[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72770-72816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30683]



[[Page 72769]]

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

Part III





Department of Agriculture





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



Forest Service



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



36 CFR Part 219



National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning; Proposed 
Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 72770]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 219

RIN 0596-AAB86


National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing changes to the National Forest 
System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule adopted November 9, 
2000. These proposed changes are a result of a review conducted by 
Forest Service personnel at the direction of the Office of the 
Secretary. The review affirmed much of the 2000 rule and the underlying 
concepts of sustainability, monitoring, evaluation, collaboration, and 
use of science. Although the 2000 rule was intended to simplify and 
streamline the development and amendment of land and resource 
management plans, the review concluded that the 2000 rule is neither 
straightforward nor easy to implement. The review also found that the 
2000 rule did not clarify the programmatic nature of land and resource 
management planning. This proposed rule is intended to improve upon the 
2000 rule by providing a planning process which is more readily 
understood, is within the agency's capability to implement, is within 
anticipated budgets and staffing levels, and recognizes the 
programmatic nature of planning.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by March 6, 2003. Comments 
received after this date will be considered and placed in the record 
only if practicable.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: USDA FS Planning Rule, Content 
Analysis Team, PO Box 8359, Missoula, MT 59807; via email to [email protected]; or by facsimile to Planning Rule Comments at (406) 329-
3556. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying. The agency cannot confirm receipt of comments. Persons wishing 
to inspect the comments need to call (801) 517-1023 to facilitate an 
appointment. In addition, the Forest Service preliminary draft 
directives on ecological, social, and economic sustainability, the 
business model cost study done to estimate predicted costs to implement 
the 2000 and proposed rules, the Civil Rights Impact Assessment, and 
the cost-benefit analysis accompanying this proposed rule are expected 
to be posted during the comment period on the World Wide Web/Internet 
at www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma. These materials, when available, also may be 
obtained from the Director, Ecosystem Management and Coordination 
Staff, Forest Service, USDA, Mail Stop 1104,1400 Independence Avenue, 
SW, Washington, DC 20250-1104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Sutton, Content Analysis Team 
Program Coordinator, Forest Service, (801) 517-1023.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

[sbull] Background
[sbull] The 2000 Planning Rule
[sbull] Subsequent Reviews of the 2000 Planning Rule
[sbull] Provisions and Intent of the Proposed Rule
    [sbull] Overview
    [sbull] Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule
    Proposed section 219.1--Purpose and applicability.
    Proposed section 219.2--Nature and scope of a land and resource 
management plan.
    Proposed section 219.3--Levels of planning and planning 
authority.
    Proposed section 219.4--Decisions embodied in plans.
    Proposed section 219.5--Indicators of need to amend or revise a 
plan.
    Proposed section 219.6--Compliance with National Environmental 
Policy Act.
    Proposed section 219.7--Amending a plan.
    Proposed section 219.8--Revising a plan.
    Proposed section 219.9--Developing a new plan.
    Proposed section 219.10--Application of plan direction.
    Proposed section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation.
    Proposed section 219.12--Collaboration, cooperation, and 
consultation.
    Proposed section 219.13--Sustainability.
    Options for Providing Diversity
    Comparison of Option 1 and Option 2
    Proposed section 219.14--The consideration of science in 
planning.
    Proposed section 219.15--Special designations.
    Proposed section 219.16--Determination of lands available for 
timber harvest and suitable for timber production.
    Proposed section 219.17--Limitation on timber harvest.
    Proposed section 219.18--Plan documentation, maintenance, and 
availability.
    Proposed section 219.19--Objections to new plans, plan 
amendments, or plan revisions.
    Proposed section 219.20--Appeals of plan amendments in site-
specific project decisions.
    Proposed section 219.21--Notice of plan decisions and effective 
dates.
    Proposed section 219.22--Transition.
    Proposed section 219.23--Definitions.
    [sbull] Conclusion
[sbull] Regulatory Certifications
    [sbull] Regulatory Impact
    [sbull] Environmental Impacts
    [sbull] Energy Effects
    [sbull] Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
    [sbull] Federalism
    [sbull] Consultation with Tribal Governments
    [sbull] No Takings Implications
    [sbull] Civil Justice Reform
    [sbull] Unfunded Mandates
[sbull] List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 219
[sbull] Part 219--Planning (text of proposed rule)
[sbull] Tables
    [sbull] Table I--Section-by-Section Comparison of the 2000 Rule 
with the Proposed Rule
    [sbull] Table II--Side-by-Side Comparison of Options for 
Ecological sustainability

Background

    The Forest Service (the agency), an agency within the United States 
Department of Agriculture (the Department), is responsible for managing 
the lands and resources of the National Forest System, which include 
192 million acres in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 
The System is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, 
1 national prairie, and other miscellaneous lands under the 
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary).
    The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 
(88 Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the National Forest Management 
Act of 1976 (NFMA) (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614), 
requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations under the principles 
of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 that set out the 
process for the development and revision of land and resource 
management plans (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)). The first planning rule, adopted 
in 1979, was substantially amended on September 30, 1982 (47 FR 43026), 
and was amended in part on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29122), and on 
September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383). The 1982 rule, as amended, has guided 
the development, amendment, and revision of the land and resource 
management plans (LRMP or plans) that are now in place for all national 
forests and grasslands, including an initial plan recently completed 
for the Midewin National Tall Grass Prairie that was recently added to 
the National Forest System (NFS).
    The Forest Service has undertaken several reviews of the planning 
process implemented under the 1982 rule. The first review took place in 
1989, when the Forest Service, with the assistance of the Conservation 
Foundation, conducted a comprehensive review of

[[Page 72771]]

the planning process and published the results in a summary report, 
``Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management Planning'' (1990). The 
critique concluded that the agency spent too much time on planning; 
that planning costs too much; and, therefore, that the Forest Service 
needed a more efficient planning process. These findings are still 
considered valid and are a prime consideration in the development of 
this proposed rule.
    Subsequently, the Forest Service published an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 6508; Feb. 15, 1991) regarding possible 
revisions to the 1982 rule. A proposed rule was published in 1995 (60 
FR 18886); however, the Secretary elected not to proceed with that 
proposal.
    In response to suggestions from persons who commented on the 1995 
proposed rule, the Secretary convened a 13-member Committee of 
Scientists (Committee or COS) in late 1997 to evaluate the Forest 
Service's planning process and recommend changes. In 1998, the COS held 
meetings across the country to invite public participation in their 
discussions. The Committee's findings were issued in a final report, 
``Sustaining the People's Lands'' (March 1999). A proposed rule based 
on the COS report was published on October 5, 1999 (64 FR 54074), and a 
final rule was adopted on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67514).

The 2000 Planning Rule

    In response to many of the findings in the 1990 Critique of Land 
Management Planning and the 1999 COS report, the Forest Service 
attempted to prepare a planning rule that would provide a more 
efficient planning process. The 2000 planning rule (also referred to as 
the 2000 rule) changed the Forest Service planning process by: (1) 
Establishing ecological, social, and economic sustainability as the 
overall stewardship goal for managing the National Forest System; (2) 
identifying maintenance and restoration of ecological sustainability as 
the first priority for management of National Forest System lands; (3) 
requiring collaboration with the general public, interested 
organizations, Tribal, State and local governments, and Federal 
agencies in all phases of the planning process; (4) expanding 
monitoring and evaluation requirements; (5) specifying the use of 
scientists and establishing detailed requirements for the application 
of science in the planning process; and (6) providing a dynamic 
planning framework for solving problems and addressing issues at the 
appropriate scale. The 2000 rule applies not only to plan amendments 
and revisions, but also to project-level planning and decisionmaking.
    The general goals of the 2000 rule are laudable. A major 
improvement achieved in that rule is the emphasis on sustainability, 
which assists the Forest Service in providing for multiple uses over 
time. The 2000 rule also promotes efficiency in that it eliminates 
zero-based plan revisions as recommended in the 1990 critique, and it 
removes some analytical requirements of the 1982 rule, such as the 
requirements for developing benchmarks, which are no longer considered 
helpful. The 2000 rule also emphasizes public involvement more than the 
1982 rule. The 2000 rule gives explicit direction on the use of science 
in the planning process, while the 1982 rule relied on knowledge shared 
through an interdisciplinary team approach without procedural 
requirements for the use of science. The 2000 rule replaces the post-
decisional administrative appeal process for challenging plans with a 
pre-decisional objection process. The 2000 rule also delegates the 
authority for plan decisions to the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie 
Supervisor, rather than to the Regional Forester. The 2000 rule also 
recognizes the plan as a dynamic document.
    Despite the positive aspects of the 2000 rule, however, the number 
of very detailed analytical requirements, the lack of clarity regarding 
many of the requirements, the lack of flexibility, and the lack of 
recognition of the limits of agency budgets and personnel led to a 
reconsideration of this rule.

Subsequent Reviews of the 2000 Planning Rule

    After adoption of the 2000 rule, the Secretary received a number of 
comments from individuals, groups, and organizations expressing 
concerns regarding the implementation of the 2000 rule. In addition, 
lawsuits challenging promulgation of the rule were brought by a 
coalition of 12 environmental groups from 7 states and by a coalition 
of industry groups (Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, No. C-01-
0728-BZ-(N.D. Calif., filed February 16, 2001)) and (American Forest 
and Paper Ass'n v. Veneman, No. 01-CV-00871 (TPJ) (D.D.C., filed April 
23, 2001)). As a result of these lawsuits and concerns raised in 
comments to the Secretary, the Department initiated a review of the 
2000 rule focusing on its ``implementability.'' The ``NFMA Planning 
Rule Review,'' completed in April 2001, concluded that many of the 
concerns regarding implementability of the rule were serious and 
required immediate attention.
    In addition, the Forest Service developed a business analysis model 
of the 2000 rule and conducted a workshop with field-level planners to 
determine the implementability of the 2000 rule based on this business 
model. The business model reflected business activities directly 
applied from the 2000 rule and provided the basis for a systematic 
evaluation of the rule for implementability.
    The business model identified the following nine major categories 
of planning activities and associated sections of the 2000 rule:
    (1) Collaboration (primarily Sec. Sec.  219.12 through 219.18);
    (2) Best Science/Science Consistency (primarily Sec. Sec.  219.22 
through 219.25 with consideration of relative text in Sec. Sec.  219.11 
and 219.20);
    (3) Recommendations (primarily Sec. Sec.  219.3 through 219.9 with 
consideration of relative text in Sec. Sec.  219.19, 219.20, 219.21, 
219.26, and 219.27);
    (4) Sustainability (primarily Sec. Sec.  219.19 through 219.21 with 
consideration of relative text in Sec.  219.11);
    (5) Developing/Revising Plan Decisions (primarily Sec. Sec.  219.6 
through 219.9 and 219.11 with consideration of relative text in 
Sec. Sec.  219.20, 219.26, 219.28, and 219.29);
    (6) Write Plan Documentation (primarily Sec. Sec.  219.11 and 
219.30);
    (7) Maintain the Plan (primarily Sec.  219.31);
    (8) Objections and Appeals (primarily Sec.  219.32); and
    (9) Miscellaneous (public notifications and selected NEPA 
activities).
    Within the context of the nine categories defined, the facilitated 
workshop centered on answering two questions: (1) Are the business 
requirements clearly understood? (2) What is the agency's perceived 
ability to execute the requirements?
    An important consideration in this business model analysis was that 
it was conducted by planning practitioners who have current field-level 
experience. They are the agency experts in a variety of resource areas, 
including assessing what can reasonably be accomplished, considering 
existing knowledge and information, the issues relevant to planning 
areas, and local staffing and funding situations.
    This review and analysis found the following:
    (1) The 2000 rule has both definitions and analytical requirements 
that are very complex, unclear, and, therefore, subject to inconsistent 
implementation

[[Page 72772]]

across the agency; for example, species viability, population 
monitoring, and the range of variation within the current climatic 
period;
    (2) Compliance with the regulatory direction on such matters as 
ecological sustainability and science consistency checks would be 
difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish; and
    (3) The complexity of the 2000 rule makes it difficult and 
expensive to implement.
    Sustainability. The planners particularly questioned whether or not 
the agency could achieve the ecological, social, and economic 
sustainability standards established in Sec.  219.19 of the 2000 rule. 
Similar concerns were noted regarding the viability provisions for the 
diversity of plant and animal communities, also in Sec.  219.19 of the 
rule. The reviewers found that the ecological sustainability 
requirements in the rule are not only complex, but needlessly so. 
Although the 2000 rule was intended to increase the focus on ecosystem-
level analyses for addressing the diversity of plant and animal 
communities and, thereby, reducing the far more costly species-by-
species approach, the means to accomplish the intent of the rule are 
not clear. There was disagreement among the reviewers about the degree 
of potential reduction in the species-by-species analysis burden in the 
2000 rule.
    The role of science. The reviewers affirmed the importance of using 
the best available science in planning. However, the detailed 
provisions of the 2000 rule for the use of science and scientists in 
the planning process raised many concerns.
    (1) Field-level planners believed the 2000 rule includes 
unnecessarily detailed procedural requirements for scientific peer 
reviews, broad-scale assessments, monitoring, and science advisory 
boards.
    (2) Moreover, these requirements do not recognize the limits of 
budgets for use of science, nor does the 2000 rule clearly relate use 
of science to the scope of issues in the planning process.
    (3) The 2000 rule also does not recognize limitations on the 
availability of scientists. The reviewers believed it to be unwise to 
place such detailed requirements on the use of scientists in the rule 
given the ambiguities of the rule text and the limited availability of 
scientists. Although science is needed to inform the Responsible 
Official, the reviewers concluded that the 2000 rule anticipates a 
level of involvement by scientists that may or may not be needed 
considering the planning issues or the anticipated amount of project 
activities during on-the-ground implementation of the plan.
    Monitoring. Reviewers identified three major issues arising from 
the monitoring requirements of the 2000 rule. First, the unnecessarily 
detailed requirements for monitoring and evaluation in the 2000 rule 
are likely beyond the capacity of many units to perform. Second, it was 
considered to be generally confusing throughout the rule to mix 
programmatic and project level planning direction. Third, the 
monitoring requirements in the 2000 rule are overly prescriptive and do 
not provide the Responsible Official sufficient discretion to decide 
how much information is needed.
    Also, during development of this revised proposed planning rule, it 
became apparent that monitoring should be focused on whether on-the-
ground management is achieving desired conditions identified in the 
plan. This focus was not clear in the 2000 rule, as its monitoring 
direction primarily required a broad array of techniques intended to 
measure indicators of sustainability. This conceptual change reflects a 
fundamental difference in philosophy between the 2000 rule and this 
proposed rule. The 2000 rule tends to be highly prescriptive regarding 
a variety of aspects of planning. This proposed rule tends to focus 
more on results, rather than on techniques for achieving results. The 
Responsible Official is guided by a very large body of law, regulation, 
and policy that helps ensure responsible management on the ground. The 
much lower amount of procedural detail in this new proposed rule 
reflects the agency's assumption that the Responsible Officials will 
discharge planning duties responsibly and will conduct planning within 
the bounds of authority.
    Transition from the 1982 to the 2000 rule. The reviewers also 
identified concerns with the transition requirements of the 2000 rule. 
There is a lack of clarity about how projects are to be compliant with 
the 2000 rule and how the entire rule is to be used in the more limited 
scope of plan amendments. Planners expressed uncertainty about how 
transition to the 2000 rule would occur, particularly for site-specific 
decisions. Finally, to fully implement the 2000 rule the planners felt 
the relatively short transition period provided is unrealistic given 
the complexities and uncertainties identified.
    Having considered the reports of the review teams, the Acting 
Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment requested 
that the Chief of the Forest Service develop a proposed rule to revise 
the 2000 rule.

Provisions and Intent of the Proposed Rule

Overview

    The Forest Service is now proposing changes to the planning rule at 
36 CFR part 219, adopted November 2000, to address issues and concerns 
raised in the various reviews. The proposed rule retains many of the 
basic concepts in the 2000 rule, namely sustainability, public 
involvement and collaboration, use of science, and monitoring and 
evaluation. The agency has attempted to substantially improve these 
aspects of the 2000 rule by eliminating unnecessary procedural detail, 
clarifying intended results, and streamlining procedural requirements 
consistent with agency staffing, funding, and skill levels.
    Because of the concerns identified regarding the 2000 rule and 
because this proposed rule changes the 2000 rule, it is necessary to 
explain exactly how and why the 2000 rule has been adjusted in this 
proposal. However, the agency believes it is productive to begin this 
overview with a vision of the planning process and the contents of 
resource management plans. The Forest Service believes the direction of 
many aspects of current planning activities and the basic concepts of 
the 2000 rule are very valuable and reflect the expectations of the 
American people for planning on their public lands.

Planning

    The agency expects programmatic planning to be accomplished in the 
following ways:
    [sbull] The extent of a plan analysis will be proportional to the 
kinds of decisions being made.
    [sbull] Plans will be kept up to date, because planning will be 
simpler and thus, plans will be more efficiently amended.
    [sbull] Plan revision will be based on a ``need for change.''
    [sbull] Plan monitoring and evaluation will be emphasized more and 
will measure the success of adaptive management efforts, and the 
attainment of, or progress toward, desired conditions. This monitoring 
and evaluation will provide key information to help keep plans current 
and will help inform project-level decisionmaking. States, other 
Federal agencies, local governments, Tribes, and the public will be 
more closely involved in monitoring efforts.
    [sbull] Public involvement is expected to be collaborative, 
vigorous, and focused

[[Page 72773]]

on consensus-based identification of and reasonable choices for desired 
conditions.
    [sbull] Planning will continue to actively involve our Federal, 
State, county, and Tribal partners.
    [sbull] Science will be integrated throughout the planning process, 
from initial data collection and interpretation, through issue 
identification, to the analysis process, to development and design of 
monitoring, and later to evaluation of monitoring results.
    [sbull] The agency's strategic plan, national assessments, and 
monitoring results will provide useful information for the development 
of land and resource management plans and a national context for 
planning.
    [sbull] Planning analysis will be more focused on desired 
conditions rather than speculative and detailed examination of future 
project effects.
    [sbull] Planning will continue to focus on addressing baseline 
conditions and trends applicable to the planning issues. Baseline 
condition and trend analysis will clearly display anticipated progress 
toward desired conditions if active management occurs and also what may 
happen if active management is restricted.
    [sbull] Planning analysis will focus on reasonable choices for 
zoning the landscape.
    [sbull] Planning will recognize budget limitations in order to help 
the Responsible Official prioritize and balance competing planning 
activities, such as choosing the appropriate approach for monitoring 
watersheds.

Plan Contents

    The agency's vision of planning expects a land and resource 
management plan to contain:
    [sbull] Broad, programmatic direction for a forest, grassland, or 
prairie. Plans will make such key strategic decisions as identification 
of priority areas for wildfire hazard reduction; designating major 
utility corridors; identification of areas of especially high 
diversity, or areas containing rare or unique species, ecosystems, or 
biotic communities that need certain protections; identification of 
lands at the broad-scale (not an acre-by-acre determination) suitable 
for timber harvest or grazing, or other consumptive uses; 
identification of areas suitable for motorized use; and identification 
of areas where certain types of recreation use may be emphasized.
    [sbull] More specific statements of desired conditions for such 
resources as vegetation, recreation, cultural and heritage resources, 
and watersheds, developed within the context of ecological, economic, 
and social systems.
    [sbull] More specific outcome-based objectives (i.e., measurable 
standards of performance).
    [sbull] A set of standards that set appropriate limitations on 
activities to help achieve desired conditions. Standards will be fewer, 
simpler, and better allow for adaptive management than existing plans.
    [sbull] Identified special areas, such as areas recommended for 
wilderness or wild and scenic river status. Plans will continue to 
include specific direction for these areas.
    [sbull] As needed, associated materials such as maps or other 
documents necessary to make plan decisions.
    [sbull] Plans will be brief and will refer to, rather than repeat, 
what is already in the Forest Service Directive System, existing law, 
regulation, or policy.
    [sbull] Collaborative work with the public and emphasis on 
consensus building should lead to fewer unresolved issues and, 
therefore, fewer plan alternatives.
    The goal of the agency is to have a planning rule that is simpler 
and easier to implement than the 2000 rule and that allows the agency 
to more easily adapt to changing issues and opportunities. Available 
agency budgets, personnel availability, and other resource limitations 
are recognized as important because they help provide a framework for 
the Responsible Official to make decisions such as the following: What 
issues can the Responsible Official reasonably address? What method 
will be used to solicit meaningful public involvement? What are the 
pressing resource needs? What data needs to be collected? Does the unit 
need to hire specialists to support the planning action? Are contracts 
needed to obtain various kinds of information? Recognition of budget 
availability and limitations helps the Responsible Official make 
choices about how to weigh and balance competing needs and to consider 
the costs and benefits of various actions for optimal results.
    The proposed rule retains the important improvements of the 2000 
rule. These include:
    [sbull] Emphasis on sustainability;
    [sbull] Strong public involvement and collaboration;
    [sbull] Use of science throughout the planning process;
    [sbull] An emphasis on monitoring and evaluation as fundamental to 
adaptive management;
    [sbull] Need-for-change planning;
    [sbull] Use of the objection process;
    [sbull] The identification of the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie 
Supervisor as the Responsible Official; and
    [sbull] The concept of planning as a dynamic process.
    The Forest Service believes the proposed rule will apply these 
important improvements more efficiently than does the 2000 rule. The 
Forest Service believes that the proposed rule provides as efficient a 
planning process as possible within the scope of the National Forest 
Management Act (NFMA) requirements. In addition to retention of the key 
improvements, the agency also looked to earlier versions of published 
and unpublished proposed planning rules as sources of ideas in revising 
specific sections. Finally, the Forest Service has applied over 20 
years of planning experience to craft this proposed rule.
    It is also useful at this point to discuss in more detail one 
important component of the body of direction that governs the 
Responsible Official's actions. The Forest Service Directive System 
consists of the Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Handbook (FSH), which 
codify the agency's policy, practice, and procedure. The system serves 
as the primary basis for the internal management and control of all 
programs and the primary source of administrative direction to Forest 
Service employees.
    The FSM contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, 
responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing 
basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff in more than 
one unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. The FSH 
is the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for 
carrying out the direction issued in the FSM. Examples include 
Handbooks on land management planning and environmental analysis.
    As discussed throughout this proposed rule, the Directive System 
plays and will continue to play an important role in directing field 
employees on how to conduct planning.
    Section 219.5 of the 2000 rule is a specific example of direction 
better included in the agency's Directive System. The agency believes 
that much of the process direction, such as potential uses of an 
assessment (e.g., identification of additional research needs), or who 
has responsibility for a broad-scale assessment (Regional Foresters and 
Station Directors), or examples of what a local analysis should 
describe (e.g. likely future conditions, characterizations of the area 
of analysis) are more appropriately addressed in the Directive System, 
not

[[Page 72774]]

a codified rule. Pursuant to NFMA, the Forest Service will provide 
notice and give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed 
Forest Service Manual direction for this proposed rule because of the 
substantial public interest in this direction (36 CFR 216.4).
    The agency must improve its planning processes so that direction 
and resources will be in place to manage the National Forest System 
(NFS) lands more effectively. The trend in planning over the past 20 
years has been towards more complexity with the result that limited 
funds and personnel available to the agency are being 
disproportionately spent on planning and analysis. With this proposal, 
the agency seeks to produce a planning rule that sets the stage for 
planning to be done in a reasonable manner, at reasonable costs, in a 
reasonable amount of time, and thus provide a sound and rational 
framework for managing National Forest System lands.
    The agency has evaluated the entire cost of planning for both the 
2000 rule and proposed rule. The evaluation shows that there will be 
efficiencies and reduced costs associated with implementation of the 
proposed rule.
    Increasing efficiency and reducing costs are important. The Forest 
Service believes that the public's primary expectation is that the 
agency do a good job of land management. The agency needs to balance 
its planning efforts with its efforts to actually manage the land 
through the application of plan direction to subsequent actions. There 
is urgency to make planning more efficient, as there are issues, 
activities, and resource concerns that are not halted during the 
planning process and which may pose increased concerns when planning 
occurs over excessively long timeframes. There is a growing population 
that will recreate on National Forest System lands whether the agency 
is prepared to deal with these uses or not. There are growing needs for 
watershed restoration for such purposes as prevention of flooding and 
the attendant adverse effects on people, property, and resource health. 
There are increasing demands for energy resources. Many NFS lands have 
a critical wildfire problem. Spending disproportionate agency time and 
money on planning and analysis that is not commensurate with the scope 
and effect of the decision to be made reduces the agency's ability to 
address serious land management issues.
    Additionally, the Forest Service has seldom been able to revise its 
plans prior to NFMA's 15-year deadline. There have been several reasons 
for this delay, but one consistent cause has been the excessive length 
of time needed to plan under existing procedures. Please refer to the 
November 30, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 FR 59775), which 
contains the agency's schedule to systematically approach the NFMA 15-
year revision deadline for NFS units, considering critical resource and 
social/economic issues. Reviewers may also refer to the Forest Service 
Ecosystem Management Coordination staff Web site at www.fs.fed.us/emc/
nfma for the latest update of the agency-wide land and resource 
management plan (LRMP) revision schedule.
    The Forest Service believes this proposed rule, if adopted, would 
improve and streamline the planning process. In accordance NFMA, plans 
are to be revised from time to time when the Secretary finds conditions 
on a unit have significantly changed, but at least every 15 years. Plan 
revisions that take four, five, or six or more years to complete are 
not responsive to the vision of NFMA, are not responsive to changing 
issues, and are in danger of exhausting public interest and 
involvement. When plans cannot be easily amended, many people feel that 
they need to have all their concerns resolved in a plan revision, 
because that will be the direction in place for many years. This 
viewpoint not only can increase contentiousness in planning, but also 
result in unreasonably high expectations of what a plan does. Several 
aspects of this proposed rule will improve the ability to not only 
revise plans more easily, but also to amend them more easily.
    As stated, the proposed rule is intended to reflect the 
programmatic nature of planning and provide a process that is within 
the agency's ability to implement. Fundamental to programmatic planning 
is the premise that plans are permissive; that is, they allow, but do 
not mandate, certain activities to take place within the plan area. 
Consequently, the proposed rule emphasizes that plans themselves 
generally are not actions that significantly affect the quality of the 
human environment, nor do they dictate site-specific actions.
    The agency must align its planning processes and performance 
responsibly. This means targeting dollars spent on planning to those 
activities that will yield clear benefits. Programmatic land and 
resource management planning cannot do more than establish a framework 
for management in an ever-changing environment. The Forest Service 
believes that the proposed rule provides as efficient a planning 
process as possible within the framework of NFMA direction.
    A detailed explanation of the proposed rule that would amend the 
rules at 36 CFR Part 219 follows.

Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule

    Table I at the end of this document provides a section-by-section 
comparison of the 2000 rule and the proposed rule.
    Proposed section 219.1--Purpose and applicability. The Multiple-Use 
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) establishes that NFS lands must be 
administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and 
wildlife and fish values. The Act authorizes and directs the Secretary 
to develop and administer these resources for multiple use and the 
sustained yield of the several products and services that are obtained 
from management of the surface resources. The Act defines multiple use 
as the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the 
NFS lands so that they are utilized in the combination that will best 
meet the needs of the American people. The Act further provides that 
sustained yield of the several products and services means the 
achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or 
regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the NFS 
without impairment of the productivity of the land.
    The Forest Service has embraced the concept of sustainability to 
guide the agency in meeting requirements of MUSYA. Sustainability 
addresses the ``sustained yield'' aspect of MUSYA because it requires 
balancing resource management with the needs of current and future 
generations ``in perpetuity.'' The concept of sustainability will 
assist the Responsible Official in assuring that Forest Service 
management of the various renewable resources will be administered 
without impairment of the productivity of the land, as required by 
MUSYA. Sustaining the productivity of the land and its renewable 
resources means meeting present needs without compromising the ability 
to meet the needs of future generations. Meeting present and future 
needs does not imply all individual needs can be met at one time, 
either now or in the future.
    The concepts of multiple use and sustainability are addressed in 
Sec.  219.1 of the 2000 rule. Because these concepts are so fundamental 
to planning, they are retained in Sec.  219.1 of this proposed rule. As 
does the 2000 rule, this proposed rule affirms the health of the land 
and sustaining its resources within the

[[Page 72775]]

authority granted by MUSYA as the overall goal for managing the 
National Forest System.
    This section of the rule sets forth a clear process for 
establishing, amending, and revising plans and for monitoring plan 
implementation. As provided in Sec.  219.1 of the 2000 rule, this 
proposed rule also recognizes that planning may consider many time 
frames and geographic areas and that it is an ongoing process. However, 
the proposed rule would not determine the selection or implementation 
of site-specific actions. Rather, the proposed rule requires 
documentation that a future project decision is consistent with the 
plan. The agency believes that a rule which focuses solely on 
programmatic-level planning will be better understood and more 
consistently applied than a rule that includes direction on both 
programmatic and project-level decisionmaking. Agency guidelines on 
project-level planning are specified in FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15.
    The USDA Office of General Counsel, Natural Resources Division 
working paper entitled ``Overview of Forest Planning and Project Level 
Decisionmaking,'' describes the nature of the agency's two-staged 
decisionmaking process. The paper is available on the World Wide Web at 
www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma. The relevant issues, levels and kinds of 
analysis needed, and decisions to be made in a programmatic plan are 
quite different from those required for development of site-specific 
projects. The paragraph in this section regarding the applicability of 
the proposed rule is the same as Sec.  219.34 of the 2000 rule, except 
that it adds a reference to subsequent statutes in order to allow for 
any future additions to the National Forest System.
    Proposed section 219.2--Nature and scope of a land and resource 
management plan. This section of the proposed rule establishes the 
fundamental purpose of a plan and provides specific requirements on how 
that purpose will be met. In contrast to Sec. Sec.  219.1-219.5 of the 
2000 rule, this proposed section describes the nature of a land and 
resource management plan concisely, and, thereby, sets the stage for a 
planning process that is more flexible and efficient.
    Proposed paragraph (a) of this section establishes that the 
fundamental purpose of a plan is (1) to establish the desired 
conditions to be achieved through the management of the lands and 
various renewable resources of the National Forest System and (2) to 
guide the Forest Service in fulfilling its responsibilities for 
stewardship of the National Forest System to best meet the present and 
future needs of the American people. This concept is central to the 
planning vision. In contrast to the lengthy and non-regulatory 
exposition of Sec. Sec.  219.1-219.5 of the 2000 rule, Sec.  219.2 of 
this proposed rule concisely describes the nature of a land and 
resource management plan.
    Proposed paragraph (b) is somewhat similar to Sec.  219.2 of the 
2000 rule in that it sets out principles on which that rule is based. 
Rather than dwelling on principles modifying the rules, however, 
paragraph (b) imposes core requirements for which the Responsible 
Official will be held accountable in plan development, amendment, or 
revision. While brief and concise, these requirements touch all the 
major principles covered in Sec.  219.2 of the 2000 rule---
sustainability, use of science, consultation with government agencies 
and Tribes, public participation, interdisciplinary planning, and 
monitoring and evaluation.
    Proposed paragraph (c) recognizes the role of plans in integrating 
the various statutory authorities applicable to National Forest System 
management. It also recognizes the Forest Service Directive System as 
the primary source of agency-wide management direction relevant to 
planning and management of National Forest System lands and resources. 
Planning is conducted in the context of the body of environmental laws, 
regulations, Executive orders, and policy. The plan itself does not 
generally repeat existing law, regulation, Executive order, or policy 
but rather interprets their requirements as they apply to the plan 
area.
    Although the proposed rule does not explicitly address integrating 
statutory authorities, it does at Sec.  219.1(a) identify the principal 
authorities applicable to National Forest System lands.
    Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec.  219.2 describes the force and 
effect of land and resource management plans, making clear that:
    [sbull] These plans do not grant, withhold, or modify any contract, 
permit, authorization, or other legal instrument;
    [sbull] These plans do not subject anyone to civil or criminal 
liability; and
    [sbull] These plans create no legal rights.
    This proposed paragraph better recognizes the programmatic nature 
of plans than the 2000 rule, and therefore, more accurately describes 
the nature of a land and resource management plan. Since a plan 
provides only the framework for management, a plan normally does not 
specifically authorize any ground-disturbing activities nor does it 
specifically commit funding or resources. Therefore, the analysis 
associated with a plan should be proportional to the level of decisions 
made in a plan. Also, a plan focuses on desired conditions. It zones 
the forest, grassland, or prairie into defined areas where activities 
could occur to help meet those desired conditions and sets out a 
program for monitoring progress toward desired conditions. This kind of 
plan can be supported by an analysis that evaluates, on a broad level, 
the areas' suitability for future potential activities.
    The type of plan level analysis that the Forest Service has found 
most useful for developing a plan, and for project analysis thereafter, 
is baseline and general trend analysis, which gives as complete a 
picture of the forest or grassland as possible at one time and provides 
the best information of trends of natural processes and of uses in the 
plan area and surrounding lands. The Forest Service will continue such 
analyses in the planning process. The Forest Service believes that 
environmental analyses are most useful when done in the development of 
site-specific decisions that will execute on-the-ground management. 
More specifically, while a plan guides project implementation, 
extensive up-front effects disclosure is generally too speculative to 
be useful for project analysis. Thus, the opportunity to ``tier'' a 
project's NEPA analysis to a plan EIS, as provided in NEPA regulations 
(40 CFR 1502.20), is useful only for certain aspects of analysis and in 
practice has proven more theoretical than real. The Forest Service 
therefore intends to conduct most detailed analysis on the site-
specific project level.
    Plan management direction should be flexible and allow for adaptive 
management. Monitoring should not only measure progress toward desired 
conditions but also help measure the success of adaptive management 
strategies and actions.
    A plan is generally a zoning document. It may allow for later, 
site-specific authorization of activities and may restrict activities 
in specific areas. There are different ways this zoning is applied 
depending on the type of existing or potential future activities. For 
example, a plan may allow transportation development or motorized use 
on some portions of the National Forest System unit, but not on others. 
Such a plan decision does not immediately authorize road construction, 
but rather identifies zones where road construction may occur in the 
future, based on an appropriate project-specific NEPA analysis, public 
involvement, and a future decision.

[[Page 72776]]

    Another example of zoning-type direction in a plan is direction 
that would restrict motorized access in areas where it has been allowed 
in the past or that would restrict other recreation uses that are 
currently allowed. The plan itself does not normally execute the 
restriction. Rather, the restriction would have to be implemented with 
a subsequent process, such as a closure order or other instrument.
    It must be recognized that a plan is not the final word deciding 
forever the fate of an area of land, determining that some actions will 
certainly occur and others never will occur, over all or part of the 
plan area. According to the Forest Service's vision of planning, plans 
can and should be dynamic documents, which can and should be 
reconsidered throughout their existence and readily amended when 
circumstances call for change.
    In summary, the plan is a framework for future on-the-ground 
management decisions. Site-specific projects are proposed and developed 
within the constraints of the plan, and are subject to the National 
Environmental Policy Act and other applicable laws and regulations.
    Proposed section 219.3--Levels of planning and planning authority. 
This section of the proposed rule identifies three levels of planning--
national, regional, or unit (national forest, grassland, or prairie) 
level. As in the 2000 rule, the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie 
Supervisor is the Responsible Official for a land and resource 
management plan, unless the Regional Forester or the Chief chooses to 
act as the Responsible Official for a specific amendment or revision.
    The key planning elements listed in Sec.  219.3(d) of the 2000 rule 
are omitted from the proposed rule because they are unnecessary. 
Proposed Sec.  219.5 provides direction on indicators or a need to 
amend or revise a plan. Sec. Sec.  219.7-219.9 discuss the steps to 
develop a new plan or amend or revise a plan. Sec.  219.10 discusses 
application of plan direction and Sec.  219.11 provides for plan 
monitoring or evaluating plans. It is not necessary to summarize these 
planning elements in a single section. The 2000 rule Sec.  219.3 key 
element number 7 is not needed because the proposed rule does not 
provide direction for site-specific decisions. Additionally, in 
contrast to the 2000 rule, Sec.  219.3 in this proposed rule does not 
contain direction for site-specific actions. As noted previously, the 
focus of this proposed rule is the development, amendment, and revision 
of plans, not site-specific project planning. The Forest Service uses a 
staged decisionmaking process in which land and resource management 
plans establish the guidance that governs site-specific project 
planning and decisionmaking.
    One new provision of Sec.  219.3 is the recognition of the need to 
ensure that management direction for designated areas of experimental 
forests is consistent with the research being conducted and concurred 
in by the appropriate Station Director. The need for this direction 
emerged from review by Forest Service Research and Development 
employees.
    Proposed section 219.4--Decisions embodied in plans. This proposed 
section, in paragraphs (a)(1)-(6), retain the five types of plan 
decisions found in the 2000 rule. Those decisions are ``desired 
conditions,'' ``objectives,'' ``standards,'' ``the identification and 
designation of suitable and unsuitable land uses,'' and ``the 
identification of requirements for monitoring and evaluation.'' For 
efficiency and clarity, Sec.  219.26 of the 2000 rule, which governs 
identifying and designating suitable uses, has been incorporated into 
Sec.  219.4 as proposed paragraph (a)(4). Overall, this section of the 
proposed rule is similar to Sec.  219.7 of the 2000 rule, although 
reorganized in this proposal. The proposed rule, however, more 
explicitly tracks the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
    In proposed paragraph (a)(3) of section 219.4, the rule states 
``Standards generally should be adaptable and assess performance 
measures.'' The following is an example of an adaptable standard that 
assesses performance measures: ``No pre-commercial thinning is allowed 
in lynx habitat unless at least three years of monitoring of snowshoe 
hares shows that hares are present and are not a limiting factor for 
lynx. In these cases, pre-commercial thinning may occur on no more than 
20 percent of the hare habitat.''
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of section 219.4 addresses maximum 
size openings. The 2000 rule does not provide for maximum size 
openings. As in the 1982 rule, the proposed rule reinstates this 
statutory requirement and uses the same maximum size limits, by forest 
cover type.
    An additional required standard is added at Sec.  219.4(a)(3)(vii) 
on the use and application of culmination of mean annual increment 
(CMAI). The addition of CMAI direction was added to the proposed rule 
in order to clarify how this NFMA requirement is to be applied because 
there has been some confusion in this area. This new requirement 
specifies that CMAI considerations apply only to regeneration harvest 
of even-aged tree stands on suitable lands that are harvested for 
timber production purposes. This section allows for exceptions to the 
application of CMAI to be made in the plan; for example, a plan could 
provide exceptions for wildlife openings or for fuel reduction or fuel 
breaks.
    The 2000 rule provides that lands are not suited for a particular 
use if law, regulation, or Executive order would prohibit the use, if 
the use is incompatible with the mission or policies of the National 
Forest System, or if the use would involve substantial and permanent 
impairment of the productivity of the land. The proposed rule retains 
the 2000 rule's criteria concerning laws, regulations or Executive 
orders and the criteria concerning productivity of the land. However, 
the proposed rule changes the provision of Sec.  219.7(d) of the 2000 
rule in two ways. First, the proposed rule no longer uses the criteria 
of incompatibility with the mission or policies of the National Forest 
System, because this is so broad that it would not be a useful 
criterion for the Responsible Official to consider. Instead, the 
proposed rule adopts a much more explicit criterion to consider; that 
is, ``If agency resource management directives prohibit the use.'' 
Second, the proposed rule adds a criterion for determining if lands are 
not suited for a particular use: ``If the use is incompatible with the 
desired conditions as established for the plan.'' This criterion was 
added to clearly recognize that the decisions made in adopting a plan 
may result in prohibiting some uses on all or parts of a plan area. In 
addition, this proposed section adds a clarification in paragraph (b) 
that assessments, surveys, and similar efforts are not plan decisions 
nor do they constitute a proposed action. This regulatory finding is 
essential to avoid public and employee confusion about what is a plan 
decision and what is not.
    Proposed section 219.5--Indicators of need to amend or revise a 
plan. This section focuses on emerging issues and new information as 
indicators of the need to amend or revise a plan. Paragraph (a) of this 
proposed section is very similar to paragraph (a) of Sec.  219.4 of the 
2000 rule in identifying a variety of sources from which issues or 
problems may come to be addressed in planning. However, proposed 
paragraph (a) differs from the 2000 rule in that the reference to 
evaluation of collaboratively developed landscape goals has been 
removed from this section because of confusion regarding the intent of 
this provision in the 2000 rule. The concept of collaboratively

[[Page 72777]]

developed landscape goals is addressed in this preamble in the 
discussion of proposed Sec.  219.12--Collaboration, cooperation and 
consultation. Proposed Sec.  219.5 retains the concept of engaging the 
public in development of desired conditions as a cornerstone of 
planning. Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec.  219.5 also differs from the 
2000 rule by including a specific requirement for obtaining inventory 
data, as required by NFMA.
    The 1982 rule used the term ``issues'' many times, and issue 
identification was a cornerstone of how planning was done, but the 1982 
rule was not specific concerning the sources from which an issue could 
arise, except that public participation was a key element of issue 
identification. In contrast, the 2000 rule specifies how issues 
originate and gives detailed description of the Responsible Official's 
consideration of issues.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) lists factors the Responsible Official 
may use to determine if an issue or opportunity is timely. Like the 
2000 rule, this section makes clear that the Responsible Official has 
full discretion to make this determination. The requirements in Sec.  
219.4(b)(2)(ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (vii) of the 2000 rule address 
the extent to which ``consideration'' of the issues relate to 
opportunities of the planning unit to contribute to various elements of 
resource protection and sustainability. The proposed rule does not 
include these specific criteria, because it may not be practicable to 
consider these criteria at the initial stage of planning. There is 
often a lack of information when issues arise, and it is not always 
known how the issues relate to the National Forest System unit's 
contribution to sustainability. For example, there may not be complete 
information early in the issue identification stage related to 
opportunities to contribute to recovery of threatened or endangered 
species. This consideration may not be appropriate or efficient to 
consider until later in the planning process when the best available 
science may be assembled, when better inventory data may become 
available, or when public involvement may help discover opportunities 
that were not earlier known.
    This proposed section does not retain the provision at Sec.  
219.4(b)(2)(v) that the Responsible Official should consider the extent 
to which addressing an issue relates to the potential for negative 
environmental effects on minorities. Potential negative effects are 
most meaningfully identified and addressed in the analysis phase of 
planning. Executive Order 12898 and Departmental Regulation 43004-4 
(1978) require the Forest Service to determine if proposed actions 
would create disproportionate adverse effects on minority populations 
and, if so, to mitigate those effects to the extent practicable. The 
Forest Service complies with these requirements through its NEPA 
procedures. Scoping, the process of accepting public comments on a 
proposed action, should indicate whether environmental justice issues 
exist and the social and economic effects analysis would display the 
depth and range of those impacts and possible mitigation. The agency 
affirms that any action it can affect that would cause a 
disproportionate adverse effect on minority populations would be 
addressed through a NEPA procedure, thus there would be no controllable 
effects that the agency would not disclose, analyze, and mitigate to 
the extent practicable.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of this section incorporates the intent 
of Sec.  219.5 of the 2000 rule with regard to addressing information 
needs and requires the Responsible Official to keep information 
gathering within reasonable costs and timeframes. However, this 
proposed paragraph does not carry forward the detailed provisions of 
Sec.  219.5 of the 2000 rule for conducting broad-scale assessments and 
local analysis. These provisions are considered unduly detailed and too 
inflexible to apply to all National Forest System units, which have a 
wide variety of issues and information needs as well as differences in 
budgets and staffing levels. Needed direction on what constitutes 
broad-scale assessments and local analyses and how the Responsible 
Official should develop and use this information is more appropriately 
described in the agency's Directive System.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) makes clear that a decision to consider 
or not consider an issue or opportunity is not subject to 
administrative objection.
    Proposed section 219.6--Compliance with National Environmental 
Policy Act. This proposed section is intended to replace Sec.  219.6 of 
the 2000 rule, which defines proposed actions, requires compliance with 
Forest Service NEPA procedures, and ties scoping to issue development.
    Applicability of NEPA. NFMA section 6(g)(1) requires the Secretary 
of Agriculture to specify ``procedures to insure that land management 
plans are prepared in accordance with'' NEPA, including ``direction on 
when and for what plans an environmental impact statement shall be 
prepared'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). Thus, NFMA provides the statutory 
authority for the Secretary to specify not only what should be included 
in a plan, but also when and how the documentation of NEPA compliance 
applies to the planning process. This includes determining whether a 
plan decision's NEPA compliance is to be documented in an EIS, an EA 
and FONSI, or whether a plan decision may be categorically excluded 
from NEPA documentation.
    The proposed rule maintains the planning process requirements 
already familiar to the public. These include public notice, public 
involvement, analysis, public comment on the draft plan, and an 
objection process for contesting planning decisions. The proposed 
planning process is intended to be open to all stakeholders and well-
informed regarding the environmental effects of the proposed plan and 
appropriate alternatives.
    Plan analysis and documentation: The 2000 rule at section 219.9 
requires documentation of a plan revision in an EIS and allows the 
Responsible Official to determine whether or not to prepare an EIS for 
a plan amendment. The proposed rule at section 219.6, in contrast, 
applies this authority in a different manner and outlines the 
environmental analysis and documentation requirements for revisions. An 
EIS at the planning stage will not be required if the decision to adopt 
a plan revision or amendment is not an action significantly affecting 
the quality of the human environment or if a component of a plan does 
not yet authorize an action that commits funding or resources that 
could have a significant effect on the quality of the human 
environment. In addition, all plans in revision were adopted with full 
EIS analysis. Therefore, where the existing EIS and subsequent plan 
and/or project level documentation have adequately evaluated the 
significance of plan direction, no further supplementation is required.
    Plans that only establish goals, objectives, standards, land 
allocations, monitoring requirements, and desired resource conditions 
do not authorize site-specific implementing actions and would not be 
expected to have significant effects on the environment or effects that 
have not been previously addressed in prior NEPA documents. As noted 
above, the question with respect to NFMA planning is when and how--not 
whether--to follow NEPA where it applies. NFMA specifically authorizes 
the Secretary of Agriculture to decide how and when to do NEPA 
environmental analysis for National Forest System plans. The agency 
may, based on the implementation of the proposed rule, identify a 
category of

[[Page 72778]]

plan decisions that do not individually or cumulatively have 
significant effects and may be categorically excluded from NEPA 
documentation through a subsequent rule-making process. However, plan 
decisions including actions that may have significant effects on the 
human environment must analyze and describe those effects in a more 
detailed environmental document, including an EIS where relevant. The 
following examples illustrate this principle.
    [sbull] A plan decision revising or amending a plan's desired 
conditions, objectives, and standards for rangeland conditions would 
not ordinarily be an action with significant environmental effects. 
However, plan direction substantially increasing or reducing livestock 
grazing on a part or all of the plan area would be an action requiring 
further NEPA documentation of the effects of such a decision prior to 
plan approval.
    [sbull] Plan direction revising or amending a plan's desired 
vegetative conditions, objectives, and standards to achieve such 
conditions would not ordinarily be an action with significant 
environmental effects. However, if plan direction imposes a substantial 
change in vegetative conditions, such as conversion of vegetation type, 
or if the plan decision includes a specific project or set of projects 
to reach those desired conditions, then further NEPA documentation for 
those actions must occur prior to plan approval.
    [sbull] A plan decision revising or amending a plan's objectives 
for travel management within the plan area would not ordinarily 
constitute an action with significant environmental effects. However, 
when such a plan decision would substantially modify ongoing uses 
within the plan area, then NEPA documentation would be required for 
that proposed action prior to plan approval.
    [sbull] Plan direction that revises or amends goals and objectives 
for consumptive and non-consumptive National Forest water uses and for 
special use authorizations would not ordinarily be an action with 
significant environmental effects. However, if a plan would impose 
substantial new or changed by-pass flows on current special use 
authorizations for the diversion of water, then NEPA documentation of 
the effects of that proposed action would be required prior to plan 
approval.
    [sbull] Plan direction that revises or amends goals and objectives 
for oil and gas leasing would not ordinarily be an action with 
significant environmental effects. However, when a plan specifies 
stipulations for oil and gas leasing which have not been previously 
analyzed, NEPA disclosure would be required prior to plan approval.
    Plan and project analysis: In contrast to the 2000 rule, the 
proposed rule at Sec.  219.6(b) requires the detail of analysis at the 
plan and project level to be proportional to the decisions proposed. 
The proposed rule requires plans to provide substantial baseline data 
and trend analysis, which can include the description of direct, 
indirect, and cumulative effects information at a broad scale 
appropriate to planning, while requiring more detailed fine-scale NEPA 
analysis, including the description of direct, indirect, and cumulative 
effects, to be conducted when a site-specific action at the project 
level is proposed to implement the plan. Experience has shown that 
site-specific NEPA analysis, based upon more general plan-level 
analysis, provides a more timely and accurate assessment of the effects 
of Forest Service management actions than could otherwise be projected 
under more hypothetical reasoning in more detailed NEPA analysis at the 
plan level.
    The proposed rule requires plans to be based on substantial 
analysis of pertinent issues regardless of the level of NEPA analysis 
and documentation. These plan analyses would: (1) Serve to help the 
Responsible Official, the public, and others develop land allocations, 
standards, desired conditions, and other plan decisions; (2) help limit 
the effects of future projects by application of the plan allocations, 
standards, desired conditions, and other plan decisions; and (3) 
provide information useful for analyzing project effects.
    For example, both options in proposed section 219.13, developed to 
ensure that the NFMA diversity requirements are met, require ecological 
analyses. Option 2 in this proposed rule contains very specific 
analytical requirements. It focuses ecological analyses at both 
ecosystem and species levels of ecological organization, requires 
analyses of diversity across multiple geographic areas and timeframes, 
and stresses the importance of analyses conducted over large geographic 
areas or long timeframes. Option 2 requires description of the 
influence of the ecological condition, structure, and land use history 
of the surrounding landscape, as well as of natural and human-induced 
disturbance regimes, and a discussion on how these factors influence a 
forest's or grassland's ability to achieve biological diversity 
objectives. These analyses are a key part of both the proposed planning 
rule and the analysis of the ecological effects of proposals for plan 
decisions. This analysis will also provide essential baseline and trend 
data that will inform the analysis of the direct and indirect effects 
of plan implementation at the project level.
    Cumulative effects analysis: Cumulative effects analysis normally 
involves analysis both at the plan level and at the project level. 
Under the proposed rule, plan-level analysis would evaluate existing 
conditions and broad trends at the geographic scale of the plan area. 
For example, depending on applicable issues, plan analysis may examine 
habitats for wide-ranging species at various geographic scales and 
discuss trends for that habitat. Plan analysis may examine recreation 
use and trends near a community. Plan analysis may also examine the 
current distribution and likelihood of spread for noxious weeds and 
whether existing roads may serve as vectors for that spread.
    Analysis for site-specific projects will provide additional 
information that, when combined with the plan-level analysis and 
monitoring information collected and maintained on the plan's 
monitoring requirements, would serve as a basis for evaluating the 
cumulative effects of projects carried out under the plan. For example, 
where plan analysis documents the quantity and quality of habitat that 
is available for a wide-ranging species, that plan-level analysis, 
combined with applicable monitoring data and other inventory 
information, can provide much of the information needed to describe the 
cumulative effects of project and other past, current, and reasonably 
foreseeable projects upon the habitat available for that species.
    Likewise, if plan analysis indicates that a particular recreation 
use is high and increasing the risk of loss of a rare plant, then plan 
direction may require particular measures for rare plant protection 
near trails in the recreation use area and a closer and more detailed 
examination for cumulative effects analysis associated with recreation 
management decisions. If plan-level analysis indicates that uses of 
existing roads are contributing to the spread of noxious weeds, and 
monitoring indicates that open roads from nearby projects are 
contributing to the spread, the project-level cumulative effects 
analysis may be required to assess mitigation measures that may be 
needed to restrict travel for the area.
    Project level NEPA compliance: As stated elsewhere in this 
preamble, agency guidelines on project-level planning are specified in 
FSM 1950 and

[[Page 72779]]

