that Act. The rule imposes no requirements on either small or large 
entities. Rather, the rule sets out the process the Forest Service will 
follow in planning for the management of the National Forest System. 
The rule should increase opportunities for small businesses to become 
involved in both site-specific and national forest and grassland plan 
decisions. Moreover, by streamlining the planning process, small 
businesses should see more timely project-level decisions that affect 
outputs of products and services.

No Takings Implications

    This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, and it has 
been determined that the rule does not pose the risk of a taking of 
Constitutionally protected private property. This proposed rule only 
modifies the process for administrative review of Forest Service 
decisions for land and resource management plans.

Civil Justice Reform Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
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 
suit in court challenging its provisions.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

    The President signed into law on March 22, 1995, direction 
regarding unfunded mandates. The Department has assessed the effects of 
this rule on state, local, and tribal governments and the private 
sector. This rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or 
more by any state, local, or tribal governments or anyone in the 
private

[[Page 54094]]

sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not 
required.

Environmental Impact

    This proposed rule deals with the development and adoption of 
Forest Service land and resource management plan decisions as well as 
procedures for developing site-specific decisions which may include 
decisions regarding the occupancy and use of National Forest System 
land. An environmental review will be completed before adoption of a 
final rule.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    Proposed Sec. 219.32 Objections and Appeals would establish a new 
process for citizens and groups to object to a forest plan amendment or 
revision decision. Instead of appealing a decision after it is made 
under the rules of 36 CFR Part 217, the proposed rule would allow 
interested and affected persons and groups to file an objection before 
the decision is made.
    The proposed rule sets out the information that an objector would 
need to provide in order to file an objection to a proposed decision. 
This information is the same information that is currently required by 
the rules at 36 CFR Part 217, which provide post-decisional 
administrative appeal and review of land and resource management plan 
decisions. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB initialed number.

Description of the Information Collection

    The following describes the information collection associated with 
this rulemaking:
    Title: Objection to Amendment or Revision of Land and Resource 
Management Plans.
    OMB Number: New.
    Expiration Date of Approval: New.
    Type of Request: The following describes the new information 
collection requirement which has not received approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget:
    Abstract: The information to be required by Sec. 219.32 is the 
minimum information needed for a citizen or organization to explain the 
nature of the objection being made to a proposed land and resource 
management plan amendment or revision and the reason why the individual 
or organization objects. Specifically, an objector must provide name, 
mailing address and telephone number; a statement of the information or 
decisions to which the person or organization objects; a description of 
the part or parts of the forest plan amendment or revision being 
objected to; a concise statement explaining why the responsible 
official's pending decision should not be adopted, and a description of 
the objector's prior participation in the planning process for the 
amendment or revision to which the objection is being made.
    The responsible official must respond to any objection in the final 
decision document.
    Estimate of Burden: 10 hours to prepare the objection.
    Type of Respondents: Interested and affected individuals, 
organizations, and governmental units who participate in the planning 
process: such as persons who live in or near national forest and 
grassland units; local, state, and tribal governments who have an 
interest in the plan; federal agencies with an interest in the 
management of National Forest System lands and resources; not-for-
profit organizations interested in National Forest System management, 
such as environmental groups, recreation groups, educational 
institutions; commercial users of National Forest System lands and 
resources.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,210 a year.
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1  x  1210  x  10 = 
12,100 hour.
    Comments are Invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways 
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.

Use of Comments

    All comments received in response to this proposed information 
requirement will be included in the record of this rulemaking and 
considered in the adoption of a final rule as well as summarized and 
included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of 
the final rule.
    Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this proposed collection of information, including suggestions for 
reducing the burden to the ADDRESS shown at the beginning of this 
notice as well as to the Forest Service Desk Officer, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Federalism

    The agency has considered this proposed rule under the requirements 
of Executive Order 12612 and made a preliminary assessment that the 
rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, the agency has determined that no further 
assessment on federalism implications is necessary at this time. In 
addition, the agency has reviewed the consultation requirements under 
Executive Order 13132, which is effective on November 2, 1999. This 
Order calls for enhanced consultation with state and local governmental 
officials and emphasizes increased sensitivity to their concerns. In 
the spirit of these new requirements, the agency has consulted with the 
Western Governors' Association and the Natural Resources Committee of 
the National Governors' Association for comments on a draft version of 
the proposed rule. Representatives of the Western Governors' 
Association indicated that the proposed rule fits the principles 
espoused in their organization's ENLIBRA policy, which encourages 
greater participation and collaboration in decisionmaking, focuses on 
outcomes rather than programs only, and recognizes the need for a 
variety of tools beyond regulation that can improve environmental and 
natural resource management. The National Governors' Association also 
has adopted the ENLIBRA policy.
    The proposed rule calls for enhanced collaboration with state and 
local governments. Proposed Sec. 219.14 shows sensitivity to federalism 
concerns from a substantive standpoint. It requires Forest Service 
responsible officials to recognize the jurisdiction, expertise, and 
role of constituencies and local comminutes interested in, or affected 
by, use of the National Forest System. Under the proposed rule, the 
responsible official must provide opportunities for involvement of 
state and local governments in the planning process, including 
opportunities to participate in the identification of topics of general 
interest or concern related to planning. Prior to adopting a final 
rule, the Department will consider the extent

[[Page 54095]]

to which additional consultation is appropriate under E.O. 13132.

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 217

    Administrative practice and procedure, and national forests.

36 CFR Part 219

    National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 217 and 
219 of Chapter II of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations are 
proposed to be amended as follows:

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

    1. Remove part 217.
    2. Revise Part 219 to read as follows:

PART 219--PLANNING

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

Sec.

Purpose, Goals, and Principles

219.1  Purpose.
219.2  Goals and principles for planning.

The Framework for Planning

219.3  Overview.
219.4  Topics of general interest or concern.
219.5  Information development and interpretation.
219.6  Proposed actions.
219.7  Plan decisions that guide future actions.
219.8  Amendment.
219.9  Revision.
219.10  Site-specific decisions and authorized uses of land.
219.11  Monitoring and evaluation.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability

219.12  Collaboration and cooperatively developed landscape goals.
219.13  Coordination among federal agencies.
219.14  Involvement of state and local governments.
219.15  Interaction with American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives.
219.16  Relationships with interested individuals and organizations.
219.17  Interaction with private landowners.
219.18  Role of advisory groups and committees.

Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability

219.19  Ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
219.20  Ecological sustainability.
219.21  Social and economic sustainability.

The Contribution of Science

219.22  The role of assessments, analyses, and monitoring.
219.23  The participation of scientists in planning.
219.24  Science consistency evaluations.
219.25  Science advisory board.

Special Considerations

219.26  Identifying and designating suitable uses.
219.27  Special designations.
219.28  Determination of land suitable for timber removal.
219.29  Limitation on timber removal.

Planning Documentation

219.30  Land and resource management plan documentation.
219.31  Maintenance of the plan and planning records.

Objections and Appeals

219.32  Objections to amendments or revisions.
219.33  Appeals of site-specific decisions.

Applicability and Transition

219.34  Applicability.
219.35  Transition.

Definitions

219.36  Definitions.

    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 Resource Management Planning

Purpose, Goals, and Principles


Sec. 219.1  Purpose.

    (a) Planning for the National Forest System guides the Forest 
Service's stewardship of the natural resources of the national forests 
and grasslands to fulfill the purposes for which these lands are 
designated and to honor their unique place in American life. These 
regulations set forth a process for implementing, amending, and 
revising land and resource management plans for the National Forest 
System and for monitoring results of plan implementation. These rules 
also guide the selection and implementation of site-specific projects 
and activities. The principle authorities governing the development of 
land and resource management plans and management of the National 
Forest System are the National Forest Management Act of 1976; the 
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974; the Organic Act 
of 1897; the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960; the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973; and the Clean Water Act of 1977.
    (b) The National Forest System constitutes an extraordinary 
national legacy created by people of vision and preserved for future 
generations by diligent and far-sighted public servants and citizens. 
They are the people's lands, emblems of our democratic traditions.
    (1) The national forests and grasslands can provide many and 
diverse benefits to the American people. These include clean air and 
water, productive soils, biological diversity, products and services, 
employment opportunities, community benefits, recreation, and 
naturalness. They also give us intangible qualities, such as beauty, 
inspiration, and wonder.
    (2) To assure the continuation of this array of benefits, 
sustainability should be the guiding star for stewardship of the 
national forests and grasslands. Like other overarching national 
objectives, sustainability is broadly aspirational and can be difficult 
to define in concrete terms. Yet, especially considering the increased 
human pressures on the national forests and grasslands, it becomes ever 
more essential that planning and management begin with this central 
tenet.
    (3) Sustainability is broadly recognized to be composed of 
interdependent elements, ecological, economic, and social. It operates 
on several levels. As a collective outlook for the future, 
sustainability means meeting the needs of the present generation 
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 
needs. As an approach to decisionmaking, it calls for integrating the 
management of ecological systems with their social and economic context 
while acknowledging that management should not compromise the basic 
functioning of these systems. As a measure of progress, it provides a 
set of criteria and indicators to guide action. Building on this 
foundation of sustainability, the national forests and grasslands can 
provide a wide variety of uses, values, products, and services that are 
important to so many people, including outdoor recreation, forage, 
timber, wildlife and fish, water use, and minerals.


Sec. 219.2  Goals and principles for planning.

    Land and resource management planning is directed toward 
achievement of the following major goals and guiding principles:
    (a)(1) Goal: Planning must be directed toward assuring the 
ecological sustainability of our watersheds, forests, and rangelands. 
The benefits we seek from the national forests and grasslands depend 
upon the long-term ecological sustainability of the watersheds, 
forests, and rangelands. Considering the increased human pressures on 
them, it becomes ever more essential that planners focus on the heart 
of the idea of sustainability, that our use today does

[[Page 54096]]

not impair the functioning of ecological processes and the ability of 
these natural resources to contribute economically and socially in the 
future. Accordingly, a priority for stewardship in the national forests 
and grasslands must be to maintain and restore the ecological 
sustainability of watersheds, forests, and rangelands for present and 
future generations. At the same time, planning recognizes that 
ecological, economic, and social sustainability are inextricably 
linked: impairing the sustainability of any one aspect affects the 
entirety.
    (2) Guiding principles. (i) Planning provides the guidance for the 
diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capacity 
of ecological systems, the core elements of ecological sustainability. 
Biological diversity and ecological productivity, in turn, depend on 
the viability of individual species. Diversity is sustained only when 
species persist. In addition, biological diversity and ecological 
productivity depend on maintaining the characteristic composition, 
structure, and processes of ecosystems in the presence of human and 
natural disturbances, and on maintaining the ecological integrity of 
these systems.
    (ii) Planning must be based on science and other knowledge, 
including the use of scientifically based strategies for 
sustainability. The best available ecological, economic, and social 
information and analysis must be considered in creating the foundation 
of land and resource management planning. Planning should consider 
information from a wide range of sources, including scientists in 
public and private organizations as well as other knowledgeable people 
in tribes and local communities.
    (iii) Planning requires independent scientific review of 
assessments and plans before their publication. Broad-scale assessments 
should suggest methods and strategies for providing for species 
viability and ecological integrity. With that information, planners 
should construct conservation strategies and have them reviewed for 
accuracy and sufficiency by Forest Service and other scientists before 
a plan becomes final.
    (iv) Plans should include measures for evaluating whether 
stewardship goals have been achieved. Because one of the core functions 
of planning is to foster informed decisions through ongoing assessment 
and evaluation, effective monitoring is a crucial aspect of planning 
and management. Additionally, independent field review by Forest 
Service and outside technical and scientific experts plays an important 
role in monitoring the contribution of plans to the sustainability of 
our forests, streams, and watersheds.
    (b)(1) Goal: Plans promote economic and social sustainability by 
providing for a wide variety of uses, values, products, and services 
and by enhancing society's capability to make sustainable choices. The 
national forests and grasslands have been a grand experiment in 
providing for the multiple-uses (outdoor recreation, forage, timber, 
wildlife and fish, water use, and minerals) of these lands on a 
permanent basis in accordance with Gifford Pinchot's dictates that the 
lands be devoted to their most productive use for the permanent good of 
the whole people * * * always bearing in mind that the conservative use 
of these resources in no way conflicts with their permanent value. The 
planning and management of these lands should be an example for the 
entire world of stewardship that provides a wide variety of uses, 
values, products, and services in ways that are compatible with long-
term ecological, economic, and social sustainability.
    (2) Guiding principles. (i) Planning needs to recognize the 
interdependence of forests, rangelands, and watersheds with economies 
and communities. Many communities depend on the national forests and 
grasslands for much of their economic, social, and cultural sustenance. 
Although the Forest Service cannot and should not be expected to 
single-handedly sustain existing economies and communities, the 
national forests and grasslands nonetheless contribute many values, 
services, outputs, and uses that allow economies and communities to 
persist, prosper, and evolve. Within a context of sustaining ecological 
systems, planning must take generous account of compelling local 
circumstances. This approach includes the needs of ranching, farming, 
timber, and mining communities as well as the needs of American Indian 
and Alaska Native communities that rely upon treaty obligations.
    (ii) Planning should foster a broad-based understanding of the 
vital interrelationship between communities and sustainably managed 
forests and grasslands. The planning process should provide mechanisms 
through which communities can organize their energies and enterprises 
in a manner that promotes economic and social sustainability and 
develop realistic expectations about long-term uses, values, outputs, 
and services contributed by the national forests and grasslands.
    (iii) The planning process should foster strategies and actions 
that provide for human use in ways that contribute to long-term 
sustainability. Finding strategies and actions that contribute to long-
term sustainability, rather than those that work against it, is the 
surest way to increase the predictability of these uses.
    (iv) The National Forest System planning process must recognize the 
rights of American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. American Indian 
tribes and Alaska Natives possess unique and important rights 
recognized by federal treaties, statutes, and executive orders. The 
Forest Service has a general trust responsibility to federally 
recognized tribes and a duty to acknowledge them as sovereign 
governments and to work with them on a government-to-government basis. 
Depending on the circumstances of particular tribes and national 
forests, such lands also may provide for tribal hunting, fishing, and 
gathering rights; access to sacred sites; protection of graves and 
other archaeological sites; watershed protection for down-stream 
American Indian reservations; Alaska Native communities; and fishing 
sites.
    (c)(1) Goal: Planning recognizes and is efficiently integrated into 
the broader geographic, legal, political, and social landscape within 
which national forests and grasslands exist. In every sector of the 
country, the Forest Service is just one important agency among many 
important governmental and private entities and land ownerships. Some 
of these agencies have statutory authority affecting the national 
forests and their resources. Other agencies, governments, corporations, 
and citizens manage land in and around the national forests and 
grasslands. Still others have a keen interest in the national forests 
and can affect the way the public views Forest Service action. 
Sustainability of watersheds and other natural areas in which national 
forests and grasslands are located will inevitably depend upon 
activities on nearby federal lands, tribal lands, and state lands, and 
private lands and on the actions and attitudes of a wide variety of 
agencies, governments, and citizens. These landowners will vary in 
their abilities as well as their interest in providing the mix of uses, 
products, values, and services that people seek from forests and 
rangelands. The planning process, therefore, must be outward-looking. 
It must have the goal of understanding the broader landscape in which 
the national forests and grasslands lie. And, it must strive to achieve 
the highest ideals in managing public lands within the context of how 
people, businesses, and

[[Page 54097]]

governments will conserve, regulate, and use lands within and around 
the national forests and grasslands.
    (2) Guiding principles. (i) Assessment and planning require a 
coordinated approach by all affected federal agencies. Cooperation from 
the beginning with all federal agencies with statutory authority over 
specific resources within the national forests and grasslands is 
essential. Obtaining the early participation of, and joint planning 
with, all federal land management agencies in the area as appropriate 
to the issue, is another key to successful planning.
    (ii) Planning proceeds from start to finish in close cooperation 
with state, tribal, and local governments. Success in achieving goals 
for the national forests and grasslands may depend upon decisions made 
by other jurisdictions. Similarly, the Forest Service often can help 
other jurisdictions achieve their objectives through cooperation.
    (iii) Planning is interdisciplinary. Analyses and development of 
options must respond to a broad range of scientific, economic, and 
social concerns. Therefore, planning teams must represent diverse 
disciplines and work together collectively to develop information and 
alternatives. Additionally, consultants can be employed to tap other 
relevant sources of knowledge.
    (iv) Planning must be based on the spatial and temporal scales 
necessary to assure sustainability and provide for multiple-use. 
Ecological boundaries that also have social meaning, such as river 
basins and mountain ranges, will be useful for planning in the future. 
These planning boundaries often do not follow the boundaries of the 
national forests and grasslands. To achieve long-term sustainability, 
planning must often take into account cumulative effects on resources 
within and beyond the boundaries of the national forests and grasslands 
and well beyond the life of a plan.
    (v) Planning recognizes the regional, national, and global 
implications of management. Assessment and planning should acknowledge 
how management of the national forests and grasslands can contribute to 
ecological, economic, and social sustainability on regional, national, 
and international scales. Often, federal lands will need to anchor 
regional and national conservation strategies for species and 
ecosystems so other landowners can continue production of products and 
services without undue restriction. In addition, the wood, forage, 
water, and recreation they provide are often important to regional 
economies.
    (vi) Planning acknowledges the limits and variability of likely 
budgets. Plans should be realistic in budget estimates and resilient in 
the face of erratic budgets. The public should become aware of the 
degree to which plan implementation is dependent on annual budgets.
    (d)(1) Goal: Planning meaningfully engages the American people in 
the stewardship of their national forests and grasslands and builds 
stewardship capacity. The national forests and grasslands belong to the 
American people. For these truly to be the people's lands, the people 
must understand the land's condition, potential, limitations, and role 
in resource conservation in this country. Just as the Forest Service 
can help the American people learn about the limits and capabilities of 
the national forests and grasslands, so too must the managers be 
educated by the unique knowledge, advice, and values of the American 
people. Citizens can provide a wide array of services, ranging from 
volunteer work on trail crews to participating in collaborative efforts 
aimed at resolving disputes over specific projects. The Forest Service 
should draw on this knowledge, wisdom, and energy by building 
relationships, dialogues, and partnerships with the groups and 
individuals who wish to have a role in setting the future course for 
the national forests and in implementing these decisions.
    (2) Guiding principles. (i) The planning process should encourage 
extensive collaborative citizen participation. Land and resource 
management planning must provide mechanisms for broad-based, vigorous, 
and ongoing opportunities for open public dialogue. These dialogues 
should be open to any person at reasonable times, conducted in non-
technical terms, readily understandable, and structured in a manner 
that recognizes and accommodates personal schedules, capabilities, and 
interests. The participation of citizens should be encouraged from the 
beginning and be maintained throughout the planning process. The public 
should be offered an opportunity to participate in activities such as, 
but not limited to, assessments, issue identification, implementation, 
and monitoring.
    (ii) Planning builds upon the human resources in local communities. 
Just as local communities depend on the national forests and 
grasslands, so too the health of many forests, rangelands, and 
watersheds depends on healthy neighboring communities. Many restoration 
actions are needed on these lands, including programs to improve 
riparian conditions, reduce fuel loads, and rebuild and decommission 
roads. These efforts require entrepreneurs and a trained workforce. The 
surrounding communities can help provide these services. Planning and 
management must realize the full potential of these human resources to 
further the stewardship of the national forests and grasslands.
    (iii) Planning and plans must be understandable. A central purpose 
of planning is to speak directly to the public. The language of 
planning must be clear and straightforward. These are the people's 
lands, and decisions proposed through planning must be accessible to 
the public.
    (iv) Planning should actively seek out and address key issues. The 
best guidance will emerge from an open, candid, and collaborative 
process that addresses key issues.
    (v) Effective planning should restore and maintain the trust of the 
American people in the management of the national forests and 
grasslands. Planning is a principal setting in which the Forest Service 
relates to the public. It can be a valuable forum in which to 
reestablish the public's confidence. The Forest Service needs to work 
on the premise that effective planning and management cannot be 
achieved without the public's respect and trust. Therefore, planning 
should integrate the public into the process as easily as possible, 
give the public accurate and complete information in a way that can be 
understood, make extensive use of public input, and meet public 
expectations by adopting realistic plans and fulfilling their 
objectives until amended. Effective planning welcomes independent field 
review of plans and actions.
    (e)(1) Goal: Planning, which must be at once visionary and 
pragmatic, guides stewardship. Planning has long been viewed as a 
burdensome exercise with little connection to management. In fact, 
planning must be an integral part of stewardship of the national 
forests and grasslands: plans must be working guides that Forest 
Service employees find useful and motivating. Given the frequency with 
which new issues arise, new information becomes available, and 
unforeseen events occur, planning should be viewed as an ongoing 
process, where decisions are adapted, as necessary, to new 
understandings.
    (2) Guiding principles. (i) Planning organizes around a collective 
vision of the desired condition. Developing a collective vision of 
future landscape conditions and the uses, products, values, and 
services that will be

[[Page 54098]]

provided by these conditions represent the best hope for a coming 
together of the people and groups that care about the national forests 
and grasslands. The plan document should begin with a short mission 
statement that captures this vision. The desired condition and the 
outcomes associated with it should serve as the central reference 
points for planning and management of these lands. Performance 
measures, monitoring, and budgets should be directed toward achievement 
of the actions and conditions needed to move toward the desired future.
    (ii) Planning should be efficient in achieving goals. Strategies 
that simultaneously address multiple goals and find the least-cost 
method for achieving these goals are essential guides to efficient 
stewardship as is demonstration that the social benefits exceed the 
social cost.
    (iii) Planning must be innovative but practical. Planning is not an 
end in itself but rather must be a useful endeavor that furthers real-
world objectives, including serving as a working guide for stewardship. 
Valuable innovations have been developed during Forest Service 
planning, ranging from successful collaborative efforts to multi-agency 
watershed and broad-scale assessments.
    (iv) Planning must be done expeditiously. Lengthy planning efforts 
frustrate public participants, strain Forest Service resources, and can 
result in plans that are outdated when adopted. Planners should aim to 
complete the planning phases from assessment through formal adoption of 
small landscape plans within 3 years. To accommodate this goal, 
analytical requirements should be kept to a minimum consistent with 
achieving the purposes of planning.
    (v) Plans should be dynamic and adaptable. While a plan should 
strive to attain a reasonable degree of predictability in its 
implementation, everyone must recognize that unpredictable events, 
ranging from natural disturbances to changed market conditions, will 
occur. Forest Service officials must respond to new circumstances 
through plan amendments and revisions so that the plans will remain 
fully current. Plans must be evolving documents.

The Framework for Planning


Sec. 219.3  Overview.