FSH 1909.15. Whether a proposed project is categorically excluded from 
NEPA documentation, or is considered in an EA or EIS depends upon 
whether that project would have a significant effect on the 
environment.
    For those projects that the agency believes there may be 
significant effects, an EIS will be prepared to display those effects. 
Pursuant to the FSH requirements, EIS's are required for actions in 
certain circumstances, for example, herbicide application, or road 
construction in an inventoried roadless area. In addition, the Forest 
Service typically documents other types of projects in an EIS. For 
example, large timber sale projects are normally documented in an EIS. 
Another example of a type of project that may be documented in an EIS 
would be an approval of a plan of operation for a large hard-rock 
mining operation.
    The reason to do an EA is to determine whether or not an EIS is 
necessary and to document agency NEPA compliance when an EIS is not 
necessary. The EA will briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis 
for determining whether to prepare an EIS or to reach a finding of no 
significant impact for the proposed action.
    Projects typically documented in an EA are those projects that, at 
the time of the proposal, the Forest Service believes will not have 
significant environmental effects. Examples of types of projects 
typically documented in an EA include smaller timber sale projects, 
road construction, campground construction, special use authorizations, 
and fuels reduction.
    The FSH also lists categories of actions that are excluded from 
NEPA documentation because they do not individually or cumulatively 
have a significant effect on the human environment and have been found 
to have no such effect in procedures adopted by the agency in 
implementation of the regulations. Existing categories include road 
maintenance, administrative site maintenance, or trail construction.
    Whether a project is documented in an EIS or an EA or whether it is 
categorically excluded from NEPA documentation, land and resource 
management plan analyses will provide critical baseline and trend data 
that will inform the site-specific analysis for the project. Project 
level NEPA documentation will analyze project effects as needed, 
depending on the nature of the project and the applicable issues, and 
known information. Project analyses will supplement and use monitoring 
data, pertinent assessments, inventories, research, and the plan 
analysis information. This plan analysis information will be available 
regardless of whether the plan is documented in an EA, EIS, or 
categorically excluded from NEPA documentation.
    Categorical exclusion for planning: If this proposed rule is 
adopted, conforming changes would be required in FSH 1909.15, section 
20.6. A new categorical exclusion pertaining to categories of plan 
decisions may be adopted for plan decisions that do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effects on the human environment and 
are found to have no such effect by the agency based on the 
implementation of this proposed rule. A separate Federal Register 
notice would be published to provide public notice of the proposed 
category and request for comment.
    Public comment: The agency recognizes that the manner in which the 
proposed rule applies NEPA with respect to new plans, plan amendments, 
and plan revisions is a departure from the approach taken in the 2000 
rule and the 1982 rule requiring an EIS for plan revisions, significant 
amendments, or new plans. This departure is based on the agency's 
extensive experience with land and resource management planning over 
the years. That experience indicates that attempting to draw precise 
conclusions about the environmental effects of plan direction is 
subject to analytical uncertainty and is ultimately of limited value 
for purposes of informed decision-making in compliance with NEPA. 
However, the agency recognizes that some level of NEPA documentation 
for plan direction is warranted, and that there may be substantial 
disagreement over the extent of NEPA analysis and documentation that is 
appropriate. With this proposed rule, the Forest Service is attempting 
to strike an appropriate balance between broad-scale plan-level 
analysis and finer-scale project-level analysis with sufficient inter-
relationship between the two to ensure NEPA compliance for all 
decisions. Therefore, the Forest Service specifically requests comments 
and suggestions from the public regarding how the ``significance'' of 
land and resource management plan direction is applied in this proposed 
rule, what plan decisions authorize an action or commit funding or 
resources that could have a significant effect on the environment and 
the circumstances for which an EA or EIS for a plan would be 
appropriate.
    It is useful to summarize the differences between elements of NEPA 
application in the 2000 rule and in this proposed rule. This summary 
consolidates discussion present in other parts of this preamble.
    Type of NEPA documentation: The 2000 rule requires preparation of 
an EIS for a plan revision (36 CFR 219.9(d)). The proposed rule states 
plans may be categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS 
when the Responsible Official determines that the action fits an 
established Categorical Exclusion category and no extraordinary 
circumstances are present.
    Public involvement: The 2000 rule has detailed requirements on who 
should be involved in planning (Sec. Sec.  219.13-219.17). The proposed 
rule has essentially the same requirements, although they are more 
succinctly stated. These requirements would still apply for plans 
categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS.
    The Forest Service will ensure that categorically excluding land 
and resource management plans from documentation in an EA or EIS does 
not result in an adverse or disproportionate effect on groups of people 
identified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Executive Order 
12898--Environmental Justice or other civil rights laws, regulations, 
and orders. These identified groups include minorities, seniors, women, 
subsistence lifestyle populations, Tribes, and low income populations. 
By definition in NEPA, a categorical exclusion address only those 
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an EA 
nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4). Pursuant to agency policy set 
out in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 10, the Responsible 
Official would still be required to identify potentially affected and 
interested agencies, organizations, and individuals during the planning 
process, regardless of which type of documentation is used. 
Additionally, specific Forest Service guidance on scoping under NEPA 
will still apply to categorical exclusions.
    Issues: The 2000 rule has very detailed requirements for issue 
identification. The proposed rule does not. While the proposed rule 
would still require the Responsible Official to document a rationale 
for issue identification in the proposed rule, it is likely that this 
documentation would be briefer as he or she would not need to cross 
reference an extensive list of issue sources (refer to Sec.  219.5 in 
this preamble). The requirements in the proposed rule for issue 
identification would still apply for plans categorically excluded from 
documentation in an EA or EIS.
    Analysis: The 2000 rule contains very detailed requirements for 
what can be

[[Page 72780]]

termed ``analysis'' in Sec. Sec.  219.5, 219.9, and 219.20-219.25. The 
proposed rule has much simpler requirements. In addition, as pointed 
out previously in this preamble, the agency has a vision of an analysis 
that is more proportional to the decisions being made and that the 
analysis will be much briefer. The number and complexity of 
requirements in the 2000 rule make it unlikely that a proportional 
analysis effort would be successful.
    Alternatives: The 2000 rule does not directly address alternatives 
to consider in developing a new plan, revision, or amendment. This 
proposed rule also does not directly address alternatives, but the 
preamble does in the planning ``vision'' and signals the agency's 
intention to work toward consensus with the public with an expected 
result of fewer alternatives.
    Neither the 2000 rule nor this proposed rule set out specific NEPA 
requirements in the planning regulation, in accordance with the desire 
not to repeat direction contained in law, regulation or Executive 
order.
    Proposed section 219.7--Amending a plan. As with the 2000 rule, 
this section of the proposed rule characterizes an amendment to a plan 
as an addition to, the modification of, or the rescission of one or 
more of the plan decisions listed in Sec.  219.4. As with the 2000 rule 
(at Sec.  219.18(b)), paragraph (a) of this proposed section 
specifically excludes administrative corrections as amendments. 
Paragraph (b) of this proposed section identifies issues or 
opportunities as provided in Sec.  219.5 as potential sources for plan 
amendments. Proposed paragraph (c) requires that the Responsible 
Official provide opportunities for consultation and collaboration as 
addressed in Sec.  219.12 during plan amendment. The process to produce 
an amendment, including the identification of issues or opportunities, 
the use of applicable information, an effects analysis, and provisions 
for consultation opportunities for consultation are the same in the 
2000 rule and the proposed rule. While the process steps are the same, 
the rules are organized differently. The 2000 rule lists all the steps 
for amendment in Sec.  219.8, while the proposed rule addresses issues 
in Sec.  219.5, use of applicable information in Sec.  219.13, and 
effects analysis in Sec.  219.6 by reference to NEPA. The two rules 
differ in the specific requirements to accomplish the steps in the 
amendment process. These differences are addressed in the discussion 
for those individual sections in this proposed rule.
    Proposed paragraph (d) defines a significant amendment and requires 
a 90-day comment period for a draft proposed significant amendment, as 
referenced in Sec.  219.6 and as required by NFMA, (16 U.S.C. 1604 (f) 
(4)).
    Under the 1982 planning rule, when amending the plan, the Forest 
Service has to cope with two processes to determine significance for 
two different statutes. First, under NFMA, the Forest Service had to 
determine whether an amendment is a significant change to a plan. Even 
if an amendment was determined not to be a significant change to the 
plan, the amendment still required an EIS if it was determined under 
NEPA to be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment. This direction has proven confusing to agency 
personnel and to the public. The 2000 rule uses only the NEPA 
definition for significance. This proposed rule defines a ``significant 
amendment,'' as one that would have a significant affect on the quality 
of the human environment. The proposed rule also provides for a new 
category of interim amendments in Sec.  219.7(f) to enable the agency 
to make more rapid adjustments to management direction when necessary, 
such as when a threatened or endangered species is newly listed or 
initially discovered to exist in a particular area. In fact, a rapid 
response to the needs of threatened or endangered species is the prime 
reason this category of amendment is included. In 1995, for example, 
the Southern Region of the Forest Service amended their plans to 
provide interim standards and guidelines for the federally listed red-
cockaded woodpecker. This interim direction was to remain in effect up 
to three years until individual plans could be amended or revised with 
longer term direction.
    An interim amendment would expedite needed amendments to a plan, 
while the agency initiates further analysis and decisionmaking for a 
permanent amendment. The proposed rule would establish a maximum 
duration of four years for an interim amendment; however, there are a 
number of alternative views on the duration and process for these 
interim amendments, and the agency would especially welcome public 
comment concerning their use.
    Proposed section 219.8--Revising a plan. The proposed rule requires 
a description of the current management situation and an assessment of 
the adequacy of existing plan direction, a summary of timely and 
relevant issues to be addressed, and a summary of relevant information. 
The proposed rule requires consultation with federally recognized 
Indian Tribes, State and local governments and other Federal agencies 
and contains requirements for public notice of intent to revise a plan. 
These requirements are much simpler than either the 1982 or 2000 rules.
    The 2000 rule and the proposed rule are fundamentally different 
with regard to the amount of information and analysis required to 
initiate a revision. At Sec.  219.20 of the 2000 rule, the Responsible 
Official must develop or supplement extensive information to address 
ecosystem sustainability and must provide comparable information at 
Sec.  219.21 to address social and economic sustainability.
    To initiate a revision of a plan, Sec.  219.9 of the 2000 rule 
established requirements related to collaboration; identification of 
issues; analyses and information; identification of special areas; 
identification of specific watersheds in need of protective or 
restoration measures; identification of lands classified as not 
suitable for timber production; identification of and evaluation of 
inventoried roadless and unroaded areas; and development of an estimate 
of anticipated outcomes for the next 15 years. Each of these 
requirements refers in turn to additional requirements elsewhere in the 
planning regulations. For example, paragraph (b)(4)of Sec.  219.9 of 
the 200 rule states in order to begin the revision process, the 
Responsible Official must, ``Evaluate the effectiveness of the current 
plan in contributing to sustainability (Sec. Sec.  219.20-219.21) based 
on the information, analyses, and requirements described in Sec.  
219.20 (a) and (b) and Sec.  219.21 (a) and (b), and provide for an 
independent scientific peer review (Sec.  219.22) of the evaluation.''
    As the agency launched the November 2000 rule, field-level planners 
and resource professionals expressed uncertainty about the degree and 
scope of analysis and information gathering required to initiate a plan 
revision. They also were concerned about the potential controversy that 
might be associated with a plan developed under these untested and 
unclear requirements. Also questioned was the appropriateness of and 
the agency's ability to conduct pre-revision analysis and presenting 
some of this information at the revision initiation stage. For example, 
identification of new proposals for special areas or wilderness 
recommendations benefit from public involvement and input, which is 
more fully developed later in the planning process, not at the pre-
revision stage.
    The agency supports sharing as much known information as possible 
with the public at the early stage of revision initiation, but it does 
not believe the

[[Page 72781]]

extensive information and analysis requirements of the 2000 rule are 
necessary. In fact, the extensive work required to initiate revision 
will create further delays in revision of plans.
    Both the proposed rule and the 2000 rule address the statutory 
requirements for plan initiation; however, the 2000 rule includes more 
extensive direction on the revision process than does the proposed 
rule. Both also include public notice requirements. The 2000 rule 
includes a 45-day public comment period. The proposed rule does not 
include a specified comment period, although notice is required to 
invite comment. This proposed change would allow the Responsible 
Official to tailor the comment period for initiation of plan revision 
to the scope and complexity of planning issues and opportunities for 
the unit.
    The proposed rule and 2000 rule have the same substantive 
requirement for a 90-day public comment period of a draft proposed 
revision.
    Proposed section 219.9--Developing a new plan. This proposed 
section recognizes that, over time, additional units may be added to 
the National Forest System, such as occurred with the recently 
established Midewin Prairie in Illinois. Should Congress establish a 
new national forest, grassland, prairie, or other unit of the National 
Forest System, the Responsible Official must determine whether a 
separate plan is needed or whether an existing plan can be amended. If 
a new plan is needed, the Responsible Official must follow the 
requirements of this regulation. The 2000 rule did not address this 
issue.
    Proposed section 219.10--Application of plan direction. Paragraph 
(a) of this proposed section addresses the statutory requirements of 
the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(h)(3)(i)) that permits, contracts, and other 
legal instruments must be consistent with the applicable plan. This 
paragraph is similar to the provisions of the 2000 rule at Sec.  219.10 
requiring all site-specific project decisions, permits, contracts, and 
other authorizations to be consistent with the applicable plan, which 
is required by NFMA.
    However, unlike the 2000 rule, this proposed paragraph adds a 
specific requirement that project decisions disclose the relationship 
of the project to the plan desired conditions. While all project 
decisions must be consistent with the plan, it is not practical to 
require each project decision to be in strict compliance with all 
aspects of a plan's desired conditions. Sometimes a project may have 
positive effects on one aspect of desired conditions and negative 
effects on another. It is also possible that a project may have short-
term negative effects that relate to a specific desired condition, with 
predicted long-term positive effects. At other times a project may have 
neutral effects related to desired conditions. These examples 
illustrate the complexity of the relationship of a particular project 
to the desired conditions in a plan. The agency therefore, has chosen 
not to include a specific requirement that projects comply with the 
plan's desired conditions, but rather a requirement that the project 
decision disclose how the decision relates to the applicable plan 
desired conditions.
    Also in contrast to the 2000 rule, this proposed paragraph 
specifically requires that a new plan, amendment, or revision decision 
document consider the effects of the plan on occupancy and use already 
authorized. This change is proposed to ensure that there will be an 
orderly transition when a new plan, amendment, or revision is 
authorized. This proposed section also acknowledges that modifications 
of instruments authorizing ongoing occupancy and use of the plan area 
necessary to make them consistent with the changes in the plan are 
subject to any valid existing rights.
    Paragraph (b) of this proposed section provides that direction in 
plans undergoing amendment or revision would remain in effect until the 
Responsible Official signs a decision document for a new amendment or 
revision. This provision is the same as in Sec.  219.10 of the 2000 
rule.
    Paragraph (c) of this proposed section makes clear that nothing in 
the rule itself requires a change of approved projects while new 
information is being assessed. This provision is proposed to clarify 
the effect of considering new information and fills a gap in both the 
1982 rule and the 2000 rule.
    Paragraph (d) of this proposed section retains the provisions of 
Sec.  219.10 of the 2000 rule that lists options available to a 
Responsible Official when a proposal for a project or activity would 
not be consistent with plan direction.
    Paragraph (e) of this proposed section recognizes the need for 
testing and research projects to gain information and knowledge that 
will assist the land manager. This paragraph makes clear that testing 
and research projects are subject to all applicable laws, regulations, 
and Executive orders and must be consistent with the plan. This is a 
new paragraph developed to acknowledge the important role of research 
in National Forest System land management and the role of NFS lands as 
sites for research. This provision also further strengthens the 
emphasis of this proposed rule on monitoring and evaluation.
    Proposed section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation. As at Sec.  
219.11 of the 2000 rule, this proposed section specifies that plans 
must include requirements for monitoring and evaluation, although this 
proposed rule does not refer to such requirements as a ``strategy.'' 
This proposed section provides direction on the purpose of monitoring 
and evaluation, the data sources that may be used, the coordination of 
monitoring that may occur, possible evaluation activities, and 
direction on record keeping. Paragraph (a) provides that the 
Responsible Official ensure that monitoring occurs and that monitoring 
methods may be adjusted without plan amendment or revision. As with the 
2000 rule, monitoring could be conducted jointly with other interested 
parties such as other governmental agencies, Tribes, and scientific and 
academic organizations.
    Paragraph (b) lists situations where evaluation may be used to 
determine, among other things: trend identification; information and 
analysis validation; use of performance measures to assess the effects 
of programs, projects, and activities; and the effectiveness of plan 
standards. Paragraph (c) of this proposed section would require 
information to be collected from any of a variety of sources to meet 
the monitoring requirements. Paragraph (d) requires findings and 
conclusions to be published annually in reports that are made available 
to the public.
    At Sec.  219.11(b), the 2000 rule requires that if there is a need 
for monitoring and evaluation of site-specific actions, decision 
documents must include a description of the monitoring and evaluation 
and the Responsible Official must determine that funding is adequate to 
conduct monitoring and evaluation before authorizing the site-specific 
project. This provision is not retained in the proposed rule which is 
limited to programmatic planning.
    The monitoring and evaluation provisions of the proposed rule 
differ from the monitoring provisions of the 2000 rule, which impose 
far more detailed and specific requirements for monitoring 
characteristics of sustainability, ecological conditions, and 
populations of focal species/species-at-risk and for site-specific 
activities. Monitoring is very important, but given the testing and 
experimentation inherent in monitoring and evaluation, Responsible 
Officials need considerable flexibility to design monitoring strategies 
to fit local

[[Page 72782]]

situations. The specificity of the 2000 rule does not allow for such 
flexibility and discretion. To the extent that guidance is needed on 
who should do monitoring, how monitoring should be done, what 
monitoring should be done, and how monitoring information should be 
evaluated, that can best be provided through the agency's Directive 
System rather than specified in a rule.
    For example, the detailed provisions in Sec.  219.11(a)(1)(ii)(B) 
and (C) of the 2000 rule are being evaluated for issuance in the Forest 
Service Manual or Handbook. Some of these current regulatory 
requirements will be made optional in order to be responsive to 
variations in funding, staffing, and information needs among individual 
National Forest System units.
    Other monitoring and evaluation provisions of the 2000 rule that 
are proposed to be removed from the rule are those for which there is 
no corresponding provision elsewhere in the proposed rule. Also, at 
Sec.  219.23(c), the 2000 rule requires that scientists play a 
significant role in developing and evaluating monitoring strategies. 
The agency certainly believes use of science is important in monitoring 
and in evaluating results; however, the agency has determined upon 
review that the degree of required participation of Forest Service 
research scientists specified in the 2000 rule would overburden the 
Research and Development mission area of the Forest Service. Moreover, 
not every plan amendment or revision will require the same degree and 
intensity of scientific review.
    Monitoring may take many forms and include different requirements 
for the understanding of science and involvement by scientists. 
Different types of monitoring require different levels of scientific 
rigor in their development and application. For example, if a plan has 
a standard to keep fences repaired and gates closed to aid with the 
restoration of certain degraded riparian systems, then monitoring to 
assess the ability of the managers to keep the fences standing and the 
gates closed requires little, if any, involvement of science. However, 
to assess if keeping the fences closed and gates repaired was an 
effective approach to reach the desired condition of a restored 
riparian system may well require development and application of 
particularly rigorous, scientifically valid monitoring protocols. The 
consistency evaluation process described in Section 219.14 would 
evaluate the likelihood that the designed monitoring plan would be able 
to determine the effectiveness of the action (keeping the gates closed 
and fences repaired) in achieving the objective of ecosystem 
restoration.
    As this proposed rule was being developed, a great deal of internal 
discussion occurred regarding direction for, and decisions on, adaptive 
management and on whether the proposed rule needed to specifically 
address this concept. The term ``adaptive management'' has been used 
formally and informally within the agency to describe the process of 
continually adjusting management techniques in response to new 
information, knowledge, or technologies. The Forest Service recognizes 
that uncertainty and unknowns exist in the course of achieving any 
natural resource management goal. The adaptive management process 
relies on focused monitoring to measure success in achieving desired 
conditions and to determine if there is the need to make further 
changes in strategies and implementation. Whether such monitoring would 
be scientifically rigorous would depend on the resource, the use, and 
the specific situation.
    The 2000 rule uses the term ``adaptive management,'' and explains 
adaptive management concepts and purposes, but it has no specific 
requirements for how the concept and purposes were to be carried out. 
Although the agency believes that adaptive management concepts are 
valid, the agency maintains that it is not necessary for the planning 
rule to specifically address these concepts beyond stating that 
measurement of adaptive management results is one of the purposes of 
monitoring and stating in Sec.  219.4 that the need to provide adaptive 
management is one reason why plan standards should not be overly rigid.
    A plan can allow for and address adaptive management without 
specific direction to do so in the planning rule. Essentially, there is 
no real difference between the 2000 rule and the proposed rule in the 
area of adaptive management. Under both rules, plans can include 
adaptive management strategies and methods in their direction.
    In fact, both conceptually and operationally, adaptive management 
is integral to the planning process laid out in this proposed rule, and 
monitoring and evaluation represent a fundamental component of the 
adaptive management process, as was the case in the 2000 rule. In this 
context, an essential linkage exists between plan requirements for 
monitoring and evaluation, discussed previously, and those for the 
ecological component of sustainability, discussed later in this 
preamble under proposed section 219.13. The ecological information and 
analyses focused on assessing ecosystem and species diversity, as 
specified in proposed Sec.  219.13(b)(1), contribute directly to 
adoption of plan decisions that provide for ecosystem and species 
diversity in the plan area within the multiple use objectives of the 
plan. Results of monitoring and evaluation are among the information 
and analyses that may contribute to the development of future plan 
decisions affecting diversity. Moreover, monitoring and evaluation 
provide an essential feedback loop to assess whether implementation of 
plan direction is producing progress toward attainment of desired 
conditions and plan objectives, as well as the basis for deciding 
whether plan direction should be modified or changed through plan 
amendments or revision.
    As specified in Sec.  219.11(a), data and other information 
pertinent to characteristics of ecosystem and species diversity, as 
determined relevant by the Responsible Official, should be included in 
the monitoring information to be collected. Evaluation of this 
information should reveal whether progress toward achievement of 
diversity objectives is being achieved, or whether plan direction or 
plan implementation must be changed. In this sense, and with specific 
reference to the ecological component of sustainability, monitoring and 
evaluation complete the essential feedback loop of adaptive management 
to assess whether plan direction is achieving the NFMA requirement that 
plans provide for diversity in a multiple use context. Monitoring and 
evaluation focused on the characteristics of diversity thus inform both 
the development of plan decisions and the decision to undertake plan 
amendments or revisions, thereby ensuring that adaptive management is 
an integral part of this revised planning rule.
    Proposed section 219.12--Collaboration, cooperation, and 
consultation. This proposed section combines Sec. Sec.  219.12 through 
219.17 of the 2000 rule. Paragraph (a) of this section is similar to 
paragraph (a) of Sec.  219.12 of the 2000 rule in requiring the 
Responsible Official to provide early and frequent opportunities for 
the public to participate in the planning process, using any of several 
specified roles, and to encourage such participation. Paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (a)(2) incorporate the provisions of Sec. Sec.  219.13, 219.14, 
219.16 and 219.17 of the 2000 rule which address engaging Federal 
agencies, State and local governments, interested individuals and

[[Page 72783]]

organizations, and private landowners in planning, and paragraph (a)(3) 
incorporates the provisions of Sec.  219.15 of the 2000 rule, which 
address engaging federally recognized Tribes in planning.
    The 2000 rule at Sec.  219.12(b) requires Forest Service 
participation with others in efforts to cooperatively develop landscape 
goals. Although the cooperative development of landscape goals may be 
of value in some planning efforts, this specific activity should not be 
a requirement because it will not always be useful and may often be 
unachievable with participating groups. The proposed rule does not 
refer to collaboratively developed landscape goals; rather, at Sec.  
219.12(b), the proposed rule clarifies that the Responsible Official 
should consider participating in existing groups to address resource 
management issues within the community. The agency also feels that the 
list of objectives for collaboration in the 2000 rule are not necessary 
as they are more appropriately defined under existing law or through 
the collaboration process itself.
    In contrast to the 2000 Rule at Sec.  219.18, this proposed section 
on collaboration, cooperation, and consultation does not include a 
provision for requiring advisory committees. That provision requires 
that each national forest or grassland have access to an advisory 
committee. Having considered employee concerns over this provision, the 
agency now considers this provision to be inadvisable. There are many 
valid methods for effectively engaging the public. An advisory 
committee may be the most effective method in some circumstances, the 
least effective in others.
    Each Forest, Grassland, or Prairie Supervisor currently has the 
option of requesting establishment of an advisory committee under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and implementing regulations 
issued by the General Service Administration (GSA). The 2000 rule 
requires that each Forest or Grassland Supervisor have access to an 
advisory committee with knowledge of local conditions and issues. While 
the rule does not require each planning unit to have its own committee, 
many believe that the local conditions and issues requirement 
effectively require a separate committee for most planning units.
    The costs of establishing and administering FACA committees is high 
in terms of Federal employee time and salaries to charter the 
committees, manage the nomination and selection process, and to set up 
meetings. There are also meeting facility costs as well as costs for 
reimbursement of committee members for their transportation, meals, and 
lodging. While these costs may well be justified to address issues for 
some planning units, they might be an unwise use of funds on other 
units. Also, the process for establishing committees can be a long one. 
The Act and implementing GSA regulations require substantial 
administrative work including drafting charters, nominating members, 
checking nominees' backgrounds, giving Federal Register notice, 
considering public input, and giving notice of the committee members 
selected. By law, committees must be re-chartered every two years.
    Requiring most units to undertake the expenditure of time and funds 
for establishing and re-establishing FACA committees imposes a 
significant continuing administrative responsibility. Instead of 
mandating a ``one-size-fits-all'' national approach to public input, 
the agency believes that it is better to provide Responsible Officials 
flexibility to design public involvement strategies to best meet the 
local needs the most cost effective way.
    In summary, the proposed rule reduces the amount of process-related 
descriptions of the public involvement processes. The agency's 
intention is to continue and support vigorous and active public 
interaction and involvement without mandating which process would most 
effectively support this interaction. Consequently, this proposed rule 
drops the non-substantive portions of the 2000 rule, such as detailed 
examples of how people, groups, and organizations can contribute to the 
planning effort.
    Proposed section 219.13--Sustainability. This proposed section 
contains direction for how the specific social, economic, and 
ecological components of sustainability are to be applied. This section 
of the proposed rule replaces Sec.  219.19 through Sec.  219.21 of the 
2000 rule. This proposed rule emphasizes the interconnection between 
the ecological, social, and economic components of sustainability and 
requires consideration of each in the planning process.
    However, the proposed rule departs from the 2000 rule on several 
important points. Sustainability under this proposed rule is viewed as 
a single objective with interdependent social, economic, and ecological 
components. In contrast to the 2000 rule, this concept of 
sustainability is linked more closely to the MUSYA in that economic and 
social components are treated as interdependent with ecological aspects 
of sustainability, rather than as secondary considerations. This change 
in emphasis is not intended to downplay the importance of ecological 
sustainability or of maintaining the health and productivity of the 
land.
    The proposed rule also affirms the commitment of the Forest Service 
to meet the NFMA requirement that plans provide for the diversity of 
plant and animal communities and tree species and retains the joint 
focus of the 2000 rule by considering and evaluating both ecosystem 
diversity and species diversity, in order to reach plan decisions that 
provide for diversity within the multiple use objectives of the plan.
    The proposed rule addresses social and economic sustainability at 
Sec.  219.13(a). Even though social and economic issues are different 
they are discussed together because both social and economic components 
of sustainability address the well-being of communities that are 
dependent on the National Forests. There are elements of analysis that 
have implications for both economic and social sustainability. For 
example, demographics (such as population, age, income, employment, 
home ownership, school, growth) have implications for both economic and 
social sustainability. Conversely, there are other elements of social 
and economic analysis that are clearly distinct. For example, a social 
analysis might help identify Native American use of medicinal plants to 
ensure the agency considers how these plants may be protected. A social 
analysis might also help identify what local people particularly value 
about National Forest System lands. An economic analysis might identify 
the interconnectedness between goods and services produced from NFS 
lands and the economy in surrounding communities in terms of employment 
and income; for example, the recreation use of NFS lands and service 
industries. To assess social and economic sustainability, the Forest 
Service proposes to require the Responsible Official to: (1) Identify 
values that interested and affected persons want to see sustained; (2) 
consider how human activities and social and economic conditions and 
trends affect NFS lands; (3) identify the benefits NFS lands provide; 
and (4) examine how land management decisions affect social and 
economic conditions.
    The Forest Service understands that sustainable social and economic 
systems are very complex and that programmatic planning decisions form 
only a part of the environment in which these systems operate. The 
agency acknowledges that it cannot assure