    (a) The nature of land and resource management planning. Land and 
resource management planning is a continuous, collaborative process 
designed to fully engage the public and apply the best available 
scientific information and analysis to provide for ecological, social, 
and economic sustainability in the use and enjoyment of National Forest 
System lands. The planning framework set out in this part outlines a 
flexible procedure for fitting solutions to the scope and scale of 
needed actions which includes the assessment of land and resources, 
collaboratively developed landscape goals, guidance for future actions, 
site-specific projects, and monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. The 
planning framework is built on the following premises:
    (1) Planning based upon a broad-scale assessment of the ecological, 
social, and economic environments is key in gaining understanding among 
people living near or interested in national forests or grasslands; 
establishing cooperatively developed landscape goals; and helping to 
ensure environmental justice for all citizens.
    (2) To achieve an interdisciplinary, collaborative approach in 
planning, responsible officials, planners, and managers may engage the 
skills and interests of any appropriate combination of Forest Service 
staff, consultants, contractors, other federal, state, American Indian 
tribe, Alaska Natives, or local government personnel, or other 
interested or affected people.
    (3) Plan decisions that guide future agency actions within units of 
the National Forest System (Sec. 219.7) reside in land and resource 
management plans which integrate the decisions applicable to the plan 
area and are repositories for planning-related documents.
    (4) Through the consideration of local needs, conditions, and 
effects, within the planning framework, site-specific projects may be 
authorized if they are consistent with the decisions applicable to the 
plan area.
    (5) The planning framework is a continuous cycle of engaging the 
public, developing land and resource management plan decisions and 
site-specific projects, monitoring and evaluating outcomes, and 
progressively improving land and resource management through plan 
amendments or revisions and site-specific projects to achieve the 
desired conditions as articulated in land and resource management 
plans.
    (b) Levels of planning and decisionmaking. Planning is undertaken 
at the national, regional, and/or national forest or grassland 
administrative levels depending on the nature and scope of topics of 
general interest or concern and subject to limitations and delegation 
of authority. National level planning establishes long-term strategic 
goals, objectives, and outcome measures to be considered in managing 
the National Forest System. The Forest or Grassland Supervisor is the 
responsible official for the land and resource management plan. 
District Rangers, consistent with delegated authority, are responsible 
for proposing, evaluating, approving, and implementing site-specific 
projects and activities. When planning is required for more than one 
national forest or grassland, two or more Forest or Grassland 
Supervisors may combine their planning activities. A topic, such as the 
recovery of an endangered or threatened species, may require one or 
more Regional Foresters or the Chief of the Forest Service to undertake 
planning and decisions which may amend one or more land and resource 
management plans.
    (c) Key elements. Key elements of land and resource management 
planning and decisionmaking processes are:
    (1) Broad-scale assessments (Sec. 219.4(b)) and Cooperatively 
developed landscape goals (Sec. 219.12(b));
    (2) Topics of general interest or concern;
    (3) Information development and interpretation;
    (4) Proposed actions;
    (5) Plan decisions that guide future actions;
    (6) Amendment;
    (7) Revision;
    (8) Site-specific decisions; and
    (9) Monitoring and evaluation.


Sec. 219.4  Topics of general interest or concern.

    (a) Origination of topics of general interest or concern. Topics of 
general interest or concern may originate from a variety of sources, 
including but not limited to, inventories, assessments, monitoring and 
evaluation of projects; Forest Service conservation leadership 
initiatives; cooperatively developed landscape goals; enactment of new 
laws or policies; applications for authorization for occupancy and use 
of National Forest System lands; or from discussions among people, 
organizations, or governments interested in or affected by National 
Forest System management.
    (b) Consideration of topics of general interest or concern. The 
responsible official has the discretion to determine whether a topic of 
general interest or concern is appropriate for further consideration.
    (1) In making this determination, the responsible official should 
consider such factors and information as the following:
    (i) the scope, complexity, and geographic scale of potential 
actions that may address the topic;

[[Page 54099]]

    (ii) statutory requirements;
    (iii) organizational capabilities and available resources;
    (iv) the scientific basis and merit of available data and analyses;
    (v) the anticipated consistency of possible actions with existing 
plans, adopted conservation strategies, biological opinions, or other 
strategies applicable within all or a portion of the plan area; and
    (vi) the extent of involvement and the views and opinions of 
interested or affected individuals, organizations, or other entities, 
and related social, cultural, or spiritual values.
    (2) In addition, the responsible official should consider the 
extent to which addressing the topic relates to or provides:
    (i) an opportunity to contribute to the achievement of 
cooperatively developed landscape goals and landscape settings 
consistent with public expectations;
    (ii) an opportunity for the national forests and grasslands to 
contribute to the restoration or maintenance of ecological integrity 
and maintenance or restoration of watershed function, including water 
flow regimes to benefit aquatic resources, groundwater recharge, 
municipal water supply, or other uses;
    (iii) an opportunity and unique features that the national forests 
or grasslands can contribute to ecological, social, and economic 
sustainability;
    (iv) an opportunity to restore or maintain ecological conditions 
that are similar to the biological and physical range of natural 
variability;
    (v) an opportunity to recover threatened or endangered species or 
maintain or restore ecological conditions needed for the viability of 
focal species; and
    (vi) The potential for disproportionately high or adverse 
environmental effects upon minority populations.


Sec. 219.5  Information development and interpretation.

    Information related to a topic of general interest or concern may 
be obtained from inventories, broad-scale assessments, local analyses, 
or from information voluntarily submitted by interested parties, 
including American Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, adjacent landowners, 
or others. If the responsible official determines that a topic of 
general interest or concern should receive further consideration, the 
responsible official should review available information and determine 
if additional information is desirable and can be obtained at a 
reasonable cost and in a timely manner. The responsible official may 
develop or supplement either a broad-scale assessment or a local 
analysis, depending on the scale of the topic of general interest or 
concern. The responsible official has the discretion to chose the 
method and determine the scope of the collection of new information. 
The findings, recommendations, or reports from inventories, broad-scale 
assessments, local analyses, or other studies are used to characterize 
current conditions and to help to make informed decisions about 
management activities, such as resource protection and watershed 
restoration, and should be readily available to the public. The results 
from inventories and broad-scale assessments, local analyses, and other 
studies are not proposed actions or decisions subject to NEPA 
procedures.
    (a) Broad-scale assessments. (1) Broad-scale assessments provide 
information regarding ecological, economic, or social topics that are 
broad in geographic scale, sometimes crossing Forest Service regional 
administrative boundaries. Broad-scale assessments related to 
ecological topics should be conducted within broad ecological 
boundaries that may include biological or geographic regions or the 
range of one or more fish, wildlife, or plant species. Social and 
economic topics should be addressed, as appropriate, in broad-scale 
assessments. For some topics, an assessment that combines ecological, 
economic, and social topics may be necessary or desirable. Ecological 
factors are set forth in Sec. 219.20; social and economic factors are 
set forth in Sec. 219.21.
    (2) Broad-scale assessments may be led by the Forest Service or, by 
agreement of the responsible official, by others. In addition to the 
requirements of Secs. 219.20 and 219.21, broad-scale assessments must 
include the best available scientific information and analysis and 
provide the following:
    (i) Findings and conclusions that describe historic conditions, 
current status, and future trends of ecological, social, and/or 
economic conditions and their relationship to sustainability. These 
findings and conclusions may be used by the responsible official to 
develop proposals for land and resource management plan amendments or 
revisions, or in making site-specific decisions, including 
authorizations for land uses. Findings and conclusions from broad-scale 
assessments also may be used in the development of conservation 
strategies or in other activities that contribute to land and resource 
management planning.
    (ii) Identification of the need for additional research to develop 
new information or address conflicting interpretations of existing 
information.
    (3) Regional Foresters are responsible for National Forest System 
participation in broad-scale assessments. Each broad-scale assessment 
should be designed and conducted with the assistance of scientists, 
resource professionals, governmental entities, and other individuals 
and organizations knowledgeable of the assessment area.
    (b) Local analyses. Local analyses provide needed information to 
aid in the identification of possible actions or projects to achieve 
desired conditions. The need for, and the scope and intensity of, local 
analyses vary based on local topics of general interest or concern, 
availability of information, and applicable resource and social values. 
Recommendations from local analyses may be used in making future 
decisions. When deemed appropriate, local analyses should address 
ecological, social, and economic factors as set out in Secs. 219.20 and 
219.21. The delineation of the area to be covered by a local analysis 
is determined by watersheds or ecological units. Local analyses may 
tier to, and may often provide information to update, a broad-scale 
assessment. Local analyses are to be completed by the responsible 
official and provide the following:
    (1) A characterization of the area of analysis;
    (2) An identification of topics of general interest or concern 
within the analysis area;
    (3) A description of current conditions;
    (4) A description of likely future conditions;
    (5) A synthesis and interpretation of information; and
    (6) Recommendations for future decisions, as appropriate.


Sec. 219.6  Proposed actions.

    (a) Proposal. Based on the consideration of factors in Sec. 219.4 
and the available information and analyses in Sec. 219.5, the 
responsible official may propose to amend or revise the appropriate 
land and resource management plan, propose a site-specific project, or 
both.
    (b) NEPA requirements. Unless otherwise exempted by statute, court 
order, or published agency procedures, the responsible official must 
analyze the effects of the proposal and alternative(s) in conformance 
with Forest Service NEPA procedures. The responsible official may use 
the planning framework to accomplish the scoping process described in 
agency NEPA procedures.

[[Page 54100]]

Sec. 219.7  Plan decisions that guide future actions.

    Land and resource management plans embody four categories of 
decisions that guide or prescribe alternative uses of federal resources 
upon which future agency action will be based. Plan decisions are 
added, modified, or revised through amendment or revision of the 
applicable land and resource management plan. Plan decisions do not 
explicitly commit resources to specific projects, but rather provide a 
framework for choosing projects to which resources may be committed 
later. These plan decision categories are as follows:
    (a) Desired resource conditions to achieve the long-term 
sustainability sought over a specified period of time in all or 
portions of the plan area. Desired resource conditions may include, but 
are not limited to, the desired watershed and ecological conditions and 
aquatic and terrestrial habitat characteristics.
    (b) Goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that are 
applicable to all or a portion of the plan area.
    (1) Resource management goals are statements of intent, normally 
expressed in general, non-quantitative terms, which contribute toward 
achieving desired conditions. The goals link Forest Service policies, 
laws, Executive Orders, regulations, and applicable Forest Service 
strategic plans with specific measurable objectives. Goals are 
fulfilled through the achievement of measurable objectives.
    (2) Objectives are concise statements that describe desired 
measurable results intended to achieve one or more goals. Objectives 
include a statement of the estimated amount of time needed for their 
completion, their contribution toward achievement of the goals of the 
plan area, and, if appropriate, a desired level of products and 
services anticipated.
    (3) The standards and guidelines of a land and resource management 
plan provide criteria necessary to achieve resource management 
objectives and to promote compliance with applicable law, regulation, 
and policy. For example, standards and guidelines must address focal 
species; protection or restoration of watershed integrity including 
water quantity and quality; protection, maintenance and recovery of 
native aquatic and terrestrial dependent species; and, prevention of 
the introduction and spread of non-native species. By statute (16 
U.S.C. 1604(g)), the land and resource management plan must provide 
standards and guidelines for timber harvest and regeneration methods 
including the limitations on even-aged harvest methods as required by 
16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(F), maximum size openings from timber harvest, and 
techniques for achieving aesthetic objectives by blending the 
boundaries of vegetation treatments.
    (c) Designation and identification of suitable uses and designation 
of special areas in all or portions of the plan area. The responsible 
official must identify those lands within units of the National Forest 
System that are suited for specific uses (Sec. 219.26), including 
identification of the necessary transportation system and special 
designations as described in Sec. 219.27, and lands where timber 
production is an appropriate objective (Sec. 219.28).
    (d) Monitoring and evaluation requirements within the plan area. 
These requirements are set forth in Sec. 219.11.


Sec. 219.8  Amendment.

    (a) Amending land and resource management plans. An amendment to a 
land and resource management plan is a programmatic decision that 
guides or proscribes future Forest Service action.
    (1) For each amendment, the responsible official must complete 
appropriate environmental analyses and public participation consistent 
with Forest Service NEPA procedures. A proposed amendment that may 
create a significant environmental effect and thus require preparation 
of an environmental impact statement is considered to be a significant 
change in the land and resource management plan. Public review of such 
an amendment must be comparable to that described in Sec. 219.9(e).
    (2) Following completion of NEPA procedures, any person may file an 
objection to the proposed amendment and initiate the objection process 
under Sec. 219.32.
    (3) The responsible official may make a decision to approve a plan 
amendment after the conclusion of the 30-day period provided to file an 
objection in Sec. 219.32.
    (b) Plan amendments in conjunction with site-specific decisions. As 
described in Sec. 219.32, a person may object to a land and resource 
management plan amendment, including an amendment of a land and 
resource management plan proposed in conjunction with a pending site-
specific project decision.


Sec. 219.9  Revision.