[[Page 72784]]

sustainability of those systems. The Forest Service can, however, 
engage the public in planning, identify social and economic issues, and 
analyze the relationship of planning to social and economic systems, 
and, thereby, make positive contributions to communities. As stated in 
the preamble to proposed Sec.  219.1, plans consider the uses of 
variable renewable resources within the context of multiple use so the 
resources of the NFS lands are utilized in a combination that will best 
meet the needs of the American people.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec.  219.13 of the proposed rule incorporates the 
social and economic components of sustainability in Sec.  219.21 of the 
2000 rule, but removes the many highly detailed, discretionary elements 
from the rule. This simplification is proposed in response to concerns 
that many of the detailed requirements of Sec.  219.21 do not reflect 
the variety of social and economic issues that arise across the range 
of National Forest System lands; that available information may not be 
sufficient to meet these requirements; and that the required level of 
detail may not meet the needs of an agency whose administrative units 
vary in funding and staffing levels. Processes for conducting social 
and economic analysis are already in the agency's Directive System, are 
most appropriately located there, and are currently being revised and 
updated.
    Two options for the ecological component of sustainability are 
included in paragraph (b) of Sec.  219.13 of the proposed rule, which 
incorporates the intent of Sec.  219.20 of the 2000 rule for the 
ecological component of sustainability. The National Forest Management 
Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(b)) requires that plans provide for 
the diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability 
and capability of the land area, and where appropriate and to the 
extent practicable, provide for steps to preserve the diversity of tree 
species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan, 
within the multiple use objectives of the plan (referred to hereafter 
as the NFMA diversity requirement). There has been extensive, ongoing 
debate concerning how to meet the NFMA diversity requirement ever since 
the Act was passed. The proposed rule includes two distinct options for 
meeting the diversity requirement in Sec.  219.13(b).
    The first option in this proposed rule was developed by modifying 
the 2000 rule and establishes the viability of vertebrates and vascular 
plants well distributed within their ranges in the plan area as the 
primary basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity 
requirement. This first option significantly streamlines the 2000 rule 
by removing many of the prescriptive operational details and making 
other changes described in this preamble.
    Drawing heavily on the expertise of its research scientists, the 
agency developed a second option on ecological sustainability that 
provides a clear alternative to Option 1. In Option 2, the primary 
basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement is the 
requirement that plan decisions foster the maintenance and restoration 
of biological diversity in the plan area, at ecosystem and species 
levels, within the range of diversity characteristic of native 
ecosystems in the larger landscape within which the plan area is 
embedded.
    In preparing two distinct options to meet the NFMA diversity 
requirement, the agency seeks to stimulate meaningful public discussion 
and input on this important topic so that the Secretary can make an 
informed choice at the final rule stage. To ensure that the agency has 
access to knowledgeable and diverse views on this topic, the Forest 
Service also plans to host a workshop of subject matter specialists in 
a variety of policy, management, and resource fields to discuss the 
strengths and shortcomings of the two proposed options, or variations 
of these options, for achieving the NFMA diversity requirement. 
Information regarding this workshop will be provided in a separate 
Federal Register notice.

Comparison to 2000 Planning Rule

    Both options in the proposed rule are considerably streamlined and 
shorter as compared to Sec.  219.20 of the 2000 rule. As discussed 
earlier in this preamble, the agency's review of the 2000 planning rule 
judged the section on the ecological component of sustainability to be 
needlessly complex and overly prescriptive and to lack the flexibility 
needed to tailor or adapt the required ecological information and 
analyses to the issues identified by the Responsible Official, the 
risks to ecological sustainability, and the availability of information 
relevant to the particular plan area. To respond to this criticism, 
most of the operational details of the analyses of ecosystem and 
species diversity in Sec.  219.20(a)(1)(i)(A)-(E), Sec.  
219.20(a)(2)(i)(A)-(H), and Sec.  219.20(a)(2)(ii)(A)-(D), as well as 
the qualifications regarding how plan decisions should be applied in 
Sec.  219.20(b)(1)(i)-(v) and Sec.  219.20(b)(2)(ii)-(iv), will be 
transferred, perhaps in modified form, to the Forest Service Directive 
System or to other technical guidance documents (e.g., white papers), 
sometimes as requirements but more often as optional methods for the 
Responsible Official to consider and use as appropriate. Because this 
shift in approach to sustainability represents a major change from the 
2000 rule and because the specific operational details as to how to 
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species 
represent a controversial topic, the agency has posted this preliminary 
draft material pertinent to both options on the World Wide Web/Internet 
and made these documents available at the address listed earlier in 
this document for consideration and review during the public comment 
period.
    Several concepts that were essential features of the required 
ecological information and analyses in the 2000 rule are now treated as 
optional elements of the analyses and will be covered in the Directive 
System or other guidance documents. For example, neither of the 
diversity options specifically requires broad-scale assessments as did 
the 2000 rule, but each will make use of information from such 
assessments, where they represent the best science available, and as 
stepped down from the assessment area to the plan area. Similarly, 
neither option specifically requires that focal species be identified 
for the plan area and evaluated to provide insights concerning the 
ecological integrity of the larger ecological system with which they 
are associated. Again, however, both options permit such a use of focal 
species on an optional basis. Option 2, in particular, states that 
individual species may be identified for analysis in order to develop a 
more complete understanding of the condition and trends of ecosystems, 
which is conceptually equivalent to the manner in which focal species 
were a required element of the diversity analyses in the 2000 rule. As 
a final example, neither option specifically requires use of the 
concept of the range of variability under the natural disturbance 
regime of the current climatic period, but Option 1 identifies range of 
variability as being among the approaches that may be used to evaluate 
ecosystem diversity.
    Both options also eliminate language concerning how plan decisions 
must address federally listed threatened and endangered species because 
consideration of federally listed species is integral to the 
consideration of diversity under either option and because the planning 
rule need not repeat existing requirements of law. The 2000 rule at 
Sec.  219.20(b)(3) included requirements that plan decisions

[[Page 72785]]

promote the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered 
species, provide for implementing conservation agreements, and address 
requirements and recommendations from biological opinions. These 
requirements are not included under either Option 1 or Option 2 of the 
proposed rule. The agency reaffirms its commitment to comply with 
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including conducting 
programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species 
consistent with the multiple use objectives of plans, but sees no 
reason to specify this in the rule itself. The ESA is among the 
relevant statutes listed under 219.2(c)(1).
    Following adoption of a final new planning rule, and contingent on 
which diversity option is selected, the agency fully intends to develop 
detailed operational guidance on the means to implement the procedural 
requirements of the new planning rule, particularly with reference to 
procedures for meeting the NFMA diversity requirement. This will 
include detailed guidance in the agency Directive System, as well as 
``white papers'' and other documents.

Option 1--Sec.  219.13(b) Ecological Component of Sustainability

    Option 1 of the proposed rule is most similar to corresponding 
sections on ecological sustainability in the 2000 rule. In fact, Option 
1 was developed from the 2000 rule by significantly streamlining the 
rule and eliminating significant amounts of procedural detail, as 
discussed earlier in this preamble. In this option, plan decisions 
would be developed to provide a high likelihood of supporting, over 
time, the viability of native and desired non-native vertebrates and 
vascular plants well distributed within their ranges in the plan area. 
This viability standard serves as the primary basis for judging 
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement in Option 1. This option 
also contains an ecosystem diversity standard, so that plan decisions 
would be developed to provide measurable progress toward maintenance or 
restoration of ecological conditions that support the desired 
characteristics of ecosystem diversity. However, it is the species 
viability standard that will provide the clearest measure of 
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement under Option 1.
    Under this option of the proposed rule, analysis of the ecological 
component of sustainability follows a hierarchical, sequential 
approach. This option requires ecosystem diversity to be evaluated 
first, with the goal of ensuring that plan decisions provide measurable 
progress toward maintaining or restoring ecological conditions that 
support the diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species, 
and other characteristics of ecosystem diversity. Species diversity 
would be evaluated only after consideration of ecosystem diversity. 
This hierarchical, sequential approach is based on the assumption that 
conditions capable of supporting viability for most species are likely 
to be met through provisions for ecosystem diversity. Where this is not 
the case, species at risk would be identified and separate analyses of 
species diversity performed. This approach provides the Responsible 
Official flexible options for meeting the analytical requirements of 
Option 1 as the Responsible Official determines the scope and scale of 
the analysis. There are some required characteristics of ecosystem and 
species diversity and accompanying evaluation factors, although far 
fewer than in the 2000 rule. The Responsible Official is not limited to 
only those characteristics or analytical processes if other information 
or techniques are available or appropriate.
    The desired conditions, objectives, standards, identification of 
suitable and unsuitable land uses, and any special designations and 
other management areas of a plan should provide the framework for 
management that would maintain or restore ecological conditions that 
the Responsible Official determines will provide a high likelihood of 
supporting, over time, the viability of native and desired non-native 
vertebrates and vascular plants well distributed within their ranges in 
the plan area. Note that ``high likelihood'' is not necessarily a 
statistical or mathematical determination. Rather, it is an application 
of expert agency judgment based on a reasonable review and 
consideration of available information.

Option 2--Sec.  219.13(b) Ecological Component of Sustainability

    The second option for addressing the ecological component of 
sustainability was developed initially by agency research scientists to 
provide a clear and distinct alternative to Option 1. Several specific 
objectives or perspectives influenced development of Option 2, 
including: (1) Focus required ecological analyses, as well as the final 
management standard against which plan decisions are to be judged, at 
both ecosystem and species levels of ecological organization; (2) 
require analyses of diversity across multiple geographic areas and 
timeframes, and especially stress the importance of analyses conducted 
over large geographic areas or long timeframes; (3) emphasize the 
influence of the ecological condition, structure, and land use history 
of the surrounding landscape, as well as of natural and human-induced 
disturbance regimes, on the ability to manage NFS lands to achieve 
biological diversity objectives; and (4) require a more rigorous and 
structured set of analyses of diversity than contained in Option 1.
    Option 2 focuses attention on the general objective of maintaining 
and restoring ecological conditions that provide for biological 
diversity in the plan area and on the more specific objective of 
maintaining and restoring ecosystem diversity within landscapes, and 
within the framework of larger-scale ecosystem analyses, of maintaining 
and restoring species diversity within ecosystems. In this sense, 
Option 2 adopts an explicitly hierarchical approach to analyses of 
biological diversity, as does Option 1.
    Option 2 focuses attention directly on evaluating and maintaining 
biological diversity in the planning or assessment area. Biological 
diversity is an inclusive concept employed in the scientific and 
conservation literature to refer to the variety of living things 
together with their interactions and processes. It is defined at 
various levels of ecological organization, but especially three--genes, 
species, and ecosystems. The general concept of biological diversity 
incorporates the concept of the diversity of plant and animal 
communities and tree species as originally used in the language of the 
NFMA diversity requirement. However, the term ``biological diversity'' 
also reflects significant progress in the sciences of ecology and 
conservation biology over the past 20-25 years. Scientific progress in 
these fields has revealed substantial new information such as factors 
that regulate biological diversity and the relationship between 
biological diversity and ecosystem function and resilience. As a 
consequence, and consistent with progress in scientific knowledge and 
conservation practice, the overriding objective of the approach in 
Option 2 is to focus planning analyses on factors that foster the 
maintenance and restoration of biological diversity in the planning or 
assessment area, at both ecosystem and species levels of ecological 
organization.
    Option 2 directs the Responsible Official, in the planning process, 
to follow and fully disclose results of a structured approach to 
considering and assessing biological diversity at two levels of 
ecological organization: ecosystem and species. Analyses of

[[Page 72786]]

biological diversity at these two levels should be tailored to the 
particular planning or assessment area, to the availability of 
information, to the issues identified in the planning process, and to 
the risks to ecological sustainability.
    Consideration and evaluation of ecosystem diversity within the 
framework of biological diversity constitutes the core approach of 
Option 2 and is the primary focus of ecological information and 
analyses. Option 2 focuses attention on similar characteristics of 
ecosystem diversity as Option 1, but adds additional spatial attributes 
to the list of characteristics to be considered. Similarly, in addition 
to analyses specified in Option 1, Option 2 focuses evaluations on 
identification of unique or rare ecosystems and ecosystems at risk, 
specific threats to these systems, and measures required for their 
conservation or restoration.
    In Option 2, consideration and evaluation of species diversity is a 
complementary approach that extends ecosystem analyses to provide a 
more complete understanding of the effects of past, current, and 
anticipated future management direction on biological diversity, 
including the status of species and the ecosystems in which they occur. 
This second option requires that species should be selected for 
evaluation to develop a more complete understanding of the condition 
and trends of ecosystems, or where substantive concerns exist regarding 
the continued persistence of the particular species within the planning 
or assessment area. In such cases, evaluations under Option 2 should 
identify specific threats to these species and specific measures 
required for their conservation or restoration.
    In addition to the primary evaluations of biological diversity 
specified at ecosystem and species levels, Option 2 also requires three 
additional types of analyses of biological diversity at ecosystem and 
species levels. First, this option requires that biological diversity 
be evaluated across multiple geographic areas and time frames, 
especially over large areas and long time frames, to assess the 
dynamics of wide-ranging species and cumulative impacts of management 
actions on, among other factors, biological diversity. Second, Option 2 
requires that impacts of natural and human disturbance regimes on 
biological diversity be evaluated, including consequences of altered 
disturbance regimes for diversity. Third, this second option requires 
evaluations of the effects of landscape context on biological 
diversity, where landscape context refers to the ecological condition, 
structure, and land use history of the planning or assessment area and 
effects on biological diversity. Of special interest in these 
evaluations are differences in ecological structure and condition 
between NFS lands and surrounding or interspersed ownerships and the 
consequence of such differences for options and opportunities to manage 
NFS lands to achieve biological diversity objectives at ecosystem and 
species levels.
    In contrast to Option 1, Option 2 formulates a substantially 
different and more general biological diversity standard for judging 
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement. Specifically, this 
option requires that plan decisions foster the maintenance and 
restoration of biological diversity in the plan area at both ecosystem 
and species levels within the range of biological diversity 
characteristic of native ecosystems in the surrounding landscape within 
which the plan area is embedded. When reaching plan decisions regarding 
biological diversity, Option 2 requires the Responsible Official to 
consider disturbance regimes and landscape context and the effects of 
these factors on options and opportunities to manage NFS lands in order 
to achieve biological diversity objectives.
    The biological diversity standard embedded in Option 2 provides a 
degree of flexibility in managing NFS lands to achieve biological 
diversity objectives in a multiple use framework. However, this 
flexibility is clearly bounded. Some amount of change in the abundance, 
extent, and distribution of components of biological diversity at 
ecosystem and species levels is acceptable within the intent of 
fostering the maintenance and restoration of biological diversity in 
the plan area at ecosystem and species levels within the range of 
diversity characteristic of native ecosystems in the planning or 
assessment area. The loss of an ecosystem type or species from all or a 
significant portion of the plan area or a substantial reduction in 
abundance, extent, or distribution within all or a substantial portion 
of the plan area as a result of actions under the direct control of 
Forest Service land managers, however, is not consistent with, and thus 
outside the bounds of, the standard established for Option 2.
    If Option 2 is selected for inclusion in a final rule, the agency 
will need to develop detailed guidance in the Directive System and 
other appropriate outlets (e.g., white papers) regarding how to 
implement and apply the standard it contains for biological diversity. 
Determining whether this standard is being achieved and thus whether 
the NFMA diversity requirement is being met will require monitoring 
data that will allow an assessment as to whether amounts and components 
of diversity, at both ecosystem and species levels, are within the 
bounds or range of what would be expected of natural or native 
ecosystems located within the larger landscape in which the plan area 
is embedded. It will also require baseline information that allows 
clear determination of the range of ecosystem and species diversity 
that is reasonable to expect for native ecosystems in this larger 
landscape, relative to the characteristics of ecosystem and species 
diversity enumerated in Option 2. In this sense, this standard is 
conceptually similar to the ecosystem diversity standard referenced to 
the expected range of variability in the 2000 rule, but here it is 
applied at both ecosystem and species levels of ecological 
organization. As compared to the 2000 rule, this option explicitly 
recognizes the important effect that both landscape context and 
disturbance regimes can have on the ability to maintain or restore 
biological diversity within the range of diversity that is 
characteristic of native ecosystems in the surrounding landscape, 
especially when landscape structure and disturbance regimes have been 
significantly altered by past human activities.
    In reaching plan decisions related to biological diversity, Option 
2 requires the Responsible Official to consider the landscape context 
in which NFS lands exist and to use that information as a basis for 
identifying the special role and unique contributions of NFS lands for 
conserving and restoring biological diversity within the larger 
landscape in which the plan area exists.

Comparison of Option 1 and Option 2

    For both options, the consideration and evaluation of diversity is 
important not only in order to meet the NFMA diversity requirement, but 
also because diversity is viewed in each option as an important 
indicator or surrogate for other important characteristics of 
ecosystems. In addition to diversity (diversity of plant and animal 
communities and tree species in Option 1, biological diversity in 
Option 2), both options define the ecological component of 
sustainability as including the productivity, health, and function of 
ecosystems and the quality of soil, water, and air resources. In 
relation to these characteristics of ecosystems, maintaining key 
ecological processes that are responsible for sustaining the 
functioning and resilience of ecosystems is of fundamental concern. 
However, it is difficult to observe or measure

[[Page 72787]]

ecological processes directly in a planning or management environment. 
Thus, information on the presence, distribution, abundance, and spatial 
relations of the biological and physical components of ecosystems is 
commonly used to make inferences with reference to ecological processes 
of interest. In this context, the maintenance and restoration of 
diversity, as evaluated in both Option 1 and Option 2, is considered to 
be the primary indicator of the maintenance of key ecological processes 
of ecosystems.
    Both options maintain the agency's fundamental commitment to the 
conservation and restoration of ecosystems and species through 
implementation of the NFMA diversity requirement, but adopt different 
approaches to doing so. Option 1 establishes a clear viability standard 
as the primary basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity 
requirement, and as the basis against which to evaluate plan decisions. 
However, it also specifies a less detailed set of analyses, with much 
of the detail that was found in the 2000 rule to be moved to the 
Directive System as optional elements of the analysis. Option 2, in 
contrast, requires a more complete and robust set of analyses, but 
replaces the very specific viability standard of Option 1 with a more 
general biological diversity standard, at both ecosystem and species 
levels. This biological diversity standard, which is the basis in 
Option 2 for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement 
requires that plan decisions foster biological diversity in the plan 
area within the range of diversity that is characteristic of native 
ecosystems within the landscape in which the plan area is embedded. In 
this sense, Option 2 is more like the 2000 rule in terms of specifying 
more detailed and complete analyses of diversity, whereas Option 1 is 
more like the 2000 rule in terms of establishing species viability as a 
primary standard for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity 
requirement.
    Both options establish a hierarchical approach to analyses of 
ecosystem and species diversity, although Option 2 does so more 
explicitly in the rule language. Some of the comparable details of the 
relationship between analyses of ecosystem and species diversity in 
Option 1 have been moved to the Directive System. Both options focus 
first on analyses and achievement of ecosystem diversity, with 
attention to analyses of species diversity added to address the needs 
of species not met by attention to ecosystem diversity. Details of 
analyses of ecosystem diversity under the two options are similar. 
Option 2 adds several spatial attributes to the list of characteristics 
of ecosystem diversity to be considered, and it also gives greater 
explicit attention to analyses of rare and unique ecosystems and 
ecosystems at risk, but the differences between the two options in 
terms of ecosystem analyses are not large.
    The two options differ more substantially in their approach to 
analyses at the species level than at the ecosystem level. Option 1 
focuses analyses on species at risk, their habitat requirements, and 
threats placing them at risk. Option 2 places similar emphasis on 
requiring detailed analyses for particular species for which continued 
persistence within the planning or assessment area is a substantive 
concern. However, such analyses do not emphasize species of vertebrates 
and vascular plants as they do under Option 1. Option 2 specifies that 
species may be selected for analysis to address specific planning 
issues and to develop more complete understanding of the condition and 
trends of ecosystems. Unlike Option 1, it also includes community 
analyses to determine whether maintenance of ecosystem diversity is 
sufficient to maintain the existing pool of species within the planning 
or assessment area.
    The above comments notwithstanding, the primary focus of analyses 
under Option 2 is at landscape and ecosystem levels of ecological 
organization. The primary intent of Option 2 is to complete analyses 
that lead to provisions for maintaining the broad-scale structure and 
condition of the landscape in the plan area and the identity, spatial 
arrangement, and characteristics of ecosystems within that landscape. 
Most analyses under Option 2 will concentrate on these outcomes. Option 
2 does call for detailed analyses of individual species where 
significant concerns have been raised relative to continued persistence 
of particular species. Other types of species analyses specified in 
Option 2, however, are focused on ecosystems rather than on individual 
species. Community analyses seek to assure that provisions for 
maintaining ecosystem diversity will maintain the existing pool of 
species, and some individual species analyses seek to provide more 
detailed information regarding the condition and trends of ecosystems, 
similar to the focal species concept of the 2000 rule. Option 1 also 
requires a variety of ecosystem analyses, but it is less specific 
regarding a need for landscape scale analyses. Because Option 1 retains 
a clear species viability standard for vertebrates and vascular plants, 
it is likely that greater emphasis will be placed on analyses focused 
on species persistence or viability under this option than under Option 
2. While both diversity options are explicitly hierarchical and call 
for species analyses following and within the framework provided by 
ecosystem analyses, it is likely that Option 2 would place greater 
emphasis on ecosystem and landscape level analyses than Option 1, while 
Option 1 would place greater emphasis on species level analyses than 
Option 2. However, the exact balance between ecosystem and landscape 
focused analyses and species focused analyses under either option will 
vary depending on the nature and condition of the plan area and the 
identified planning issues.
    Option 2 specifies several additional types of ecological 
information and analyses that should be included in the approach to 
considering and evaluating biological diversity at ecosystem and 
species levels. Specifically, Option 2 requires that biological 
diversity be evaluated with respect to spatial and temporal scales and 
patterns, natural and human disturbance regimes, and landscape context. 
Similar details in Option 1 are optional and have been moved to the 
Directive System.
    Option 2 emphasizes more strongly than Option 1 the critical role 
that landscape context plays in shaping planning decisions and 
evaluations of biological diversity. Landscape context refers to the 
ecological condition and structure of ecosystems and landscapes on 
National Forest System lands as compared with other surrounding and 
interspersed lands, as well as the land use history of the planning or 
assessment area (National Forest System and surrounding lands). 
Landscape context can play a very significant role in limiting or 
facilitating a land manager's options and opportunities to manage NFS 
lands to achieve biological diversity objectives. Option 2 requires 
explicit consideration of landscape context in reaching plan decisions 
affecting biological diversity.
    Option 2 also focuses more explicit attention on addressing spatial 
scale and patterns, requires evaluations of biological diversity at 
multiple spatial scales as appropriate, and emphasizes the importance 
of analyses at large spatial scales, which may require coordination in 
planning across multiple National Forest System administrative units or 
Regions. In a similar manner, Option 2 routinely calls for analyses and 
evaluations of biological diversity at the spatial scale of the 
planning or assessment area, which is typically larger than the plan 
area and which includes other