    (a) Application of the revision process. Revision of a land and 
resource management plan is required whenever circumstances affecting 
the entire plan area or major portions of the plan area have changed 
significantly or every 15 years as required by law. The revision 
process is an opportunity to review of the overall outcome of the 
management of a unit of the National Forest System and consider the 
likely results if plan decisions were to continue in effect. The 
revision process is completed when one or more of the decisions of a 
land and resource management plan are revised or determined to continue 
without change.
    (b) Initiating revision. To begin the revision process, the 
responsible official must:
    (1) Summarize inventories, monitoring and evaluation results, new 
data, findings and conclusions from appropriate broad-scale assessments 
(Sec. 219.5(a)), new or revised Forest Service policies, and changes in 
circumstances affecting the entire or major portions of the plan area;
    (2) Evaluate and provide for an independent scientific review of 
the effectiveness of the current land and resource management plan in 
fulfilling the goals of ecological sustainability (Sec. 219.20);
    (3) Identify new proposals for special areas, including unroaded 
areas (Sec. 219.36), special designations, and areas under 
consideration for wilderness designation (Sec. 219.27(a));
    (4) Develop a priority list of specific watersheds in need of 
protective or restoration measures;
    (5) Identify lands currently classified as not suitable for timber 
production (Sec. 219.28(b)); and
    (6) Develop an estimate of anticipated outcomes, products, and 
services for a 10-year period based on the land and resource management 
plan decisions in effect at the time the revision process begins.
    (c) Public notice of revision process and review of information. 
The responsible official must give public notice of the initiation of 
plan revision and make the information developed under paragraph (b) of 
this section available for public comment for at least 45 calendar 
days.
    (d) Proposed revision of one or more land and resource management 
plan decisions.
    (1) Based upon the information gathered, including any comments 
received in response to information made available to the public in 
paragraph (c) of this section, the responsible official must issue a 
Notice of Intent to revise one or more of the decisions embodied in a 
land and resource management plan. In addition to the requirements 
established by NEPA procedures, the Notice of Intent must describe the 
decisions proposed to be revised in a statement of purpose and need for 
the proposed action and identify specific opportunities to fulfill

[[Page 54101]]

National Forest System goals as set forth in laws, Executive Orders, 
regulations, Forest Service directives, and applicable Forest Service 
strategic plans.
    (2) The responsible official must provide at least 45 calendar days 
for review and comment on the Notice of Intent. The responsible 
official must consider comments received in response to the Notice of 
Intent and determine if there is a need to adjust the scope of the 
proposed revision.
    (e) NEPA documentation. An appropriate environmental document 
prepared in accordance with NEPA procedures must accompany the proposed 
revision of a land and resource management plan. The responsible 
official must give the public notice and an opportunity to comment on 
the NEPA document for at least 90 calendar days. Following public 
comment, the responsible official must oversee preparation of final 
documents in accordance with NEPA procedures.
    (f) Objections. Following completion of NEPA procedures, any person 
may file an objection to the proposed revision and initiate the 
objection process under Sec. 219.32.
    (g) Effective date. The responsible official may make a decision to 
approve a plan revision after the conclusion of the 30-day period 
provided to file an objection in Sec. 219.32.
    (h) Revision schedule. Within 1 year of the effective date of this 
rule, the Chief of the Forest Service must establish a schedule for 
completion of the revision process for each land and resource 
management plan utilizing the rules of this subpart.


Sec. 219.10  Site-specific decisions and authorized uses of land.

    (a) Site-specific decisions. Subject to valid existing rights, 
applicable statutes, and to the extent appropriate and practicable, the 
responsible official shall follow the planning requirements of this 
subpart to make site-specific decisions. A site-specific decision must 
be consistent with the decisions within the applicable land and 
resource management plan. If a proposed site-specific decision is not 
consistent with the applicable land and resource management plan, the 
responsible official may modify the proposed decision to make it 
consistent with the land and resource management plan, subject to valid 
existing rights and statutory requirements; reject the proposal; or, if 
required by law or justified by projected short-term, long-term, and 
cumulative effects, amend the land and resource management plan to 
permit the proposal.
    (b) Authorized uses of National Forest System land. At the time of 
their issuance, permits, contracts, and other instruments authorizing 
the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands must be 
consistent with the land and resource management plan. When an 
amendment or revision to a land and resource management plan is 
proposed, the responsible official must take into consideration the 
possible effects on occupancy and use already authorized through 
permits, contracts, or other instruments. Subject to valid existing 
rights or other statutory requirement, or unless expressly exempted by 
the plan, authorizations for occupancy and use within the plan area 
must be made consistent with any changes made to the applicable land 
and resource management plan. In a plan amendment or revision decision 
document, the responsible official may exempt activities or uses 
authorized by existing permits, contracts, or other instruments from 
application of new or modified plan decisions provided that, subject to 
valid existing rights, the environmental effects of the authorized use 
do not prevent the achievement of the desired condition described by 
the land and resource management plan. Otherwise, the responsible 
official, through the decision document accompanying a land and 
resource management plan amendment or revision, must establish a 
schedule for bringing preexisting authorized occupancy and use into 
compliance with new or modified plan decisions.


Sec. 219.11  Monitoring and evaluation.

    Monitoring and evaluation requirements are designed to assess the 
effectiveness of management actions in accomplishing goals, objectives, 
and desired conditions. Monitoring and evaluation aids in the 
identification of topics of general interest or concern, the 
development of assessments, and in the amendment or revision of land 
and resource management plans or in the selection of site-specific 
projects.
    (a) Monitoring and evaluation requirements. The monitoring strategy 
for a land and resource management plan must include identification of 
the actions, effects, or resources to be measured; the frequency of 
measurement; and sampling protocols. The responsible official shall 
ensure that monitoring information is used to determine:
    (1) If site-specific actions are completed as specified in 
applicable decision documents;
    (2) If the aggregated outcomes and effects of completed and ongoing 
actions are sustainable and are achieving or contributing to the 
achievement of desired conditions; and
    (3) If key assumptions underlying plan decisions in the land and 
resource management plan remain valid.
    (b) Coordination. Monitoring and evaluation should be coordinated 
and, to the extent practicable, conducted jointly with other federal 
agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, scientific and academic 
communities, or other interested parties. In addition, the responsible 
official must provide appropriate opportunities for the public to be 
involved in monitoring and evaluation as well as utilize scientists in 
monitoring and evaluation as described in Sec. 219.22(c).
    (c) Project monitoring. Monitoring and evaluation, if required in 
conjunction with a site-specific project, must be described in the 
project decision document. In addition, subject to valid existing 
rights, a project shall not be authorized unless there is a reasonable 
expectation that adequate funding will be available to complete any 
required monitoring and evaluation.
    (d) Monitoring and evaluation report. The Forest or Grassland 
Supervisor must prepare an annual monitoring and evaluation report for 
the plan area within 6 months following the end of the fiscal year. The 
report must be filed with the land and resource management plan 
documents (Sec. 219.30), and it must include the following components:
    (1) A list or reference to monitoring required by the land and 
resource management plan;
    (2) A summary of the results of monitoring performed during the 
preceding fiscal year;
    (3) A description of the trend(s) toward achieving goals or desired 
conditions and sustainability from accumulated actions;
    (4) Identification of topics of general interest or concern 
(Sec. 219.4) arising from monitoring and evaluation; and
    (5) A list of amendments, revisions, and summary of appropriate 
outcomes, products and services, and budgetary trends related to the 
achievement of desired conditions.
    (e) Monitoring and evaluation of ecological sustainability. 
Monitoring and evaluation are crucial components in the achievement of 
ecological sustainability. A monitoring program must be developed to 
evaluate the effectiveness of maintaining or restoring ecosystem 
integrity and preserving future management options. Monitoring should 
be based on conceptual models of ecological systems being managed, key 
ecosystem processes including disturbance processes, and individual 
ecosystem components and the

[[Page 54102]]

relationships among those components. Monitoring and evaluation of 
ecological sustainability must:
    (1) Develop methods of selecting and measuring indicators of 
ecological integrity and designate critical values that would trigger 
reviews of and possible amendments to goals, objectives, standards, or 
guidelines. Critical values should include identification of the 
spatial and temporal scales over which they are to be measured.
    (2) Determine the status and trend of focal species and species at 
risk:
    (i) The choice of monitoring objectives and methodology for focal 
species and species at risk is based upon a variety of factors which 
includes the degree of risk to the species, the degree to which a 
species' life history characteristics lend themselves to monitoring, 
the reasons that a species is included in the list of focal, at risk, 
or demand species, and the strength of association between habitat and 
population dynamics. The reasons for selection of monitoring objectives 
and methodology must be documented as part of the monitoring program.
    (ii) Habitat conditions and trends must be monitored for selected 
focal species and species at risk. Habitat conditions should include 
all conditions necessary to support the species, not just vegetative 
components of habitat.
    (iii) Actual estimates of population status and trend are 
appropriate when the risk of local or broader extirpation is high or 
there is high uncertainty about the habitats and conditions needed for 
species viability. In these cases, monitoring of population status 
should include a combination of efficient and reliable population 
sampling and studies to evaluate the species' habitat relationships and 
the effects of habitat manipulation. In cases where these ongoing 
monitoring efforts result in thorough understanding of the 
relationships of habitat to species distribution, abundance, and 
demographics, and where habitat is a primary factor influencing species 
population dynamics, monitoring may shift such that species status is 
inferred primarily from habitat monitoring rather than being solely 
based on direct population measures.
    (iv) For species for which the risk of local or broader 
extirpations is not high, an array of monitoring objectives and methods 
may be appropriate. These may include the use of population occurrence 
and presence/absence data, using population indices to track relative 
population trends, or inferring population status from habitat 
conditions. Where habitat information is relied upon to provide 
inference to population status, the relationship of population to 
habitat must be understood well enough to provide data appropriate to 
the reason for which the species is being monitored.
    (3) Determine the status and trend of other selected physical and 
biological indicators of ecological integrity. Document the reasons for 
selection of monitoring objective and methodology for these indicators.
    (4) Validate that selected focal species and other selected 
indicators of ecological integrity provide reliable information about 
the status and integrity of the ecological system in which they occur.
    (5) Determine the effectiveness of actions in providing desired 
conditions for selected demand species.
    (6) Provide an overall evaluation of the effectiveness of 
management direction in conserving and maintaining or restoring 
ecosystem integrity, and in preserving future management options.
    (f) Monitoring and evaluation of social and economic 
sustainability. Monitoring and evaluation of social and economic 
sustainability should include periodic review of national, regional, 
and local supply and demand for products, services, and values. Special 
consideration should be given to those products, services, and values 
that the Forest Service is uniquely poised to provide. Monitoring 
should improve the understanding of the National Forest System 
contributions to human wants and values and to social and economic 
sustainability.

Collaborative Planning for Sustainability


Sec. 219.12  Collaboration and cooperatively developed landscape goals.

    (a) Collaboration. Collaboration in land and resource management 
planning enhances the ability of people to work together, build their 
capacity for stewardship, and achieve ecological, economic, and social 
sustainability. The responsible official, functioning as a leader, 
convener, facilitator, or participant, as appropriate, should foster 
positive relationships with people interested in and/or affected by the 
management of the National Forest System lands, as well as with other 
federal agencies and state, local, and tribal governments that wish to 
participate in defining the future of the National Forest System. The 
responsible official should provide frequent opportunities for citizens 
and organizations to participate openly and meaningfully, beginning at 
the early stages of the planning process. In undertaking planning, the 
responsible official should consider pertinent information from other 
sources and activities on other lands and recognize the distinct roles, 
jurisdictions, and relationships of interested and affected 
governments, organizations, groups, and individuals subject to 
applicable laws and regulations. The responsible official has full 
discretion to determine how and to what extent to use the collaborative 
processes outlined in Secs. 219.12 through 219.18.
    (b) Cooperatively developed landscape goals. (1) Using information 
from broad-scale assessments or other available information, the 
responsible official should seek to initiate or seek to join on-going 
collaborative efforts to develop or propose landscape goals for 
ecological units that may be associated with National Forest System 
lands. The responsible official and those involved in planning should 
invite and encourage others to engage in the collaborative development 
of landscape goals. During this collaborative effort, responsible 
officials, planners, and managers should strive to communicate and 
foster understanding of the nation's declaration of environmental 
policy as set forth in section 101(b) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended) which states that it is 
the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all 
practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of 
national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, 
programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may--
    (i) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of 
the environment for succeeding generations;
    (ii) Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and 
esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
    (iii) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment 
without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and 
unintended consequences;
    (iv) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of 
our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment 
which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice;
    (v) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which 
will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's 
amenities; and
    (vi) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the 
maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

[[Page 54103]]

    (2) The responsible official should consider cooperatively 
developed landscape goals, whether initiated by the Forest Service or 
others, within the framework for planning as a topic of general 
interest or concern (Sec. 219.4).