[[Page 72788]]

surrounding and interspersed ownerships as appropriate. In contrast, 
Option 1 specifies analyses and evaluations of diversity at the spatial 
scale of the plan area.
    As noted above, Option 2 does not establish species viability as 
the primary basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity 
requirement. However, viability analyses may be appropriate under 
Option 2 for select species for which substantive concerns have been 
identified regarding continued persistence within the planning or 
assessment area; such analyses represent a legitimate analytical 
approach for species at risk of extinction globally or extirpation from 
the planning or assessment area. Where such concerns exist for 
particular species, these concerns must be addressed in analyses of 
biological diversity. Thus, Option 2 recognizes that viability analyses 
or similar analyses are potentially useful tools. Recognizing 
limitations of such analyses, however, Option 2 does not prescribe a 
specific approach for viability analyses. It permits a flexible 
approach shaped by issues identified in the planning process and by the 
present state of conservation biology theory and practice. It also does 
not limit the species for which viability analyses might be 
appropriate. Species other than vertebrates and vascular plants might 
be selected for analysis based on specific concerns raised in the 
planning process.
    One final attribute common to both diversity options is the 
fundamental importance of linking ecological information and analyses 
completed in the planning process to monitoring and adaptive 
management. Under the 1982 planning rule, planning has become a costly 
process that limits resources available for on-the-ground management 
and monitoring. Reviews of the 2000 rule concluded it would have 
resulted in even higher planning costs. Moreover, it has become 
increasingly clear that the agency's ability to forecast future 
ecological conditions is limited and characterized by considerable 
uncertainty. As a consequence, both diversity options envision 
transferring the investment in upfront ecological analyses as part of 
planning to on-the-ground management, rigorous and scientifically based 
monitoring of resource conditions with reference to progress in 
achieving desired conditions, careful evaluation of monitoring results, 
and adjustment of management direction in an adaptive management 
context. Thus, inherent in each option is the fundamental premise that 
planning must be placed more directly into the framework of plan 
implementation through adaptive management if it is to contribute to 
progress toward achievement of desired conditions and to sustaining the 
health and productivity of the land and its resources.
    The following questions help define and frame the issues that must 
be resolved in developing any workable approach to providing for 
biological diversity in the planning process. The agency encourages 
those who wish to comment on the diversity options in the proposed rule 
to consider these questions in formulating their comments:
    (1) What elements of biological diversity (e.g., ecosystems, 
communities, processes, species or species groups, focal species, etc.) 
should be considered and evaluated in the forest planning process? At 
what levels of ecological organization (landscape, ecosystem, species, 
gene, etc.) should these elements be evaluated?
    (2) Over what geographic areas and timeframes should diversity be 
evaluated?
    (3) What is an appropriate management standard against which 
achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement should be judged (e.g., 
population viability of select taxa or range of biological diversity of 
native ecosystems in the surrounding landscape)? What is an appropriate 
baseline or reference state or condition for this standard?
    (4) In reaching decisions regarding achievement of the NFMA 
diversity requirement, how should the planning process consider and 
evaluate differences in current conditions between NFS lands (the plan 
area) and the surrounding landscape?
    (5) How does a plan provide for diversity of plant and animal 
communities and tree species within the context of the multiple use 
objectives of the plan?
    (6) What is the capability of the Forest Service to implement 
Option 1, Option 2, or variations of these options in order to provide 
for biological diversity in a multiple use context, given limitations 
of available information, personnel and financial resources?
    Table II at the end of this document compares the key features 
contained in the ecological sustainability section of the 2000 rule 
with the two options for ecological sustainability in the proposed 
rule.
    Proposed section 219.14--The consideration of science in planning. 
This section of the proposed rule combines Sec.  219.22 through Sec.  
219.25 of the 2000 rule. The proposed rule retains the emphasis on the 
use of science in planning from the 2000 rule. However, the proposed 
rule differs from the 2000 rule by focusing on the use of science, 
rather than on scientists, in the planning process.
    Section 219.14 of the proposed rule requires the use of independent 
peer reviews, science advisory boards, or other appropriate means to 
evaluate the consistency and application of science used in the 
planning process. Procedures for these methods will be provided in the 
agency's Directive System. Section 219.14 provides for a science 
consistency review process to determine whether scientific information 
of appropriate content, rigor, and applicability has been considered, 
evaluated, and synthesized in the documents that underlie the land 
management plan in a manner that keeps it consistent with that science. 
In its basic form, a science consistency review is used to evaluate 
whether a plan has:
    [sbull] Considered and used the best available scientific 
information;
    [sbull] Evaluated and disclosed the uncertainties of that 
scientific information;
    [sbull] Evaluated and disclosed the consequences, substantial 
risks, and uncertainties from applying that scientific information to 
the proposed management alternatives; and
    [sbull] Interpreted and applied that information reasonably and 
accurately.
    The goal of the science consistency review is to produce a plan 
that meets these review criteria and to thus allow the Responsible 
Official to make a finding that a plan is consistent with available 
scientific information. The criteria apply to all aspects of the 
planning process, including the Responsible Official's delineation of 
the appropriate time frame and geographic extent of the analyses to be 
conducted, the analyses themselves, and the monitoring plan set up to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the on-the-ground management to meet the 
desired conditions in a plan. This science consistency review process 
encompasses relevant standards of the Data Quality Act concerning 
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information used in 
science-related decisionmaking (Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, Sec. 515)).
    Both the 2000 rule and the proposed rule require that the 
Responsible Official ensure that science is considered, correctly 
interpreted, and applied in planning, and that incomplete or 
unavailable information,

[[Page 72789]]

scientific uncertainty, and risk be evaluated and disclosed. When 
conducted independently, this evaluation and disclosure of uncertainty 
and risk provide a crosscheck to an appropriate interpretation and 
application of science and help to clarify the limitations of the 
information base, which informs plan decisions. The 2000 and proposed 
rules are substantively the same in their overall goals of achieving 
consistent use of scientific information. They differ in that the 2000 
rule provides many requirements on how this goal was to be met; the 
proposed rule does not. The agency will place needed technical detail 
that provides ``how-to'' direction in its Directive System. For 
example, although the 2000 rule provides flexibility for when 
independent scientific peer reviews should occur, the rule also 
provides technical detail about how scientific peer reviews should be 
conducted. This level of detail is not necessary or appropriate for a 
rule, but the agency will need to provide guidance to its employees on 
how various scientific reviews may be conducted.
    The 2000 rule at Sec.  219.23 requires specific involvement by the 
Research and Development (R&D) mission area of the Forest Service in 
broad-scale assessments. As stated in the explanation of Sec.  219.5, 
the proposed rule does not require that level of assessment, so it does 
not address who should be involved.
    The 2000 rule at Sec.  219.23(c) requires use of scientists to 
design and evaluate monitoring strategies and requires an independent, 
scientific peer review of plan monitoring on at least a biennial basis.
    The agency often needs scientific expertise in monitoring; however, 
there are certain types of monitoring where the need for direct 
scientific expertise is quite limited. For example, monitoring may 
include surveys of road condition to determine if drainage structures 
are working properly, or it may involve continuation of use of long-
standing inventories such as the Christmas bird count. Thus, monitoring 
does not always need scientific expertise applied to its design, 
evaluation, and review. The agency believes that the Responsible 
Official should be able to determine the appropriate level of 
involvement of scientists in designing and evaluating monitoring as 
well as in reviewing monitoring plans. The science review process will 
clarify if this involvement is at the appropriate level, given the 
issues involved.
    The proposed rule retains the requirement that the Responsible 
Official document that the new plan, plan amendment, or revision was 
developed using the best available science in a manner that keeps the 
plan consistent with that science. In contrast to the 2000 rule, this 
proposed rule is explicit that the determination of best available 
science must be made in the context of the issues being considered in a 
plan development, amendment or revision. These proposed changes will 
ensure that the Responsible Official uses the best available science 
pertinent to the resource uses and conditions being addressed in a 
plan. Again, the science review process will provide an important 
cross-check on the Responsible Official's appropriate use of science.
    There are terms related to science that are used in the 2000 rule 
and the proposed rule that require additional explanation and context. 
One term is ``uncertainty'' as used in the context of scientific 
uncertainty. If there are uncertainties associated with plan decisions 
that utilize scientific information, then those uncertainties must be 
described.
    Another term requiring additional explanation is ``risk'' as used 
in the context of scientific risk. If there are known risks associated 
with plan decisions, then those risks must be described. Risk arises 
from uncertainty in science, from assumptions made in analysis, from 
occurrences such as catastrophic events, and from trade-offs made in 
development of the plan. Trade-offs occur when a Responsible Official 
decides to accept negative impacts to one resource in order to achieve 
benefits for another resource.
    For example, a plan may have a desired condition for streams that 
includes components of shading, nutrient loading, reduction of 
sedimentation, and the recruitment of large organic debris to the 
stream. Science may show that a 100-foot buffer strip prohibiting 
harvest of trees is optimum to reduce sedimentation in streams. 
However, science may also show that the trees in that 100-foot buffer 
should be of a certain size to optimize shading, nutrient loading, and 
large organic debris to the stream. Allowing thinning within buffer 
strips may be desirable, depending upon specific stand characteristics, 
to achieve a stand structure that better meets the desired condition 
for streams. The Responsible Official may trade off the short term risk 
of higher sedimentation rates associated with thinning trees for 
achieving the desired outcomes of shading, nutrient loading, and 
recruitment of large organic debris in the long term. This risk should 
be evaluated and disclosed by the Responsible Official.
    Substantial risk also occurs when the aggregate sources of risk 
result in the likelihood that the desired resource or output condition 
cannot be achieved. For example, in the situation described previously, 
a large catastrophic fire may cause additional sedimentation, resulting 
in an inability to achieve the desired condition. This aggregate risk 
of allowing thinning and potential impacts from catastrophic fire must 
be evaluated and disclosed.
    Appropriate interpretation of science depends upon the 
applicability of scientific information to the relevant planning issue. 
For example, if one assumes that there is an issue regarding the growth 
of Douglas-fir at high elevations on a forest and there is a study on 
the growth of Douglas-fir at low elevation, that study may be available 
and relevant to the extent that it relates to the same species of tree, 
but it could not be correctly interpreted to say that the results of 
the low elevation study were indicative of high elevation growth. 
Appropriate interpretation also involves using all of the relevant 
information, not just selecting part of that information. When the 
results of two studies relevant to an issue suggest somewhat different 
outcomes, uncertainty associated with science arises and the risk 
associated with decisions based on that science may increase. In such 
cases, the uncertainty in that science needs to be evaluated and 
disclosed.
    The reviews of the 2000 rule indicate that the Forest Service is 
not likely to have the resources necessary to involve scientists to the 
degree required by the 2000 rule. Also, there is not necessarily a need 
for rigorous scientific reviews when levels of anticipated actions are 
expected to be low with fewer environmental consequences within the 
control of the agency. Changing the focus from the role of scientists 
to the appropriate use of science makes the proposed rule more 
practical and realistic.
    The 2000 rule at Sec.  219.23 requires the establishment of science 
advisory boards and provides that the Responsible Official may use a 
science advisory board. Again, the agency believes that there is no 
need in the planning rule to require one specific method to ensure that 
the best available science is used appropriately. Some may claim that 
the agency is reducing its emphasis on the use of good science because 
of the reduction of the many specific detailed requirements on how best 
to obtain and use the best available science in the proposed rule. The

[[Page 72790]]

agency strongly supports the use of science in planning, but believes 
that the detailed requirements of the 2000 rule added an unnecessary 
level of bureaucracy and cost to planning.
    Proposed section 219.15--Special designations. This section of the 
proposed rule is very similar to the provisions of Sec.  219.27 of the 
2000 rule. In cases where the Congress has made special designations, 
the planning objective is to provide management direction according to 
Congressional intent. In other cases, Responsible Officials have the 
authority to make special designations through the planning process. 
This section of the proposed rule would also retain the requirement 
that inventoried roadless areas be evaluated and considered for 
recommendation as potential wilderness areas during the plan revision 
process. This section would also retain the provision of the 2000 rule 
to allow such roadless and wilderness evaluations and recommendations 
at other times by a plan amendment. The two rules mainly differ 
primarily in the examples for the different categories of specially 
designated areas.
    Proposed section 219.16--Determination of lands available for 
timber harvest and suitable for timber production. This section of the 
proposed rule meets the statutory requirements of the NFMA and retains 
the intent of Sec.  219.28 of the 2000 rule with one exception. For 
lands where timber may be harvested for timber production purposes, the 
2000 rule at Sec.  219.28(b) requires that not only must these lands be 
available, capable of being harvested without damage to other 
resources, and capable of regeneration, but that the analysis must show 
that the costs of timber production are justified by ecological, 
social, or economic benefits. This requirement goes far beyond the 
statutory language of NFMA, and a concern has developed within the 
agency about how this justification would be developed and documented. 
Therefore, the proposed rule does not retain this portion of the 2000 
rule. Instead, the Responsible Official must consider physical, 
ecological, economic, social, and other pertinent factors when 
establishing timber production in a plan for any lands not identified 
in paragraph (a) of Sec.  219.16.
    This proposed section retains the same three categories as Sec.  
219.28 of the 2000 rule and retains the requirement that plans identify 
lands where timber may not be harvested, lands where timber may be 
harvested with an objective of timber production, and lands where 
timber may be harvested or cut for the purpose of meeting other 
multiple use resource management objectives. This section also provides 
some examples of these other multiple use objectives.
    Proposed section 219.16 addresses only the suitability of lands for 
timber production. Suitability for other purposes is addressed at Sec.  
219.4(a)(4) of the proposed rule.
    Proposed section 219.17--Limitation on timber harvest. This section 
of the proposed rule meets the statutory requirements of NFMA and 
retains the intent of Sec.  219.29 of the 2000 rule with two important 
changes. The 2000 rule requires the calculation of long-term sustained 
yield to include all lands where timber may be harvested. Under the 
proposed rule, the calculation of long-term sustained yield would apply 
only to those lands where timber production would be a management 
objective. The intent of estimating long-term sustained yield of 
potential timber harvest is to ensure that lands where timber 
production is a management objective can continue to produce sustained 
levels of harvest in the future. Therefore, it is not reasonable or 
necessary to calculate sustained yield from lands that are not 
allocated to that purpose. It is also very difficult to accurately 
estimate harvest levels when timber is harvested for such purposes as 
wildlife openings, because these types of harvests are not normally 
planned on a scheduled basis. Also, in cases such as development of 
fuel breaks or meadow restoration, it is not desirable to reforest 
harvested lands, and in these cases, calculation of long-term sustained 
yield is not logical. In other words, it is not necessary to calculate 
yield if reforestation and later growth and harvest are not desired.
    In addition, the 1982 rule established at Sec.  219.27--Management 
direction, allowable sale quantity (ASQ) as the quantity of timber that 
may be sold from the area of suitable land covered by the forest plan 
for a period specified by the plan. Neither the 2000 rule, nor this 
proposed rule provides for allowable sale quantity, and in contrast, 
uses long-term sustained yield as the upper limit of timber that may be 
harvested during the planning period. This change was made in the 2000 
rule and is continued in the proposed rule, primarily because the 
sustained yield requirement is adequate, and dropping the requirement 
that planning establish an ASQ reduces the risk of misperception that 
ASQ is a target to be achieved, rather than a limit to harvest.
    In the 2000 rule at Sec.  219.29(a), if a unit has less than 
200,000 acres of forested lands, two or more forests may be combined 
for the purpose of estimating the amount of timber that could be sold 
annually on a sustained-yield basis. This provision is covered in Sec.  
219.17(a) of this proposed rule. It is similar to the provision in the 
2000 rule, except that the 200,000-acre unit size is not cited because 
it is already included in NFMA. The proposed rule also clarifies that 
the limitation on timber harvest in Sec.  219.17(b) is to be applied on 
a decadal basis.
    Proposed section 219.18--Plan documentation, maintenance, and 
availability. This section of the proposed rule would retain the 
requirements of Sec.  219.31 of the 2000 rule for availability of 
planning records and for establishing a provision for administrative 
corrections to planning documents that would not be decisions under 
NEPA. Paragraph (a) of this proposed section also would supercede Sec.  
219.30 of the 2000 rule. Like that section, proposed paragraph (a) 
would provide a description of a plan, but would remove the detailed 
provisions of Sec.  219.30(a) through (e) of the 2000 rule which 
requires a summary of the plan, a display of public uses, plan 
decisions, and a display of actions and outcomes, including projected 
implementation schedules. The rationale for the simplification in the 
proposed rule is that much of the information required in the 2000 rule 
is unnecessarily prescriptive, is already located in the planning 
record which is readily available, or is already provided for by other 
means. The 2000 rule requires a summary of the plan and contains 
considerable detail about what this summary should contain. The agency 
believes that it is not necessary to provide the Responsible Official 
detailed instructions about how to summarize a plan. For example, the 
2000 rule requires, as part of the summary, a display of public uses. 
The proposed planning rule at Sec.  219.4 already addresses suitability 
of certain lands for certain uses. In another example, the 2000 rule 
requires a display of actions and outcomes. This requirement is already 
outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1905.15 which requires making 
available a quarterly schedule of proposed actions that may undergo 
environmental analysis and documentation, so there is no need to have a 
separate process to display anticipated projects.
    Proposed section 219.19--Objections to new plans, plan amendments 
or plan revisions. This section of the proposed rule differs from other 
sections of this rule in that it provides essential detail for the 
procedures necessary to initiate and carry out the objection process. 
The

[[Page 72791]]

Committee of Scientists, in their 1999 report, recommended that the 
Forest Service seek to harmonize its administrative appeal process with 
those of other Federal agencies. Accordingly, the 2000 rule adopted an 
objection process that provides for a pre-decisional objection 
opportunity instead of a post decision administrative appeal. The 
proposed rule modifies the objection process and models it more closely 
on the protest process used by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
(found at 43 CFR part 1600). The proposed rule adopts the BLM 
regulatory approach with some necessary modifications to recognize the 
different organizational structure of the Forest Service.
    The proposed rule differs from the 2000 rule in the following 
specific ways. The proposed rule does not require publication of 
objections received. Unlike the 2000 rule, the proposed rule includes 
specific requirements that the content of the public notice announcing 
a new plan, amendment, or revision be made for public review and 
subject to pre-decisional objection process. The 2000 rule does not 
limit who can file an objection. The proposed rule does not allow other 
Federal entities to file an objection, because there are other avenues 
for Federal agencies to work together to resolve concerns. This 
exclusion of Federal agencies is a long-standing procedure of Forest 
Service administrative appeal provisions at 36 CFR parts 215 and 251, 
Subpart C. The Forest Service is required to involve other Federal 
agencies, at Section 219.12. The proposed objection process, like that 
in the 2000 rule, is intended primarily other governments, such as 
federally recognized Indian Tribes, States, and counties, and for the 
public. Neither the appeal process in the 1982 rule nor the proposed 
objection process is suitable to resolve concerns between sister 
agencies in the executive branch. The Forest Service anticipates that 
other agencies will be able to resolve most planning concerns 
informally. Where it is anticipated that there may be concerns that are 
not easily resolved by planners and other agency personnel, various 
techniques such as establishments of Memorandums of Understanding or 
local working agreements may be used. Some agencies also have 
regulatory authority; for example, EPA has review authority pursuant to 
section 309 of the Clean Air Act. These techniques and authorities are 
successfully being used now and will continue to be used in the future.
    The two rules are similar in what must be in an objection, but the 
proposed rule, unlike the 2000 rule, specifically requires that an 
objector provide an explanation of why the objector believes that the 
environmental disclosure documents and proposed final documents are 
inconsistent with law, regulation, Executive order, or policy and any 
recommendations for change. The proposed rule drops the requirement of 
the 2000 rule that objectors describe their participation in the 
planning process and provide relevant documents submitted during the 
process. The 2000 rule allows objectors to request meetings with a 
Reviewing Officer. The proposed rule does not address meetings, because 
although nothing prevents an objector from requesting meetings, the 
agency does not want to set up expectations that meetings should be 
requested, or that those requests would be granted in every case. The 
agency has learned that meetings are helpful in many cases, but not in 
all, and the Forest Service would like to provide flexibility to the 
Reviewing Officer to work through the review process in an effective 
manner. The proposed rule also drops the provisions for inclusion of 
``interested persons'' in the meetings between the Forest Service and 
the objectors. This change occurred in the proposed rule because 
meetings are not specifically addressed and also so that the objection 
process would more closely mirror the BLM process, which does not 
provide for involvement of interested persons.
    Proposed section 219.20--Appeals of plan amendments in site-
specific project decisions. This proposed section makes clear that the 
administrative review process established in 36 CFR 215.7(a) applies to 
site-specific project decisions that include non-significant plan 
amendments, rather than subjecting such decisions to the objection 
process for new plans and revisions.
    Proposed section 219.21--Notice of plan decisions and effective 
dates. At paragraph (a), this section of the proposed rule provides 
direction on where public notification of decisions for new plans, 
amendments, and revisions is to occur. Proposed paragraph (b) provides 
that new plans, significant amendments, and plan revisions are 
effective 30 days after notice of the plan decisions has been 
published. This proposed paragraph also provides that decisions for 
nonsignificant amendments are effective immediately. This new section 
of the proposed rule fills a void in the 2000 rule.
    Proposed section 219.22--Transition. This section of the proposed 
rule is a modification of the transitional procedures of Sec.  219.35 
of the 2000 rule. The proposed rule does not explicitly require use of 
science for implementing and amending existing plans during the 
transition period, as provided in the 2000 rule at Sec.  219.35(a), 
because use of science is adequately addressed through an 
interdisciplinary team approach without specific procedural 
requirements. The proposed rule does not address lands not suited for 
timber production in the same manner as the 2000 rule at Sec.  
219.35(c). The agency believes that the 1982 rule requirement 
adequately responded to NFMA and has incorporated similar language from 
the 1982 rule into the proposed rule.
    The proposed rule would remove the provisions for site-specific 
decisions at Sec.  219.35(d) of the 2000 rule because these decisions 
are explicitly excluded from the proposed rule. The provisions in the 
2000 rule for removal of regional guides (Sec.  219.35(e)) and 
establishment of a revision schedule (Sec.  219.35(g)) are not included 
in this proposal because the regional guides have already been removed.
    The transition requirements for monitoring reports at Sec.  
219.35(f) of the 2000 rule are dropped from the proposed rule, because 
it is acceptable for the monitoring done under the 1982 rule to 
continue until the plans are completed under the proposed rule. The 
proposed transition includes the option to continue any amendments or 
revisions that were initiated under the 1982 rule or to adjust the 
process to follow this proposed regulation or parts thereof. The 
Department issued an interim final rule on May 20, 2002, to extend 
until a new revised planning rule is adopted, the date by which all 
plan amendments or revisions must be in compliance with the 2000 rule 
(67 FR 35431).
    Proposed section 219.23--Definitions. This section sets out the 
special terms used in this proposed rule and their definitions. Some 
definitions are the same as those in the 2000 rule. These are: 
``Diversity of plant and animal communities,'' ``ecological 
conditions,'' ``major vegetation types,'' ``native species,'' ``species 
viability,'' and ``successional stages.''
    Some terms found in Sec.  219.36 of the 2000 rule are not included 
because they are not used in the proposed rule or their meanings are 
self-evident. These are: ``Candidate species,'' ``conservation 
agreement,'' ``current climatic period,'' ``desired condition,'' 
``ecological sustainability,'' ``ecosystem composition,'' ``ecosystem 
processes,'' ``focal species,'' ``inherently rare species,'' 
``productive capacity of ecological systems,'' ``reference 
landscapes,'' ``undeveloped areas,'' and ``unroaded areas.''

[[Page 72792]]

    The terms included in this proposed rule that were not used in the 
2000 rule are: ``Biological diversity,'' ``culmination of mean annual 
increment,'' ``cultural/heritage resources,'' ``disturbance regime,'' 
``ecosystem diversity,'' ``energy resources,'' ``environmental 
disclosure document,'' ``federally recognized Indian Tribe,'' ``forest 
land,'' ``health,'' ``high likelihood of viability,'' ``mean annual 
increment,'' ``newspaper(s) of record,'' ``plan,'' ``planning area,'' 
``productivity,'' ``science consistency,'' ``species diversity,'' 
``species persistence,'' ``timber harvest,'' ``visitor opportunities,'' 
and ``wilderness.''
    The following explains changes to definitions that are used in this 
proposed rule and in the 2000 rule.
    1. The definition of ``adaptive management'' is slightly changed 
for clarity. Also, the 2000 rule discusses the role of adaptive 
management in sustainability, while the proposed rule discusses the 
role of adaptive management in terms of efficiency and responsiveness 
of management.
    2. The definition of ``assessment or analysis area'' is changed in 
the proposed rule by dropping analysis area and defining assessment 
areas. Assessment areas are larger than planning areas and typically 
involve multiple ownerships.
    3. The definition of ``desired non-native species'' is changed in 
the proposed rule to improve clarity and to make sure the definition is 
consistent with each of the diversity options and also with the new 
definition of species.
    4. The definition of ``ecosystem structure'' is changed in the 
proposed rule to refer to the arrangements and relationships among 
ecosystem components. This broadened the definition to encompass all of 
the aspects of structure that are of importance in both of the proposed 
rule's options for ecological sustainability.
    5. The definition in the 2000 rule for ``Forest Service NEPA 
procedures'' is shorter and is now identified as ``NEPA procedures'' in 
the proposed rule, but contains no substantive changes.
    6. The definition for ``inventoried roadless areas'' is 
substantially changed. The 2000 rule includes specific criteria for 
consideration of roadless areas identified as those in the November 
2000 Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, 
Volume 2. The proposed rule does address criteria for roadless area 
consideration and does not limit areas to be considered from the 
November 2000 Roadless Area Conservation maps. The proposed rule allows 
information from a variety of sources.
    7. The definition of ``native species'' is changed in the proposed 
rule to improve clarity and to make sure the definition is consistent 
with each of the diversity options and also with the new definition of 
species.
    8. The definition for ``plan area'' is not substantially changed, 
but is broadened in the proposed rule to make clear that a plan area 
may have more than one Responsible Official.
    9. The definition for ``range of natural variability'' is retained 
except that the term ``current climatic period'' is dropped because of 
considerable disagreement and confusion regarding the identification 
and use of this time period.
    10. The definition of ``Responsible Official'' is changed in the 
proposed rule to conform it with changes made to other sections of the 
rule and to reflect that the proposed rule addresses only forest 
planning and not project level decisions.
    11. The definition of ``species'' is changed in the proposed rule 
to make clear the distinction between the two diversity options in 
terms of which species may be considered in forest planning.
    12. The definition for ``species-at-risk'' in the proposed rule 
removes references to species that may, but are not required to, be on 
the list and removes references to ``focal species,'' a term not used 
in the proposed rule.
    13. The definition of ``timber production'' is changed in the 
proposed rule by dropping the reasons for harvest.