Sec. 219.13  Coordination among federal agencies.

    The responsible official must seek to provide early and continuous 
coordination with appropriate federal agencies and must provide 
opportunities for other interested or affected federal agencies to:
    (a) Participate in the identification of topics of general interest 
or concern and formulation of proposed actions that may affect or 
influence programs;
    (b) Contribute to the streamlined resolution of any inconsistencies 
among federal agency policies, resource management plans, or programs; 
and
    (c) Develop, where appropriate and practicable, joint resource 
management plans.


Sec. 219.14  Involvement of state and local governments.

    The responsible official must recognize the jurisdiction, 
expertise, and role of state and local governments as regulators, land 
managers, and representatives of state constituencies and local 
communities interested in or affected by uses of the National Forest 
System. Accordingly, the responsible official must provide 
opportunities for involvement of state and local governments in the 
planning process, including opportunities to participate in the 
identification of topics of general interest or concern relating to the 
plan area.


Sec. 219.15  Interaction with American Indian tribes and Alaska 
Natives.

    (a) The Forest Service shares in the Federal Government's overall 
trust responsibility for federally recognized American Indian tribes 
and Alaska Natives.
    (b) The responsible official must recognize the government-to-
government relationship between American Indian or Alaska Native tribal 
governments and the Federal Government.
    (c) The responsible official must consult with and invite American 
Indian tribes and Alaska Natives to participate throughout the planning 
process to:
    (1) Assist in the early identification of treaty rights, treaty-
protected resources, American Indian tribe trust resources, and other 
tribal concerns;
    (2) Consider tribal data and resource knowledge provided by tribal 
representatives; and
    (3) Consider tribal concerns and suggestions when making decisions.


Sec. 219.16  Relationships with interested individuals and 
organizations.

    The responsible official must:
    (a) Ensure that appropriate information is made available and that 
no one, including persons with diverse opinions and values, is 
deliberately excluded or denied participation in land and resource 
management planning;
    (b) Encourage participants to work collaboratively and directly 
with one another to improve understanding;
    (c) As appropriate and necessary, identify and consult with a broad 
spectrum of individuals and entities who can provide information about 
current and historic public uses within an assessment or plan area, 
about the location of unique and sensitive resources, as well as 
identify values and cultural practices related to topics of general 
interest or concern in the plan area; and
    (d) Consult with scientific experts and other knowledgeable 
persons, as appropriate and necessary, in the conduct of planning 
activities.


Sec. 219.17  Interaction with private landowners.

    Consideration of the pattern and distribution of land ownership in 
assessment and plan areas is critical. In order to identify appropriate 
actions and evaluate possible effects, the responsible official must 
seek to engage those who have control or authority over lands adjacent 
to or within the external boundaries of national forests or grasslands 
in the consideration of available information and potential conditions 
and activities on the adjacent lands that may affect management of 
National Forest System lands.


Sec. 219.18  Role of advisory groups and committees.

    (a) Advisory groups. Advisory groups or boards can provide an 
immediate, representative, and predictable structure within which 
public dialogue can occur so that Forest Service relationships with a 
broad and dispersed community of interests can be efficiently 
maintained.
    (b) Use of advisory committees. An advisory committee may be used 
to assist the responsible official in determining whether there is a 
reasonable basis for action to address a topic of general interest or 
concern. An advisory committee is not needed for each national forest 
or grassland; however, each Forest or Grassland Supervisor must have 
access to an advisory committee capable of addressing local conditions 
and topics of general interest or concern. Forest and Grassland 
Supervisors may request establishment of advisory committees and 
recommend members to the Secretary of Agriculture. Advisory committees 
used by other agencies also may be utilized through proper agreements.

Ecological, Social, And Economic Sustainability


Sec. 219.19  Ecological, social, and economic sustainability.

    Achievement of ecological, social, and economic sustainability is 
the overall goal for management of National Forest System land. To 
achieve sustainability, the first priority for management is the 
maintenance and restoration of ecological sustainability to provide a 
sustainable flow of products, services, and other values from these 
lands consistent with the laws and regulations guiding their use and 
enjoyment by the American people.


Sec. 219.20  Ecological sustainability.

    To achieve ecological sustainability, it is necessary to maintain 
and restore ecosystem integrity. Sustaining the integrity of ecological 
systems increases their resilience to natural disturbance events, 
allows renewal following use or degradation, and helps to preserve 
options for future generations.
    (a) Ecological information and analysis. To maintain and restore 
ecological sustainability, the collection and analysis of information 
on ecosystem composition, structure, and processes at a variety of 
spatial and temporal scales is necessary. These include geographic 
scales such as bioregions and watersheds, scales of biological 
organization such as communities and species, and temporal scales 
ranging from months to centuries. Some ecological measures, such as 
landscape diversity, are meaningful only when information is collected 
and analyzed at large spatial scales. For other measures, such as 
species diversity, it may be appropriate to collect and analyze 
information at more than one scale, with analysis at each scale 
influencing and/or incorporating the analysis done at other scales. 
Information and analyses regarding ecological sustainability may be 
identified, obtained, or developed through a variety of mechanisms, 
including broad-scale assessments and local analyses (Sec. 219.5), and 
documents prepared as required by NEPA procedures. As appropriate to 
the scale of the analysis, information and analyses, must include the 
following:
    (1) The current biological and physical characteristics of 
ecosystems, such as plant and animal species, the

[[Page 54104]]

composition, structural stages, and landscape distribution of major 
vegetation types, soil condition, air and water quality, stream channel 
morphology, and instream flows.
    (2) The principal ecological processes that influence the 
characteristic structure and composition of an area. This includes the 
intensity, frequency, and magnitude of natural disturbance regimes, 
occurring at the multiple geographic and temporal scales.
    (3) The effects of human activities, distinguishing activities 
prior to European settlement, which had an integral role in the 
landscape for a long period of time, from activities after European 
settlement, many of which are of a type, size, and rate that were not 
typical of disturbances under which native plant and animal species and 
ecosystems developed.
    (4) Estimates of the historical range of variability of ecological 
conditions, which should include an analysis of the differences over 
time in the occurrence of key attributes of ecological systems, and 
should identify those conditions that occurred more frequently than 
others. Estimates must be made for a specified period of time and 
include the effects of natural and human disturbance regimes prior to 
European settlement. Current conditions must be compared to the 
distribution of historical conditions prior to European settlement to 
develop insights about the current status and integrity of ecosystem 
components.
    (5) A comprehensive status of ecosystem components and the 
contribution of National Forest System lands to ecosystem integrity, 
including species viability, based on consideration of all lands within 
the area under analysis.
    (6) Identification of areas that may serve as reference landscapes, 
which collectively should reflect the full range of ecological 
composition, structure, and processes.
    (7) Identification of indicators of ecosystem integrity, which must 
include focal species and species at risk, and also may include other 
physical and biological indicators. In general, the indicators should 
be consistent across different scales of analysis.
    (i) Focal species. Focal species are used as surrogate measures in 
the evaluation of ecological integrity, including the diversity of 
native and desired non-native species. The key characteristic of a 
focal species is that its status and trend provide insights to the 
integrity of the larger ecological system to which it belongs. 
Individual species, or groups of species that use habitat in similar 
ways or that perform similar ecological functions, may be identified as 
focal species because they serve an umbrella function in terms of 
encompassing habitats needed for many other species, play a key role in 
maintaining community structure or processes, are sensitive to the 
changes likely to occur in the area, or otherwise serve as an indicator 
of ecological integrity. Also, certain focal species may be identified 
for the purpose of evaluating ecological conditions needed to provide 
for the viability of some other species. Collectively, the set of focal 
species must represent the range of environments within the area being 
analyzed.
    (ii) Species at risk. Species at risk include endangered, 
threatened, candidate, proposed, and sensitive species, and species for 
which significant local reductions in distribution or density are 
concerns.
    (iii) Other physical and biological indicators. The status and 
trend of other physical or biological indicators, such as measures of 
air or water quality, soil conditions, fire and water flow regimes, the 
prevalence of invasive or noxious species, and the variety, 
distribution, and productivity of forest and grassland ecosystems, may 
be used to evaluate ecological integrity.
    (8) An evaluation of ecosystem integrity, using measures of species 
viability and the condition of other indicators including analysis at 
appropriate spatial and temporal scales and the cumulative effects of 
human and natural disturbances.
    (i) Species viability. Analyze viability of each species known to 
be at risk. For all other species, including those species for which 
there is little information, focal species are to be used as surrogates 
in the evaluation of conditions needed to maintain viability. This 
requires analysis of viability for each focal species identified for 
the purpose of evaluating ecological conditions needed to provide for 
the viability of other species. As part of the viability analysis, 
identify risks to the viability of species and identify ecological 
conditions needed to maintain viability over time. In analyzing 
viability, recognize the level of knowledge available about species, 
their habitats, and the dynamic nature of ecosystems. When detailed 
knowledge is available, an evaluation of demographic, genetic, and 
other risk factors should be used to evaluate viability. When 
information gaps exist, reliance on general conservation principles and 
expert opinion may be appropriate. However, if risks to viability are 
considered to be high, collection and analysis of additional 
information, commensurate with risk levels, may be necessary.
    (ii) Other measures of ecosystem integrity. Analyze information 
regarding focal species other than those being used solely as 
surrogates for viability, and other physical and biological indicators. 
As part of this analysis, highlight risks to ecosystem integrity and 
identify ecological conditions needed to maintain or restore integrity 
over time.
    (9) Identification of demand species, which are those plant or 
animal species of high social, cultural, or economic value. Evaluate 
their status in the area being analyzed. As part of this analysis, 
document cumulative effects and identify ecological conditions needed 
to maintain desired levels of these species over time.
    (10) Acknowledgment of incomplete information, uncertainty, and the 
inherent variability of ecological systems.
    (b) Decisions. The responsible official must make decisions that 
provide for ecosystem integrity at the appropriate planning level. 
Decisions made at subsequent levels must be consistent with higher-
level decisions. Subject to valid existing rights and other statutory 
requirements, land and resource management plan and site-specific 
decisions must maintain or restore ecosystem integrity, including 
species viability, and must:
    (1) Be based on the application of the best available scientific 
information and analysis, including the information and analysis 
described in paragraph (a). This includes analysis of cumulative 
effects and acknowledgment of incomplete information, scientific 
uncertainty, and variability that is inherent in complex ecological 
systems.
    (2) Provide for maintenance or restoration of the ecosystem 
composition, structure, and processes which are characteristic of an 
area over time and space.
    (3) Provide for maintenance of the biological and physical 
components of ecosystems within the historical range of variability, 
except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(iv).
    (i) In situations where ecological conditions are currently within 
the historical range of variability, results of management actions on 
composition, structure, and processes should remain within that range, 
and decisions should strive to maintain the more likely conditions 
within the range.
    (ii) Where current ecological conditions fall outside the 
historical range of variability, decisions must not shift those 
conditions further from the historical range of variability, and