Conclusion

    This proposed planning rule has been prepared by the Forest Service 
at the direction of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture to 
address problems identified through a Departmental review of the 2000 
planning rule. That review focused on the agency's ability to implement 
the 2000 rule. The concerns identified in the review centered on 
confusing text contained the 2000 rule as well as on the extensive 
resources, primarily funding and skilled personnel, that would be 
required to adequately implement the various new planning concepts and 
requirements of the 2000 rule.
    The intended effects of the proposed rule are to simplify, clarify, 
and otherwise improve the planning process and to enable the Forest 
Service to more efficiently implement an improved planning process 
while retaining the key concepts of the 2000 rule for sustainability, 
collaboration, monitoring and evaluation, and the use of science. The 
proposed rule is substantially shorter than the 2000 rule as it removes 
highly procedural and technical instructions more appropriate for the 
agency's Directive System. Grounded in both law and practical 
experience, the proposed rule affirms forest health and sustainability 
as the overall goal for management of National Forest System lands.
    Written comments are requested and will be considered in adoption 
of a final rule. Reviewers should note that greater weight will be 
given to original, substantive comments than to form letters, check-off 
lists, pre-printed post cards, petitions, or similar duplicative 
materials.

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, this proposed rule has been designated as 
significant and, therefore is subject to Office of Management and 
Budget review under Executive Order 12866.
    Two studies investigating the costs of land and resource management 
planning are associated with the proposed rule: (1) A cost-benefit 
analysis addressing the comparative costs and benefits of the 1982, 
2000, and proposed rules, and (2) a comprehensive assessment of the 
estimated costs of the 2000 and proposed rules.
    For the cost-benefit analysis, the cost estimates were developed 
for planning activities under the 1982 rule with the assistance of 
Headquarters, Regional, and Forest level planning specialists, using 
cost data for plan revisions recently completed based on planning as 
currently practiced under the 1982 rule. These costs were included in a 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations entitled, 
``Forest Service Land and Resource Management Planning: The Status of

[[Page 72793]]

Activities,'' dated January 31, 2002. The costs contained in this 
report, however, only included planning costs at the forest or 
grassland level. They did not include the costs incurred at other 
organizational levels. The cost-benefit analysis relied on results from 
the costing study to approximate the likely costs of regional office, 
contracts, and science support to forests or grasslands under the 1982 
regulation. An empirical estimate of the per plan cost of resolving 
appeals under the 1982 regulation was also made.
    The results of the 2002 NFMA Costing study were used to estimate 
the costs associated with planning activities under the 2000 regulation 
and this proposed 2002 rule. The costing study used a business modeling 
process and is the most comprehensive study on Forest Service planning 
costs ever conducted. It identifies and directly compares major cost 
centers for both the 2000 regulation and this proposed 2002 rule and 
includes field validation of the estimates by agency planners and 
interdisciplinary specialists who participate in planning.
    The cost-benefit analysis prepared on this proposal focuses on key 
activities in land and resource management planning for which costs can 
be estimated under the 1982 rule, the existing 2000 rule, and the 
proposed rule. The key activities include regional guides, 
collaboration, science support, effects analysis for the 2000 and 
proposed rule, and ``revise plan'' for the 1982 rule, evaluation of 
sustainability and diversity, and the resolution of disputes over plan 
decisions. The cost-benefit analysis compares the costs and benefits 
for these activities with practices under the 1982 planning rule. This 
proposed rule would reduce costs by eliminating regional guides, 
shortening the length of the planning process, and providing the 
Responsible Official with more discretion to decide how to conduct the 
planning process.
    Based on costs that can be quantified, this proposed rule is 
estimated to save an average $1.1 million annually compared to the 
expected costs under the 1982 rule. Cost savings under the proposed 
rule are estimated to be about $27.7 million per year compared to the 
2000 rule. The discounted value of the cost savings over the 15-year 
planning horizon is estimated to be $8.6 million for the proposed rule 
when compared to the 1982 regulation and approximately $240 million 
when compared to the 2000 regulation.
    As noted in the cost-benefit analysis for the proposed rule, the 
NFMA costing study assumed traditional application of plan analysis. It 
also did not take into consideration possible savings if a plan 
revision analysis was categorically excluded or documented in an 
Environmental Assessment, rather than an Environmental Impact 
Statement. Both these areas of potential savings could be substantial. 
In addition to the analysis of the costs and benefits of this proposed 
rule, this rule has also 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 action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act. 
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this 
rule. 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 provide opportunities for small businesses to become 
involved in national forest, grassland, and prairie plan decisions. 
Moreover, by streamlining the planning process, small businesses should 
see more timely decisions that affect outputs of products and services. 
The recognition of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and how it 
affects the social and economic components of sustainability should 
provide for better balancing of conflicting impacts and issues.

Environmental Impacts

    An environmental assessment was prepared for the 2000 rule. This 
assessment was not required by law, regulation, or agency policy; 
however, the agency elected to prepare the extra documentation at that 
time to ensure that no procedural defects might occur. In the case of 
this proposed rule, the agency proposes to categorically exclude this 
action, because it is clearly within an established category, there are 
no extraordinary circumstances related to the action, and this approach 
will further the agency's efforts to streamline process. The agency 
invites public comments on environmental effects of the proposed rule.
    This proposed rule would establish the administrative procedures 
and requirements to guide developing, amending, and revising National 
Forest System land and resource management plans. As such, the proposed 
rule has no direct and immediate effects regarding the occupancy and 
actual use of National Forest System land. Rather, the environmental 
effects of this proposed rule will not be known until specific plans 
are created, amended, or revised under the rule. Section 31.1b of 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43168; September 18, 1992) 
excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact 
statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide 
administrative procedures, program processes, or instruction.'' The 
action of ``establishing procedures for amending or revising Forest 
Land and Resource Management Plans' is specifically listed as one of 
the examples of this category. There are no extraordinary circumstances 
related to this action. Although an environmental assessment will not 
be prepared, the agency has prepared a cost-benefit analysis and a 
Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA), because as discussed previously in 
this section, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that 
this rule is otherwise significant. Both the cost-benefit analysis and 
the CRIA may be found on the World Wide Web/Internet at the address 
listed earlier in this document.

Energy Effects

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of 
May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this 
rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the 
Executive order. Procedural in nature, this proposed rule would guide 
the development, amendment, and revision of National Forest System land 
and resource management plans. These plans are programmatic documents 
that set the standards and other parameters for making future project-
level resource management decisions. As such, these plans will address 
access requirements associated with energy exploration and development 
within the framework of multiple use, sustained-yield management of the 
surface resources of the NFS lands. These plans may designate major 
rights-of-way corridors for utility transmission lines, pipelines, and 
water canals. The effects of these plans on energy supply, 
distribution, or use are, of necessity, considered on a case-by-case 
basis as plan amendments or revisions are proposed and adopted. 
Consistent with the Executive order, direction to incorporate 
consideration of energy supply, distribution, and use in the planning 
process will be included in the agency's administrative directives for 
implementing the proposed rule, notice of which will be given at the 
time of adoption of a final rule.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501

[[Page 72794]]

et seq.), the information collection or reporting requirements included 
in Sec.  219.19 of the proposed rule for the objection process were 
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned 
control number 0596-0158, expiring on October 31, 2003, under the 2000 
rule.
    This proposed rule retains the objection process established in the 
2000 rule but simplifies it. The proposed rule removes the requirements 
for interested parties, publication of objections, and formal requests 
for meetings (36 CFR 219.32). These changes would result in a minor 
reduction in the burden hours from the collection of information that 
would be insignificant to the total 12,100 annual hours requested by 
the agency.

Federalism

    The agency has considered this proposed rule under the requirements 
of Executive Order 12875, Government Partnerships, and Executive Order 
13132, Federalism. The agency has made a preliminary assessment that 
the rule conforms with the Federalism principles set out in these 
Executive orders; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; 
and would 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.
    In addition, the agency has reviewed the consultation requirements 
under Executive Order 13132, which calls for enhanced consultation with 
State and local governmental officials and emphasizes increased 
sensitivity to their concerns. Section 219.8 of this proposed rule 
shows sensitivity to federalism concerns by requiring the Responsible 
Official to provide opportunities for involvement of State and local 
governments in the planning process. In the spirit of these 
requirements, the agency has consulted with the Western Governors' 
Association and the National Association of Counties to obtain their 
views on a preliminary draft of this proposed rule. The Western 
Governors' Association supported the general approach to create a rule 
that works and placed importance on the quality of collaboration for 
implementation. Agency representatives also contacted the International 
City and County Managers Association, National Conference of State 
Legislators, The Council of State Governments, Natural Resources 
Committee of the National Governors Association, U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, and the National League of Cities to share information about 
the proposed planning rule prior to the publication of this proposed 
rule. Based on comments received on this proposed rule in response to 
this notice, the agency will determine if any additional consultation 
will be needed with State and local governments prior to adopting a 
final rule.

Consultation With Tribal Governments

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal governments, the agency has assessed the impact of 
this action on Indian Tribal governments and has determined that the 
proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect communities of 
Indian Tribal governments. The proposed rule deals with the 
administrative procedures to guide the development, amendment, and 
revision of National Forest System land and resource management plans 
and, as such, has no direct effect regarding the occupancy and actual 
use of National Forest System land. At Sec.  219.8, the proposed rule 
requires consultation with federally recognized Tribes when planning.
    The agency has also determined that this action does not impose 
substantial direct compliance cost on Indian Tribal governments. This 
proposed rule does not mandate Tribal participation in National Forest 
System planning. Rather, the rules impose an obligation on Forest 
Service officials to consult early with Tribal governments and to work 
cooperatively with them where planning issues affect Tribal interests.

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 administrative process for amending and revising land and 
resource management plans for National Forests, Grasslands, and 
Prairies.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. The agency has not identified any State or local 
laws or regulations that are in conflict with this regulation or that 
would impede full implementation of this rule. Nevertheless, in the 
event that such a conflict were to be identified, the proposed rule, if 
implemented, would preempt the State or local laws or regulations found 
to be in conflict. However, in that case, (1) no retroactive effect 
would be given to this proposed rule; and (2) the Department would not 
require the parties to use administrative proceedings before parties 
may file suit in court challenging its provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 
1995, the agency has assessed the effects of this proposed 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 sector. 
Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 219

    Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact 
statements, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Forest and forest 
products, National forests, Natural resources, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Science and technology.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is 
proposed to revise Part 219 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations to read as follows:

PART 219--PLANNING

Subpart A--National Forest System Planning for Land and Resource 
Management Plans
Sec.
219.1 Purpose and applicability.
219.2 Nature and scope of a land and resource management plan.
219.3 Levels of planning and planning authority.
219.4 Decisions embodied in plans.
219.5 Indicators of need to amend or revise a plan.
219.6 Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act.
219.7 Amending a plan.
219.8 Revising a plan.
219.9 Developing a new plan.
219.10 Application of plan direction.
219.11 Monitoring and evaluation.
219.12 Collaboration, cooperation, and consultation.
219.13 Sustainability.
219.14 The consideration of science in planning.
219.15 Special designations.
219.16 Determination of lands available for timber harvest and 
suitable for timber production.
219.17 Limitation on timber harvest.
219.18 Plan documentation, maintenance, and availability.
219.19 Objections to amendments or revisions of plans.
219.20 Appeals of plan amendments in site-specific project 
decisions.
219.21 Notice of plan decisions and effective dates.

[[Page 72795]]

219.22 Transition.
219.23 Definitions.
Subpart B--[Reserved]

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


Sec.  219.1  Purpose and applicability.

    (a) The rules of this subpart set forth a process for establishing, 
amending, and revising land and resource management plans for the 
National Forest System as required by the Forest and Rangeland 
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National 
Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). This subpart is based 
on the principle that planning occurs over multiple time frames and 
various geographic areas and is a continuous process that reveals when 
and where plan decisions need to be adjusted. These rules also identify 
the nature and scope of decisions made in a land and resource 
management plan and define the required elements of a plan. The 
provisions of this regulation are applicable to all units of the 
National Forest System as defined by 16 U.S.C. 1609 or subsequent 
statute.
    (b) Consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, 
the overall goal of managing the National Forest System is to sustain 
in perpetuity the productivity of the land and the multiple use of its 
renewable resources. Management of renewable resources is to be in the 
combination that will best meet the needs of the American people. 
Achieving sustainability is essential to providing multiple uses over 
time. Thus, National Forest System management focuses on maintaining or 
restoring the health of the land in order to provide a sustainable flow 
of uses, values, benefits, products, services, and visitor 
opportunities.


Sec.  219.2  Nature and scope of a land and resource management plan.

    (a) Fundamental purpose of a plan. A land and resource management 
plan (also referred to as a plan) establishes the desired conditions to 
be achieved through the management of the lands and various renewable 
resources of the National Forest System. A plan guides the Forest 
Service in fulfilling its responsibilities for stewardship of the 
National Forest System to best meet the needs of the American people.
    (b) Requirements. The Responsible Official is responsible for 
ensuring that the planning process and the plan meet the following 
requirements:
    (1) Planning must address issues at the appropriate time frames and 
geographic scales using the best available science and other knowledge 
and information. Analysis shall be proportional to the decisions to be 
made in a plan and shall focus broadly on the environmental baseline 
and trends in order to provide information to help develop a plan.
    (2) Planning must be conducted using an interdisciplinary, 
collaborative approach.
    (3) Consultation with States and local governments, Federal 
agencies, and federally recognized Indian Tribes must occur early and 
often in the development of an initial plan or subsequent amendment or 
revision.
    (4) The planning process must provide opportunities for the 
interested public, both organizations and individuals, to participate 
in planning to guide the stewardship of their national forests, 
grasslands, and prairies, and other units of the National Forest 
System.
    (5) A plan must provide for uses, benefits, products, services, and 
visitor opportunities that are appropriate to and consistent with the 
multiple use objectives outlined in the plan.
    (6) A plan must address the social, economic, and ecological 
components of sustainability for the land and resources within the plan 
area, consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and 
with the NFMA diversity requirement that plans provide for the 
diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species consistent 
with the multiple-use objectives of the plan.
    (7) A plan must identify the monitoring and evaluation necessary to 
assess the achievement of desired conditions and to indicate whether 
direction in the plan should be modified, as necessary, to address new 
issues, new information, and changed conditions.
    (8) The management direction in a plan should reflect the limits 
and likely variability of agency budgets.
    (c) Integration of authorities. Plans integrate the requirements of 
statutes, Executive orders, regulations, and agency policy that apply 
to the lands and resources of the National Forest System.
    (1) Statutory authorities related to planning and management of the 
National Forest System include the Organic Administration Act of 1897, 
as amended (16 U.S.C. 473 et seq.); the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield 
Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.); the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the Forest and Rangeland 
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National 
Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.); Wilderness Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); Clean 
Water Act of 1948, as amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act Amendments of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987 and other laws 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 1323 et seq.); and other relevant laws.
    (2) Agency-wide management policy and procedure relevant to 
planning and resource management are issued through the Forest Service 
Directive System (36 CFR 200.4).
    (d) Force and effect of plans. A land and resource management plan 
prepared under this subpart is strategic and programmatic in nature. A 
plan provides guidance and direction applicable to future site-specific 
projects and activities. Plans also may restrict some activities or 
establish other requirements applicable to particular areas. The 
direction in a plan does not normally create, authorize, or execute any 
ground-disturbing activity. A plan, in and of itself, does not grant, 
withhold, or modify any contract, permit, or other legal instrument, 
does not subject anyone to civil or criminal liability, and creates no 
legal rights.


Sec.  219.3  Levels of planning and planning authority.

    (a) The Chief of the Forest Service is responsible for national 
planning, such as preparation of the Forest Service Strategic Plan 
required under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (5 
U.S.C. 306; 31 U.S.C. 1115-1119; 31 U.S.C. 9703-9704) which is 
integrated with the requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The Strategic Plan 
establishes goals, outcomes, performance measures, and strategies that 
apply to management of the National Forest System as well as to the 
other Forest Service mission areas.
    (b) The National Forest, Grassland, or Prairie Supervisor is the 
Responsible Official for development and adoption of a new land and 
resource management plan for lands under the responsibility of the 
Supervisor, as well as for amendment or revision of a plan, unless a 
Regional Forester, the Chief, or the Secretary chooses to act as the 
Responsible Official for a specific plan, amendment, or revision.
    (c) A Regional Forester, the Chief, or the Secretary may amend or 
revise multiple plans, where social, economic, or ecological issues or 
opportunities occur on more than one national forest,

[[Page 72796]]

grassland, prairie, or other comparable unit and a single, 
comprehensive planning effort is determined to be the most efficient 
and effective approach to addressing issues or opportunities. Where 
National Forest System lands are adjacent, two or more Responsible 
Officials may undertake joint planning that concludes with each 
official signing the decision document(s).
    (d) Management direction in plans for areas designated as 
experimental forests must be consistent with the research activity 
being conducted on these areas and concurred with by the associated 
Station Director.


Sec.  219.4  Decisions embodied in plans.

    (a) A plan constitutes the programmatic management direction for 
all or part of a plan area (Sec.  219.23) and embodies the following 
decisions:
    (1) Desired conditions. A plan must describe the desired conditions 
toward which management of the lands and resources of the plan area is 
to be directed. Identification of desired conditions is a primary focus 
of a plan.
    (2) Objectives. A plan must establish objectives intended to 
contribute to the achievement of desired conditions. Objectives, which 
are concise statements of measurable, time-specific outcomes, are 
pursued through the implementation of programs, projects, and other on-
the-ground activities within the plan area.
    (3) Standards. A plan must establish standards that state the 
permissions or limitations applicable to land uses and management 
actions within the plan area. Standards are measurable requirements 
that are explicitly identified in a plan as ``standards.'' Standards 
are established to achieve the desired conditions and objectives of a 
plan and to comply with applicable laws, regulations, Executive orders, 
and agency directives. In establishment of standards, the Responsible 
Official must identify, consider, and address special conditions or 
situations involving hazards to the various resources. Standards 
generally should be adaptable and assess performance measures. A plan 
shall include but not be limited to the following standards:
    (i) Limitations on even-aged timber harvest methods including 
provisions to require harvest in a manner consistent with the 
protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and 
aesthetic resources and the regeneration of the timber resource, 
including requirements that even-aged harvest may occur only upon a 
finding that it is appropriate and that clearcutting may occur only 
upon a finding that it is the optimum method to meet the objectives and 
requirements of the plan;
    (ii) Maximum size openings created by timber harvest according to 
geographic areas, forest types, or other suitable classifications for 
areas to be cut in one regeneration harvest operation. This limit may 
be less than, but will not exceed, 60 acres for the Douglas-fir forest 
type of California, Oregon, and Washington; 80 acres for the southern 
yellow pine types of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas; 100 
acres for the hemlock-sitka spruce forest type of coastal Alaska; and 
40 acres for all other forest types. These size opening limits shall 
include provisions to exceed the established limits after appropriate 
public notice and review by the officer one level above the Responsible 
Official provided that such limits shall not apply to the size of areas 
harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, 
insect and disease attack, or windstorm;
    (iii) Requirements for achieving aesthetic objectives, including 
requirements that cut blocks, patches, or strips that are shaped and 
blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain;
    (iv) Requirements for maintaining or restoring ecological 
conditions that support desired characteristics of ecosystem and 
species diversity in order to, within the multiple use objectives of 
the plan, provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities 
based on the suitability and capability of the plan area and, where 
appropriate and to the degree practicable, provide for steps to 
preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the 
plan area;
    (v) Requirements for maintaining or restoring soil and water 
resources, including protection for streams, streambanks, shorelines, 
lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in 
water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of 
sediment, when management activities are likely to seriously and 
adversely affect water conditions on fish habitat;
    (vi) Requirements that timber harvest projects be considered 
through interdisciplinary review, assessing the potential 
environmental, biological, aesthetic, engineering, and economic impacts 
on the sale area, as well as the consistency of the sale with the 
multiple use of the general area, and that the harvesting system used 
is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar 
return or the greatest unit output of timber; and
    (vii) Requirements for assuring that even-aged stands of trees 
scheduled for harvest during the planning period have generally reached 
culmination of mean annual increment of growth. This requirement 
applies only to regeneration harvest of even-aged stands on lands 
identified as suitable for timber production and where timber 
production is a management objective.
    (A) The culmination of mean annual increment of growth requirement 
does not apply to cutting for experimental or research purposes; to 
non-regeneration harvests, such as thinning or other stand improvement 
measures; to management of uneven-aged stands or to stands under 
uneven-aged silvicultural systems; and to salvage or sanitation 
harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire, 
windthrow, or other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger from 
insect or disease attack.
    (B) A plan must identify categories of activities that are 
exceptions to the culmination of mean annual increment if necessary to 
meet resource objectives, such as wildlife habitat enhancement, visual 
enhancement, or riparian area improvement. Exceptions to the 
culmination of mean annual increment requirement and the reasons for 
these exceptions must be specifically disclosed during the public 
participation process for a plan.
    (4) Identification of suitable and unsuitable land uses. National 
Forest System lands are generally suitable for a variety of uses such 
as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvest (Sec.  
219.16), energy resource development, mining activities, watershed 
restoration, cultural and heritage interpretation, and other uses. 
Rather than determine the suitability of all lands for all uses, a plan 
should assume that all lands are potentially suitable for a variety of 
uses except when specific areas are identified and determined not to be 
suited for one or more uses. A plan must identify National Forest 
System lands as not suited for a certain use under any of the following 
circumstances:
    (i) If law, regulation, or Executive order prohibits that use;
    (ii) If agency resource management directives prohibit the use;
    (iii) If the use would result in substantial and permanent 
impairment of the productivity of the land or renewable resources; or
    (iv) If the use is incompatible with the desired conditions 
established for all or part of the plan area.
    (5) Special designations and other management areas. Consistent 
with Sec.  219.15 of this subpart, a plan may

[[Page 72797]]

designate specific areas for special management or provide direction 
for managing previously established special areas such as wilderness, 
national trails, national monuments, and national recreation areas. 
Additionally, a plan may establish and provide direction for other 
types of management areas.
    (6) Monitoring and evaluation requirements. Each plan must 
establish monitoring and evaluation requirements, including the 
establishment of performance measures, in accordance with Sec.  219.11. 
The primary focus of monitoring is to measure the maintenance of, or 
progress toward, desired conditions through establishment and 
assessment of performance measures. The information and conclusions 
that emerge from monitoring and evaluation provide an important basis 
for determining whether there is a need to change a plan. Essential 
components of the monitoring and evaluation process are data 
collection, analysis, data storage, interpretation of the analyses, and 
reporting of the results.
    (b) Assessments, surveys, analyses, monitoring results, and other 
studies are not plan decisions nor do they constitute agency proposed 
or final actions.


Sec.  219.5  Indicators of need to amend or revise a plan.

    The Responsible Official may propose to amend or revise a plan 
based on the consideration of issues or opportunities.
    (a) Origination of issues or opportunities. Issues or opportunities 
may originate from a variety of sources. These may include inventories, 
user surveys, assessments, analyses, monitoring and evaluation results, 
and collaborative activities and discussions with those interested in 
National Forest System management, as well as proposals made by 
individuals, organizations, Tribes, or government entities. Disturbance 
events such as floods, wind, fire, and insect infestation may create 
conditions that require modification of plan direction. New regulations 
or laws also may necessitate amendment or revision of a plan. Each 
Responsible Official must obtain appropriate inventory data on the 
various renewable resources and soil and water, including pertinent 
maps, graphic material, and explanatory aids.
    (b) Consideration of issues and opportunities. (1) When an issue or 
opportunity arises, the Responsible Official has the discretion to 
determine whether and to what extent the matter is appropriate and 
timely for consideration in a proposed amendment or revision. Factors 
that the Responsible Official may weigh to determine whether 
consideration of an issue or opportunity is appropriate and timely 
include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (i) The scientific basis and merit of available information and 
analyses, including the results of monitoring and evaluation;
    (ii) The scope, complexity, intensity, and geographic scale of the 
issue or opportunity;
    (iii) Statutory requirements or valid existing rights; and
    (iv) Organizational and available resources, including current and 
likely Forest Service budgets.
    (2) If the Responsible Official determines that an issue or 
opportunity should be addressed in an amendment or revision, the 
Responsible Official should review the best available science and other 
relevant knowledge and information as part of the planning process. 
Whenever possible, the Responsible Official should use existing 
information to address issues or opportunities. However, new 
information or a supplemental or new inventory, assessment, or analysis 
may be developed as appropriate to the scope, timeframe, and geographic 
extent of an issue or opportunity, provided that additional information 
can be obtained at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. A decision 
whether or not to consider an issue or opportunity is not subject to 
objection under this subpart.


Sec.  219.6  Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act.

    (a) The Responsible Official must comply with NEPA procedures 
(Sec.  219.23) and incorporate them as necessary and appropriate 
throughout the planning process. The Responsible Official must 
determine how NEPA applies in the development of a new plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision. The Responsible Official shall ensure that 
the level of NEPA analysis for planning is proportional to the 
decisions being made.
    (b) If the Responsible Official determines that a new plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision, or a component thereof, would be an action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, or 
authorizes an action that commits funding or resources that could have 
a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, then an 
environmental impact statement would be required. A new plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision may be categorically excluded from 
documentation in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact 
Statement as provided in agency NEPA procedures.


Sec.  219.7  Amending a plan.