[[Page 54105]]

should provide for restoration towards likely states within that range.
    (iii) As one means of remaining within or returning to conditions 
that fall within the historical range of variability, goals, 
objectives, standards, and guidelines should be based on an 
understanding and consideration of natural disturbance processes that 
led to the characteristic structure and composition of these systems, 
including the intensity, frequency and magnitude of those disturbance 
regimes.
    (iv) Where the use of the historical range of variability to set 
goals and objectives, and/or disturbance processes to guide management 
actions, would result in future conditions that are judged to be 
ecologically and/or socially unacceptable; or where the historical 
range of variability or disturbance processes are poorly understood; or 
where ecosystems have been altered to the extent that it is not 
possible to return to conditions within the historical range; other 
scientifically credible approaches may be used to maintain or restore 
ecosystem integrity. The scientific basis for such alternative 
approaches, and the fundamental differences from an approach based the 
historical range of variability and disturbance processes must be fully 
documented.
    (4) Preserve options so that a range of future stewardship choices 
will be available.
    (5) Designate appropriate reference landscapes to serve as 
benchmarks and to evaluate the effects of actions.
    (6) Provide for the protection and/or restoration of soil and water 
resources, including, but not limited to, coastal waters, estuaries, 
groundwater, streams, stream banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, 
riparian areas, floodplains, and unstable soils, and comply with 
applicable Clean Water Act requirements. Identify current and 
foreseeable future Forest Service consumptive and non-consumptive water 
uses and quantities, and the water rights needed to maintain or restore 
watershed integrity, including instream flow needs.
    (7) Provide for the protection and/or restoration of air resource 
values, including visibility, from human-caused air pollution impacts 
to the extent possible given variables beyond the control of the Forest 
Service.
    (8) Provide for ecological conditions such that there is a high 
likelihood of maintaining viability of native and desired non-native 
species over time within the plan area, except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(8)(iv). To meet this requirement, the following points must be 
addressed in plan and site-specific decisions unless otherwise 
specified:
    (i) All identified limiting factors for species for which viability 
or reduction in distribution or density are concerns, including but not 
limited to the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitats and 
ecological processes needed to maintain viability, to prevent listing a 
species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 
and to prevent local or broader extirpations.
    (ii) Some species are not naturally well-distributed and therefore 
plan decisions for those species should recognize and reflect natural 
distribution patterns. A species is well-distributed when individuals 
can interact with each other in the portion of the species range that 
occurs within the plan area.
    (iii) When a plan area occupies the entire range of a species, 
provide for viability of the species and its component populations 
throughout that range. When a plan area encompasses one or more 
naturally disjunct populations of a species, provide for viability of 
each population. When a plan area encompasses only a part of a 
population, contribute to viability of that population by maintaining 
ecological conditions for the population well-distributed throughout 
its range within the plan area.
    (iv) When a plan area occupies only part of the range of a species, 
and management of lands outside the National Forest System lands 
precludes attainment of a high likelihood of viability for that 
species, contribute to viability by providing ecological conditions for 
the species well-distributed throughout its range within the plan area.
    (v) Provide for structural and functional redundancy of habitat as 
necessary to buffer disturbances characteristic of dynamic systems.
    (9) Include, at the appropriate and applicable scale, non-
discretionary, reasonable, and prudent measures and associated terms 
and conditions contained in biological opinions issued under 50 CFR 
Part 402. Provide rationale for adoption or rejection of discretionary 
conservation recommendations in biological opinions, as well as 
objectives identified for Forest Service action as part of recovery 
plans developed under the Endangered Species Act.
    (10) Provide for ecological conditions such that Forest Service 
actions do not contribute to the need to list species under the 
Endangered Species Act. This may include decisions based on 
consideration of recommendations in conservation agreements with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service that 
provide the basis for not needing to list a species. In some 
situations, conditions or events beyond the control or authority of the 
Forest Service may limit the Forest Service's ability to prevent the 
need for federal listing or prevent the extirpation of a species from a 
plan area. However, in these situations, consideration should be given 
to whether the National Forest System lands have a unique opportunity 
to provide a disproportionately greater contribution, compared to other 
lands, of the ecological conditions needed to help reduce the 
likelihood of species becoming listed under the Endangered Species Act 
or to contribute to the recovery of listed species.
    (11) Provide for ecological conditions needed to achieve 
sustainable use levels of demand species for hunting, fishing, 
subsistence, non-consumptive, and other uses, consistent with 
objectives for ecological integrity. Develop objectives for these 
species in cooperation with other federal agencies, states, American 
Indians, Alaska Natives, and interested individuals and organizations, 
consistent with the Sikes Act and other applicable laws.
    (c) Monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation 
requirements are set out in section Sec. 219.11(e).


Sec. 219.21  Social and economic sustainability.

    (a) Achieving social and economic sustainability. The management of 
National Forest System lands promotes economic and social 
sustainability through involvement of interested and/or affected 
people, development and consideration of relevant social and economic 
information, and by providing a range of products, services, and 
values.
    (b) Social and economic analyses. Social and economic analyses are 
important in gaining understanding of the relationships among 
ecological, social, and economic sustainability. Social analyses 
address human life-styles, attitudes, beliefs, values, demographic 
characteristics, and land-use patterns of human communities and their 
capacity to adapt to changing conditions. Economic analyses identify 
and evaluate an area's economy in the context of national and regional 
supply, demand, and private and public values. In conducting broad-
scale assessments or local analyses, the responsible official should 
consider the best available information to consider social and economic 
factors such as:
    (1) Demographics, life style preferences, cultural norms, economic

[[Page 54106]]

measures, land uses, cultural and American Indian tribe land settlement 
patterns, social and cultural values, and community health;
    (2) Opportunities to provide social and economic benefits to 
communities through natural resource restoration strategies;
    (3) Current demographics related to direct, indirect, and induced 
effects on income, population, and industry employment, and the ability 
of communities to adapt to change;
    (4) The relationship between these variables and the uses, 
products, and services provided by the National Forest System;
    (5) Economic estimates of the National Forest System contribution 
to present and future society benefits (both quantitative and 
qualitative);
    (6) The financial and opportunity costs derived from market and 
non-market use; and
    (7) The presence of natural resources and resource capital 
investment in National Forest System lands.
    (c) Social analyses.
    (1) Social analyses may rely upon quantitative, qualitative and 
participatory methods for gathering and analyzing data.
    (2) Social analyses are often undertaken at varying spatial scales 
to improve understanding of the effects of internal and external social 
factors within the larger context within which federal lands are 
located.
    (3) A social analysis should describe potential consequences to 
communities and regions from land management changes in terms of 
capital availability, employment opportunities, wage levels, local tax 
bases, federal revenue sharing, the ability to support public 
infrastructure and social services, human health and safety, and other 
factors as necessary and appropriate.
    (d) Economic analysis.
    (1) An economic analysis may include a quantitative, qualitative, 
and historical analysis of the effects of National Forest System 
management on national, regional, and local economies.
    (2) Economic analysis is undertaken at varying spatial scales and 
should include the long-term costs and benefits of management 
activities and their contribution to net public benefits and regional 
and community well being.
    (3) An economic analysis includes an analysis of national and 
regional economic trends (both supply and demand), variation in product 
prices, and changes in public values.
    (e) Regional social and economic analyses. Regional analyses may 
include a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the economic and 
social history of the region; the culture of the groups and communities 
and how they have changed over time; the organization and leadership of 
local communities; the institutional environment, including the pattern 
of land ownership, related conservation and land use policies at the 
state and local level, and existing opportunities for collaboration 
with other agencies, businesses, organizations, landowners; and other 
dimensions of social life.
    (f) Local social and economic analyses. Local analyses should 
provide refinement of larger-scale analyses and of regional data and 
information as related to the area under consideration. A local 
analysis may provide a context for other analyses. The local analysis 
should include participatory analyses which engage people and 
communities to enhance understanding and development of realistic 
expectations.
    (g) Risk and vulnerability analyses. Risk and vulnerability 
analyses assess the vulnerability of communities from changes in 
ecological systems as a result of natural succession or potential 
management actions. Risk may be considered for geographic, relevant 
occupational, or other related communities of interest. Resiliency and 
community capacity should be considered in a risk and vulnerability 
analysis.
    (h) Implementation. Analyses and decisions regarding social and 
economic sustainability are to be made at the appropriate planning 
level. Decisions made at subsequent levels must be consistent with 
higher-level decisions. Existing data (e.g., census data, demographic 
information, employment statistics, and other economic information) 
often provide a useful foundation for social and economic analyses, 
but, supplemental information may be needed.
    (i) Monitoring. Requirements for monitoring and evaluation of 
social and economic sustainability are set out in Sec. 219.11(f).

The Contribution of Science


Sec. 219.22  The role of assessments, analyses, and monitoring.

    Broad-scale assessments and local analyses, in concert with 
monitoring and evaluation of large and small landscapes are critical to 
gaining understanding of the relationships of ecological, social, and 
economic environments. Scientists, knowledgeable of the plan area and 
working with others, improve understanding and aid the identification 
of landscape goals and actions needed to achieve sustainability.
    (a) Broad-scale assessments. Each broad-scale assessment must be 
lead by a Chief Scientist. If the Forest Service is conducting or 
leading a broad-scale assessment, the Deputy Chief of Research and 
Development must select the Chief Scientist. When appropriate and 
practicable, a responsible official must provide for independent, 
scientific peer review of the findings and conclusions originating from 
a broad-scale assessment. Peer review may be provided by scientists 
from the Forest Service, other federal, state, or tribal agencies, or 
other institutions.
    (b) Local analyses. A responsible official may include scientists 
in periodic technical reviews of local analyses and field reviews of 
the design and selection of subsequent site-specific projects.
    (c) Monitoring. (1) The responsible official must include 
scientists in the design and evaluation of monitoring and inventory 
strategies and protocols. Additionally, the responsible official must 
provide for an independent peer review by scientists of the monitoring 
program on at least a biennial basis to review monitoring and inventory 
strategies, to validate adherence to appropriate protocols and methods 
in collecting and processing of monitoring and inventory samples and to 
validate that data are summarized and interpreted.
    (2) When appropriate and practicable, the responsible official 
should include scientists in the review of monitoring data and 
analytical results to determine trends relative to ecological, 
economic, or social sustainability.


Sec. 219.23  The participation of scientists in planning.

    Scientists may participate in planning by:
    (a) Assisting the responsible official in understanding and 
applying relevant scientific information, including verifying that the 
best available scientific information and analysis is considered as 
provided in (Sec. 219.24);
    (b) Estimating the risks and uncertainties that could result from 
resource management options and identifying and describing how risks 
associated with plan decisions may be mitigated and how uncertainties 
might be reduced through additional research;
    (c) Providing an evaluation of the significance of new information 
not yet independently peer-reviewed, such as results of ongoing or 
recently completed research studies, management reviews, or monitoring 
and evaluation and the relevance to existing plan decisions; and
    (d) Assisting in the identification of topics of general interest 
or concern and

[[Page 54107]]

analyses to help understand the information needed for effective 
planning. Scientists may also be involved in developing strategies for 
gathering, synthesizing, and integrating and evaluating information on 
complex issues, particularly those having broad geographic and 
community interest. Scientists may be employed by the Forest Service or 
employed by other federal, state, local, or privately owned entities.


Sec. 219.24  Science consistency evaluations.

    (a) The responsible official must ensure that plan decisions are 
consistent with the best available scientific information and analysis. 
The responsible official may use a science advisory board (Sec. 219.25) 
to assist in determining whether information gathered, evaluations 
conducted, or analyses and conclusions reached in the planning process 
are consistent with the best available scientific information and 
analysis. If the responsible official decides to use a science advisory 
board, the board and the responsible official are to jointly establish 
criteria for the science advisory board and the responsible official to 
use in reviewing the consistency of proposed plan decision(s) to 
determine consistency with the best available scientific information 
and analysis.
    (b) The science advisory board is responsible for organizing and 
conducting a scientific consistency evaluation to review whether :
    (1) If relevant scientific (ecological, social, or economic) 
information has been considered by the responsible official in a manner 
consistent with current scientific understanding at the appropriate 
scales;
    (2) If uncertainty of knowledge has been recognized, acknowledged, 
and adequately documented; and
    (3) If the level of risk in achievement of sustainability is 
acknowledged and adequately documented by the responsible official.
    (c) If substantial disagreement among members of the science 
advisory board or between the science advisory board and the 
responsible official is identified during a science consistency 
evaluation, a summary of such disagreement should be noted in the 
appropriate environmental documentation within Forest Service NEPA 
procedures.


Sec. 219.25  Science advisory boards.