    (a) A plan may be amended to add, modify, or rescind one or more of 
the plan decisions described in Sec.  219.4. As provided for in Sec.  
219.18, administrative corrections and additions are not amendments.
    (b) An amendment arises from consideration of issues or 
opportunities and a determination of a need to change a plan as 
described in Sec.  219.5.
    (c) During the amendment process, the Responsible Official must 
provide opportunities for consultation and collaboration as required by 
Sec.  219.12 of this subpart.
    (d) A plan amendment for which an EIS is prepared is a significant 
amendment. The Responsible Official must publish a Notice of Intent to 
prepare an EIS in the Federal Register and provide a 90-day comment 
period on a draft proposed significant amendment and accompanying Draft 
EIS.
    (e) The Responsible Official must give prior notice of the 
opportunity to object to any proposed amendment and any associated 
final environmental disclosure documents that are subject to the 
objection process established at Sec.  219.19 of this subpart.
    (f) An interim amendment may be used to establish plan direction of 
limited duration as follows:
    (1) Only a Regional Forester or a higher level official may be the 
Responsible Official for an interim amendment;
    (2) An interim amendment must specify the duration of the 
amendment, which is not to exceed four years. An amendment may be 
renewed in accordance with procedures in Sec.  219.7(f)(3);
    (3) The Responsible Official shall notify the public in 
newspaper(s) of record, and allow public comment, before an interim 
amendment is renewed beyond the four year period; and
    (4) An interim amendment is not subject to the objection process of 
Sec.  219.19.


Sec.  219.8  Revising a plan.

    (a) Initiating revision. Unless otherwise provided by law, a plan 
must be revised at least every 15 years, or a plan must be revised 
sooner if a Responsible Official determines that conditions within the 
plan area have significantly changed.
    (1) To initiate the plan revision process, the Responsible Official 
must prepare the following:

[[Page 72798]]

    (i) A description of the current management situation for the plan 
area and an analysis of existing plan direction;
    (ii) A summary of issues or opportunities that the Responsible 
Official determines to be appropriate and timely for consideration 
(Sec.  219.5); and
    (iii) A summary of any current and new information relevant to the 
issues or opportunities determined appropriate for consideration.
    (2) Using the description prepared under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of 
this section and the summaries prepared under paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and 
(iii) of this section, the Responsible Official must consult with 
Federally recognized Indian Tribes, State and local governments, and 
other Federal agencies in conformance with Sec.  219.12 of this 
subpart.
    (b) Public notice to revise a plan. After completion of the 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the Responsible Official 
must give notice of the initiation of a plan revision. If an EIS is to 
be prepared, then a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS must be 
published in the Federal Register. If an EIS is not to be prepared, a 
notice of initiation of the revision must be published in the 
newspaper(s) of record. The notice must inform the public of the 
availability of the documentation listed in paragraph (a) of this 
section; include a summary of the identified issues and opportunities; 
invite the public to comment on these issues and opportunities and to 
identify any other issues and opportunities that they feel should be 
addressed during revision; include an estimated schedule for the 
revision process; and specify the time available and process for the 
public to submit comments.
    (c) Notice of availability of draft proposed revision. The 
Responsible Official must provide a 90-day comment period on a draft 
proposed revised plan and any accompanying environmental disclosure 
documents. A notice of the availability of the proposed draft revision 
must be provided as follows:
    (1) For any revision for which the Chief or the Secretary is the 
Responsible Official or for which an environmental impact statement is 
prepared, notice of the proposed draft revision and availability of the 
DEIS must be published in the Federal Register.
    (2) For all other revisions, notice of the availability of the 
proposed draft revision, specifics regarding the time available, and 
process for comments must be published in newspaper(s) of record (Sec.  
219.23).
    (d) Notice of objection process. Before the Responsible Official 
approves a revised plan, the Responsible Official must give notice that 
the proposed final revised plan and any final environmental disclosure 
documents are subject to the objection process at Sec.  219.19 of this 
subpart.


Sec.  219.9  Developing a new plan.

    (a) If Congress establishes a new National Forest, Grassland, 
Prairie, or other comparable unit of the National Forest System, the 
Regional Forester must determine if the unit requires a separate plan 
or if an existing plan can be amended or revised to apply to the lands 
within the new unit.
    (b) If the Regional Forester determines that a separate plan is 
required for a new unit of the National Forest System, the Responsible 
Official for the new unit must develop and approve a plan that 
establishes the desired conditions, objectives, standards, any special 
management areas, and monitoring and evaluation requirements and that 
identifies any suitable or unsuitable land uses within the plan area as 
provided in Sec.  219.4 of this subpart. The Responsible Official shall 
initiate and conduct planning and conduct government-to-government 
consultation and public involvement as provided in Sec. Sec.  219.8, 
219.12, and all other applicable sections of this subpart.


Sec.  219.10  Application of plan direction.

    (a) Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision to 
existing authorizations and approved projects and to project decisions 
issued after the approval of the plan or amendment. Permits, contracts, 
and other instruments authorizing the use and occupancy of National 
Forest System lands must be consistent with the standards in the plan 
for that unit. New project decisions must disclose the relationship of 
the project to applicable plan desired conditions. When changes are 
proposed to a plan, the Responsible Official must take into 
consideration the possible effects of the proposed changes on occupancy 
and use currently authorized through permits, contracts, or other 
instruments. The decision document accompanying a new plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision must address the application of new plan 
direction to ongoing activities or uses authorized by existing permits, 
contracts, or other instruments. Any modifications of permits, 
contracts, or other instruments authorizing occupancy and use of the 
plan area necessary to make them consistent with the plan as developed, 
amended, or revised are subject to valid existing rights. Such 
modifications should be made as soon as practicable following 
development, amendment, or revision of the plan.
    (b) Application of plan direction during amendment or revision 
process. Direction in a plan remains in effect until that direction is 
changed through amendment or revision.
    (c) Application of plan direction to approved projects in light of 
new information. Nothing in this subpart requires deferral, suspension, 
or modification of approved projects while new information is being 
assessed. Approved projects are those for which a Responsible Official 
has signed a decision document.
    (d) Amendments made through site-specific project decisions. If a 
proposed site-specific project or action would not be consistent with 
the standards of the plan (Sec.  219.4), the Responsible Official may, 
subject to valid existing rights, take one of the following steps:
    (1) Modify the proposed site-specific project or action to make it 
consistent with the plan;
    (2) Reject the proposal; or
    (3) As part of the project decision, amend the plan to modify one 
or more standards or to exempt application of one or more standards to 
the project or action to allow for its implementation.
    (e) Testing and research. Management of National Forest System 
lands and resources should provide the land manager a continuous flow 
of new information and knowledge. Testing and research projects are 
integral to gaining this information and knowledge. Projects proposed 
to test assumptions, management methodologies, or other aspects of 
resource management must comply with all applicable laws and 
regulations and must be consistent with the plan standards. Where a 
research or testing project would not be consistent with plan 
standards, paragraph (d) of this section applies.


Sec.  219.11  Monitoring and evaluation.

    Monitoring and evaluation should assess, over appropriate 
timeframes and geographic areas and at a reasonable cost, the effects 
of activities on achievement of desired conditions and objectives of a 
plan, the results of adaptive management, and, as provided in Sec.  
219.4, contribute to determining whether a plan needs to be changed or 
whether plan implementation needs to be adjusted.
    (a) Monitoring requirements. The Responsible Official must ensure 
the timely collection of information needed to meet the monitoring 
requirements of a plan as well as the interpretation and evaluation of 
monitoring information.

[[Page 72799]]

Monitoring information should include, but not be limited to, data and 
other information pertinent to characteristics of ecosystem and species 
diversity, as determined relevant by the Responsible Official.
    (1) Changes in monitoring methods. Monitoring methods may be 
changed in response to new information or changed circumstances without 
plan amendment or revision.
    (2) Coordination of monitoring. To the extent practicable, 
monitoring may be conducted jointly with other Federal agencies, 
federally recognized Indian Tribes, State and local governments, 
scientific and academic communities, and others.
    (b) Evaluation requirements. Evaluation includes, but is not 
limited to, such activities as:
    (1) Identifying trends and conditions;
    (2) Validating information and analyses used to adopt, amend, or 
revise a plan;
    (3) Assessing, through the use of identified performance measures 
and other methods, the effects of programs, projects, and activities in 
achieving the desired conditions and objectives for the plan; and
    (4) Determining the effectiveness of plan standards.
    (c) Data sources. Data also may come from a variety of sources, 
including other Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, State and local 
governments, scientific and academic institutions, and others. 
Monitoring data also may come from project analysis, surveys, 
inventories, administrative studies, and research.
    (d) Records and reporting. Findings and conclusions from monitoring 
and evaluation must be disclosed annually and made available to the 
public. The disclosure should summarize the monitoring results for the 
year; present significant findings and conclusions, if any; discuss 
implications for current and future management of the administrative 
unit; and describe actions taken or planned in response to findings 
made in previous reports. While the monitoring and evaluation 
disclosure shall be produced annually, specific monitoring items and 
evaluation of specific resources or conditions may occur at other 
intervals.


Sec.  219.12  Collaboration, cooperation, and consultation.

    The Responsible Official must use an interdisciplinary, 
collaborative approach to planning by engaging the skills and interests 
of appropriate combinations of Forest Service staff, consultants, 
contractors, other Federal agencies, federally recognized Indian 
Tribes, State or local governments, or other interested or affected 
communities, groups, or persons, consistent with applicable laws.
    (a) Providing opportunities for collaboration in Forest Service 
planning. The Responsible Official must provide early and frequent 
opportunities for individuals and entities to participate openly and 
meaningfully in the planning process, taking into account the discrete 
and diverse roles, jurisdictions, and responsibilities of interested 
and affected agencies, organizations, groups, and individuals. The 
Responsible Official shall determine the methods and timing of 
opportunities to participate in the planning process.
    (1) Engaging interested individuals and organizations. The 
Responsible Official must provide for and encourage participation by 
interested individuals and organizations, including private landowners 
whose lands are within, adjacent to, or otherwise affected by 
management actions on National Forest System lands.
    (2) Engaging State and local governments and Federal agencies. The 
Responsible Official must provide opportunities for the coordination of 
Forest Service natural resource management planning efforts with those 
of other land management agencies. The Responsible Official also must 
meet with and provide early opportunities for other government agencies 
to be involved in the planning process for National Forest System 
lands. During the planning process, the Responsible Official should 
seek assistance, where appropriate, from other State, local government, 
and Federal agencies and scientific and academic institutions to help 
address management issues or opportunities.
    (3) Engaging Indian Tribes. The Forest Service shares in the 
Federal Government's overall trust responsibility for federally 
recognized Indian Tribes. The Responsible Official must consult with 
and invite federally recognized Indian Tribes to participate in the 
planning process and also provide opportunity for coordinated planning 
efforts. In working with federally recognized Indian Tribes, the 
Responsible Official must honor the government-to-government 
relationship between Tribes and the Federal Government.
    (b) Forest Service participation in other planning efforts. When 
appropriate, the Responsible Official should consider participating 
with existing groups organized for public purposes in their land and 
resource management planning efforts.


Sec.  219.13  Sustainability.

    Consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 
(MUSYA), the Responsible Official must ensure that the plan provides 
for desired conditions, objectives, standards, special area 
recommendations, and monitoring based upon consideration of the three 
interdependent components of sustainability: Social, economic, and 
ecological. A plan by itself cannot ensure sustainability but provides 
an overall framework to guide on-the-ground management. Sustaining the 
productivity of the land and its renewable resources is achievable only 
by the continuous and dynamic process of planning, implementing 
projects under the plan, monitoring, adapting management as a result of 
monitoring, and where necessary and appropriate, amending or revising 
the plan or modifying proposed site-specific projects to meet the 
desired conditions.
    (a) Social and economic components of sustainability. To understand 
the social and economic contributions that National Forest System lands 
presently make and may make in the future, the Responsible Official 
must consider and assess economic and social information at relevant 
timeframes and geographic areas as appropriate to the issues. Social 
and economic information may be obtained from others or developed and 
analyzed through assessments, analyses, inventories, monitoring 
results, or other methods. In assessing social and economic conditions 
and trends relevant to the issues being addressed through plan 
development, amendment, or revision, the Responsible Official should:
    (1) Engage and participate with interested and affected parties to 
identify the values they want to see sustained and the benefits they 
accrue from National Forest System lands;
    (2) Consider how human activities and social and economic 
conditions and trends affect the ecological component of sustainability 
on and around National Forest System lands, and how people can 
contribute to maintaining and restoring the health of National Forest 
System lands; and
    (3) Gather and analyze social and economic information to assess, 
at the appropriate timeframes and geographic scales, how land 
management has affected and may affect the contribution of National 
Forest System lands to social and economic systems. This includes 
identifying the benefits National Forest System lands provide; 
analyzing conditions and trends of social and economic systems; and 
analyzing the relationships between

[[Page 72800]]

people and the national forests, grasslands, and prairies.

Option 1 for Paragraph (b)

    (b) Ecological component of sustainability. The ecological 
component of sustainability includes, but is not limited to, the 
following elements: The productivity, health, and function of 
ecosystems; the diversity of plant and animal communities and tree 
species; and the quality of soil, water, and air resources. As part of 
planning, the Responsible Official must follow a hierarchical, 
sequential approach to consider and assess both ecosystem diversity and 
species diversity. Ecosystem diversity should be considered and 
evaluated first, leading to development of plan direction that provides 
for the needs of most species of plants and animals. Where the needs of 
particular species, species assemblages, or other species groupings are 
not likely to be met through plan direction for ecosystem diversity, 
species diversity should be considered and evaluated for these species, 
species assemblages, or other species groupings. Consideration and 
evaluation of ecosystem and species diversity includes development and 
analysis of information over relevant timeframes and geographic areas 
as determined by the Responsible Official.
    (1) Ecological information and analyses. Analyses of ecosystem and 
species diversity should be proportional to the issues identified by 
the Responsible Official, risks to ecological sustainability, and 
availability of information relevant to the plan area. Information and 
analyses may be identified, obtained, or developed through a variety of 
methods, including assessments, analyses, and monitoring. The 
ecological information and analyses must include the following 
components:
    (i) Consideration and evaluation of ecosystem diversity. 
Characteristics and evaluation of ecosystem diversity should be 
identified and completed at the scope and scale determined to be 
appropriate by the Responsible Official. Evaluations should describe 
the contribution of National Forest System lands to ecosystem diversity 
within the area of analysis.
    (A) Characteristics of ecosystem diversity. Characteristics of 
ecosystem diversity include, but are not limited to, a description of 
composition (such as major vegetation types, rare communities, aquatic 
systems, and riparian systems); structure, including successional 
stages; principal ecological processes, including historic and current 
disturbance regimes; and soil, water, and air resources within the area 
of analysis.
    (B) Evaluation of ecosystem diversity. Evaluations of ecosystem 
diversity should include the status of the characteristics of ecosystem 
diversity identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this section; a 
description of the historic and current effects of human activities on 
characteristics of ecosystem diversity; risks to ecosystem health; an 
evaluation of water and air quality and soil productivity; and an 
estimation of current and foreseeable future consumptive and non-
consumptive National Forest System water needs and the quantity and 
quality of water needed to support those uses.
    (ii) Consideration and evaluation of species diversity. 
Characteristics and evaluation of species diversity should be 
identified and completed at the scope and scale determined to be 
appropriate by the Responsible Official. Evaluations should describe 
the contribution of National Forest System lands to species diversity 
within the area of analysis.
    (A) Characteristics of species diversity. Characteristics of 
species diversity include, but are not limited to, the known number and 
identity of plant and animal species within the area of analysis, and 
the status, distribution, and geographic ranges of plant and animal 
species within the area of analysis. Species, species assemblages, or 
other species groupings may be used to characterize species diversity.
    (B) Evaluation of species diversity. Evaluations of species 
diversity should identify species-at-risk, their habitat requirements, 
and threats placing them at risk, based on current conditions and 
trends and management direction. The level of detail of the analyses 
performed should be proportional to the issues identified by the 
Responsible Official and the associated risk to species viability. 
Evaluations should include assessments of risk to species viability and 
identification of ecological conditions capable of supporting species 
viability over time. Where little information is available for 
particular species, assessments may be qualitative. The assessment 
evaluations may be simplified by the use of groups of species or 
species that serve as surrogates for evaluating species diversity.
    (2) Plan decisions. The Responsible Official must provide for the 
diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species within the 
plan area consistent with the multiple use objectives of the plan while 
sustaining the productivity of the land. When developing plan 
decisions, the Responsible Official must consider the information and 
analyses described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The following 
requirements apply over relevant timeframes and geographic areas that 
the Responsible Official determines to be appropriate:
    (i) Ecosystem diversity. Plan decisions should provide for 
measurable progress toward the maintenance or restoration of ecological 
conditions that will support the diversity of plant and animal 
communities and tree species and other characteristics of ecosystem 
diversity. A variety of approaches may be used, such as conservation 
strategies designed for one or a group of species-at-risk, or 
management practices that emulate effects of natural disturbance 
regimes or result in characteristics of ecosystem diversity within the 
range of variability expected to occur under current disturbance 
regimes.
    (ii) Species diversity. Plan decisions should provide for 
ecological conditions that the Responsible Official determines provide 
a high likelihood of supporting over time the viability of native and 
desired non-native vertebrates and vascular plants well distributed 
within their ranges in the plan area. When assessing ``high-
likelihood'' and ``well distributed,'' the Responsible Official shall 
consider factors under agency authority and relative to species life 
history and distribution within the plan area. Where conditions capable 
of supporting viability for particular species or species groups are 
not likely to be met through provisions for ecosystem diversity, 
specific plan objectives or standards should be developed for those 
species or species groupings.

Option 2 for Paragraph (b)

    (b) Ecological component of sustainability. The ecological 
component of sustainability includes, but is not limited to, the 
following elements: The productivity, health, and function of 
ecosystems; biological diversity at ecosystem and species levels; and 
the quality of soil, water, and air resources. As part of the planning 
process, the Responsible Official must ensure that the hierarchical 
approach described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is followed to 
consider and assess biological diversity at two levels of ecological 
organization, ecosystem and species. Consideration and evaluation of 
ecosystem diversity constitutes the core approach and is the primary 
focus of ecological information and analyses. Consideration and 
evaluation of species diversity is a complementary approach that 
extends ecosystem analyses to address specific planning issues. 
Biological diversity should be considered and evaluated

[[Page 72801]]

over appropriate timeframes and geographic areas as determined by the 
Responsible Official. Assessments of biological diversity at ecosystem 
and species levels should address effects of natural and human 
disturbances and of the ecological condition, structure, and land use 
history of the planning or assessment area.
    (1) Ecological information and analyses. Analyses of biological 
diversity at ecosystem and species levels should be proportional to the 
issues identified by the Responsible Official, risks to ecological 
sustainability, and availability of information relevant to the 
planning or assessment area. Information and analyses may be 
identified, obtained, or developed through a variety of methods, 
including assessments, analyses, and monitoring and, where appropriate, 
should extend to the larger landscape in which the plan area is 
embedded. Ecological information and analyses must be based upon an 
assessment of the components described in the following paragraphs and 
tailored to the particular planning or assessment area and the specific 
issues identified in the planning process:
    (i) Consideration and evaluation of ecosystem diversity. 
Characteristics and evaluation of ecosystem diversity should be 
identified and completed over timeframes and geographic areas 
determined to be appropriate by the Responsible Official. Analyses 
should describe and assess the contributions of National Forest System 
lands to ecosystem diversity in the planning or assessment area.
    (A) Characteristics of ecosystem diversity. Characteristics of 
ecosystems that should be considered within the planning or assessment 
area include, but are not limited to: ecological composition, 
structure, and processes; spatial extent, distribution, and relations; 
geology and landforms; and soil, water, and air resources.
    (B) Evaluation of ecosystem diversity. Evaluations of ecosystem 
diversity should identify ecosystems in the planning or assessment area 
and characterize their ecological structure, composition, processes, 
and spatial relations.
    (1) Analyses should evaluate the status of the characteristics of 
ecosystem diversity identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of this 
section and risks or threats to these characteristics, including 
impacts of past, current, and anticipated management direction on 
ecosystem diversity.
    (2) Analyses should evaluate the condition and quality of water and 
air resources, the condition of stream networks and channels and of 
watersheds, and the quality and productivity of soils, and should 
estimate current and foreseeable future consumptive and non-consumptive 
National Forest System water needs and the quantity and quality of 
water needed to support those uses.
    (3) Evaluations should identify unique areas, including rare 
ecosystems, compositional or structural elements, and ecosystems at 
risk, specific risks or threats to these areas, and measures required 
for their conservation or restoration.
    (ii) Consideration and evaluation of species diversity. 
Characteristics and evaluation of species diversity should be 
identified and completed over timeframes and geographic areas 
determined to be appropriate by the Responsible Official. Analyses 
should describe and assess the contributions of National Forest System 
lands to species diversity in the planning or assessment area. Analyses 
of species and species groups should be undertaken to provide a more 
complete understanding of impacts of past, current, and anticipated 
management direction on biological diversity, including the status of 
species and the ecosystems in which they occur. In a hierarchical 
context, species analyses should be conducted within the framework of, 
and should incorporate information from, larger-scale ecosystem 
analyses.
    (A) Characteristics of species diversity. Characteristics of 
species diversity that should be considered within the planning or 
assessment area include, but are not limited to, the composition and 
richness (number of species) of the existing pool of species and the 
abundance, distribution, geographic range, and status of individual 
species chosen for analysis.
    (B) Evaluation of species diversity. Individual species should be 
identified for evaluation to address a particular planning issue, to 
develop a more complete understanding of the condition and trends of 
ecosystems, or where substantive concerns exist regarding the continued 
persistence of the particular species within the planning or assessment 
area. Evaluations of species diversity should be conducted along two 
tracks with related purposes. Community analyses should determine 
whether maintenance of ecosystem diversity is sufficient to maintain 
the existing pool of species within the planning or assessment area. 
Individual species analyses should evaluate impacts of past, current, 
and anticipated management direction on individual species selected for 
analysis.
    (1) Evaluations should identify species or species groups found 
within the planning or assessment area, including native and non-native 
species, and, where feasible, compile information on species status, 
spatial distribution, geographic range, abundance, and population 
trends.
    (2) Evaluations should analyze the composition and distribution of 
communities and species assemblages across the planning or assessment 
area; examine relations of community or assemblage measures to 
underlying biophysical conditions, with particular attention to 
attributes affected by management actions; and analyze impacts of past, 
current, and anticipated management direction on individual species 
selected for analysis.
    (3) Evaluations must identify species for which substantive 
evidence exists that continued persistence in the planning or 
assessment area is at risk, specific risks or threats to these species, 
and measures required for their conservation or restoration.
    (iii) Further analyses of biological diversity. In addition to the 
information and analyses identified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of 
this section, the following additional information and analyses should 
be included in the approach to considering and assessing biological 
diversity at ecosystem and species levels.
    (A) Consideration and evaluation of spatial and temporal scales and 
patterns. Biological diversity at ecosystem and species levels should 
be evaluated across multiple timeframes and geographic areas. The 
Responsible Official should follow a spatially explicit approach to 
assessments of biological diversity, by considering such factors as 
abundance, extent, patch size, distribution, and interspersion of 
ecosystems and species populations over time and by focusing on 
specific landscape features as well as their sizes, shapes, and spatial 
relationships. Where appropriate, detailed analyses should be conducted 
over large geographic areas and long timeframes, which extend beyond 
the plan area and planning time horizon of specific National Forest 
System administrative units. Analyses at these large scales are 
appropriate for evaluating dynamics of wide-ranging species and 
cumulative impacts of management actions on biological diversity. 
Evaluations of biological diversity over large geographic areas should 
be coordinated across multiple National Forest System administrative 
units.
    (B) Consideration and evaluation of disturbance regimes. The 
Responsible Official should consider and evaluate

[[Page 72802]]

impacts of disturbance regimes, natural and human-induced, on 
biological diversity at ecosystem and species levels over appropriate 
geographic areas and timeframes. Evaluation of disturbance regimes 
should help clarify the land manager's opportunities and options for 
achieving biological diversity objectives. Analyses should characterize 
current and recent disturbance regimes in terms of spatial extent and 
distribution, periodicity, type, and intensity and should evaluate 
impacts on biological diversity in the planning or assessment area. 
Evaluations should consider impacts of past, current, and anticipated 
management direction on disturbance regimes and consequences of altered 
disturbance regimes for biological diversity in the planning or 
assessment area.
    (C) Consideration and evaluation of landscape context. The 
Responsible Official should consider and evaluate the landscape context 
for assessments of biological diversity at ecosystem and species 
levels. Analyses of landscape context should evaluate and characterize 
the ecological condition, structure, and land use history of the 
planning or assessment area and evaluate effects on biological 
diversity. Analyses also should consider and evaluate differences in 
the ecological condition and spatial structure of ecosystems and 
landscapes between National Forest System lands and adjacent 
ownerships. Based on these differences, the Responsible Official should 
identify and evaluate options for and any special role of National 
Forest System lands to contribute to maintenance or restoration of 
biological diversity in the planning or assessment area, especially 
unique or rare elements of biological diversity, as well as factors 
that would limit options and opportunities for managing National Forest 
System lands to achieve biological diversity objectives.
    (2) Plan decisions. The Responsible Official must provide for 
biological diversity at ecosystem and species levels within the plan 
area consistent with the multiple use objectives of the plan while 
sustaining the productivity of the land. When developing plan 
decisions, the Responsible Official must consider the limits of agency 
authorities and must consider and fully disclose results of the 
ecological information and analyses described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 
through (iii) of this section. The following requirements apply over 
relevant timeframes and geographic areas that the Responsible Official 
determines to be appropriate:
    (i) Biological diversity. Plan decisions, to the extent feasible, 
should foster the maintenance or restoration of biological diversity in 
the plan area, at ecosystem and species levels, within the range of 
biological diversity characteristic of native ecosystems within the 
larger landscape in which the plan area is embedded. In reaching plan 
decisions, the Responsible Official should consider current and recent 
disturbance regimes as well as the ecological condition, structure, and 
land use history of the planning or assessment area, and effects of 
these factors on options and opportunities to manage National Forest 
System lands to achieve biological diversity objectives.
    (ii) Contributions of NFS lands. When reaching plan decisions, the 
Responsible Official must identify and evaluate the special role and 
unique contributions of National Forest System lands in maintaining and 
restoring biological diversity within the larger landscape in which the 
plan area is embedded.


Sec.  219.14  The consideration of science in planning.

    (a) Decisions embodied in a plan must be consistent with the best 
available science. As part of the planning record, the Responsible 
Official must:
    (1) Demonstrate how the planning process considered and made use of 
the best available science within the context of the issues being 
considered;
    (2) Evaluate and disclose any substantial uncertainties in that 
science;
    (3) Evaluate and disclose substantial risks associated with plan 
decisions based on that science; and
    (4) Validate that the science was appropriately interpreted and 
applied.
    (b) To meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the 
Responsible Official must use independent peer review, a science 
advisory board, or other appropriate means to evaluate the consistency 
and application of science used in the planning process.


Sec.  219.15  Special designations.

    (a) A plan is the mechanism by which the Responsible Official may 
allocate specific areas to special designations and recommend areas for 
special designation by higher-level authorities. The plan also provides 
management direction for specially designated areas and areas 
recommended for special designation within the plan area.
    (b) Special designations are areas within the National Forest 
System that are identified for their unique or special characteristics 
and include the following:
    (1) Congressionally designated areas. Congressionally designated 
areas may include, but are not limited to, wilderness, wild and scenic 
rivers, national trails, scenic areas, recreation areas, and national 
monuments.
    (2) Administratively designated areas. These areas include, but are 
not limited to, geological areas, significant caves, botanical areas, 
cultural/heritage areas, research natural areas, and scenic byways.
    (3) Inventoried roadless areas. Unless otherwise provided by law, 
inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System must be 
evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential wilderness 
areas during the initial plan development or the plan revision process. 
As part of this evaluation, the Responsible Official must review and 
validate the maps of inventoried roadless areas within the plan area or 
adjust them as necessary and appropriate. The Responsible Official also 
may evaluate these areas at other times as determined appropriate.


Sec.  219.16  Determination of lands available for timber harvest and 
suitable for timber production.

    (a) Lands not suitable for timber production. The plan must 
identify lands within the plan area not suitable for timber production. 
These lands include, but are not limited to the following:
    (1) Land that is not forest land (as defined at Sec.  219.23);
    (2) Land where technology is not available for conducting timber 
harvest without causing irreversible damage to soil, slope, or other 
watershed conditions or substantial and permanent impairment of the 
productivity of the land;
    (3) Lands where there is no reasonable assurance that such lands 
can be adequately restocked within 5 years after final regeneration 
harvest;
    (4) Lands where timber production would violate statute, Executive 
order, regulation, or agency directives;
    (5) Those lands that have been withdrawn from timber production by 
the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service; and
    (6) Lands where timber production would not be justified after 
considering physical, ecological, social, economic, and other pertinent 
factors. However, lands not suited for timber production may be 
available for timber harvest pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Lands suitable for timber production. After considering 
physical, ecological, social, economic, and other pertinent factors to 
the extent feasible, a Responsible Official may establish

[[Page 72803]]

timber production as an objective in a plan for any lands not 
identified in paragraph (a) of this section. The Responsible Official 
must review lands not suited for timber production at least once every 
10 years, or as otherwise prescribed by law, to determine their 
suitability for timber production. As a result of this 10-year review, 
timber production may be established as a plan objective for any lands 
found to be suitable for such purpose through amendment or revision of 
the plan.
    (c) Lands where trees may be harvested for multiple use values 
other than timber production. Designation of lands as unsuitable for 
timber production does not preclude the harvest of trees for other 
multiple use values. Except for lands described at (a)(2) of this 
section, trees may be harvested to create temporary or permanent 
openings for wildlife habitat improvement; to establish fuel breaks or 
reduce fuels; to create vistas; to enhance recreation use; to manage 
cultural/heritage sites; to salvage dead or dying trees; or to achieve 
other multiple use purposes not related to timber production.


Sec.  219.17  Limitation on timber harvest.

    (a) Estimate of the long-term sustained-yield capacity. The 
Responsible Official must estimate the amount of timber that could be 
harvested annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis from 
National Forest System lands identified as suitable for timber 
production (Sec.  219.16(b)). This estimate must be based on the yield 
of timber that could be harvested consistent with achievement of 
objectives or desired conditions in the applicable plan and a specified 
management intensity consistent with these multiple use objectives. 
Increased harvest levels may be based on intensified management 
practices, such as reforestation, thinning, and tree improvement if 
such practices justify increasing the harvests in accordance with the 
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. Such estimates of yield shall be 
adjusted downward if anticipated practices are not successfully 
implemented to achieve objectives or desired conditions. The 
Responsible Official may combine one or more administrative units, or 
parts of administrative units, for the purpose of estimating the amount 
of timber that could be harvested annually on a sustained-yield basis.
    (b) Limitation on timber harvest. Within any decade, the 
Responsible Official must limit the average annual quantity of timber 
sold during that decade from the lands identified as suitable for 
timber production to a quantity equal to or less than that estimated in 
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Exceptions to limitations of timber harvest. The Responsible 
Official may sell timber from areas that are substantially and 
adversely affected by fire, wind, or other events, or for which there 
is an imminent threat from insects or disease, and may either 
substitute such timber for timber that would otherwise be sold or, if 
not feasible, sell such timber over and above the limit established in 
paragraph (b) of this section. If departure from the quantity of timber 
established in paragraph (b) of this section is necessary to meet 
overall multiple use objectives of the plan, the requirements in 16 
U.S.C. 1611 must be followed.


Sec.  219.18  Plan documentation, maintenance, and availability.

    (a) Plan description. A plan is a set of documents that integrates 
and displays the desired conditions, objectives, standards, and other 
management direction that apply to a unit of the National Forest 
System. Included among the documents in a plan are text, maps, tables, 
charts, and other information relevant to how the plan area is to be 
managed. Other records considered or created during the planning 
process, such as the science review (Sec.  219.14), are not part of the 
plan, but these records must be made available for public review as 
provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Maintenance of the plan. The following administrative 
corrections and additions may be made at any time, are not plan 
amendments or revisions, and do not require public notice or the 
preparation of an environmental document under NEPA procedures:
    (1) Corrections and updates of data and maps;
    (2) Corrections of typographical errors or other non-substantive 
changes; and
    (3) Changes in monitoring methods (Sec.  219.11).
    (c) Availability of planning documents. Each National Forest, 
Grassland, or Prairie Supervisor must maintain a complete set of the 
planning documents that constitute the plan for the unit. The planning 
records must be available to the public during the planning process as 
well as after adoption of a plan, plan amendment, or revision.


Sec.  219.19  Objections to new plans, plan amendments, or plan 
revisions.

    (a) Exceptions. Before approving a new plan, plan amendment, or 
plan revision, the Responsible Official shall provide the public, both 
individuals and entities, at least 30 calendar days for pre-decisional 
review of a proposed plan, amendment, or revision. Where an EIS or EA 
is prepared, the FEIS or EA shall also be made available for review. 
Written objections to a proposed plan, amendment, or revision may be 
submitted to the Reviewing Officer, except as follows:
    (1) When an amendment is made in conjunction with a site-specific 
project decision as provided in Sec.  219.20;
    (2) When the amendment is an interim amendment as provided in Sec.  
219.7;
    (3) When the entity is a Federal agency; or
    (4) When the Responsible Official for the decision is the Secretary 
of Agriculture.
    (b) Public notice of the objection period. Public notice of the 
availability of a proposed plan, amendment, or revision and the 
objection period must be provided as follows:
    (1) For any proposed plan, amendment, or revision for which the 
Chief or the Secretary is the Responsible Official, the notice must be 
published in the Federal Register.
    (2) For all other proposed plans, amendments, or revisions, legal 
notice must be published in newspaper(s) of record as defined in Sec.  
219.23 of this subpart.
    (c) Content of public notice of the objection. Public notice of the 
opportunity to file objections and of the objection period published 
pursuant to this section must include the following:
    (1) A concise identification of the proposed plan, amendment, or 
revision;
    (2) The name, title, and address of the Responsible Official;
    (3) Information on the availability of the proposed plan, 
amendment, or revision and the final environmental disclosure document, 
if any;
    (4) Identification of when the objection period begins (the day 
following the notice's publication) and the date the objection period 
ends; and
    (5) The name of the Reviewing Officer and the addresses where an 
objection must be sent.
    (d) Submitting objections. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a) 
of this section, any person or non-Federal entity may submit written 
objections regarding a proposed plan, amendment, or revision to the 
Reviewing Official. Only original substantive comments that meet 
objection content requirements set out in paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section will be accepted. Form letters, check-off lists, pre-printed 
post cards, or similar duplicative materials will not be accepted as 
objections. Objections that

[[Page 72804]]

are mailed must be postmarked no later than the last day of the 
specified time period. Objections that are submitted by any means other 
than U.S. mail must be received by the Reviewing Official within the 
time period described in the public notice. When the objection period 
would expire on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the time is 
extended to the end of the next Federal working day. No other extension 
of the time period may be granted.
    (2) An objection must contain the following:
    (i) The name, mailing address, and if possible, telephone number of 
the objector. Where an objection is filed by an organization or other 
entity on behalf of multiple objectors, the objection must indicate the 
representative contact, who will notify the other objectors of the 
objection response and any other written correspondence related to the 
objection that may occur;
    (ii) An identification of the specific proposed plan, amendment, or 
revision that is the subject of the objection; and
    (iii) A concise statement explaining how the environmental 
disclosure documents, if any, and proposed plan, amendment, or revision 
are inconsistent with law, regulation, Executive order, or policy and 
any recommendations for change.
    (e) Responding to objections. (1) The Reviewing Officer must review 
the objections and relevant information to determine whether or not the 
proposed plan, amendment, or revision and any accompanying 
environmental disclosure documentation, if any, are consistent with 
law, regulation, Executive order, or policy with respect to the 
issue(s) raised in the objection. In conducting a review under this 
section, the Reviewing Official may discuss the objection with the 
Responsible Official or the objectors. The Reviewing Officer may render 
one response to multiple objections. The Reviewing Officer's response 
must be in writing and must be sent to the objecting party by certified 
mail, return receipt requested, and to the Responsible Official.
    (2) If the Reviewing Officer concludes that the proposed plan, 
amendment, or revision and accompanying environmental disclosure 
documents, if any, are consistent with law, regulation, Executive 
order, and policy, the Responsible Official may proceed to make a 
decision.
    (3) If the Reviewing Officer concludes that the proposed plan, 
amendment, or revision, and accompanying environmental disclosure 
documents, if any, are not consistent with law, regulation, Executive 
order, and policy, in whole or in part, the Reviewing Officer must 
describe what further action is required by the Responsible Official 
prior to approving the new plan, amendment, or revision. Upon approval 
of the plan, amendment, or revision, no further objection is available.
    (f) Use of other administrative review processes. Where the Forest 
Service is a participant in a multi-Federal agency effort that is 
subject to objection under this part, the Responsible Official may 
waive the objection procedures of this part and instead adopt the 
administrative review procedure of another participating Federal 
agency. As a condition of such a waiver, the Responsible Official for 
the Forest Service must have agreement with the Responsible Official of 
the other agency or agencies to provide a joint response to those who 
file for administrative review of the multi-agency effort.
    (g) Compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The information 
collection requirements associated with submitting an objection have 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned 
control number 0596-0158.


Sec.  219.20  Appeals of plan amendments in site-specific project 
decisions.

    If a plan amendment is made in conjunction with a site-specific 
decision, a person may appeal the plan amendment and the site-specific 
decision only as described in 36 CFR 215.7(a).


Sec.  219.21  Notice of plan decisions and effective dates.

    (a) Notice of decision. Following approval of a plan, amendment, or 
revision the Responsible Official must provide notice of the decision 
in the newspaper(s) of record (Sec.  219.23), or, if the Chief or 
Secretary is the Responsible Official, in the Federal Register, and by 
other appropriate means, as needed.
    (b) Effective date. A new plan, significant plan amendment, or 
revised plan is effective 30 days after publication of notice of the 
decision. Any other amendment is effective immediately upon publication 
of notice of the decision.


Sec.  219.22  Transition.

    (a) For the purposes of this paragraph, the reference to a new 
plan, amendment, or revision initiated before the effective date of 
this rule, means that the agency has issued a Notice of Intent or other 
public notice announcing the commencement of a plan amendment or 
revision as provided for in the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations at 40 CFR 1501.7 or in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, 
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook, section 11.
    (b) Until 90 days after the effective date of this rule, a 
Responsible Official may elect to initiate an amendment, continue an 
amendment or a revision under the planning regulations in effect prior 
to November 9, 2000, or the Responsible Official may conform the 
amendment or revision process to the provisions of this subpart.
    (c) For new plans, amendments, or revisions initiated under the 
November 2000 rule, the Responsible Official must adjust the planning 
process to conform to this subpart.
    (d) In conforming a previously initiated planning process to the 
requirements of this subpart, the Responsible Official is not required 
to halt the process and start over. Rather, the Responsible Official 
should integrate the requirements of this subpart into the future steps 
and procedures of plan development, amendment, or revision process.
    (e) The Responsible Official shall give notice of how the planning 
process will be adjusted to conform to the requirements of this subpart 
in the newspaper(s) of record.


Sec.  219.23  Definitions.

    Definitions of the special terms used in this subpart are set out 
in alphabetical order in this section:
    Adaptive management: An approach to natural resource management 
where actions are designed and executed and effects are monitored for 
the purpose of learning and adjusting future management actions, which 
improves the efficiency and responsiveness of management.
    Assessment area: A geographic area within which ecosystems or their 
components or processes are analyzed. An assessment area may include 
multiple ownerships and is typically much larger than a planning area.
    Biological diversity: A general and inclusive concept that refers 
to the variety of living things together with their interactions and 
processes. Biological diversity is defined at various levels of 
ecological organization, but especially three: genes, species, and 
ecosystems. In the context of land and resource management planning, 
attention is focused specifically on the diversity of ecosystems within 
landscapes and of species within ecosystems.
    Culmination of mean annual increment: The age in the growth cycle 
of an even-aged stand at which the mean annual increment for volume of 
wood is at a maximum. Mean annual increment shall be based on expected

[[Page 72805]]

growth of stands, according to intensities and utilization standards 
assumed in the forest plan or its supporting document. Mean annual 
increment shall be expressed in cubic measure.
    Cultural/Heritage resources: Archeological, historic, or 
architectural sites, structures, places, objects, ideas, traditions, 
etc. identified by field inventory, historical documentation, or 
evidence that are of importance to specified social or heritage groups 
and/or scientific and management endeavors.
    Desired non-native species: Those species of plants or animals that 
are not indigenous to an area but are highly valued for social, 
cultural, economic, or ecological reasons.
    Disturbance regime: Actions, functions, or events that influence or 
maintain the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or 
aquatic ecosystems. Natural disturbances include, among others, 
drought, floods, wind, fires, insects, and pathogens. Human-caused 
effects include, among others, actions such as recreational use, 
livestock grazing, mining, road construction, timber harvest, and the 
introduction of exotic species.
    Diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species: The 
distribution and relative abundance or extent of plant and animal 
communities and their component species, including tree species, 
occurring within an area.
    Ecological conditions: Components of the biological and physical 
environment that can affect the diversity of plant and animal 
communities and tree species, including species viability, and the 
productive capacity of ecological systems. These could include the 
abundance and distribution of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, roads 
and other structural developments, human uses, and invasive and exotic 
species.
    Ecosystem diversity: The variety and relative extent of ecosystem 
types, including their composition, structure, and processes, within 
all or part of a planning area.
    Ecosystem structure: The horizontal, vertical, and numerical 
arrangement and relationships among the components of ecosystems. 
Possessing both physical and biological aspects, structure is the 
result of interactions among species and with the physical environment.
    Energy resources: Renewable energy resources include biomass, 
hydropower, wind, solar and geothermal, and non-renewable energy 
resources include coal, oil and gas, and coal bed methane.
    Environmental disclosure document: Environmental assessment, 
environmental impact statement, finding of no significant impact and 
notice of intent.
    Federally recognized Indian Tribe: An Indian or Alaska Native 
Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary 
of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe pursuant to 
the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.
    Forest land: Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of 
any size or formerly having had such tree cover and not currently 
developed for nonforest uses. Lands developed for non-forest use 
include areas for crops, improved pasture, residential, or 
administrative areas, improved roads of any width, and adjoining road 
clearing, and power line clearing of any width.
    Health: A condition wherein a forest, grassland, or prairie has the 
capacity across the landscape for renewal, for recovery from a wide 
range of disturbances, and for retention of its ecological resilience 
while meeting current and future needs of people for desired levels of 
values, uses, products, and services.
    High likelihood of viability: Habitats are of sufficient quality, 
distribution, and abundance to allow species populations to be well-
distributed and interactive and to have a high probability of 
persisting over multiple generations (within the bounds of the life 
history of the species and the capability of the landscape) within the 
plan area. The focus is on providing habitat for species resilience, 
long-term survival over multiple generations, and long-term 
adaptability.
    Inventoried roadless areas: Areas identified in a set of 
inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service records, or 
any subsequent update or revision of those maps.
    Major vegetation types: Plant communities, which are typically 
named after dominant plant species that are characteristic of the 
macroclimate and geology of the region or sub-region.
    Mean annual increment: The total increment of a stand (standing 
crop plus thinning) up to a given age divided by that age.
    Native species: Species indigenous to the plan, planning or 
assessment area.
    NEPA procedures: The term used to refer to the requirements of 40 
CFR parts 1500 through 1508, as supplemented by Forest Service NEPA 
directives issued in Forest Service Manual Chapter 1950 and Forest 
Service Handbook 1909.15, which implement the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969.
    Newspaper(s) of record: Those principal newspapers of general 
circulation annually identified and published in the Federal Register 
by each Regional Forester to be used for publishing notices as required 
by 36 CFR 215.5.
    Plan: A plan is a repository that integrates and displays the 
desired conditions, objectives, standards, and other plan decisions 
that apply to a unit of the National Forest System. The plan also 
contains maps and other information relevant to how the plan area is to 
be managed.
    Plan area: The geographic area of National Forest System 
administered lands covered by an individual plan and subject to the 
programmatic direction of a plan. The area may include all or part of 
one or more administrative units and may be administered by one or more 
Responsible Officials. The Responsible Official's decision is only for 
the plan area.
    Planning area: The geographic area considered during analysis and 
development of one or more plans. A planning area is typically larger 
than a plan area but smaller than an assessment area.
    Productivity: Use of this term is derived from the MUSYA and 
subsequent statutes, which require that NFS lands be administered to 
provide various renewable resources (recreation, range, timber, 
watershed, wildlife, and fish) without impairment of the productivity 
of the land. In this context, productivity means the capacity of NFS 
lands and the ecological systems thereon to provide the various 
renewable resources in certain amounts over time. In this sense, it is 
an ecological term, not an economic one.
    Range of variability: The expected range of variation in ecosystem 
composition and structure that would be expected under current natural 
disturbance regimes. These regimes include the type, frequency, 
severity, and magnitude of disturbance in the absence of fire 
suppression and extensive commodity extraction.
    Research Natural Areas: An area in as near a natural condition as 
possible, which exemplifies typical or unique vegetation and associated 
biotic, soil, geologic, and aquatic resources. The area is set aside to 
preserve a representative sample of an ecological community primarily 
for scientific and educational purposes.
    Responsible Official: The Official with the authority and 
responsibility to oversee the planning process and to make plan 
decisions.
    Reviewing Officer: The supervisor of the Responsible Official who 
is proposing adoption of a new plan, plan amendment, or revision.

[[Page 72806]]

    Species: For purposes of this rule, potentially any member of the 
currently accepted and scientifically defined kingdoms of organisms, 
which is described as a species in a peer-reviewed scientific 
publication. The term ``species,'' as identified here, includes all 
species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened, 
endangered, candidate, or proposed for listing by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. Under diversity 
Option 1, with the exception of species-at-risk, consideration of 
species under this rule is explicitly limited to vertebrates and 
vascular plants. Under diversity Option 2, species may include any 
described species belonging to any of the defined kingdoms of 
organisms.
    Species-at-risk: Federally listed endangered, threatened, 
candidate, and proposed species and other species for which loss of 
viability, including reduction in distribution or abundance, is a 
concern within the plan area.
    Species diversity: The variation in the number and relative 
abundance of species within all or part of a planning area.
    Species persistence: The likelihood that a species will continue to 
exist or occur within a geographic area of interest and over a defined 
period of time as a functioning member of the species pool of that 
area. In the context of land management planning, species persistence 
is the likelihood that actions or factors under the direct control of 
land managers will not directly cause the extinction, globally or 
locally within the planning or assessment area, of a species of 
interest, or will not cause the density or total population size of 
that species to decline to such a low level that the risk of extinction 
due to factors outside the control of the land manager, including 
chance events, is deemed to be unacceptably high.
    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 diversity to display the array of life 
history strategies and forms to provide for their long-term persistence 
and adaptability over multiple generations.
    Successional stages: The different structural and compositional 
phases of vegetation development of forests and grasslands that occur 
over time following disturbances that kill, remove, or reduce 
vegetation and include the major developmental or seral stages that 
occur within a particular environment.
    Timber harvest: The removal of trees for wood fiber utilization.
    Timber production: The sustained long-term management, harvest and 
regeneration of trees for wood fiber utilization. For purposes of this 
regulation, the term timber production includes the production of fuel 
wood and wood for other products.
    Visitor opportunities: The spectrum of settings, landscapes, 
scenery, facilities, services, access points, information, learning-
based recreation, wildlife, natural features, cultural and heritage 
sites, etc. that are available for National Forest System visitors to 
use and enjoy.
    Wilderness: Any area of land designated by Congress as part of the 
National Wilderness Preservation System that was established in the 
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, section 2(c)).

    Dated: November 26, 2002.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief.

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


    Table I.--Section-by-Section Comparison of the 2000 Rule With the
                              Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 2000 Rule                          Proposed rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   219.1 Purpose......................  Sec.   219.1 Purpose and
                                             Applicability.
Sec.   219.1 Purpose......................  Sec.   219.2 Nature and
                                             scope of a land and
                                             resource management plan.
Sec.   219.3 Overview.....................
Sec.   219.2 Principles...................  Sec.   219.2 Nature and
                                             scope of a land and
                                             resource management plan.
Sec.   219.3 Overview.....................  Sec.   219.3 Levels of
                                             planning and planning
                                             authority.
Sec.   219.4 Identification and             Sec.   219.5 Indicators of
 consideration of issues.                    need to amend or revise a
                                             plan.
Sec.   219.5 Information development and    Sec.   219.5 Indicators of
 interpretation.                             need to amend or revise a
                                             plan.
Sec.   219.6 Proposed actions.............  Sec.   219.4 Decisions
                                             embodied in plans.
Sec.   219.7 Plan decisions...............  Sec.   219.4 Decision
                                             embodied in plans
                                            Sec.   219.6 Compliance with
                                             National Environmental
                                             Policy Act.
Sec.   219.8 Amendment....................  Sec.   219.7 Amending a
                                             plan.
Sec.   219.9 Revision.....................  Sec.   219.8 Revising a plan
                                            Sec.   219.9 Developing a
                                             new plan.
Sec.   219.10 Site-specific decisions.....  Sec.   219.10 Application of
                                             plan direction.
Sec.   219.11 Monitoring and evaluation     Sec.   219.11 Monitoring and
 for adaptive management.                    evaluation.
Sec.   219.12 Collaboration and             Sec.   219.12 Collaboration,
 cooperatively developed landscape goals.    cooperation, and
                                             consultation.
Sec.   219.13 Coordination among federal    Sec.   219.12 Collaboration,
 agencies.                                   cooperation, and
                                             consultation.
Sec.   219.14 Involvement of state and      Sec.   219.12 Collaboration,
 local governments.                          cooperation, and
                                             consultation.
Sec.   219.15 Interaction with American     Sec.   219.12 Collaboration,
 Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives.           cooperation, and
                                             consultation.
Sec.   219.16 Relationships with            Sec.   219.12 Collaboration,
 interested individuals and organizations.   cooperation, and
                                             consultation.
Sec.   219.17 Interaction with private      Sec.   219.12 Collaboration,
 landowners.                                 cooperation, and
                                             consultation.
Sec.   219.18 Role of advisory committees.  Removed.
Sec.   219.19 Ecological, social, and       Sec.   219.13
 economic sustainability.                    Sustainability.
Sec.   219.20 Ecological sustainability...  Sec.   219.13
                                             Sustainability.
Sec.   219.21 Social and economic           Sec.   219.13
 sustainability.                             Sustainability.
Sec.   219.22 The overall role of science   Sec.   219.14 The
 in planning.                                consideration of science in
                                             planning.
Sec.   219.23 The role of science in        Sec.   219.14 The
 assessments, analysis, and monitoring.      consideration of science in
                                             planning.
Sec.   219.24 Science consistency           Sec.   219.14 The
 evaluations.                                consideration of science in
                                             planning.
Sec.   219.25 Science advisory boards.....  Sec.   219.14 The
                                             consideration of science in
                                             planning.
Sec.   219.26 Identifying and designating   Sec.   219.4 Decisions
 suitable uses.                              embodied in plans.

[[Page 72807]]

 
Sec.   219.27 Special designations........  Sec.   219.15 Special
                                             designations.
Sec.   219.28 Determination of land         Sec.   219.16 Determination
 suitable for timber harvest.                of lands available for
                                             timber harvest and suitable
                                             for timber production.
Sec.   219.29 Limitation on timber          Sec.   219.17 Limitation on
 harvest..                                   timber harvest.
Sec.   219.30 Plan documentation..........  Removed.
Sec.   219.31 Maintenance of the plan and   Sec.   219.18 Plan
 planning records.                           documentation, maintenance,
                                             and availability.
Sec.   219.32 Objections to amendments or   Sec.   219.19 Objections to
 revisions.                                  new plans, plan amendments,
                                             or plan revisions.
Sec.   219.33 Appeals of site-specific      Sec.   219.20 Appeals of
 decisions.                                  plan amendments in site-
                                             specific project decisions.
Sec.   219.34 Applicability...............  Sec.   219.1 Purpose and
                                             applicability
                                            Sec.   219.21 Notice of plan
                                             decisions and effective
                                             dates.
Sec.   219.35 Transition..................  Sec.   219.22 Transition.
Sec.   219.36 Definitions.................  Sec.   219.23 Definitions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 72808]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.000


[[Page 72809]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.001


[[Page 72810]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.002


[[Page 72811]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.003


[[Page 72812]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.004


[[Page 72813]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.005


[[Page 72814]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.006


[[Page 72815]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.007


[[Page 72816]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE02.008

[FR Doc. 02-30683 Filed 12-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-C?