    (a) Regional science advisory boards. The appropriate Forest 
Service Research Station Director(s) must establish a science advisory 
board to be available to monitor the implementation of plan decisions 
for National Forest System lands. The area covered by a board may 
include more than one Regional Office of the National Forest System, 
but each Regional Forester must have access to an advisory board. Board 
membership must include scientists representing a broad range of 
natural resource disciplines including the physical and biological 
sciences, economics, and sociology. Regional science advisory board 
tasks may include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Evaluating significance and relevance of new information 
related to current plan decisions, including the results of monitoring 
and evaluation programs; and
    (2) Evaluating science consistency as described in Sec. 219.24.
    (b) National science advisory board. To provide scientific guidance 
on issues of national significance, the Chief of the Forest Service 
must establish and appoint the chairperson and members to a national 
science advisory board. The board is to consist of distinguished 
scientists representing a broad range of natural resource disciplines 
including the physical and biological sciences, economics, and 
sociology.
    (c) Work groups. With the concurrence of Forest Service officials 
and subject to available funding, both regional and national science 
advisory boards may convene work group of scientists and/or others to 
study particular issues and make recommendations to the advisory 
boards.

Special Considerations


Sec. 219.26  Identifying and designating suitable uses.

    National forests and grasslands are available for a wide variety of 
public uses; unless such uses are statutorily prohibited, are found to 
be incompatible with the National forest mission and resource 
management goals and objectives, or the lands are deemed to be not 
suitable for a particular use. As land and resource management plans 
are amended or revised, the responsible official must determine the 
suitability of various uses within the affected plan area. The 
identification of land that is suited for certain uses, such as 
recreation, timber production, livestock grazing, or other uses, should 
be based on assessments, other analyses, monitoring and evaluation 
results, or other information. Planning documents should display the 
land available for various uses in areas large enough to provide 
sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to 
changing needs and conditions.


Sec. 219.27  Special designations.

    Special designations may include, but are not limited to, 
wilderness, critical watersheds, research natural areas, geological 
areas, roadless areas, unroaded areas, botanical areas, scenic by-ways, 
national scenic areas, national recreation areas, national natural 
landmarks and monuments; and wild, scenic, and recreation rivers. The 
Forest Service identifies special designations or recommends special 
designation to higher authorities through the amendment or revision 
process.
    (a) Wilderness areas. Unless federal statute directs otherwise, all 
roadless, undeveloped areas that are of sufficient size as to make 
practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired condition must 
be evaluated for wilderness designation during the land and resource 
management plan revision process. Roadless areas may be evaluated at 
other times as determined by the responsible official.
    (b) Reconciliation of statutory requirements. Where statutes 
designating special areas within the National Forest System require 
planning beyond that required for land and resource management plans, 
the goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines in special area plans 
must be incorporated into the land and resource management plan as plan 
decisions.


Sec. 219.28  Determination of land suitable for timber removal.

    (a) For purposes of land and resource management planning with 
respect to timber removal, there are two classifications of land--land 
not suited for timber production and land where timber harvest is 
permitted.
    (b) The responsible official must identify lands within the plan 
area that are not suitable for timber production. These lands and their 
classification as not suitable for timber production must be reviewed 
during the plan revision process, or as otherwise prescribed by law. 
Lands not suited for timber production include:
    (1) Lands where timber harvest would violate statute, Executive 
Order, or regulation and those lands that have been withdrawn from 
timber harvest by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the 
Forest Service;
    (2) Lands that do not meet the definition of forested land. For the 
purposes of this section, forested land means 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 are

[[Page 54108]]

usually more than 12 feet in height at maturity;
    (3) Lands where technology is not available for conducting timber 
harvesting without causing irreversible damage to soil productivity or 
ecosystem integrity;
    (4) Lands where there are no reasonable assurances that they could 
be adequately reforested within 5 years of regeneration harvest; and
    (5) Lands where the costs of timber production are not justified by 
the ecological, social, or economic benefits.
    (c) The responsible official must identify lands within the plan 
area where timber harvest is permitted. For these lands, the 
responsible official must identify:
    (1) Lands where timber production is an objective; and
    (2) Lands where timber harvest is permitted to maintain or restore 
the ecological integrity of the land, to protect other multiple-use 
values, or to achieve the desired vegetation condition identified in 
planning documents.
    (d) To achieve the desired conditions described in applicable land 
and resource management plan decisions, the salvage or sanitation 
harvest of timber is permitted on all National Forest System lands 
except on those lands where timber harvest is prohibited by law.


Sec. 219.29  Limitation on timber removal.

    (a) The responsible official must estimate the amount of timber 
that can be sold annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis from 
lands where timber production is identified as an objective. This 
estimate must be based on the yield of timber that can be removed 
consistent with achievement of the desired condition(s) identified in 
the land and resource management plan(s). In those cases where a 
national forest has less than 200,000 acres of forest land on which 
timber production is identified as an objective, two or more national 
forests may be combined for the purpose of estimating the sustainable 
yield amount.
    (b) The responsible official must limit the sale of timber from the 
lands identified for timber production to a quantity equal to or less 
than the quantity which can be removed annually in perpetuity on a 
sustained-yield basis.
    (c) If departure from the quantity of timber removal established in 
paragraph (b) is necessary to meet overall multiple-use objectives, the 
responsible official may establish an allowable sale quantity for the 
decade covered by the plan as a land and resource management plan 
objective based on the amount of timber removal estimated to be 
necessary to achieve desired conditions identified in the land and 
resource management plan, and may either:
    (1) Sell a quantity of timber in excess of the annual allowable 
sale quantity as long as the average sale quantities of timber over the 
decade covered by the plan from lands to which the allowable sale 
quantity applies do not exceed the allowable sale quantity for the 
decade; or
    (2) Sell a quantity of timber that exceeds the allowable sale 
quantity for any decade as long as the proposal to exceed the allowable 
sale quantity is fully disclosed to the public as part of the required 
evaluation for a proposed plan decision as described by this rule.

Planning Documentation


Sec. 219.30  Land and resource management plan documentation.

    A land and resource management plan is a repository of documents 
that integrates and displays the goals, objectives, standards, 
guidelines, and other plan decisions that apply to a unit of the 
National Forest System. The land and resource management plan also 
contains maps, information resulting from monitoring and evaluation, 
including the annual monitoring and evaluation report, and other 
information relevant to how the plan area is to be managed. The land 
and resource management plan is a vision for the future that is clear, 
understandable, and readily available for public review. The set of 
documents that constitute a land and resource management plan is 
continually updated through amendment, revision, and routine 
maintenance and includes at a minimum the following:
    (a) A summary of the land and resource management plan. The summary 
is a concise description of the various components of a land and 
resource management plan including desired conditions, management and 
use, and a description of the plan area and appropriate planning units 
within the plan area. The summary includes a brief description of the 
ecological, social, and economic environments within the plan area; 
aquatic and terrestrial components of watersheds and the overall 
strategy for their protection or restoration; the desired conditions of 
the lands and resources within the plan area; and actions to be taken 
to achieve desired conditions. The summary also includes appropriate 
maps, a description of the transportation system, utility corridors, 
land ownership patterns and proposed land ownership adjustments, 
charts, figures, photographs, and other information to enhance 
understanding.
    (b) Display of public uses. The set of documents that comprise the 
land and resource management plan must display the specific or 
compatible uses (Sec. 219.26) of lands within the plan area such as 
recreation uses, mineral developments, and the transportation network 
of roads and trails for public use. The display must identify land 
classified suitable for timber removal and not suitable for timber 
production (Sec. 219.28), lands where timber harvest may be permitted 
to accomplish other resource objectives, and lands where timber 
production is an objective. The display also must describe the 
limitations on the removal of timber (Sec. 219.29) and the standards 
and guidelines for timber harvest and regeneration methods 
(Sec. 219.7(b)(3)).
    (c) Plan decisions. The set of documents that comprise the land and 
resource management plan must clearly display the goals, objectives, 
standards, guidelines, and other decisions made at different geographic 
and temporal scales that apply to the plan area.
    (d) Display of actions, outcomes, and projected products and 
services. The set of documents that comprise the land and resource 
management plan must also contain:
    (1) An annually updated list or other display of proposed, 
authorized, and completed actions to achieve desired conditions within 
the plan area;
    (2) A 2-year schedule of anticipated outcomes, products, and 
services based on a reasonable estimate of Forest Service budget and 
capacity to perform the identified program of work;
    (3) An updated annually, 2-year summary of the actual outcomes, 
products, and services provided as a result of completed site-specific 
projects;
    (4) A projected range of outcomes, products, and services for the 
next decade. These projections are estimates and as such often contain 
a high degree of uncertainty; they are intended to describe expected 
progress in fulfilling land and resource management plan goals, 
objectives, and desired conditions. The projections are to be updated 
during revision of each land and resource management plan; and
    (5) A display of anticipated accomplishments and the span of time 
necessary to achieve the desired conditions described in the land and 
resource management plan. This display must be updated as appropriate 
to reflect changes in anticipated accomplishments or the time required 
for achieving desired conditions.

[[Page 54109]]

    (e) Results of monitoring and evaluation. The land and resource 
management plan must document the monitoring to occur in the plan area 
and include the monitoring and evaluation report.
    (f) Budgetary information. The land and resource management plan 
must display a summary of the unit's projected program of work, 
including costs for inventories, assessments, proposed and authorized 
actions, and monitoring. The projected program of work must be based on 
reasonably anticipated funding levels. The land and resource management 
plan documents must also include a description of the total current-
year unit budget, funded actions, projections for future budgets over 
the next 2 years; and a display of the budget trends over at least the 
past 5 years. When budget allocations are received, the responsible 
official must compare the funds received with the unit's program of 
work. Budget information may be updated at any time, is not a proposed 
action subject to NEPA procedures, and does not require a land and 
resource management plan amendment or revision.
    (g) Other components. A land and resource management plan must 
contain a list of materials, Forest Service policies, and decisions 
used in forming the plan decisions for the land and resource management 
plan, including, but not limited to, lists of previous decision and 
environmental documents, assessments, conservation agreements and 
strategies, biological opinions, inventories, administrative studies, 
and research.


Sec. 219.31  Maintenance of the plan and planning records.

    (a) Each Forest or Grassland Supervisor must maintain a complete 
set of the planning documents that compose the land and resource 
management plan for the unit and ensure that the contents are complete 
and data are current. The land and resource management plan must be 
readily available to the public and, to the degree practicable, 
maintained on the Internet.
    (b) The following administrative corrections and additions are not 
land and resource management plan amendments or revisions and do not 
require public notice or the preparation of an environmental document 
under NEPA:
    (1) Corrections and updates of data and maps;
    (2) Updates to activity lists and schedules as required by 
Sec. 219.30(d)(1), (2), (3), and (5); and
    (3) Corrections of typographical errors or similar non-substantive 
changes.

Objections and Appeals


Sec. 219.32  Objections to amendments or revisions.

    (a) Any person may object to a proposed amendment or revision of 
one or more land and resource management plan decisions, except for a 
decision made by the Chief. An objection must be filed, in writing, 
with the reviewing officer who is the supervisor of the responsible 
official for the proposed amendment or revision. The objection must be 
filed within 30 days from the date that the Environmental Protection 
Agency publishes the notice of availability of the final environmental 
impact statement containing the amendment or revision in the Federal 
Register. For an amendment or revision not requiring the preparation of 
an environmental impact statement, the objection must be filed within 
30 days of the publication, in a newspaper of record (36 CFR Part 215), 
of a public notice of the environmental assessment or categorical 
exclusion of the proposed amendment or revision.
    (1) An objection must contain:
    (i) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person 
filing the objection;
    (ii) A statement of the information or decision(s) to which the 
person objects;
    (iii) A statement describing the part or parts of the amendment or 
revision being objected;
    (iv) A concise statement explaining why the responsible officials' 
pending decision should not be adopted; and
    (v) A description of the objector's prior participation in the 
planning process for the amendment or revision.
    (2) The responsible official must include a response to any 
objection filed with the decision document for the amendment or 
revision. The decision must be sent to the objecting party by certified 
mail, return receipt requested.
    (3) The reviewing officer's decision regarding an objection is the 
final decision of the Department of Agriculture.
    (b) Where the Forest Service is a party to a multi-agency decision 
subject to objection under this part, the responsible official may 
waive the objection procedures of this part in favor of an 
administrative review procedure of another participating federal 
agency, if the responsible official and the responsible official of the 
other agencies agree to provide a joint response to those who have 
filed for administrative review of the multi-agency decision. When a 
notice of intent is issued or re-issued for any such multi-agency 
planning efforts, the responsible official must identify in the notice 
of intent the administrative review process that will be used. In such 
cases, a notice must be issued by the responsible official which 
clearly states that the decision will not be subject to objection under 
this part, and must specify the administrative review procedures that 
will apply.
    (c) Review of and final response to any objections must be based on 
the statutes, regulations, and policies applicable to the 
administration and management of the National Forest System, including 
when the objection procedures are waived under paragraph (b).


Sec. 219.33  Appeals of site-specific decisions.

    If a person is not satisfied with a site-specific decision made by 
a responsible official, the person may appeal and request review of the 
decision through the Forest Service administrative appeal procedures 
described in 36 CFR Part 215.

Applicability and Transition


Sec. 219.34  Applicability.

    The provisions of this rule are applicable to all units of the 
National Forest System as defined by 16 U.S.C. 1609.


Sec. 219.35  Transition.

    On (the effective date of this rule), each responsible official 
must begin an orderly implementation of the requirements of this rule, 
as follows:
    (a) The transition period begins upon the effective date of this 
rule and ends upon the completion of the revision process (Sec. 219.9) 
for each unit of the National Forest System. During the transition 
period, the responsible official must consider the best available 
scientific information and analysis to:
    (1) Initiate and complete the revision process;
    (2) Develop procedures related to sustainability as described in 
Secs. 219.20 through 219.21;
    (3) Supplement or complete an appropriate broad-scale assessment as 
described in Sec. 219.5(a); and
    (4) Implement the land and resource management plan.
    (b) Existing land and resource management plans remain in effect 
until amended or revised under this rule including plans amended or 
revised within 1 year from the effective date of this rule as provided 
in paragraph (d).
    (c) If a review of lands not suited for timber production 
(Sec. 219.28) is required before the completion of the revision

[[Page 54110]]

process, the review must take place as described by this rule, except 
as noted in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (d) If a revision or an amendment of a land and resource management 
plan has been initiated under the 1982 (36 CFR Part 219, 1999 edition) 
planning rule, but not yet completed within 1 year from the effective 
date of this rule, the responsible official must complete the revision 
or amendment process as described by this rule. If a revision or 
amendment has been initiated under the 1982 planning rule and is 
completed within 1 year from the effective date of this rule, the 
responsible official is not required to use the amendment or revision 
process described by this rule for such amendment or revision.
    (e) Within 3 years from the effective date of this rule, the 
responsible official must, subject to valid existing rights, and to the 
degree appropriate and practicable, make site-specific project 
decisions in conformance with Secs. 219.3 through 219.10.
    (f) When all units of the National Forest System, within a Forest 
Service Region, have completed the revision process (Sec. 219.9), the 
Regional Forester for that Region must withdraw the regional guide 
within 1 year. When a regional guide is withdrawn, the Regional 
Forester must identify the decisions in the regional guide that are 
transferred to a regional supplement of the Forest Service directive 
system (36 CFR Part 200.4) or to one or more land and resource 
management plans and give notice in the Federal Register of these 
actions.
    (g) Within 3 years from the effective date of this rule, the 
responsible official must complete the first monitoring and evaluation 
report as described in Sec. 219.11(d).

Definitions


Sec. 219.36  Definitions.

    Definitions of the special terms used in this subpart are set out 
in alphabetical order in this section as follows:
    Assessment or analysis area: The area included within the scope of 
a broad-scale assessment or local analysis.
    Broad-scale assessment: A synthesis of current scientific 
knowledge, including a description of uncertainties and assumptions, to 
provide a characterization and comprehensive description of ecological, 
social, and economic components within an assessment area critical for 
understanding past and present conditions and projecting future trends 
which provides a foundation for the identification of additional or 
necessary information for policy discussions or decisions.
    Candidate species: Species identified by the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS), which are considered to be candidates for listing under the 
Endangered Species Act. A list of such species prepared by the USFWS 
and published in the Federal Register.
    Conservation agreement: A formal agreement between the Forest 
Service and the USFWS and/or NMFS identifying management actions 
necessary to prevent the need to list species under the Endangered 
Species Act.
    Demand species: Native and desired non-native species with high 
social, cultural, or economic values.
    Desired condition: A statement describing a common vision for a 
specific area of land or type of land within the plan area. Statements 
of desired conditions include the estimated time required for their 
achievement. They also take into account the range of natural 
variability typical for the landscape, the uncertainty of natural 
disturbances, the effects of past management, the unique features or 
opportunities that the national forests and grasslands can contribute, 
and the human desires and uses of the land
    Desired non-native species: Those species of plants or animals that 
are not indigenous to an area but which represent a significant, and 
usually remnant segment of a gene pool.
    Disturbance processes: Actions, functions, or events that influence 
or maintain the structure, composition, or function of the terrestrial 
or aquatic components of ecosystems. Natural disturbances include, 
among others, drought, floods, wind, fires, insects, and pathogens. 
Human-caused disturbances include actions such as recreational use, 
livestock grazing, mining, road construction, timber harvest, land-use 
development, and the introduction of exotic species.
    Diversity of plant and animal communities: The distribution and 
relative abundance of plant and animal species occurring within an 
area.
    Ecological composition: The biological components of an ecological 
system, which are the foundation of diversity at the genetic, species, 
and landscape scales. Genetic diversity is the variation in inheritable 
characteristics within and among individual organisms and populations. 
Species diversity is the number and different kinds of species present 
in a given area. Landscape diversity is the variety of plant 
communities (including their identity, distribution, juxtaposition, and 
seral stage) and habitats evaluated at the landscape scale.
    Ecological conditions: Components of the biological and physical 
environment that can affect ecological sustainability, the diversity of 
plant and animal communities, species viability, and the productive 
capacity of ecological systems. These could include aquatic and 
terrestrial habitats, roads and other structural developments, human 
uses, and invasive and exotic species.
    Ecological sustainability: The maintenance or restoration of 
ecological system composition, structure, and function which are 
characteristic of a plan area over time and space, including but not 
limited to ecological processes, biological diversity, and the 
productive capacity of ecological systems.
    Ecosystem: An interconnected community of plants and animals, 
including humans, and the physical environment within which they 
interact.
    Ecosystem integrity: The completeness of an ecosystem that, at 
multiple geographic and temporal scales, maintains its characteristic 
diversity of biological and physical components, spatial patterns, 
structure, and functional processes within its approximate range of 
historic variability. These processes include disturbance regimes, 
nutrient cycling; hydrologic functions, vegetation succession, and 
species adaptation and evolution. Ecosystems with integrity are 
resilient and capable of self-renewal in the presence of the cumulative 
effects of human and natural disturbances.
    Ecosystem structure: The biological and physical attributes that 
shape ecological systems; biotic attributes include population size, 
structure and range; foliage density and layering, snags, large woody 
debris or the size, shape and spatial relationships of cover types 
within a landscape; physical attributes include soil and geologic 
substrate variables, slope and aspect, or stream gradient.
    Forest Service NEPA procedures: The Forest Service policy and 
procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations as 
described in Chapter 1950 of the Forest Service Manual and Forest 
Service Handbook 1909.15, Environmental Policy and Procedures The 
Handbook is published in the Federal Register.
    Historical range of variability: The limits of change in 
composition, structure, and processes of the

[[Page 54111]]

biological and physical components of an ecosystem resulting from 
natural variations in the frequency, magnitude, and patterns of natural 
disturbance and ecological processes characteristic of an area before 
European settlement. Estimates are made for a specified period of time 
and include the effects of pre-European settlement human activities.
    Local analysis: A characterization of the ecological, social, and 
economic components for various times and locations for a smaller area 
than that of a broad-scale assessment. Local analyses often tier to 
broad-scale assessments. Local analyses provide comprehensive 
descriptions of ecological system structure, process, and functions. 
The geographic area of a local analysis and its data resolution depend 
on the topics of general interest or concern being addressed. Like 
broad-scale assessments, local analyses represent a synthesis of 
current scientific knowledge including a description of uncertainties 
and assumptions; however, they also provide for the gathering of new 
information which can be used in the development of site-specific 
projects.
    Native species: Those plant and animal species indigenous to the 
plan area or assessment area.
    Plan area: The area of National Forest System lands covered by an 
individual land and resource management plan. The area may include one 
or more administrative units.
    Productive capacity of ecosystems: The continuing productivity of 
an ecological system, including its ability to sustain desirable 
conditions such as clean water, fertile soil, riparian habitat, and 
viable populations of plants and animals; and to sustain desirable 
human uses; and to renew itself following disturbance.
    Reference landscapes: Terrestrial and aquatic areas with high 
ecosystem integrity and within the historical range of variability and 
of sufficient size, where relevant disturbance and ecological processes 
occur and are generally unaffected by human activities.
    Responsible official: The Forest Service line officer with the 
authority and responsibility to oversee the planning process and make 
decisions on proposed actions. For the purposed of this rule, a 
responsible official may include more than one line officer.
    Roadless Areas: Undeveloped areas that meet minimum criteria for 
wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act--Areas typically 
exceeding 5,000 acres that were inventoried during the Forest Service's 
formal Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) process, and 
remain in a roadless condition through forest planning decisions. For 
roadless areas in the eastern United States, see FSH 1909.12, Chapter 
7.11b. Designated roadless areas do not overlap with unroaded areas 
(See definition for unroaded area)
    Salvage harvest of timber: The removal of dead trees or trees being 
damaged or killed by injurious agents other than competition, to 
recover value that would otherwise be lost.
    Sanitation harvest of timber: The removal of trees to improve stand 
health and to reduce actual or anticipated spread of insects and 
disease.
    Sensitive Species: Those species identified as sensitive under the 
Forest Service's sensitive species program, currently set out in the 
Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2670.
    Species: Any native taxon of the plant or animal kingdom, including 
subspecies, distinct population segments, or designated evolutionarily 
significant units. Distinct population segments and evolutionarily 
significant units are consistent with regulations developed by the 
Departments of the Interior and Commerce to implement the Endangered 
Species Act.
    Species viability: A species consisting of self-sustaining and 
interacting populations that are well distributed through the species' 
range. Self-sustaining populations are those that are sufficiently 
abundant and have sufficient genetic diversity to display the array of 
life history strategies and forms to provide high likelihood for their 
long-term persistence and adaptability over time.
    Timber production: The sustained long-term and periodic harvest of 
wood fiber from National Forest System lands undertaken in support of 
social and economic objectives identified in one or more land and 
resource management plans. For purposes of this rule, the term timber 
production includes fuel wood.
    Unroaded areas: Any area without the presence of a classified road 
(a road at least 50 inches wide and constructed or maintained for 
vehicle use). The size of the area must be sufficient and in a 
manageable configuration to protect the inherent values associated with 
the unroaded condition. Unroaded areas do not overlap with designated 
roadless areas.
    Vegetation Management: Management actions that change the 
composition or structure of plant communities including, but not 
limited to timber harvest, mining, livestock grazing, and fire.
    Watershed integrity: A watershed that maintains its characteristic 
diversity of biological and physical components, structure, and 
functional processes within its approximate range of natural 
variability. Watersheds with integrity display processes that manifest 
their characteristic structure, function, and composition. These 
processes include natural disturbance regimes, nutrient cycling, 
hydrologic functions, vegetation succession, and species adaptation and 
evolution. Watersheds with integrity are resilient and capable of self-
renewal within the cumulative effects of human and natural 
disturbances.
    Dated: September 28, 1999.
Mike Dombeck,
Chief, Forest Service.

    Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P

[[Page 54112]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC99.023



[FR Doc. 99-25666 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-C